This press release has been written with a view to answering the various queries about New Right Australia/New Zealand, its beliefs, organisation, goals, and so forth. I will be going over some of the core beliefs of New Right, and its relation to other Western nationalist movements in Europe and elsewhere: the Nouvelle Droit on the Continent, National-Anarchism, Radical Traditionalism and the Freie Nationalisten/Freie Kameradschaften in Germany. As well as that, I will be explaining the pertinence of New Right in the anti-globalist/anti-capitalist struggle, as manifested in the APEC counter-demonstrations, the struggle against US imperialism and the quest for social justice and a true socialism in the post-communist, post-Cold War era. This will hopefully answer a few of the questions from those on either side of the mainstream political Left-Right divide in Australia.

2. The Nouvelle Droit

The ‘Nouvelle Droit’ was a label applied by the French media to a grouping of Continental intellectuals in 1979. The ‘leader’ of the group (if there is a leader) is the French intellectual Alain de Benoist; other prominent members include Robert Steuckers, Armin Mohler, Tomislav Sunic, Charles Champetier, and Michael O’Meara. The only complete collection of essays and manifestoes of the Nouvelle Droit on the Internet is at http://foster.20megsfree.com/index_en.htm. Unfortunately, the phrase ‘Nouvelle Droit’ translates into English as New Right; and, as many readers know, the term New Right in the English-speaking world refers to the ideology of free-market conservatism of Hayek, Friedman, Mises and others, which reached its zenith in the 1980s. The confusion between the two ‘New Rights’ is unfortunate, especially so because the two movements are, by definition, opposed to one another. To avoid confusion, for the remainder of the essay, I will refer to de Benoist’s ‘Nouvelle Droit’ as the European New Right, and the free-market New Right as the Anglo New Right.

The European New Right is a collection of ideas; it is not a party, and not even a mass movement. There is no copyright on the name, so to speak. As well as that, it is not restricted, as a tendency, to the Continent. For these reasons, Troy Southgate, the musician and founder of National Anarchism in Britain, organised a series of European New Right conferences in Britain, starting in 2005. Some of the speakers at these conferences are affiliated with the New Right on the Continent; others are intellectuals who may be of interest to activists in the United Kingdom. Mr Southgate also moderates a popular Yahoo mailing group, New-Right-Online, at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/new-right-online/ . In 2005, some activists decided to found an informal European New Right grouping in Australia, called New Right Australia/New Zealand. This group started off as a purely intellectual one, but, at this point in time, is branching out into a street-based activist one as well – which means, probably, that the group is exceeding the parameters of the term ‘New Right’. And this is where National-Anarchism comes into play: as will be explained later, National-Anarchism represents the political embodiment of the European New Right – it is the political wing. The ideas, in New Right Australia/New Zealand, are the same as the European New Right; but individual activists in Australia want to apply them in the real world of practical, street-based politics.

So what are the ideas of the European New Right? The main theme of New Right thought can be summed as decentralised, libertarian communitarianism. The European New Right champions the rights of small, ethnically-homogenous communities against governments which want to break them, by force, or incorporate them into a larger ‘nation’ which is an artificial construct. The prime example of the latter is Tito’s communist Yugoslavia, which sought to remove the unique ethnic characteristics of the homogenous Serb, Croat, Slovenian and Bosnian communities and merge them into the artificial entity of ‘Yugoslavia’, where there are no natural ethnic differences, only the ‘working classes’ who occupy the same land. The European New Right’s primary foe is a state-imposed multiculturalism which ends up wiping out the differences between peoples; and capitalist globalisation which ends up doing the same thing, replacing Islamic Man, or Serbian Man, or Vietnamese man, with faceless Starbucks Man.

The homogeneity the New Right speaks of is not necessarily racial: after all, Islamic communities, whether they are in the Middle East or Sydney, are homogenous, but not always racially so: there are African Muslims, Arab Muslims, Muslims from the Sub-Continent, Muslims from Iran and Afghanistan, Muslims from Turkey. Likewise, in Britain, there are the Welsh, the Scots and the English. All of these ethnic identities are formed gradually and naturally, over time: they happened by themselves, and were not imposed, by force and from the top-down. One of the central themes of European New Right thought is that ethnically-homogenous communities have a certain ‘glue’ which attracts their fellow members to one another and holds them together as a group. This ‘glue’ tends to persist, despite the statist attempts of the Titoes and other multiculturalists to eradicate it, to wipe it out. Such efforts – to impose multiculturalism from the top down – always meet with resistance: which is why Tito, for instance, had to kill 200,000 Serb, Croat, Slovene, and Bosnian nationalists after the war in order to bring communist, multiculturalist Yugoslavia into being. And, just as in Yugoslavia, the Western multiculturalist States will eventually need to resort to more and more force, more and more State repression, in order to coerce the Welsh, Scots and English, for instance, into renouncing their unique ethnic identity. Britain, in the last ten years, has seen immigration – more immigration than at any other time in its history – of Kurds, Africans, Poles, Arabs; at the same time, the British government is desperately trying to persuade the indigenous British ethnic groups, and the immigrants themselves, that they are all ‘British’ as Shakespeare, Dickens and Queen Elizabeth. Because the British government, like Tito’s, sees any expression of unique ethnic identity in the face of multiculturalism as a crime which ought to be punished, eventually it will use state-based coercion.

At bottom, the debate gets down to two distinct notions of equality. The European New Right believes in an equality that exists between members of an ethnically-homogenous community – say, Islam – which goes no further than that, i.e., the New Right is not suggesting that all members of that community are alike in every way, merely that they share the same property of being Muslim. The multi-cultists, on the other hand, believe in absolute equality – the equality of faceless machines working, under capitalism, to produce consumer goods. The member of the global capitalist community is equal to every other member in that both are consumers of the same capitalist goods: Starbucks coffee, Nike shoes, McDonald’s junk food. The sight of Global Man in our cities – sipping on his slurpee from Hungry Jack’s, wearing his Nike’s, and listening to the same corporate punk bands on his I-Pod, on his way to see the latest trash Hollywood multiplex blockbuster – is a recurring one. The point is, Global Man could either be Australian, for instance, in an Australian city, or Vietnamese, or Arab, or African – he has no roots in anything and owes no allegiance to anyone. In the end, the globalisation of peoples means the death of peoples – their spiritual and cultural deaths, even if, in the long run, globalisation makes people more ‘economically prosperous’.

2. National-Anarchism

So where does National-Anarchism fit in? National-Anarchism could be described as European New Right-ism without the theory: that is, it is the European New Right in practice, not theory. Traditionally, anarchism has meant the abolition of the State, and property: workers are to control the modes of production, without the intermediary of management, and own them. They are to expropriate, from their capitalist owners, the sources of wealth, of profits, interest and rent, and run businesses, farms, etc., along democratic lines. The State, in this scenario, is to wither away, and as such, the State only exists today to uphold the interests of the capitalist ruling class, to enforce their property rights and maintain a society and an economic system run along inegalitarian lines. Perhaps this is a highly anarcho-syndicalist interpretation of anarchism given here; nevertheless it is one many anarchists would agree with.
National-Anarchism has little in common with this form of anarchism: it has more in common with the later thought of the anarchist Murray Bookchin, who, in the course of his career, abandoned anarchism proper for a philosophy he called ‘communalism’. In his 1992 essay, The ghost of anarcho-syndicalism, Bookchin wrote that:

To its credit, Spanish anarchism- – like anarchist movements elsewhere- -never completely focused on the factory as the locus classicus of libertarian practice. Quite often throughout the last century and well into the civil war period, villages, towns, and the neighbourhoods of large cities, as well popular cultural centers, were major loci of anarchist activities. In these essentially civic arenas, women no less than men, peasants no less than workers, the elderly no less than the young, intellectuals no less than workers déclassé elements no less than definable members of oppressed classes- – in short, a wide range of people concerned not only with their own oppressions but with various ideals of social justice and communal freedom–attracted anarchist propagandists and proved to be highly receptive to libertarian ideas. The social concerns of these people often transcended strictly proletarian ones and were not necessarily focused on syndicalist forms of organization. Their organizations, in fact, were rooted in the very communities in which they lived. [Murray Bookchin, 'The ghost of anarcho-syndicalism' (1992), at http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/ghost2.html ]

National-Anarchism aims at a government of small communities – in the towns, in the neighbourhoods; it strives for what Bookchin calls ‘municipalism’. As such, it is inclined to federalism, i.e., it believes in decentralisation and devolution of responsibilities from the State, autonomy from the State. Ironically, however, mainstream anarchism believes in the break-up of ethnically homogenous, naturally-formed communities: that is, most anarchists today would like to see communities which are not entirely, or mostly Muslim, but a mixture of everything: Vietnamese, African, Hindu, Kurd, and a smattering of ‘indigenous’ Anglo-Saxon or whatever. A small Serbian or Islamic community, which by definition, excludes people who are not of the majority ethnic group, is ‘racist’ in the mainstream anarchist view, and something to be abhorred – and crushed, if necessary. In short, mainstream anarchism wants community, but community without roots – which is no community at all.

To put it this way, many heavily-populated urban areas in the West are constructs of capitalism: that is, they contain ‘indigenous’ populations of European descent who have lived there for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, and large, ever-growing quantities of immigrants from the Third World, who are attracted to those countries because of better work opportunities, or because of generous welfare provisions, or because of war and misery in their home countries, or all three. In all Western States, the government encourages immigration from the Third World out of ideology – either these immigrants are ‘good for the economy’ (the neoliberal point of view) or out of liberal humanitarianism. But, by allowing this immigration, those governments are trampling on the rights of the small, ethnically-homogenous communities. Hence the anti-Statism of National-Anarchism.

Ideally, the National-Anarchist wants a decentralised, federal, autonomous set of ethnically-homogenous communities to take the place of the current neoliberal/social democratic State system which rules the West today. Such communities would be ‘organic’: that is, they would have developed, naturally, over a period of time, and not thrown together by the forces of market capitalism or a liberal/social democratic immigration policy.

Mainstream anarchism does not consider such things, mainly because the locus of classical anarchist theory is in the 19th century – before the great Third World immigration boom took place. That is, the Paris Commune, the Soviets, the anarchist communes of the Spanish Civil War, were ethnically homogenous. Were they alive today, the anarchists from those periods would have resisted, bitterly, the encroachment of immigrants from the Third World – and have been denounced by today’s mainstream anarchists as being ‘fascist’ and ‘racist’ and, somehow, ‘pawns of capitalism and the State’. The classical anarchist theorists viewed everything through the prism of class and class warfare; and classes, as such, are devoid of ethnic characteristics. Today’s mainstream anarchists, and today’s Left, have carried over this strand of anarchist and socialist thought into today, with unfortunate results. That is, anyone who opposes immigration, for instance, is an enemy of ‘the workers’ because the immigrants are ‘workers’ and that is all that matters.

3. German nationalism/Free Nationalism

One of themes of European New Right and National-Anarchist thought is the State use of repression to impose the compulsory acceptance of multiculturalism and mass immigration. Possibly the most repressive State in the West, to this end, is Germany, which, at present, holds 18,000 people in jail for political crimes (most of them ‘right-wing’ or ‘nationalist’ political crimes, and most of them non-violent), burns 5000 books and CDs a year for their political content, and employs a vast State apparatus to monitor the German media for any signs of incipient German nationalism, paying particular attention to the language used. For that reason, German nationalism, which labours under enormous State pressure, displays a National-Anarchist and libertarian tinge. One recent tendency in German nationalism is the Freie Nationalist or Freie Kameradschaft group. The ideological basis, and the workings of these groups, has been described fully elsewhere at the New Right Australia/New Zealand blog, and I will not repeat what has been written there here. Suffice to say, because of their repression at the hands of the State, German nationalists have been forced to pay attention to the question of how to avoid State surveillance, how to free oneself from State repression, and how to preserve one’s anonymity and individual rights in the face of that repression. For these reasons, German nationalists have resorted to organising in small, decentralised groups in order to get under the radar of the German State, and even adopting anarchist modes of dress in order to protect their identities.

As a whole, German nationalism preaches the virtues of communitarianism, and community-based activism; it also, unlike many other nationalist movements in Europe, takes a militant socialist and anti-capitalist line. German nationalism correctly identifies globalist, consumerist capitalism as the source of many of Western ills, including State-imposed multiculturalism. At the same time, it upholds the rights of Germans without property – which is most of them – in the face of abuses by capitalism and a ruthless, survival-of-the-fittest liberal capitalist economic order. The German nationalist groups have succeeded in winning over some measure of support from the German electorate which, in the view of many, has been abandoned and betrayed by the traditional German Left: the German Social Democrats, in their time in office, cut unemployment benefits and other social services, for example, and has neglected the peoples of the economically-depressed areas of the German East.

German nationalism, in that regard, is different from the reactionary populism of the British National Party or Pauline Hanson, for example. Such populism tends to preach a vulgar racialism which blames the person and not the policy: that is, they attack the immigrants themselves and not the governmental policies which brought them to the West. As well as that, Far Right populism often neglects the social question, failing to see that even without immigration from the Third World, globalist, consumerist capitalism, and the rootlessness and anomie it brings, leads to the spiritual death, and cultural death, of the peoples of the West. On an economic level, it fails to pay attention to all the social ills wrought by the present economic order: casualisation of the labour market and the consequent insecurity of employment, the high levels of underemployment, the high numbers of people living on welfare benefits who are not classified as ‘unemployed’ in the official statistics, not to mention high interest rates and inflation, and high levels of personal debt borne by the middle-classes. Then there are the wider social problems: anti-social behaviour on the part of youth, and the squalid environments of our cities. The reactionary populists would rather not contemplate such problems, or propose constructive solutions to them; instead, they would rather attack immigration, and in particular, Islamic immigration (because denunciation of Islam is acceptable, to a certain extent, in the mainstream conservative press).

Insofar as there are solutions to these problems, they do not lie in party politics and mainstream liberal democracy. The problems are structural, and endogenous, i.e., part of, the liberal democratic system. Germany is one of the richest countries in the world, as is France, as is Australia; but for 17 years – since the recession of the early 1990s – none of these countries have been able to solve the high unemployment problem, for instance (disguising it, in the case of Australia, using dodgy statistics). Likewise, the liberal political system, while persecuting nationalism and any resistance to multiculturalism, demands, paradoxically enough, that individuals be left alone to ‘do their thing’; which is why we see anti-social behaviour among our youth, and urban squalor. Liberalism would oppose the State channelling the energies of youth into a socially-beneficial, constructive direction, because that would be a violation of individual freedom. It would also oppose the removal of businesses which are eyesores – like McDonald’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Hungry Jack’s – from urban centres because that would be a violation of the rights of the individual capitalist investor, and moreover, ‘bad for the economy’. Which is why many nationalist activists who are influenced by the ideas of the European New Right believe that nothing can be achieved without the gradual loss of intellectual confidence in the ideology of liberal democracy. That is, liberalism itself, and not Islamic or African or Asian immigration, has to be recognised by the intellectuals as the problem, and has to be solved.

4. Activism

The sympathetic reader, at this point, will ask the question: what can be done? We at the New Right believe in a number of key tenets which, it so happens, we share with anarchism: decentralised organisation; absence of hierarchical leadership within those organisations; mass, popular activism which is separate from the political party and participation in the liberal democratic-system; the forming of networks among activists, based on face-to-face contact; and an ‘inclusive, not exclusive’ approach to organisation, which ties in with our belief in decentralisation, autonomy, plurality and equality among members of the organisation. (This latter point needs to be explained more. There are many different factions of nationalism in the West, and those differences manifest themselves in different lifestyles and personal tastes. Anyone of any different faction – skinheads, Christian Identity or whatever – is welcome within New Right. As well as that, New Right is tolerant of local, particular differences among activists: what works in Queensland, for instance, would not work in Victoria, particularly Melbourne, and vice versa; what would work in Bavaria would not work in Berlin. The motto of the New Right is, each to his own, so long as all the parts can work together smoothly).

In addition, there is the question of aesthetics. Something that has been neglected in Western nationalist thought has been the aesthetics of politics: how a political group or party looks and behaves is as important, if not more important, than its actual party platform and party ideology. Currently, Western nationalism is, in terms of its aesthetics (as it manifests itself in its pamphlets, posters and other visual propaganda) antiquated and behind the times: it is not in touch with today’s avant-garde and progressive youth culture. The mainstream Left, in particular the anti-globalist movement, are on top of things in that regard; nationalism, however, is not. Thankfully, German nationalism – in particular, the Freie Nationalisten/Freie Kameradschaften movements – are leading the way; their propaganda shows how nationalism can be youthful, progressive, avant-garde, by adopting some of the imagery of today’s anti-globalist Left.

More about the doctrines of the European New Right, and approaches to activism taken up by the Australian/New Zealand New Right, can be learned elsewhere at the New Right website. Suffice to say, those who are involved as activists for the New Right believe that it is the only option, today, for an alternative to the existing neoliberal, globalist, consumerist ideology and for the foundation of a new order, based on the preservation of the indigenous Western peoples. For that reason, we ask any like-minded Western nationalist, and any mainstream Leftism capable of looking beyond the dogmas of today’s Marxism and mainstream anarchism, to join us.

“The hegemonistic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very existence of the human species,” said Chavez, holding up a copy of Chomsky’s book and to the applause of many attendees. Chavez continued, stressing, “We appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our head.”

Chavez’s speech, which, following his well-received appearance at the UN the previous year, as widely anticipated, also went on to refer to U.S. President Bush as the “devil” on several occasions. “Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world,” he said.

Chavez strongly criticized Bush’s speech of the previous day, saying that he seeks to impose an elitist model of democracy on the world. “They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that’s their democratic model. It’s the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that’s imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons.”

Bush’s reference to the fight against extremists was another issue Chavez rejected, saying that those Bush sees as extremists are those who resist imperial domination, saying, “You can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.”

Chavez went on to mock Bush’s statement that he wants peace, pointing out how he is responsible for wars in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine and then Bush says, according to Chavez, “We are suffering because we see homes destroyed.”

The ways in which the U.S. is able to get away with its ambitions are proof that the UN system has “collapsed” and is “worthless,” according to Chavez, and is in need of being “re-founded.”

Concretely, Chavez repeated four proposals that he said Venezuela had made a year earlier.
First, the UN Security Council should be expanded, with new permanent members from the Third World. Second, said Chavez, it needs “methods to address and resolve world conflicts.” Third, the abolishing of the “undemocratic” veto in the Security Council. Fourth, the strengthening of the role of the UN Secretary General.

Chavez also referred to his effort to have Venezuela represented on the Security Council, accusing the U.S. of “an immoral attack,” in its effort to prevent Venezuela from obtaining one of the two-year rotating seats. He then listed the many countries that have publicly declared their support for Venezuela’s effort to be on the Security Council, such the members of Mercosur, of Caricom, of the Arab League, of the African League, and Russia and China.

For Chavez, Venezuela is struggling to “build a new and better world,” but it is being threatened by the U.S., which supports his government’s overthrow. Chavez reminded his audience that the U.S. employs hired assassins, such as Luis Posada Carriles, who Cuba and Venezuela hold responsible for the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner, who but is about to be freed from temporary custody in the U.S. He also mentioned that several other individuals who are wanted for terrorist acts in Venezuela have found safe harbor in the U.S.

U.S. Government Reactions

The U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, said that Chavez’s speech did not deserve a response. “We’re not going to address that kind of comic strip approach to international affairs,” stated Bolton.

Bolton added, though, “The real issue here is he knows he can exercise freedom of speech on that podium. And as I say, he could exercise it in Central Park, too. How about giving the same freedom to the people of Venezuela.”

A White House spokesperson, Frederick Jones, similarly said Chavez’s speech was, “not worthy of reaction.”

State Department Spokesperson Tom Casey said, “You know, the U.N. is an important world stage, and an important forum, and leaders come there representing their people and their country. And I’ll leave it to the Venezuelan people to determine whether President Chavez represented them and presented them in a way they would have liked to have seen.”

Florida Republican Connie Mack called on the international community to block Venezuela’s entry as UN Security Council member, saying, “Chavez’s diatribe in the United Nations against liberty only strengthens the fact that he is no more than the paladin of demoralization and of despoitism and a sworn enemy of hope and opportunity,” quoted the news agency EFE.

Full text of Chavez’s UN speech [Corrected version]:

Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, Delivers Remarks to U.N. General Assembly, New York,

September 20th, 2006

HUGO CHAVEZ, PRESIDENT OF THE BOLIVARIAN REPULIC OF VENEZUELA

President Chávez: Madame President, Excellencies, Heads of State, Heads of Governments, and high ranking government representatives from around the world. A very good day to you all.

First of all, with much respect, I would like to invite all of those, who have not had a chance, to read this book that we have read: Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious intellectuals of America and the world. One of Chomsky’s most recent works: Hegemony or Survival?

America’s Quest for Global Dominance. An excellent piece to help us understand what happened in the world during the 20th century, what is going on now and the greatest threat looming over our planet: the hegemonic pretension of US Imperialism that puts at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn about this danger and call on the people of the US and the world to halt this threat that is like the sword of Damocles.

I intended to read a chapter, but for the sake of time, I will leave it as a recommendation. It’s a fast read. It’s really good Madame President, surely you are familiar with it. It is published in English, German, Russian, and Arabic (applause). Look, I think our brothers and sisters of the United States should be the first citizens to read this book because the threat is in their own house.

The Devil is in their home. The Devil, the Devil himself is in their home.

The Devil came here yesterday (laughter and applause). Yesterday the Devil was here, in this very place. This table from where I speak still smells like sulfur. Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, in this same hall the President of the United States, who I call “The Devil,” came here talking as if he owned the world. It would take a psychiatrist to analyze the US president’s speech from yesterday.

As the spokesperson for Imperialism he came to give us his recipes for maintaining the current scheme of domination, exploitation and pillage of the world’s people. It would make a good Alfred Hitchcock movie. I could even suggest a title: “The Devil’s Recipe.” That is to say, US Imperialism, and here Chomsky says it with profound and crystalline clarity, is making desperate efforts to consolidate its hegemonic system of domination. We cannot allow this to occur, we cannot permit them to install a world dictatorship, to consolidate a world dictatorship.

The speech of the tyrannical president of the world was full of cynicism, full of hypocrisy. It is this imperial hypocrisy with which he attempts to control everything. They want to impose upon us the democratic model they devised, the false democracy of elites. And moreover, a very original democratic model imposed with explosions, bombings, invasions, and cannon shot. That’s some democracy! One would have to review the thesis of Aristotle and of the first Greeks who spoke of democracy to see what kind of model of democracy is imposed by marines, invasions, aggressions and bombs.

The US president said the following yesterday in this same hall, I quote: “everywhere you turn, you hear extremists who tell you that you can escape your misery and regain your dignity through violence and terror and martyrdom.” Wherever he looks he sees extremists. I am sure he sees you, brother, with your skin color, and thinks you are an extremist. With his color, the dignified President of Bolivia Evo Morales, who was here yesterday, is an extremist. The imperialists see extremists all around. No, its not that we are extremists. What is happening is that the world is waking up and people everywhere are rising up. I have the impression Mr. Imperialist dictator that you will live the rest of your days as if in a nightmare, because no matter where you look we will be rising up against US imperialism.

Yes, they call us extremists, we who demand complete freedom in the world, equality among peoples and respect for national sovereignty.

We are rising up against the Empire, against the model of domination.

Later, the president said, “Today I’d like to speak directly to the people across the broader Middle East: My country desires peace.”

That is certain. If we walk the streets of the Bronx, if we walk through the streets of New York, Washington, San Diego, California, any city, San Antonio, San Francisco and we ask the people on the street: the people of the US want peace. The difference is that the government of this country, of the US, does not want peace; it wants to impose its model of exploitation and plundering and its hegemony upon us under threat of war. That is the little difference. The people want peace and, what is happening in Iraq? And what happened in Lebanon and Palestine? And what has happened over the last 100 years in Latin America and the world and now the threats against Venezuela, new threats against Iran? He spoke to the people of Lebanon, “Many of you have seen your homes and communities caught in crossfire.” What cynicism! What capacity to blatantly lie before the world! The bombs in Beirut launched with milimetric precision are “crossfire”? I think that the president is thinking of those western movies where they shoot from the hip and someone ends up caught in the middle.

Imperialist fire! Fascist fire! Murderous fire! Genocidal fire against the innocent people of Palestine and Lebanon by the Empire and Israel. That is the truth. Now they say that they are upset to see homes destroyed.

In the end, the US president came to speak to the people, and also to say, “I brought some documents Madame President.” This morning I was watching some of the speeches while updating mine. He spoke to the people of Afghanistan, to the people of Lebanon, to the people of Iran. One has to wonder, when listening to the US president speak to those people: what would those people say to him? If those people could talk to him, what would they say? I think I have an idea because I know the souls of the majority of those people, the people of the South, the downtrodden peoples would say: Yankee imperialist go home! That would be the shout that would echo around the world, if these people of the world could speak with only one voice to the US Empire.

Therefore, Madame President, colleagues, and friends, last year we came to this same hall, as we have for the past eight years, and we said something that today is completely confirmed. I believe that almost no one in this room would stand up to defend the system of the United Nations. Lets admit with honesty, the UN system that emerged after WWII has collapsed, shattered, it doesn’t work. Well, ok. To come here and give speeches, and visit with one another once a year, yes, it works for that. And to make long documents and reflect and listen to good speeches like Evo’s yesterday, and Lula’s, yes, for that it works. And many speeches, like the one we just heard by the president of Sri Lanka and of the president of Chile. But we have converted this Assembly into a mere deliberative organ with no kind of power to impact in the slightest way the terrible reality the world is experiencing. Therefore we again propose here today, September 20, [2006] to re-found the United Nations. Last year Madame President, we made four modest proposals that we feel are in urgent need of being adopted by the Heads of State, Heads of Government, ambassadors and representatives. And we discussed these proposals.

First: expansion. Yesterday Lula said the same, the Security Council, its permanent as well as its non- permanent seats, must open up to new members from developed, underdeveloped and Third World countries.

That’s the first priority.

Second: the application of effective methods of addressing and resolving world conflicts. Transparent methods of debate and of making decisions.

Third: the immediate suppression of the anti-democratic veto mechanism, the veto power over Security Council decisions, seems fundamental to us and is being called for by all. Here is a recent example, the immoral veto by the US government that freely allowed Israeli forces to destroy Lebanon, in front of us all, by blocking a resolution in the UN Security Council.

Fourthly: as we always say, it is necessary to strengthen the role, the powers of the general secretary of the United Nations. Yesterday we heard the speech of the general secretary, who is nearing the end of his term. He recalled that in these ten years the world has become more complicated and that the serious problems of the world, the hunger, poverty, violence, and violation of human rights have been aggravated, this is a terrible consequence of the collapse of the UN system and of US imperialist pretensions.

Madame President, recognizing our status as members, Venezuela decided several years ago to wage this battle within the UN with our voice, our modest reflections. We are an independent voice, representing dignity and the search for peace, the formulation of an international system to denounce persecution and hegemonic aggression against people worldwide. In this way Venezuela has presented its name. The homeland of Bolívar has presented its name as a candidate for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council. Of course you all know that the US government has begun an open attack, an immoral global attack in an attempt to block Venezuela from being freely elected to occupy the open seat on the Security Council. They are afraid of the truth. The empire is afraid of the truth and of independent voices. They accuse us of being extremists. They are the extremists.

I want to thank all countries that have announced your support for Venezuela, even when the vote is secret and it is not necessary for anyone to reveal their vote. But I think that the open aggression of the US Empire has reinforced the support of many countries, which in turn morally strengthened Venezuela, our people, our government. Our brothers and sisters of MERCOSUR, for example, as a block, have announced their support for Venezuela. We are now a full member of MERCOSUR along with Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay. Many other countries of Latin America, such as Bolivia and all the CARICOM nations have pledged their support to Venezuela. The entire Arab League has announced its support for Venezuela. I thank the Arab world, our brothers of the Arab world and of the Caribbean. The African Union, nearly all of the African Union countries have pledged their support for Venezuela and other countries like Russia, China and many others across the globe. I thank you all deeply in the name of Venezuela, in the name of our people and in the name of truth, because Venezuela, upon occupying a seat on the Security Council will not only bring to it the voice of Venezuela, but also the voice of the Third World, the voice of the peoples of the planet. There we will defend dignity and truth.

Despite all this Madame President, I think there are reasons to be optimistic.

Hopelessly optimistic, as a poet would say, because beyond the threats, bombs, wars, aggressions, preventative wars, and the destruction of entire peoples, one can see that a new era is dawning.

Like Silvio Rodríguez sings, “the era is giving birth to a heart.”

Alternative tendencies, alternative thoughts, and youth with distinct ideas are emerging. In barely a decade it has been demonstrated that the End of History theory was totally false. The establishment of the American Empire, the American peace, the establishment of the capitalist, neoliberal model that generates misery and poverty- all totally false. The thesis is totally false and has been dumped. Now the future of the world must be defined. There is a new dawning on this planet that can be seen everywhere: in Latin America, Asia, Africa, Europe, Oceania. I want to highlight that vision of optimism to fortify our conscience and our will to fight to save the world and construct a new world, a better world.

Venezuela has joined this struggle and for this we are threatened.

The US has already planned, financed and launched a coup in Venezuela. And the US continues to support coup plotters in Venezuela. And they continue supporting terrorism against Venezuela.

President Michel Bachellet recalled a few days ago… pardon, I mean a few minutes ago… the terrible murder of the former Chilean Foreign Minster Orlando Letelier. I would only add the following: the guilty parties are free. Those responsible for that deed, in which a US citizen was also killed, are North Americans of the CIA. Terrorists of the CIA.

In addition, we here in this room must remember that in a few days it will be the 30th anniversary of that murder and of the horrible terrorist attack that blew up a Cubana de Aviación airplane in mid-flight killing 73 innocent people. And where is the worst terrorist of this continent, who admitted to being the intellectual author of the airplane sabotage? He was in prison in Venezuela for some years, but he escaped with the complicity of CIA officials and the Venezuelan government of that time. Now he is here living in the US, protected by the government even though he was convicted and he confessed. The US government has a double standard and protects terrorism.

These reflections are to demonstrate that Venezuela is committed to the fight against terrorism, against violence and works together with all people who struggle for peace and for a just world.
I spoke of the Cuban airplane. Luis Posada Carriles is the name of that terrorist. He is protected here just like the corrupt fugitives who escaped Venezuela. A group of terrorists who planted bombs in embassies of various countries, murdered innocent people during the coup and kidnapped this humble servant. They were going to execute me, but God reached out his hand, along with a group of good soldiers, and the who people took to the streets. It’s a miracle that I’m here. The leaders of that coup and those terrorist acts are here, protected by the US government. I accuse the US government of protecting terrorism and of giving a completely cynical speech.

Speaking of Cuba, we went happily to Havana. We were there several days. During the G-15 Summit and the NAM Summit the dawning of a new era was evident with an historic resolution and final document. Don’t worry. I am not going to read it all. But here is a collection of resolutions made in open discussion with transparency. With more than 50 Heads of State, Havana was the capital of the South for a week. We have re-launched the Non-Aligned Movement. And if there is anything I could ask of you all, my brothers and sisters, it is to please lend your support to the strengthening of the NAM, which is so important to the emergence of a new era, to preventing hegemony and imperialism. Also, you all know that we have designated Fidel Castro as President of the NAM for the next three years and we are sure that compañero President Fidel Castro will fulfill the post with much efficiency. Those who wanted Fidel to die, well, they remain frustrated because Fidel is already back in his olive green uniform and is now not only the President of Cuba but also the President of NAM.

Madam President, dear colleagues, presidents, a very strong movement of the South emerged there in Havana. We are men and women of the South. We are bearers of these documents, these ideas, opinions, and reflections. I have already closed by folder and the book that I brought with me. Don’t forget it. I really recommend it. With much humility we try to contribute ideas for the salvation of the planet, to save it from the threat of imperialism, and god willing soon.

Early in this century, god willing, so that we ourselves can see and experience with our children and grandchildren a peaceful world, under the fundamental principles of the UN, renewed and relocated. I believe that the UN must be located in another country, in a city of the South. We have proposed this from Venezuela. You all know that my medical personnel had to stay locked up in the airplane. The Chief of my security is locked on the plane. They would not let them come to the UN. Another abuse and outrage Madame President that we request to be registered personally to the sulfurous Devil. But God is with us.

A warm embrace and may God bless us all. Good day.

Taken from http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/

In his recent book ‘Collapse’, the author Jared Diamond asked the question: “Why do societies destroy the environment around them when they know their actions will ultimately destroy them too?” An example he gives is of the people of Easter Island, who chopped down their last tree on the way to their own extinction. According to former US Vice-President, Al Gore, we might be doing exactly the same thing with global warming.

ANDREW DENTON: Please welcome Al Gore.

ANDREW DENTON: Good to have you here.

AL GORE: Thank you. Thank you.

ANDREW DENTON: Welcome to Australia. A country I know you visited before, scuba diving on the Barrier Reef?

AL GORE: I have been diving on the reef. It’s one of the many spectacular glories of this country. It really is a great place to visit.

ANDREW DENTON: You have been passionately pursuing global warming for 30 years. What is it about this issue that makes you so passionate?

AL GORE: I first became aware of it as a college student, when I had a professor who was the first person, first scientist to measure CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere. I felt as if I had a ringside seat at the beginning of a really historic new discovery. And some years after that, when I was first elected to the US Congress, I helped organise the first Congressional hearings, had my professor as the lead witness and I encountered for the first time this incredible resistance to an inconvenient truth, which I later used as the title for the movie and the book, because people are resistant, particularly some of the business interests that have pollution, are resistant to seeing the reality of this. And the more I’ve tried to tell this story, the more passionately I’ve become involved in connecting the dots and making the picture as vividly clear as I can.

ANDREW DENTON: Often people who become passionate about a cause, there’s a personal stimulus. In your case, it was a near fatal accident for your youngest boy, Al, when he was six. That was 17 years ago. And that caused you to rethink your priorities in your life. How do you make this personal for other people?

AL GORE: Well, that’s a challenge. In my own case, I changed both my personal and professional priorities. And put my family first and in lots of ways, in every way, but then in my professional life, I put this climate crisis at the top of the list. I asked myself often the question you have asked me, how do you make it personal for others? At one point in the movie, I ask people to imagine what it would be like if our children’s generation decades from now looked back and asked — “Why didn’t our parents do something when they could?” And to hear that question now and to realise that the answer must come not with promises but with actions, and I try to connect the story told by the scientific community about the real-world consequences to people in every country. For example, here in Australia, they have long predicted that one consequence of global warming is increasing shortages in the supply of drinking water. And here in Sydney, in Brisbane, in Perth, and other places, you’ve been seeing that come true. They’ve predicted more Category Five cyclones. You had two of them this year here in Australia and a Category Four as well. To me, this is so compelling. I think it’s the challenge of our lifetimes, and our lifetimes represent the period when the human species will make fateful decisions that will determine the future of human civilisation.

ANDREW DENTON: Yet despite the enormity of what you have just suggested, there are global warming sceptics, people disinterested or not interested in hearing what you have to say. When you’re at a dinner party and a global warming sceptic expresses doubt, what do you say to them? What’s the thing you zing them between the eyes with to stop them in their tracks?

AL GORE: Well, I had a dinner party in Amsterdam not long ago, and I was at a dinner party, and there were about 12 people at my table, and sceptics spoke up and I said, well, you know, there are some 15 per cent of the people who think that the Apollo landing on the moon was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, and I promise you, this young man said “Well, as a matter of fact…” So I realised I had to come up with another zinger for this young guy.

ANDREW DENTON: It was, though, wasn’t it?

AL GORE: (Laughs) Shhh!

ANDREW DENTON: Sorry!

AL GORE: (Laughs)

ANDREW DENTON: That Nixon was up to no good!

AL GORE: Yeah!

ANDREW DENTON: I want to show some of the promotion for ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. For those who haven’t seen it, it’s a very powerful film. FOOTAGE PLAYS: If this were to go, sea level worldwide would go up 20 feet. This is what would happen in Florida. Around Shanghai, home to 40 million people. The area round Calcutta, 60 million. Here’s Manhattan, the World Trade Centre memorial would be underwater. Think of the impact of a couple of hundred thousand refugees and then imagine 100 million.

ANDREW DENTON: Now, one of the criticisms you’ve received for this film is that you have used the worst case scenario, when predictions are not absolute and even the moderate scenarios are pretty scary. What the risk, in having done that, of paralysing people with a sense of helplessness in the face of these events?

AL GORE: There are two questions in one as I hear them. First of all, this is not the worst case. The worst case, you don’t want to hear! I think I’m right down the middle and in fact, the scientific community has validated the science in this film, and, for example, the six metre, six to seven metre sea level rise – that would come if Greenland broke up and slipped into the sea. It would come if west Antarctica, the portion that’s propped up against the tops of islands with the warmer sea coming underneath it, if it went. If both went, it would be 12 to 14 metres. On Greenland, this past year, there were 32 glacial earthquakes between four point six and five point one on the Richter scale. That may sound like gobbledygook but, you know, a five on the Richter scale for an earthquake is enormous. And there were 32 of them this year on Greenland. That’s double the number in ’99. In ’99 the number was double the number in ’93. So that is evidence that what is almost certainly happening, there is a radical destabilising of that big mound of ice. So this is a realistic picture of what could happen if we don’t act. Now, as to the paralysing effect of seeing these consequences – that’s a real danger. And there are people who go – as I say in the movie – from denial to despair without pausing on the intermediate step and what denial and despair have in common is they both let you off the hook. You don’t have to do anything. And actually the mature approach is, that all of us have to take, we have to find our way to it, is to act to solve this. And we can solve it. Despair is completely unjustified.

ANDREW DENTON: I don’t wish to dip back into the well of despair but if you’re down the middle with this movie, what is the worst-case scenario?

AL GORE: Well, the worst case scenario is that if we did not act fairly quickly, within these next 10 years, make a good start of it, that we would cross a tipping point beyond which it would be impossible to retrieve the favourable climate balance that has led to the development of human civilisation. Such a tipping point would be the melting of the north polar ice cap. If we allowed it to melt by continuing to turn up the thermostat with all of this global warming pollution, then it wouldn’t come back at least for millions of years, and the conditions that we have known as a species would disappear.

ANDREW DENTON: I will ask you a bit later in the interview about the things we can do to combat this, but first of all let’s look at some attitudes that confront what you’re suggesting. A columnist in it country wrote earlier this year that even if climate change is man made, there is little Australia could do that would make any difference that we could measure, because our emissions would be dwarfed by China’s and India’s. As this is a global problem with no definable boundaries, how do you get the international community, that can’t seem to agree on anything, to agree to action on this?

AL GORE: Since the end of World War II there has been the same basic architecture for every international treaty. The wealthier countries that have the wherewithal to go first have agreed to take the first steps and then after we find the pathway and chart the course, then the poorer nations, where per capita income is just a fraction of what it is in Australia and the United States, they then join in the work. And the Kyoto treaty, the first of the treaties to come on the climate crisis, is based on that same model. And if the wealthiest countries, including Australia and the United States, the two hold-outs, refuse to act, then there is little chance that China and India will. If, on the other hand, we do act, then that creates the conditions where these developing nations have to act. Right now, Australia and the United States are the ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ of the global community on the climate crisis. If Bonnie goes straight and reforms, then Clyde is out there isolated and would feel a lot of pressure to change. If Australia changed its policy, it would put enormous pressure on the US to change.

ANDREW DENTON: Seriously?

AL GORE: Seriously.

ANDREW DENTON: Okay. This is – speaking of the leadership of this country, our Prime Minister has said “I broadly accept the science of global warming but I disagree with the most severe scenarios.” This is what he said yesterday about Kyoto and why Australia isn’t signed up to it.

(FOOTAGE PLAYS)JOHN HOWARD: If we signed it, we would destroy a lot of Australian industry and we would send Australian jobs to countries like China and Indonesia and India.(FOOTAGE ENDS)

ANDREW DENTON: That’s a commonly heard point, that to somehow or other cut emissions will destroy the economy. Is it possible to cut emissions and not destroy the economy?

AL GORE: Of course. And there’s an argument that’s always made often by industries that have a lot of pollution, when they say “We can’t cut back on the pollution without hurting the job picture or the economy.” And in almost every case, when pollution controls have been imposed, we find out that they’ve been crying wolf, and that the adaptation to a more efficient approach actually ends up helping the business and industry in question. There will be some companies that have behaved irresponsibly in dumping prodigious quantities of pollution for which the change will be very inconvenient, but for our economy as a whole, and for most industries, it will actually be beneficial. In the United States, to use one example, our automobile companies, including GM and Ford, have argued for years that if we impose restrictions on the pollution our cars emit, it will cause them to lose their markets and lose jobs. And they got what they lobbied for. The lowest standards. And now they’re approaching bankruptcy, because the consumers want to buy more efficient cars. And they’re buying them from Japan, and Europe, and so the old saying, be careful what you pray for, should apply, be careful what you lobby for. If you get it, it can be a form of protectionism against facing reality, and reality has a way of intruding.

ANDREW DENTON: I know the Prime Minister, you consider him a friend. You spoke to him earlier today. What did you talk about?

AL GORE: I would prefer to keep the conversation private, because it was just one-on-one.

ANDREW DENTON: Can you mime it?

AL GORE: (Laughs) That’s a great idea! I like him as a friend, and it’s no secret that he and I disagree on this issue, but I believe him to be a person with an open mind, an intellectual curiosity.

ANDREW DENTON: Will he see your film?

AL GORE: I hope so. He said publicly he might see it, so I hope that he will. And it takes courage to change. You know, we all dig ourselves into positions from time to time, and then defend them as a fortress, as we would a fortress, and the best leaders are ones that know when to change, and when to move into the future. I’m hopeful that he will. I do actually think it would have an enormous influence on the US posture and that in turn would be the turning point in the world’s ability to solve this crisis.

ANDREW DENTON: Let me put an alternative view to you. Last year the English House of Lords did an economic inquiry into climate change, in which they suggested maybe that global warming will have beneficial consequences, such as longer growing seasons. Is it possible that you’re wrong?

AL GORE: Well, no. That question has been studied, and it’s quite true that there will be some temporary consequences that you can interpret in some countries as beneficial, yes. But the negative consequences far outweigh them. And the instability is continuous. Because what we’re doing is forcing a radical reorganisation of the entire ecological system of the planet. Today, we’re putting 70 million tonnes of global warming pollution into the Earth’s atmosphere. And it’s just arrogant on our part to believe that we can do that with impunity. That we can so utterly transform the relationship between the earth and the sun by blocking it with this blanket of global warming pollution that traps so much more of the sun’s heat into the planet’s ecological sphere with impunity. We’re not immune to it.

ANDREW DENTON: That’s the zinger you should’ve used in Amsterdam!

AL GORE: Perhaps, I know. That poor guy is still out there looking for the movie lot in Arizona! To put it another way, if you have a child who has a fever, and the fever persists, and it steadily gets higher, you go to the doctor. And you say “Please, let’s check this out. What’s the problem here?” Because it could be something bad. Well, the planet has a fever. And one or two degrees matters. Two or three or four or five matter even more. And it will continue to get higher until we stop dumping all this pollution into the earth’s atmosphere. It is extremely damaging.

ANDREW DENTON: Let’s talk about what can be done about it and to do that, let’s go back a bit. The 2000 election, sorry to bring it up, this is something that maybe some Australians haven’t seen. This is an appearance you did on ‘Saturday Night Live’ a few years ago where you visited the set of the ‘West Wing’.

(FOOTAGE PLAYS)AL GORE: Would you mind if I…

JED BARTLETT: Oh sure, be my guest.

AL GORE: Hmmm…

JED BARTLETT: I guess while you were Vice-President you never actually got to sit in there?

AL GORE: Sorry?

JED BARTLETT: I was just – I guess you never actually sat in the President’s chair?

AL GORE: No… No, I did not.(FOOTAGE ENDS)

ANDREW DENTON: I know they had to prise you from the set of the ‘West Wing’ with several security guards. There has been a lot of speculation about your intentions, even if this movie is some move back into politics. Under what circumstances would you stand for the presidency again?

AL GORE: I did go back on ‘Saturday Night Live’, just a few months ago, and they began the show with what they called a ‘cold opener’, with the announcer talking about the speculation that there may be alternate universes, and that some physicists believe that in parallel worlds, other events take place, so-and-so won the American Idol instead of … and then they start with “Ladies and gentlemen, a message from the President of the United States.” And it’s me! And I’m saying, you know, gas prices, you would say petrol prices are so cheap now, it’s… but anyway.

ANDREW DENTON: Let it go!

AL GORE: Let it go! (Laughs) It’s hard!

ANDREW DENTON: I know! I have a therapist, I can help you.

AL GORE: Oh thanks, thanks! I don’t intend to be a candidate for President again. I ran twice for President. I ran twice for Vice-President. Been there and done that, as the saying goes. It’s true that I haven’t entirely ruled out thinking about politics at some point in the future, but that’s just an internal shifting of gears, and really, the truth is, I find the political process somewhat toxic at this point. I find I have less patience for some of the tomfoolery that’s necessary in politics, and I have found other ways to serve, and I’m enjoying them. And I am involved in a campaign but it’s for a cause, not a candidacy.

ANDREW DENTON: And it’s the matter of effecting change, that’s what you’re engaged in. I’d like to hypothetically, let’s assume something got you back into the presidency. I want to know how it actually works. I’m not doing it to be cruel.

AL GORE: You’ve done it several times!

ANDREW DENTON: My work is done! Let’s assume you got back into the presidency. How easy is it to effect change? When you got Kyoto up before the international community, when you went back to America, of the 100 senators you approached to support it, only one came across. What did that tell you about your country?

AL GORE: Well, it told me that there was Category Five denial where global warming is concerned. I think that’s changed somewhat now.

ANDREW DENTON: Would you get more today if you…

AL GORE: Yes.

ANDREW DENTON: How many do you think you would get?

AL GORE: Hard to say. But almost half of the Senate have voted for a resolution now that is similar to the Kyoto approach. And I do think that we’re getting close to a critical mass of support for major bold action. I continued to advocate bold changes, but ran into that brick wall of resistance, and one of the lessons I learned was the need to go to the grassroots level. I don’t know if you have that phrase here.

ANDREW DENTON: Yes, we do.

AL GORE: And to go to people one by one, community by community, and engage in a fairly massive and sustained effort to try to change the minds of people about this crisis.

ANDREW DENTON: And to do that, you have some significant opposition. I will show a bit of an ad now from the ‘Competitive Enterprises Institute’, part funded by Exxon. This is what you might call the anti-Gore.

(FOOTAGE PLAYS)COMMERCIAL VOICE OVER: Global warming alarmists claim the glaciers are melting because of carbon dioxide from the fuel we use. But we depend on those fuels, to grow our food, move our children, light up our lives. And as for carbon dioxide – it isn’t smog or smoke – it’s what we breathe out and plants breathe in. Carbon dioxide. They call it pollution. We call it life.(FOOTAGE ENDS)

AL GORE: I rest my case!

ANDREW DENTON: The stated aim of the Competitive Enterprises Institute is to create confusion, uncertainty about global science – and global warming science. A Time magazine poll of your country earlier this year stated that 65 per cent of Americans are still uncertain about global warming, which means that they’re being effective. How do you combat that?

AL GORE: I don’t think that is an accurate reading of where America is right now. I think that a lot of minds have been changed, and I think there is a level of urgency and a degree of certainty about that that’s somewhat new and encouraging. A lot of business leaders who used to oppose Kyoto have now endorsed it. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California, of which he is governor, just last week passed binding reductions in carbon dioxide, a very bold measure, the Democratic legislature joined with him. Arnold Schwarzenegger went to see my movie in June and he said “I’m going to get rid of my Hummer.” And he said some kind things about the movie and came to one of my book signings. There are now quite a few other state, nine north-eastern states, Pennsylvania, Oregon, state of Washington. In our federal system in the US, sometimes states take the lead, and when enough of them enact their own provisions, business finds it difficult to comply with different sets of standards, and they then say, well, it would be better to have one single national approach. We’re in the beginning of that process now. So there is movement.

ANDREW DENTON: What about at the ordinary citizen level, the ‘grassroots’ level as you put it? In your documentary 30 per cent of greenhouse emissions come from the United States, a super-size-me society which leads the earth by example in gorging on the resources. An example we in Australia follow. Do you detect much willingness among your citizens to downsize the way you live?

AL GORE: Yes, there is a movement. The 30 per cent figure represents the historic contribution. That’s the part we’re responsible for that’s up there now. This year, 22 per cent will come from the US. So there has already been some improvement.

ANDREW DENTON: That’s Arnold’s Humvee!

AL GORE: That’s right. It was a big drop there! (Laughs) And there is now a growing movement toward trying to save on energy bills. The uncertainty in oil prices, Persian Gulf instability, the price of gasoline or petrol as you call it has really hurt the sale of these big SUVs, and promoted the sale of hybrids. So there is such a movement. And when enough individuals make changes in their own lives, it does improve the odds that we’ll reach a political critical mass, and then we’ll see the policy changes.

ANDREW DENTON: Let’s talk about what individuals can do. You lead a carbon neutral life. What is that, how do you achieve it?

AL GORE: You reduce as much as you can by such things as using the new efficient light bulbs, and driving a hybrid instead of a regular car. I’m putting solar panels on the roof of my house, but even with all of that, I still am responsible for a lot of CO2. I flew here to Australia.

ANDREW DENTON: People point this out. You fly a lot of miles.

AL GORE: Absolutely.

ANDREW DENTON: How do you reduce that?

AL GORE: All honour and glory to Qantas, by the way. I had a very comfortable flight over. But for the CO2, that was represented by my portion of that flight, I go into this emerging marketplace for offsets, and purchase verified, validated reductions in CO2 by an amount that more than compensates for the quantities that I’m responsible for. There is a web site that accompanies the movie and the book, climatecrisis.net, that has a carbon calculator that individuals can use to calculate exactly what the magnitude of CO2 that you’re responsible for in your own lives – how to reduce, how to find the offsets – if you desire to become a carbon neutral. You could make this show carbon neutral.

ANDREW DENTON: Really?

AL GORE: If you had somebody who was assigned to pay attention to that, you would find a lot of things that would be good changes anyway and then you could find offsets that you could use to get publicity for the show – your audience is so huge now you don’t need that…

ANDREW DENTON: Careful. You’ve already done Qantas, you don’t have to do me, it’s alright! It’s admirable and important what you’re saying about how individuals can change their lives and should address change in their lives. But isn’t what individuals can do in terms of saving energy in houses a drop in the ocean compared to the people who are the real cause of the problem? In your documentary and in your book, there is no real mention of big companies such as Exxon, who are responsible for something like 20 billion tonnes of world’s carbon emissions every year – a sixth of the world’s global economy is spent in harvesting oil. What haven’t you turned your attention to them, the elephant in the room?

AL GORE: I beg to differ. I have. I don’t – I try to avoid demonising specific villains, because really, we are all a part of this problem, and CO2 – the ad that you showed is kind of an obscene version of corporate lobbying, but CO2 is actually the exhaling breath of industrial civilisation, and changing that requires accepting responsibility by these large polluters, yes, I agree with that, but demonising individual companies, I think, diverts from the larger challenge that has to be addressed. I won’t shrink from it. Let’s talk about Exxon Mobil. What they’re doing is absolutely immoral. How they live with themselves in financing intentional lies designed to confuse the public for the purpose of preventing the formation of a public consensus on saving the future of civilisation – I mean, I don’t know how they live with that. And I’ve researched why it is that people no longer think any kind of boycott is – you know, is a viable approach to a company like that. I wish – if it was viable, I think there should be one. I think what they’ve done is just unforgivable.

ANDREW DENTON: Rather than demonising, perhaps illuminating. If we’re talking about real change, if we’re talking about a planetary emergency, then we’re talking about radical change from the top up. Let’s look at how the American political system works. At this day, no-one gets into the Oval Office effectively without the support of these big companies. You and President Clinton had 28 oil and power companies support you. George Bush had 20 million dollars put towards his campaign. Your inauguration was part paid for by an oil company. How do we change the way that system works so that the leaders of our nations are not beholden to these companies?

AL GORE: I think that leaves a false impression of what the reality is. It’s true that in the American system, it’s common for both parties to accept political action committee contributions but if you look at the reality of the example you use, it’s like 20 to 1 on the side of the other party to what the Clinton/Gore campaign received.

ANDREW DENTON: Sure. I’m not trying to get party political but they’re integrally involved in the political process?

AL GORE: They are and there is a valid point in what you’re saying. I’ve long advocated complete public financing, taxpayer financing of all federal elections in the United States. I took that position when I first went to Congress in 1976. I reaffirmed it for my campaign for President for 2000. I think the entire conversation of democracy in the United States has suffered greatly because of the inappropriate use of corporate money in politics. But I think it’s a symptom of a deeper problem. A problem that’s probably worse in the US than it is in Australia. But the way we communicate among ourselves about the great issues of the day. More than 40 years ago, television supplanted the printing press as the source of information for the majority and its dominance has grown to the point that in my country, the average American watches television four hours and 39 minutes per day, and that’s 75 per cent of the discretionary time. Unappreciated is the fact that this shift has taken us back to a one-way form of communication, where the information comes from a very few sources, and most people watch television and don’t – they can talk back to it if they like but the message is not received, and in that kind of environment, it becomes much easier for special interests with a lot of wealth to dominate some of the messaging that shapes attitudes on issues.

ANDREW DENTON: How do we break that? How do we break that nexus between corporate interests and the way political decisions are made?

AL GORE: Well, I think that focusing on the role of money in politics is part of it. But I think that it’s really addressing one of the symptoms rather than the cure. I think that the larger challenge is to democratise the dominant medium, and fortunately, there are now new affordable digital video cameras and laptop editing systems, and young people particularly are learning how to use them. I have started a new television network called ‘Current TV’, and it’s on cable and satellite in 30 million homes in the US, and you can get a training course. We give a free training course to anybody in the world on how to make television. Then they stream the TV to us on the Internet, we post it, and let people vote on what they think the most compelling material is. Now, 30 per cent of our programming is made by the viewers. And if individuals in a nation or in a society are empowered to take part in the conversation, the key is having a meritocracy of ideas so that the people who are part of the conversation themselves decide which of the contributions from all these individuals merit more attention rather than less.

ANDREW DENTON: You know how it works, which is what gets back to Exxon spending money to spread disinformation, the person with the most money is able to put out the most messages and the most skilful messages and they win.

AL GORE: Exactly right. That is the way it works.

ANDREW DENTON: Tear it down, Al, come on!

AL GORE: I’m trying. I’m trying.

ANDREW DENTON: This is what I’m waiting to hear. How?

AL GORE: That’s the way it works now.

ANDREW DENTON: Yeah, but how do you tear it down?

AL GORE: I’m trying to tell you. You build a bridge between the…

ANDREW DENTON: I need a zinger, Al!

AL GORE: (Laughs) You see, this is part of the problem, though, you see. It’s part of the problem.

ANDREW DENTON: I need an intelligent zinger.

AL GORE: ENOUGH ROPE is the place where you can go beyond zingers, am I right about that? We don’t need to just focus on these zingers.

ANDREW DENTON: Yeah.

AL GORE: Please!

ANDREW DENTON: Okay.

AL GORE: All right.

ANDREW DENTON: You got 90 minutes!

AL GORE: (Laughs) That’s truly ENOUGH ROPE! But seriously… The Internet allows individuals to get into contact with this incredible universe of knowledge out there, and it allows individuals to take part in the conversation. It has been that individuals find like-minded groups, and that’s not entirely bad, but the Internet has not become a main public forum. With television, it is possible for individuals to contribute short-form, non-fiction essays, if you will – here’s what I see in my world. Make it creative. The essays attracted an audience depending upon the excellence of the prose, the style of the writing as well as the quality of the ideas and in that same way, these televised expressions have to be compelling and attract their own audience, and as they do, what it can happen is the television medium can be the forum that it was intended to be so that we can once again have a conversation of democracy that is not dominated by Exxon Mobil financing these insipid ads for the virtues of carbon dioxide, but rather, individuals can make their own case…

ANDREW DENTON: We could discuss this a lot further, the whole problem with the profit principle and how that drives markets, but I know you have to go. I want to finish up with the fact this is the fifth anniversary of September 11. And it seems as though the world’s attention is forever being wrenched back to the war on terror. How optimistic are you that we can rise above our differences to actually address a planetary emergency?

AL GORE: I don’t think it should be posed as an either/or choice. The threat of terror and terrorism is real. All too real. And we must redouble our resolve to protect our citizens against terrorists, and I think we can do so. But we are capable of walking and chewing gum simultaneously. And as we continue to be diligent against the threats of terror, surely we are capable of simultaneously addressing by far the most serious crisis civilisation has ever faced. In fact, if we move beyond our dependence on oil and coal and move beyond this pattern of shipping all this money to the Middle East and the Persian Gulf – that’s actually the source of most of the financing that’s siphoned off in various ways to feed many of these terrorist organisations. That’s not a good pattern. We need to change every part of that. And as we do, we will also gain forward momentum, gain moral authority, gain vision, deprive the terrorists of some of their financing, and find that it’s easier to address the other challenges that we have to address, including terrorism.

ANDREW DENTON: And what gives you cause for optimism?

AL GORE: I know one thing about the political system in my country, in yours, and worldwide – that some of the pessimists don’t know. It shares a feature in common with the climate system. It can seem to move very slowly, but when we aren’t noticing it, it can cross a tipping point and then shift into an entirely different gear and move with incredible speed. We have done that in our democracies in the past. We are close to doing that in reaction to the climate crisis. We will cross that tipping point when enough people internalise the truth of our situation. We have to disenthrall ourselves from the propaganda, from the advertising, from the falsehoods, from the illusions, and we have to see the reality of this new relationship we have to the earth. We have quadrupled population in less than 100 years. We have thousands of times more powerful technologies. We’re like the bull in the china shop, except that we have the capacity to become aware of what we’re doing. When enough people become aware of it, understand it, and then decide that we owe it to our children to leave them a planet that is not degraded, and hostile to the human species, then we will find ways to solve this. I know that we will.

ANDREW DENTON: Al Gore, I hope you’re right. Thank you very much.

AL GORE: Thank you.

To find out more about ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, visit the Climate Crisis website.

The ‘carbon calculator’ that Al Gore mentioned in the interview is also available at the Climate Crisis website.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1734175.htm

TS: I was always very patriotic as a child, proud to be a South Londoner and to come from a solid working class family. Having a strong, localised identity – which was partly expressed as a hardcore football supporter – also helped to acquire an affinity for home and hearth, blood and soil. My father, on the other hand, was a supporter of the centre-left Labour Party and therefore in my teenage years I was greatly opposed to the Thatcherite government and influenced by the sense of social justice that Labour seemed to represent. We were both wrong in our assumptions, of course, my father no longer takes part in the electoral process and I went on to join the National Front (NF) after discovering that it was not the party of race-hating dross that the pro-Zionist media regularly made it out to be. My father was extremely angry when he discovered that I was a regional organiser for the NF, but 20 years on he has come to realise that much of what we were saying about the threat of immigration and our loss of national identity was actually correct. But he was always a great supporter of the underdog and is therefore naturally suspicious of any movement or organisation that – allegedly, of course – seeks to attack or denigrate people from ethnic minorities. I suppose that he is like the majority of people here in England, believing originally that multi-racialism was a noble concept and that it could bring people together, but the fact that he now spends most of his time abroad tells you how disillusioned he is with the present situation here in England. So I was greatly influenced by my father to some extent, but these days I’m more inclined to believe that there is very little in England worth fighting for. The writing is on the wall, unfortunately, our small island is quickly descending into a coffee-coloured dumping ground for the economic migrants of the Third World. This position of weakness and frustration has encouraged me to look abroad to our fellow brothers and sisters in the rest of Europe, many of whom are suffering the same problems, in the hope that we can initiate a growing trend whereby the remnants of our Indo-European tradition and identity can be salvaged and expressed anew. Elsewhere, if necessary, because geographical considerations are less important to me than the revival and propagation of those values and principles themselves.

Q: Have your goals changed over the years or is it just change of tactics, ultimately striving for the same ideal?

TS: I am striving for the same ideals, certainly, but I’ve definitely moved away from certain political ideologies like nationalism and socialism. Previously, of course, I had promoted the revolutionary ideas of German workerists like Otto and Gregor Strasser, as well as Catholic distributists like G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, and key British socialists like Robert Owen and Bob Blatchford. However, in the mid-90s I found myself becoming inspired by the work of Richard Hunt (Alternative Green) and thus became an anarchist. That is not to say that I don’t continue to hold many socialists in high esteem, I do, but I feel that the role of the State has completely replaced that of the community and therefore my allegiance is with the latter. I have also come to believe that England as a nation is finished. It still exists in name, of course, but only because it is constantly being redefined to suit the multi-racialist and increasingly globalist agenda. The England of my generation and that which came before it is dead. I’m not suggesting that we should revive the comparatively idyllic trappings of my own childhood, on the contrary, the principles that I hold dear are eternal and can reappear at any time. I don’t see this happening in modern-day England, certainly, but regardless of the actual birthing-ground for the regeneration of our people, it is up to a new traditional elite to force its will upon the essentially linear and ‘progressive’ historical process.

Q: I would like you to comment on the recent founding of the New Right, as you recently held your second meeting in London with prominent speakers and attendants from different parts of Europe. The New Right is a term which is derived from the groups and personalities, G.R.E.C.E as the foremost proponent, mainly situated in France during the seventies. Is this a continuation of these efforts, or what is the main purpose of the New Right of 2005?

TS: When Jonothon Boulter and myself decided to form the New Right in January 2005, we had two main reasons for doing so. Firstly, whilst we had each been inspired by the work carried out by intellectual and cultural figures such as Alain De Benoist and others, we realised that the New Right had virtually run its course in mainland Europe and had hardly got off the ground in England at all. Michael Walker, for example, the Editor of Scorpion magazine, did some excellent work in the early part of the 1980s, but a combination of him moving abroad and the fact that by 1989 the ‘Political Soldier’ faction within the NF had been decimated by a series of ideological differences and personality clashes, Jonothon and I thought the time was right for a new intellectual and metapolitical current in the British Isles. Secondly, we hope that the recent progress made by the New Right in England – a country which is sadly dismissed by many people in Europe as the 51st State of America – will revitalise the increasingly stagnant New Right elsewhere. This is not intended as a criticism, incidentally, we just happen to believe that the revival of such ideas on ‘virgin ground’, so to speak, can provide new hope and a fresh impetus for our allies abroad. Our efforts also coincide with the release of Michael O’Meara’s excellent New Culture, New Right (1st Books, 2004). Indeed, the twenty-first century brings with it new challenges and therefore we need to regather the most astute and counter-cultural minds in Europe and North America for the tasks that lie ahead. So yes, it is a continuation of past efforts and a re-evaluation of where we stand today with regard to the future.

Q: Do you believe that such a network can make a difference politically and culturally on a national level indirectly or do you see it more as a select group that has chosen to withdraw from the contemporary squabble of everyday politics and sensationalism?

TS: I think both positions are equally valid. Some of us have chosen to withdraw from the contemporary world, at least to a certain degree, but we still have to live in it and therefore we feel that we can even change it to some extent by inspiring other people. On the other hand, of course, we are necessarily elitist and strongly believe that it is essential to win the battle of ideas and not to create a mass movement.

Q: Creating and forging an elite has been one of the main goals of the New Right and its heirs from the beginning, often opposed to political mass movements and populist parties of every political colour. Is it possible to create a cultural elite detached from the masses or more specific, the people? What is the purpose of an elite if not to set an example for the people and create and school a leadership which utilizes the positive elements and creative energy of the people?

TS: Yes, exactly. It is up to the minority to inspire the multitude, although this can take a variety of forms and work on a series of different levels. We certainly don’t wish to gather together a self-important group of stuffy intellectuals with about as much chance of having an influence as a grain of sand in a bathtub. But people obviously have varying abilities and therefore it is a question of horses for courses. In other words, all metapolitical or philosophical ideas must ultimately lead to forms of positive action that have an effect on a broad and diverse assortment of cultural and identitarian issues. I also believe that an elite should be able to epitomise those elements which, by their very nature, should inevitably inspire others. Not by adopting positions of arrogance and self-delusion, but by simply getting on with their own lives and perhaps encouraging others to take on board at least some of the values they consider important. As these messages filter out from the elite, they will find expression to an equal or lesser extent elsewhere. I believe that things happen for a reason, therefore anyone in tune with our ideas is naturally fulfilling a form of intuitive dharma. And that includes those who either reject or oppose us. They, too, have an important role to play in the coming struggle for hearts and minds. It is a war between the degenerative and the regenerative.

Q: Do you see the New Right as a potential autonomous think-tank for different organizations opposed to the New World Order of global capitalism, ethnic egalitarianism, Marxist-liberalist values, American cultural imperialism and parliamentarism?

TS: Indeed. This is how we expect our ideas to reach other people, be they university academics or political activists on the ground. These organisations and associations are the most effective way of spreading our ideas, and I also happen to believe that most of the people we wish to influence are already active in one way or another. The aim is to initiate a new current that transcends the outdated categories of left and right and which gets people moving in a similar direction.

Q: Could it be possible for the New Right to influence already established parties that work within the framework of contemporary mass-media and parliamentary democracy? If not, do we need yet another sect of self asserting egomaniacs detached from reality or do you consider the establishment of an exclusive elite to be a sort of nucleus for an autonomous, noble society, co-existing with the temporary world, yet detached from its rules, norms and values?

TS: I’ve answered this above, to a certain extent, but one only has to think of the example of Leo Strauss and the manner in which a relatively small group of Neo-Conservative thinkers and intellectuals had such a vast impact on the development of modern American politics. Compared to ours, their goals are obviously very negative, of course, but the strategy itself has resulted in a series of very dangerous implications for the entire world. Nevertheless, this example still demonstrates the sheer potential and power of an idea.

Q: Judging from the second meeting of the New Right held in London, the diversity in beliefs both spiritual as well as cultural and political was apparent. Advocates of Orthodox Christianity as well as Nietzschean, anti-Christian vitalism made strong statements opposing each other, still respecting each others’ faiths. Is this a diversity that you think the New Right should strive for, or is it just something that develops naturally?

TS: Both. It seems completely impossible or even ludicrous to try to reconcile a Nietzschean and a priest, but what is important are the points where each converge. In other words, those positions upon which people can agree. If we can avoid descending into religious, moral, political or ideological dogma, so much more can be achieved. Our task is to get everyone pulling in a similar direction. There will be plenty of time for the peculiarities of a certain position to find its own level afterwards. In the words of Lenin: “March separately and strike together.”

Q. Is such a diversity a strength unconditionally or should one strive for a more common ground, a sort of ultimate manifesto of the future? If so, what do you believe one of the credos should be?

TS: We do have a very broad platform but have also made a conscious effort to avoid being too rigid or dogmatic. Our main bugbears are democracy, egalitarianism and globalisation, which must ultimately be countered by elitism, natural hierarchy and an affirmation of our European heritage and identity.

Q. What we could call the nationalist movement, understood as different organizations and people dedicated to preserving and developing the heritage of their own ethnic group, are as diverse as their adversaries, if not even more so. One difference of intense dispute is religion. Do you think that pre-Christian beliefs, Existentialism, Vitalism, Gnosticism, conservative Christianity could form a sort of eclectic choice of faith for regenerating European spirit where the different individual faiths could unite into a spiritual force able to ignite action on a political level?

TS: As Tomislav Sunic points out in Against Democracy & Equality (Noontide Press, 2004), the reason Liberalism and Marxism have been so successful is due to the fact that their core values – namely universalism, egalitarianism, totalitarianism and a belief in the linear interpretation of history – were, paradoxically, originally derived from the intolerant dualism and individual subjectivity found within Judeo-Christianity and then conveniently spread by way of the Roman Empire. Monotheistic religions are a major threat to both regional and cultural identity, not to mention spiritual diversity. Indeed, whilst I could accept Jesus Christ or Allah as localised deities, or even as part of a pantheon of gods, I dislike the way Christianity and Islam each seek to create their own metaphysical version of the New World Order. Likewise, whilst in reality ancient paganism is far more holistic, Muslims and Christians consider the rest of us to be heretics. At the same time, however, if people can put their liturgical, scriptural and doctrinal beliefs to one side in pursuit of an ideal through which several key principles can be ignited as one force, then it is possible to make progress. I think it’s a case of using the correct language within a specific framework that everybody can feel comfortable with. So it’s far more positive to encourage a forum that deals with the revival of European identity, for example, than one which finds itself preoccupied with the question of whether Jesus was really the son of God. People can work together, but only if they leave their divisive baggage at the door and enter forth in a spirit of open-mindedness.

Q. Is any faith better than no faith?

TS: I certainly have more respect for a Communist, for example, than for someone who simply goes through life in a haze of apathy or indifference. But in a religious sense, I think faith can also be very negative indeed. Pagans tend to look at existence in terms of the form it actually takes, which thus enables them to shape and interpret it accordingly. Monotheists, on the other hand, standardise everything in accordance with a universalist principle. A principle, of course, which is both highly subjective and framed by allegedly ‘indisputable’ truths.

Q. In what sense should the New Right work on a metapolitical level?

TS: The reason we have stated clearly that all New Right discourse should take a metapolitical form, is because we do not want to get bogged down in meaningless party politics about whether we should support abortion or gay marriage, for example, or whether we should vote for a specific party or take up arms and overthrow the government of the day. Individually, of course, we each have our own political and socio-economic beliefs, but these should not interfere when it comes to discussing the eternal values that shape us as Europeans. This means, of course, that people from a variety of political backgrounds can attend our meetings and link up with other people who have similar opinions in specific areas.

Q. Is it at all possible to build a potent pan-European movement of some kind, or are we forever stuck in a National-chauvinist quagmire in the end, leaving the New Right as another beautiful paper utopia?

TS: I think we have enough movements in the world already, but in terms of creating a counter-culture and spreading intellectual ideas, I believe that we can have a major impact in a really practical sense.

Q. If the New Right is the intellectual and spiritual arm of a European movement, what should the active and practical component and consequence of that effort be?

TS: The first step is to network with like-minded people across Europe and throughout the world. The New Right e-group is simply the beginning and we are currently working on a new website. Getting people along to meetings is important, too, but due to the fact that some people seem intent on disrupting our activities we are always restricted somewhat and therefore attendance at this stage is by invitation only. Eventually, however, we wish to attract intellectuals and academics from a wide variety of backgrounds, be they scientists, historians, film directors, sociologists, poets, biologists, occultists, novelists, economists or anything else. The Revisionists in Europe and North America have done a great deal in this regard and it is up to us to emulate the way that they have managed to bring in fresh blood.

Q. Europe is not only in a ditch politically, to put it bluntly, but spiritually as well. Many nationalists see the conviction of Muslim immigrants as the main threat to European culture and spirit. What is your opinion on the main threats to Europe?

TS: The prime dangers are Americanisation and multi-racialism. Here in the British Isles, for example, the degenerative effects of the Disney-Muckdonalds monster are plain for all to see. Our children are systematically brainwashed at a very tender age, becoming highly dependent on television and junk food. By the time they attend secondary school at the age of 11, the multi-racial agenda really kicks in and children begin talking and acting like Jamaican gangsters. And it’s not simply a question of culture, either, the saturation of our major towns and cities – coupled with the cult of the celluloid soap opera which affects even the tiniest village – has led to disturbing behavioural trends that cause youngsters to swagger down the street like Neanderthals or affect a form of slang patois that is inevitably expressed in broken-English. In other words, this global anti-culture has led to a serious identity crisis. But what else can we expect when children of European descent grow up in immigrant strongholds? Even the immigrants themselves are losing their identities in the face of this American cultural imperialism. In the 1970s many Blacks listened to reggae music and took pride in their African roots, but these days they stand shoulder to shoulder with their White and Asian contemporaries and have sold their souls to the over-rated rap stars of New York and Compton. The Muslims, on the other hand, remain vigorously opposed to this threat and seem far more aware of the danger that it represents. This makes them less susceptible than the average European and I have a lot of admiration for their inner strength. However, I don’t support their presence in Europe and believe that Islam will present a serious challenge in the future once our central infrastructure and communities really begin to break down. We can work with Muslims against America, of course, but when it comes to Europe we have to put our own people first.

Q. Could Europe theoretically form a future alliance with Islamic countries, as well as other non-European cultures to counter the global war for global capitalism as instigated by the U.S and its allies?

TS: Absolutely. US foreign policy is a threat to the entire population of the planet and, therefore, is something which inevitably affects every single one of us. Francis Parker Yockey was a great example of someone who had rather similar ideas to our own and who forged useful ties with key figures both outside Europe and in the Third World. As mentioned above, Islam is a useful weapon against American globalisation, but only if its adherents don’t attempt to set up a monotheistic stranglehold in its place.

Q. Can immigration, as a symptom of cultural and spiritual decay, be seen as an agent of European awakening in the face of obliteration, or will it inevitably lead to ultimate ethnic disaster?

TS: It could swing both ways. Some multi-racial communities are incredibly divided and there is a good chance that they will remain permanently unresolved in the same way that Catholics and Protestants in Ulster have been stubbornly entrenched for several decades. Elsewhere, of course, in places like London or Amsterdam there is far more apathy and tolerance and therefore cities such as these are becoming increasingly hybridised and, thus, less European.

Q. Do Europeans and people of European descent stand any chance in the long run against more prolific cultures and races?

TS: I don’t think they want to. Thousands of British people are emigrating to Spain, Australia and New Zealand, so perhaps they will become new centres for a cultural regeneration? It is a fact, after all, that once people flee the cities and discover precisely the same things happening out in the rural areas, they tend to pack up and leave the country altogether. So in many parts of Europe the writing is already on the wall, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t continue to live in accordance with our values elsewhere.

Q. What actions ideally should be taken to preserve the European ethnicity?

TS: Running away from our problems will not ultimately prevent the advance of globalisation. We must therefore win the battle of ideas. That is obviously a job for thinkers and intellectuals, but at the next level down we need people who are good at reviving our diverse European culture. So the basic ideas – themselves recurring constantly throughout countless millennia – must be tied to a healthy expression of cultural identity. It is not enough to think and to talk, we must live it. Every day. If you don’t like liberal teachers, educate your children at home; if you don’t like liberal values, stop watching television or following current trends; and if you want to be European, live among your fellow Europeans.

Q. You are also committed to National-Anarchism. Could you give a brief overview of what it is about and what the main goals are, if any such exist?

TS: National-Anarchists wish to see the establishment of autonomous, mono-racial communities in which people can occupy their own space in which to live according to their own values and principles. Not in a coercive sense, of course, National-Anarchism is a decidedly mutualist concept and has – to some extent – been influenced by the work of Richard Hunt and Hakim Bey. Further information about National-Anarchism can be found on the Terra Firma website at http://www.national-anarchist.org.

Q. Will not such a loose network, based on autonomous cells, be forced by the foes of ethnic autonomy to unite in national and pan-national organization(s) in order to counter the multitude of our adversaries, or else perish with the rest?

TS: I think it’s possible to maintain ties with other National-Anarchist communities around the world and continue to retain the autonomy of a single community at the same time. Forming alliances, of course, does not mean that we have to implement a national infrastructure or compromise our approach towards decentralisation. One example that I’ve used before, is that of the Fellowship in Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. Whilst the various Hobbits, Men, Dwarves and Elves come together in order to defeat a totalitarian adversary, when the task is completed they each go their own separate ways. Unity in diversity.

Q. You are also involved in the musical/artistic project H.E.R.R. and currently re-releasing the album “The Winter of Constantinople” >(Cold Spring Records, 2005)

TS: H.E.R.R. is not a political entity and the remaining three members of the group are not involved in activities of this nature, but given that our songs deal with the glory and tragedy of European history, my involvement is obviously fuelled by a need and a willingness to express my own cultural identity. Our latest album deals with the Fall of Constantinople in 1543 and the consequences that it represented for both Europe and the Holy Roman Empire. Meanwhile, our next project is based on the work of the Dutch playwright, Joost van den Vondel (1587-1679), author of Lucifer.

Q. What importance have music and artistic efforts and the struggle for what we could call a new Europe in balance with its past?

TS: I think that past, present and future can effectively be realised in a single moment. In other words, whenever something reflects the European spirit it immediately accords with the repetition of an eternal principle. So the past is often mirrored in the present and will be again and again in the future. The Romanian author, Mircea Eliade, notes that whenever this process takes place it creates a new centre. It’s the same with birth and ritual. Whilst it never happens in exactly the same way, an idea rips through the straight-jacket of linear time in a celebration of the perennial.

Q. Groups such as H.E.R.R. and others of the Neo-Folk/Darkwave scene form a sub-culture. Do you see a possibility to evolve this into a vital counter-culture, appealing to a larger audience in defiance of the mindless pop industry?

TS: I don’t think groups like H.E.R.R., Von Thronstahl, Puissance, Death In June or Sol Invictus will ever become mainstream, but they are part of an underground counter-culture that attracts tens of thousands of people across Europe and North America. The most important thing about this growing development, however, is that many of the concert audiences already contain a minority of people with views very similar to our own. They may not be politically-minded, but they do engage in a specific lifestyle that is both pro-European and anti-American. It’s not the kind of attitude that one would find in the average Right-wing party, either, the people are more anarchistic but still retain their love of culture and identity. It’s a meeting of the Revolutionary and the Conservative.

Q. Being a married, full-time father of four children whom you tutor yourself, you set an impressive example for other parents who want to raise a family independent of the totalitarian egalitarianism. How did that come about and how do you cope with what, for most people today, would seem an overwhelming task?

TS: Home-schooling is not funded by the State and is still regarded in many circles as a rather bohemian and outlandish concept. There are well over a million home-educated families in North America, but in England the numbers are far smaller. My wife and I first thought seriously about home-schooling when she was still pregnant with our first child. At that time I was a Traditional Catholic and this form of alternative education was fairly popular amongst many of the parents in those circles. Coupled with the fact that England’s educational standards are some of the worst in Europe, we decided to join Education Otherwise, a self-help group designed to help families interested in home-schooling. A decade later we find ourselves with four children who have been taught to a fairly high standard and, thus far, managed to avoid becoming caught up in the cycle of Americanisation and youth crime that infects a vast number of other children. Home-schooling is very hard work and you do have to be very committed, but I can’t see any reason why all parents with our ideas can’t teach their children at home. It’s a question of reorganising one’s priorities and of making sacrifices. Compared to most people we do have to live on a fairly low income, but the results are there for all to see. Our children, whilst still very young, are already very clued-up about the nature of the world and the direction in which it is heading. By avoiding local schools and liberal teaching methods, therefore, we have managed to instil in our children a sense of identity, self-expression, individuality, history and ecological awareness. Home-schooled children also find it easier to relate to people of varying ages, rather than being unnaturally confined to a classroom with other children of exactly the same age. And rather than being ignored in a class of 40 or 50 pupils, they also receive one-on-one tutoring. People often ask us how we deal with the social aspect, which always seems very curious given that schools are supposedly designed to educate children and not to socialise them. In reality, of course, schools are indeed designed to ‘socialise’ children, inevitably preparing them for a life of uniformity, drudgery and wage-slavery. But our children participate in a whole variety of sports and belong to a number of clubs and organisations. That can involve a lot of time and money, but at least they do have friends outside of the home environment.

Q. What should the role of the family be in the ideal society?

TS: I see the family as the central part of an interconnecting chain that runs from the individual to the family and then from the family to the tribe. At the higher level, of course, we have the race itself, but it tends to become rather vague and abstract when people start talking about a ‘White race’ when there are so many diverse sub-categories involved. Needless to say, the family – along with the individual and the tribe – provides us with an identity and a point of reference. At the same time, of course, I don’t like the bourgeois interpretation of the family because some people are natural outcasts or tend to be rather misanthropic. People like that often have a higher purpose to fulfil, it’s not for everyone to settle down and have children.

Q. How will you, being involved in several activities and independent groups such as National-Anarchism, Synthesis, the New Right and the music project H.E.R.R. (to mention but a few) concentrate your forces in the future? What are your plans and objectives for the coming year?

TS: My chief priority at the moment, at least, is to continue with the work that we have been doing with the New Right since January 2005. There will be more meeting and social events. But whilst I remain a National-Anarchist at the purely political level, I no longer spend my time propagandising or putting up posters and stickers. A new generation of young activists are slowly emerging from the woodwork of this beleagured country, some of them influenced by the work we did back in the 1980s and 1990s with the English Nationalist Movement (ENM) and National Revolutionary Faction (NRF), not least the new English Peoples Party (EPP) and various other nationalistic and cultural groupings. The fact that people such as this are struggling for the same cause at the grassroots level, enables me to concentrate my efforts on the more intellectual and esoteric currents. Elsewhere, of course, I shall be performing live with H.E.R.R. and writing more songs with the other members of the group, as well as organising a series of camps and hikes. There is so much going on behind the scenes here in England and it often takes an immense effort to keep up with it all.

Q. Finally, do you have any words of advice and inspiration for the independent, political European freedom fighter?

TS: If you have strong beliefs and principles, try to make them become manifest throughout every day of your life. Make a calculated attempt to systematically avoid those things which could potentially damage or compromise your own values, whilst making an extra special effort to do those things that will make you stronger and more determined. In the meantime, I would like to offer my very best wishes to our friends and comrades in Norway. Keep up the good work.

On behalf of AUTONOM, I thank you for the interview

Taken from AUTONOM (http://autonom.motpol.nu/)

New Right Australia New Zealand Committee

I have been following the recent scandal in the American National Socialist Movement (NSM) with some interest. For those nationalists who are not in the know, it was revealed that some of the NSM’s prominent members are involved in Satanism and other disgusting things. These unsavoury facts have been disclosed at, among other places, a former leading member of the NSM, Bill White, website, Overthrow.com. Bill White himself has been forced to resign (he denies that he was forced to resign and that he did it on his own accord) from the NSM and set up a splinter movement that he is currently organizing to get off the ground.

Bill White’s career sums up a lot of what is the good, the bad and the ugly in today’s nationalist politics. He is a very successful business man which is a rarity for Nationalists in the USA. Bill White began his political career as a left-winger, before becoming, like so many left wingers today, interested in the ideas of Third Positionism. He read Francis Parker Yockey’s Imperium, and was unimpressed by it. But Julius Evola’s books, particularly “Revolt against the Modern World”, converted him. He used to be a writer for the internet version of Pravda, a Russian publication and he also wrote some articles for the Mathaba News Service, an alternative internet news provider with strong ties to Africa and Muslim organizations. He became, over this period, more and more anti-Semitic, and wrote a good many essays containing penetrating insights into the Jews and Zionism. He is not a trained intellectual, but still wrote some intellectually stimulating pieces of writing. His site, Overthrow.com, at the time was one of the more professional, and enjoyable, nationalist sites on the web.

His downfall began, in my view, when he took up the ideas of Savitri Devi, a great female thinker, but one whose ideas – particularly the doctrine that Hitler is a reincarnation of Krishna or whatnot – must be taken with a grain of salt. Bill swallowed Devi-ism hook, line and sinker. He ended up joining a Nutzi movement, the National Socialist Movement (NSM) in America and soon he was wearing a homemade Stormtrooper outfit complete with a swastika armband and marching at the head of Rockwellian demonstrations against Negroes and Hispanics. His writings developed a ranting style against Jews, Negros, Communists, et. and rather pornographic attacks on anybody he didn’t like.

In short, he lost the plot.

Eventually, with the revelations of the Satanism of a prominent NSM member, he snapped. He initially tried to argue that Satanism was, being an ‘Aryan’ and ‘Pagan’ doctrine, reconcilable with Devi’s Esoteric Hitlerism to a certain degree. Perhaps one can reconcile the two (although I doubt it). But one thing is for sure: Satanism is not reconcilable with Hitler’s National Socialism – the only real National Socialism – and would have been rejected by the German National Socialists, as filth, pure and simple, and Jewish-inspired filth at that.(In fact, if one wants to be a Satanist, and adopt a Nietzschean master-morality, one should convert to Judaism. The similarities between Judaist and Satanist ethics are many). Satanist freaks, along with the “Hollywood” skinheads, and the uniform-wearing Nutzis themselves, would have been locked up in a camp in Hitler’s Germany, and not let out until they had proved themselves to be decent members of society.

The fact of the matter is, Devi’s Esoteric Hitlerism is not German National Socialism, and never will be. Only because she idolized Hitler and used the symbols doesn’t make her a political National Socialist, especially not a German one. Her “National Socialism” is a distortion. Or, more accurately, she has selected some of the minor, peripheral points of the doctrine and then brought them to the forefront; by doing so, she has invented a new doctrine which has only a superficial resemblance to the original. This is how Bill White, and other sincere, self-professed ‘National Socialists’, ended up becoming swept up in Nutzism and associated movements which have radically diverged from National Socialism, and Mussolini’s Fascism. (And no American, especially in 2006, could be a National Socialist anyway; for National Socialism was a German, and to a lesser extent, Dutch, Swedish and Danish, movement relevant to a particular place (Western Europe) at a particular time (the 1930s and 1940s). The same goes for the fascist movements of Degrelle, Vidkun Quisling and the others).

Why is it, though, that a large number of nationalist movements – including the Nutzis, but not restricted to them – today attract such freakish people: Satanists, Odinists, Christian Identity-ists, Church of the Creator-ists? Why is it that some nationalists cannot accept ordinary Protestants or Catholics, or agnostics and atheists? Why are they attracted to made-up religions?

There are, in my opinion, a number of reasons. Firstly, it is a question of the class base. The fascists in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s recruited from a middle-class base, and often the lower-middle classes. Their cadre of support tended to be salary men (and women), often used to working for large organisations and not owning or running businesses themselves. They were inclined, because of this (and the fact that many of them were employed, or would have liked to have been employed, by the government), to gravitate towards socialism. Inexperience with capitalism and business made them suspicious of capitalist methods. What is more, they had suffered, as Hitler and Mussolini did, during the bust periods of capitalism. Both of these men had lived a secure existence in the army – an experience, despite all the blood and suffering of the First World War, which they had both very much enjoyed. But, after demobilisation, both fell into bitter poverty.

Today the fascist class base, with its statist and socialist inclinations, would vote Democrat in the USA, for Labour in Britain (Tony Blair, in the past, has exploited middle-class fears and insecurities, particularly on crime and juvenile delinquency, brilliantly) and for Labour in Australia.

We can say that the men and women of the lower-middle class in America, Britain or any Western country today tend to deport themselves with a modicum of decency and professionalism; they could not work as typists, civil servants, architects, etc, otherwise. They need to conform socially in order to keep their jobs: it is a case of professional necessity. Their income would be endangered if they were to dress freakishly with a SS Uniform or publicly espouse Satanism or Christian Identity. One cannot say the same, however, for the average Nutzi, or “Hollywood” skinhead, or indeed many of the nationalists I myself have met. They are lumpenproletarians; the NSM’s followers, who appear to have stepped off the set from a Jerry Springer show, come from that class.

Bill White may boast that all the NSM members he knows ‘have jobs’, but jobs at what? Chicken pluckers? Fruit pickers? Shelf stackers? The American labour market always has jobs, but it is a question of how low, in terms of class and income, one wants to go. (Many lumpenproletarian in Australia or Europe do not have this option, and are more often than not forced to live on welfare). Because one has no career to speak of, merely a service-level job in a chicken factory or supermarket, one can afford to march up and down in a homemade Stormtrooper uniform, or espouse Christian Identity. What does one have to lose? Nothing!

Another trait of the lumpenproletarian, and, admittedly, the working-classes, is a lack of educational, or at least, intellectual, attainment. When one of them encounters a unified system which explains how the world is what it is – whether it be Satanism or Christian Identity or Communism – they are immediately overwhelmed. They are not accustomed to thinking outside of themselves and their narrow preoccupations. What is more, they do not have the training or the discernment to see through the fallacies of Communism, for example, or see Satanism for the fourth-rate pseudo-philosophy that it is.

Ironically, Bill White is always denouncing left-wing activists as being more or less of the same mentality. To him, the average anarchist or communist, especially the anti-racist type, lives off welfare or off his parent’s money. They are unable to accomplish much in life, and not uncoincidentally, have little personal wealth; so they engage in nihilistic, pointless activity, and adhere to Judaised left-wing doctrines which claim to be the champions of the poor end of the community. (This tallies with my own experience of the anti-racist Left, with the exception that in Australia, university education is normally free and students are subsidised by the government for a short period of time). Some of the left-wingers may come from good middle-class families; but the lifestyle encourages a certain lumpenprole-ism. And they are just as intellectually vulnerable as your average chicken-plucker, and so tend to swallow Marx, Chomskyism and the other Jewish creeds whole.

So we have two sides which are remarkably similar: on one, the Far Right (for want of a better term); on the other, the Far Left. Both of them have a disproportionate appeal to drop-outs, the Far Left taking in middle-class drop-outs, the Far Right the working-class drop-outs. The dropping-out in question is to the lumpenproletarian level. That is, they are falling, a few rungs in the ladder, to the lowest possible class.

It is this isolation from reality, from mainstream life (eg, participation in everyday politics, and participation in the labour force) which breeds a certain underground mentality in the Far Right in particular. Which explains why its members are attracted to what Julius Evola would classify as ‘subterranean’ or ‘ghetto’ cults, cults such as Satanism, Heathenism and the like – that is, religions which appeal to those on the fringes of civilised life, to what the Hindus call the untouchable caste.

So how is nationalism to be saved from the Bill Whites, the World Churches of the Creators and the rest? The answer is obvious enough: nationalists must recruit from the middle-classes, not from the lumpen. Nationalism, if it found its electoral base in the middle-classes (especially the lower middle-classes) would more closely resemble the historical Italian Fascism and German National Socialism than Bill White’s Nutzism.

The original Fascism and National Socialism were socialist, and Left, movements. The goal of them was to maintain the economic position of the middle-classes who had been ruined by a succession of economic catastrophes since the First World War. In that respect, they were not much different from the mainstream Australian conservative agrarian party, the Nationals, who exist to redistribute taxpayer’s money to the rural class (or, for that matter, the farming lobbyists in the EU, France in particular). In both France and Australia, farmers are increasingly unable to make a decent living or at least live in the style they became accustomed to. How much of that is due to inefficiency or to bad luck is difficult to determine.

In any case, the farmers certainly feel entitled (out of a sense of ‘social justice’) to government remuneration. The same is to be said of the German middle-classes in the 1920s and 1930s, who perhaps were rather indifferent to the Jewish question but understood instinctively that Adolf Hitler was one of them and that his party was acting in their class interest. (It must not be forgotten, either, that failed farmers formed a large part of Hitler’s constituency. Again, the farmers wanted socialism, and got it: the National Socialist government, among other things, wiped out their debts).

But here is the paradox. I have castigated the Nutzis, and the Far Left, for attracting misfits, dropouts, losers and fringe dwellers. But National Socialism and Italian Fascism attracted the same sort of people. We all know that Hitler, Mussolini, Goering, Goebbels and the rest experienced great hardship in their younger days; this fact is often used to explain their bitterness, their sense of deprivation, their radicalism and their cynicism. But socialism gave them someone to blame for their troubles: the Jews, the capitalists, the irresponsible parliamentary democrats, the Freemasons. If they had been inculcated with a sense of responsibility for their own failures, and taught not to blame them on other people, the world would never have seen fascism.

In other words, one could say that both fascism and certain elements of today’s nationalism the fascists appeal to the less evolved sides of the human character. There is no reason why such a socialism as Hitler’s and Mussolini’s cannot win over the middle-classes of today’s Germany and Italy, or for that matter America and Australia. Socialism is still going strong in 2006. But whether or not socialism is good for nationalism, or, for that matter, the West itself, is another matter entirely.

We, the members of the New Right Australia New Zealand, do not want nationalism to be bourgeois, ossified and reactionary, like Le Pen’s or De Villiers’; at the same time, we should not be aiming at people who are naturally going to be attracted to a socialism – that is, the failures in life who are going to attribute their own deprivation to mysterious Jewish and capitalist conspiracies. This is not to take a soft, pro-Jewish line: it is merely to examine our own motives for thinking as we do and considering what is in progressive nationalism’s best interest.

QUESTION 1
Please tell us a bit about your background and what led you to join the Klan?

ANSWER 1
I joined the Ku Klux Klan in 1984. It was one stop in my search for truth. I have always been a radical. In the late 1960′s I became associated, through a friend, with members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) . The SDS was a college campus-based Maoist sect that was heavily influenced by the communist Progressive Labor Party. I was not a member of SDS but I consumed most of their literature and immersed myself in their philosophy, particularly in opposition to the war in Vietnam.

Believing there was no solution to be found in the middle of the road, and not finding the answers I was looking for in the radical left, I began to migrate toward the right. As fate would have it, my interest in history was channeled into an organization called the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV). This was about 1982. Through that association I met a race-conscious Christian minister who showed me the connection between political thought and the Bible. The SCV is a historical society and I soon became discouraged with their lack of political activism. I started attending my minister friend’s church and looking for a new outlet for my radical views. Many of the old- time SCV members talked favorably of the Reconstruction Era Klan and the seed was planted in my mind. I began looking for the Klan. It took me about a year to find it. After joining the Invisible Empire I gained access to a wealth of information about the enemies of our race and way of life.

I became immersed in the Klan, giving it all my time and energy. Soon I was placed in charge of the state of Florida and we began to grow. Always maintaining a revolutionary consciousness, I began to attract people of like mind. We became the most active Klan in the country. The Florida Klan was known for taking. unusual positions and addressing odd issues. We made it a point to never do what was expected of us.

After the fall of the Invisible Empire in 1993 the membership diversified and joined with other Klans to form a cartel. Today there are 22 different Klans in Florida and we remain a very active state.

QUESTION 2
You lead a radical faction of the Klan called the Black Knights. How did you develop such a revolutionary philosophy considering that the Klan has been known to be quite reactionary at times (anti-union activities in the 1930′s, for example)?

ANSWER 2
First of all, let me make it clear that I do not lead the Black Knights. The Florida Black Knights have no officers or leaders. We have applied Louis Beam’s theory of leaderless resistance in our own way. Each associate is a leader in his own right. We are not an organization in any traditional sense of the word. We are an ad hoc collective of Klan expatriates, many of whom have been rejected from other Klans. I was banished from the Empire even after I had resigned. James Farrands, the Empire’s Imperial Wizard, told me I was too revolutionary for the Klan. I now wear that label as a badge of honor.

I brought my revolutionary philosophy with me to the Klan and simply applied it to this struggle. It’s true that the Klan has been reactionary and some Klans continue to be, but the whole truth about the Klan is not widely known. The Klan in the 1920s was involved, in some parts of the country, with pro-union activities. For example, in Williamson County, Illinois back in 1922, a mixed-race crowd of union coal miners attacked strike-breakers killing 20 of them. This incident was called the Herrin Massacre. Within two years, Herrin and the rest of Williamson County backed one of the nation’s strongest local Klan organizations. Many in the 1920s and 30s shared joint Klan-union membership. The United Auto Workers, the Southern Tenant Farmers Union, and Akron rubber workers were all examples of unions with Klan support.

The Klan has historically tried to organize colored divisions. Klan leaders met with Marcus Mosiah Garvey and gave a monetary gift to Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam. The Socialist Party and the Klan formed a 1924 alliance in Milwaukee to elect John Kleist, a socialist and a klansman, to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Klan has at times appealed to militant workers.

I believe to be reactionary is fatal to our goals and I constantly preach against it. I encourage the study of left-wing and right-wing movements. I say we should take what we can from every source.

QUESTION 3
You are known for your willingness to work with black nationalist groups. Please give us an outline of your history with such groups.

ANSWER 3
It was back in 1985 when I first met Osiris Akkebala, Chief Elder of the Pan-Afrikan International Movement (PAIN). Chief Akkebala hosted a radio show in an all-black community where we had a scheduled demonstration. PAIN follows a Garvian philosophy, and understanding that Marcus Garvey had met with the Klan in the 1920s, Chief Osiris approached me for a private meeting. We hit it off well and have been good friends ever since.

Sometime in 1990 we began holding joint demonstrations–the Klan in their robes and the Africans in their dashikis. Needless to say it sparked quite a backlash. Many klansmen were angry at me for even considering such a thing. In my view it was a match inspired by God. Why should we have a problem with black men who are strict racial separatists and want to establish a homeland on the continent of Africa? I have even publicly endorsed the payment of reparations to blacks but only for the purpose of repatriation back to Africa.

I believe that all people have a right to self-determination, a right to choose their own government, and their own religion. Clearly, blacks in America have not had those opportunities. As Minister Louis Farrakhan said: “If we can’t get along together, then we need to separate.”
I’m a revolutionary white separatist, not a white supremacist. I don’t feel superior to any man because of the color of my skin but I understand that the Aryan people (making up only about eight percent of the world population) must have a separate land uninfluenced by other races or by the criminal government that occupies Washington D.C. I’m not naive enough to believe we can get it without a very bloody struggle.

More recently, I have established a working relationship with a faction of the Nation of Islam. We have held several meetings with representatives of the Nation and I am learning from them. They have a great deal of truth. Although I am a Christian and don’t agree with every teaching of Islam or the Nation, I do respect them and their faith.

QUESTION 4
Other than the black separatists, what other movements have you reached out to or had talks with. Have you met with any leftists?

ANSWER 4
We have attempted to reach out to other diverse movements. While I have not succeeded in pulling a meeting together with left wingers, I have participated in long discussions with them at demonstrations. In these discussions, they have admitted we have some common ground.
Stetson Kennedy, the famous anti-klan activist, author, and historian has corresponded with me and we have talked on the phone. Although I don’t agree with everything he stands for I respect him as a fellow activist. I believe he feels the same about me. You see, I’m not threatened by other philosophies and movements that oppose me. I believe the better cause will win in the end and so I respect anyone who gives 100 percent to their cause. I don’t respect people who waiver on their beliefs or are frightened to stand up for anything. In that regard I have even met with homosexual activists.

I certainly don’t agree with the queer lifestyle but as it turns out, even queers have some common ground with the Klan. They hate the government as well. They approached me about it and requested a meeting. All I can say is when blacks and queers are willing to look past our differences, sit down with the Klan and acknowledge common ground against the government, then the government is in deep shit.

QUESTION 5
In your publication, the Florida Interklan Report, you speak respectfully of Islam. Do you see Islam as a potential ally in the coming revolution?

ANSWER 5
Yes. Without question I can see the potential there. I am working with white separatists in Europe who are outreaching to Islam there. We are trying to form a worldwide web against Zionism. We are making some progress.

I think out relationship should be carefully approached because the masses, whether they be Christian or Muslim, are generally reactionary. While our leaders and leaders in other movements may understand the alliance, the majority of people on both sides will not understand. It will take time to develop a degree of trust on both sides but I think what we are trying to do scares the hell out of the Zionist-backed forces of the world, including the United States government.

Some people question how, if we are all separatists, we can stand together in peace and on common ground. well the various separatists don’t have a problem with each other, it’s the rest of the world with the problem. When we stand together and point a collective finger at the governments of the world, and the international financial interests, and expose them, and attack them as one, there is power in that. I will align with almost anyone who truly understands who the real enemy is but I will not bend my principles or beliefs to do it.

We are going to witness a worldwide revolution and if we are strong enough we can come out of it with power and a place of our own, if God is with us. Without God however, we are sure to become the enemy’s footstool. We must be committed to militant Christian action. The time for talk is over.

QUESTION 6
What do you think of the Unabomber?

ANSWER 6
How did that question get in here? Well, I haven’t read his manifesto so all I have is a media perspective, which is usually inaccurate.. However, I think the case in general defines some points totally unrelated to Theodore Kaczynski’s anti-technology sentiments.

First of all we see that Bob Marley’s words ring true when he sings “only your friend knows your secret, so only he could reveal it”. It’s usually those close to you who give you up.

This case also points to the hypocrisy of the government and clearly shows how the media is a tool of the government. The Unabomber killed a handful of people to make a political statement and he is held up as Satan incarnate. The government spent millions to find him (if they have indeed found him). If we truly place things in perspective, the Unabomber is a very small problem.

The U.S. government murders thousands of people every year in covert operations and terrorist activities around the world. This government brings crack cocaine into the country to finance foreign revolutions and distributes it in the major cities to break down families and maintain a sort of repressed anarchy in the land. In short, government, through its tool the media, uses these “high profile” cases to divert attention away from their own criminal activities.
I really don’t care about the Unabomber. I think we should stay focused on the real problems we are facing.

QUESTION 7
Many observers–secular and religious–feel that the year 2000, the new millennium, will usher in an age of chaos and revolution. Do you believe the millennium holds special relevance for your struggle?

ANSWER 7
I certainly hope the millennium ushers in an age of chaos and revolution because I understand that these things must occur before the cleansing can come. We are living in an age of chaos right now but many are shielded from its effects. As time goes by the chaos will certainly begin to hit home for many who are currently unaffected. This, in turn, may bring about revolution on a grand scale. My friend, Bruce Pierce, says the worse things get the better they look for us. I concur. And so we don’t stand in the way of race-mixing, homosexuality, or the hedonistic direction society has taken. Bring it on.

Our enemies definitely place great significance in the dawn of the new millennium. Because they do, I must also hold it up as a significant event. I’m not sure that I would come to the same conclusion on my own however. There is a new age on the horizon and if we do the right thing, it may well be our age to shine.

Though this interview was conducted with Mr. Baumgardner almost 4 years ago, the truths and ideas contained within it are still more then just ‘valid’, they are a way forward for all those who care about their culture and folks best interests. Few are they who are brave enough to admit the truths and step beyond the “right/left” mentallity regardless of others reactions.

Taken from Folk and Faith http://www.folkandfaith.com/articles/revklan.shtml

1. The idea which forms the basis of past events has a future if, on the one hand, its Being appeared in the past and manifested itself as an action-thought (i.e. as idea) and if, on the other hand, it is perceived in the present only as a bundle of deeds in which substantial and unsubstantial matters cannot be distinguished. The events of 1968 and their evaluation are characterised to this day by their being considered as opposites of positive and negative, where a third view does not seem to exist. The German uprising of 1968 had sufficient grounds which need to be explored if it is to be understood.

2. The magnitude of a historical Being can be seen in the intensity with which its appearance influences posterity. The denunciation campaign against participants of the uprising of 1968 in the government of the FRG, is a multiply reflected appearance which, owing to the fact that the Being of an idea appears in the appearance, hits the right people, namely the traitors of the 1968 idea: the chieftains of the Spontaneous Anarchists (“Spontis”) who lack all theories and the Communist dogmatists of the 1970s. The 70s were the decade of the social-democratic Communist counter-revolution; this was then inherited by the capitalistic reaction of the 1980s.

3. According to its historical Being, the German `68 was the second uprising against an occupying power since the 17th of June 1953. In accordance with the principle cuius regio eius oeconomia, the occupying powers imposed their obsolete systems of economy, politics and conviction (under violation of the Peoples’ right) onto their respective zones of occupation. The student uprising of 1968 in West Berlin and West Germany, against America and capitalism, was led by Central German students with the help of young academic fellow travellers of the West Zone (who often reproached their fathers of having been fellow travellers in the Third Reich as well as in Adenauer’s FRG).

4. According to Klaus Mehnert, 1968 was the first world revolution in history. It was undertaken by the youth of the industrial states against capitalism’s monetary rule, against its American-Israeli stronghold and for the Realm of Freedom. It was a successful seizure of verbal power, whose words in future first need to be understood by the German People, and then by the other Peoples of the world; otherwise, they will be unable to proceed to the seizure of power and to finally seize possession of their own countries. If, however, they become enabled to seize power, then the Fourth Age of Power will be initiated in the great Peoples of the world by the Fourth German Reich, where the Spirit rules and money, which ruled in the Third Age of Power, will be broken. The Realm of Freedom began with the world revolution of 1968 insofar as it was the victorious seizure of verbal power which will lead to the future seizure of power and possession of the Spirit as the Fourth Age of Power. But the meaning has yet to be correctly grasped, the words which have been heard yet need to be properly understood.

5. The struggle for the inner meaning of 1968, which has been fought for decades and which has currently broken out again, is a struggle for the continuation of the capitalistic economic system and for parliamentarianism as the political form in which money rules the world. The ideological defenders of monetary rule try to obscure the sense of `68 to the best of their abilities, and attempt to falsely attribute the counter-revolution of the 70s as well as the Americanisms of the sympathising youth of the Western Zone to the revolutionaries of `68. The ideological safeguarding of the capitalist rule of money is dependant on the success of this intensive propaganda of obscuring the meaning of 1968. If this smokescreen is torn down, then the seizure of verbal power of `68 will become virulent again, and the immediate task of breaking capitalism, i.e. the rule of money, will again be clear to the developed Peoples of the world. The situation will become dangerous and problematic for the powers in the background, who direct the destiny of the world through the streams of capital which they steer. For when the priority of the self-economies of the Peoples over the market economy is re-established after the next world crisis, the market on the whole, and as such also the capital market, will be put back into the marginal position to which it belongs.

6. The true, i.e. world-revolutionary, `68 begins in April 1965 with Rudi Dutschke determining the fixed-point of the strategy. Determined as this fixed-point, which was to be the starting point of the strategy, was the ultimate goal of the technological process which even then was clearly recognisable, and today is obvious: the “tendency of total unemployment” (R. Dutschke, Geschichte ist machbar, ed. Miermeister, Berlin 1980, p. 32) with simultaneous unemployed production. With this, the disappearance of the working class was presupposed. In developed countries, the revolution could now no longer be burdened onto the industrial workers. The tasks of the revolution had to be assumed by those who had the confidence to do so.

7. In such a situation, the ruling class is for the first time in world history no longer ordained to be the one which is fed by the masses, but on the contrary, the rulers have to feed the ruled. Rule now has a different meaning and content. Suppression no longer serves the privation of added value. Intellectual life itself is drowned in the sea of stupidities. Maintenance of power has now become the single focus of the rulers. Abstract power, however, is the self-abolition of the rule which has become abstract and has thus lost all its significance. The relationship between the rulers and the ruled has dialectically completely changed, and it is in this sense that the theoreticians of `68 always spoke of the end of the rule of man over (other) men, of self-determination and also of democracy qua self-determination of the Peoples as well as each individual person. For each person to be able to lead a self-determined life within his respectively self-determined People, was, is and always will be the ideal of all who feel committed to the idea of 1968.

8. In those days this Dutschkistic strategy was boldest utopia, which today is understood by many intelligent people. Due to the technical-industrial and scientific revolutions of the past decades Dutschkism has become even more comprehensible. It will determine all programmes and strategies of the twenty-first century. In all these strategies the rational organisation of the Realm of Necessity and as such the material provision of each People will only be the preliminary task, the organisation and structuring of the Realm of Freedom, however, will be the main task.

9. The International Vietnam Congress which was organised by the SDS (Socialist German Students’ Union) in February 1968 at the Technical University in West Berlin, was world historically the first internationale of the national revolutionaries. Our solidarity was with the Vietnamese revolution, the Vietnamese war for reunification, i.e. with a national revolution and not with conservativist, liberalist, socialist or other revolutions of a certain class. The categorical imperative that followed from this was quite rightly: “It is the duty of a revolutionary, to make the revolution happen!” We ourselves were the German revolutionaries, and the Communist students harvested derision whenever they drew our attention to the workers or even to trade union work.

10. It was against this national revolutionary principle of `68 that the social-democratic Communist counter-revolution arose in the 70s. In an ever reactionary fashion and with the double blade of reform and revolution, they posited the working class as the subject of history. It was confirmed in this by the farseeing powers of the conservatives and liberals, who in the revival of the class-struggle scheme sensed the chance for a revitalisation of their class rule, which indeed came about in the 1980s.

11. The counter-revolution of the 70s created the scene of the “Spontis” as a movement comprised out of the ruins of the losers, i.e. the hotchpotch of those fellow travellers of the Western Zone who were part of `68, but failed to return from this revolutionary awakening into the normality of the FRG. The national revolutionary line of the original `68 was maintained and continued to be persecuted in the successor organisations of the SDS. The Waffen-SDS (Red Army Fraction) took up the armed struggle and despite all tactical misjudgements and judicial mistakes, also hit legitimate targets of any national struggle of liberation. This manifested itself in assassinations of military personnel of the occupying power, in attacks against German collaborators and in the murder of a person who had betrayed the national revolutionary volksgemeinschaft to the interests of a class.

12. A further exponent of the national revolutionary line of the 70s was the Theory-SDS which continued to follow the theoretical programme of 1968 and brought it to a close in the mid 1980s. The national right-wing was then increasingly influenced by the original `68 movement with anti-capitalism and anti-Americanism from 1985 onwards, due to an alliance which had still been prepared by Dutschke. From 1990 onwards, the anti-capitalist moment increased as a result of the influx of Central German youths, who impressively defended themselves against the racially alien substitute occupiers in the folk-uprisings of Hoyerswerda and Rostock-Lichtenhagen. In the first half of the 90s the Theory-SDS introduced a programme and a theory to the awakening German national movement, which is based on the perfected theory of `68. The Theory-SDS reconstituted itself as the Deutsches Kolleg, as an educational institution of the national liberation movement of the Germans, which merged theory and terror – the weapon of theory and the theory of the weapon – in the year 2000. Both in its negative presupposition – the struggle of national liberation against the occupying power of monetary rule – as well as in its positive perspective – the organisation of the Realm of Freedom –, the idea of `68 contains an instruction of procedure for the German People (as well as all the other Peoples) which is rich in tradition, sated with the present and filled with the future.

13. Each nationalism begins at the many borders of its own nation, at the other nations, and as such as internationalism. Similarly, in economic life the market starts off at the boundary of the communities; it starts as a world market and has the inner market, which penetrates deeper and deeper inwardly and which ultimately necessitates the differentiated power of inland customs duty, as its final result. Nationalism is the truth of internationalism. Measure is the idea of Being.

14. The oldest and most despicable traitor of the `68 idea amongst the current members of the FRG government is Otto Schily. He is attempting to push the ban of the NPD through precisely because this party, which in 1968 still stood firmly behind the American occupying power and the capitalistic system of exploitation, has moved onto the most resolute anti-capitalist and anti-American course. This new political course of the NPD is borne by the German youth, in particular by the Central German youth. With the deployment of special units of the German Border Police, Schily has now spoken out a “Declaration of War against our Offspring” (Die Welt, 20.02.2001, p. 10). Dutschkism continues to live in this youth, whose feelings revolt against a system which in April 1968 managed to get a young worker from Saxony-Anhalt to shoot Rudi Dutschke.

15. Each person who is psychologically healthy, feels existential disgust towards capitalism, i.e. the rule of money. This disgust is insurmountable. Against this disgust, as well as the desire for salvation, capitalism will fail. Probably more ignominiously than Communism did.

DEUTSCHES KOLLEG www.deutsches-kolleg.org/

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.

Sociologically, the first theorist to identify this change was the Arab scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), who emphasized the tendency for mass urban societies to break down when the social solidarity characteristic of tribal and national societies disappeared. Ibn Khaldun saw dramatically the contrast between the morality of the nationalistic and ethnically unified Berbers of North Africa and the motley collation of peoples who called themselves Arabs under Arabic leadership, but did not possess the unity and sense of identity that had made the relatively small population of true Arabs who had built a widespread and Arabic-speaking Empire.

Later it was Ferdinand Tonnies (1855-1936) who introduced this thought to modern sociology. He did so in his theory of gemeinschaft and gesellschaft (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, 1887). This theory revealed how early tribal or national (gemeinschaft) societies achieved harmonious collaboration and cooperation more or less automatically due to the common culture and sense of common genetic and cultural identity in which all members were raised. This avoided major conflicts concerning basic values since all shared a common set of mores and a common sense of destiny.

However, as history progressed, larger multi-ethnic and multi-cultural societies began to develop, and these Tonnies described as being united by gesellschaft ties. These were not united by any common set of values or historical identity, and collaboration was only maintained due to the need to exchange goods and services. In short, their existence came to depend on economic relations, and as a result of the diversity of cultural values, the lack of any “family feeling,” and the emphasis on economic exchange and economic wealth, conflict over wealth and basic values was likely to disrupt the harmony of such societies at any time. In political terms, liberalism developed to eulogize the freedom of individuals from claims to national loyalty and support for national destiny, while Marxism grew out of the dissatisfaction felt by those who were less successful in achieving wealth and power, which now came to represent the primary goals of the individuals who were left at the mercy of the modern mass gesellschaft society. Nationalism and any sense of loyalty to the nation as a distinct ethnic, kinship unit came to be anathematized by both liberals and Marxists.

“A specter is haunting Europe—a specter of communism” wrote Marx in the preface of the Manifesto. A century later this specter became a mere phantom, with liberalism the dominant force. Over the last several decades, liberalism used communism as a scarecrow to legitimize itself. Today, however, with the bankruptcy of communism, this mode of “negative legitimation” is no longer convincing. At last, liberalism, in the sense of the emphasis on the individual above and even against that of the nation, actually endangers the individual by undermining the stability of the society which gives him identity, values, purpose and meaning, the social, cultural and biological nexus to which he owes his very being.

Fundamentally, classical liberalism was a doctrine which, out of an abstract individual, created the pivot of its survival. In its mildest form it merely emphasized individual freedom of action, and condemned excessive bureaucratic involvement by government. But praiseworthy though its defense of individual freedom was, its claim that the ideal system is that in which there is the least possible emphasis on nationhood leads to situations which in fact endanger the freedom of the individual. In its extreme form, classical liberalism has developed into universal libertarianism, and at this point it comes close to advocating anarchy.

From the sociological standpoint, in its extreme form, modern internationalist liberalism defines itself totally in terms of the gesellschaft society of Tonnies. It denies the historical concept of the nation state by rejecting the notion of any common interest between individuals who traditionally shared a common heritage. In the place of nationhood it proposes to generate a new international social pattern centered on the individual’s quest for optimal personal and economic interest. Within the context of extreme liberalism, only the interplay of individual interests creates a functional society—a society in which the whole is viewed only as a chance aggregate of anonymous particles.

The essence of modern liberal thought is that order is believed to be able to consolidate itself by means of all-out economic competition, that is, through the battle of all against all, requiring governments to do no more than set certain essential ground rules and provide certain services which the individual alone cannot adequately provide. Indeed, modern liberalism has gone so far along this path that it is today directly opposed to the goals of classical liberalism and libertarianism in that it denies the individual any inalienable right to property, but still shares with modern liberalism and with libertarianism an antagonism toward the idea of nationhood. Shorn of the protection of a society which identifies with its members because of a shared national history and destiny, the individual is left to grasp struggle for his own survival, without the protective sense of community which his forebears enjoyed since the earliest of human history.

Decadence in modern mass multicultural societies begins at a moment when there is no longer any discernable meaning within society. Meaning is destroyed by raising individualism above all other values, because rampant individualism encourages the anarchical proliferation of egotism at the expense of the values that were once part of the national heritage, values that give form to the concept of nationhood and the nation state, to a state which is more than just a political entity, and which corresponds to a particular people who are conscious of sharing a common heritage for the survival of which they are prepared to make personal sacrifices.

Man evolved in cooperating groups united by common cultural and genetic ties, and it is only in such a setting that the individual can feel truly free, and truly protected. Men cannot live happily alone and without values or any sense of identity: such a situation leads to nihilism, drug abuse, criminality and worse. With the spread of purely egotistic goals at the expense of the altruistic regard for family and nation, the individual begins to talk of his rights rather than his duties, for he no longer feels any sense of destiny, of belonging to and being a part of a greater and more enduring entity. He no longer rejoices in the secure belief that he shares in a heritage which it is part of his common duty to protect—he no longer feels that he has anything in common with those around him. In short, he feels lonely and oppressed. Since all values have become strictly personal, everything is now equal to everything; e.g., nothing equals nothing.

“A society without strong beliefs,” declared Regis Debray in his interview with J.P. Enthoven in Le Nouvel Observateur, (October 10, 1981), “is a society about to die.” Modern liberalism is particularly critical of nationalism. Hence, the question needs to be raised: Can modern liberal society provide strong unifying communal beliefs in view of the fact that on the one hand it views communal life as nonessential, while on the other, it remains impotent to envision any belief—unless this belief is reducible to economic conduct?

Moreover, there seems to be an obvious relationship between the negation and the eclipse of the meaning and the destruction of the historical dimension of the social corpus. Modern liberals encourage “narcissism”; they live in the perpetual now. In liberal society, the individual is unable to put himself in perspective, because putting himself in perspective requires a clear and a collectively perceived consciousness of common heritage and common adherence. As Regis Debray remarks, “In the capacity of isolated subjects men can never become the subjects of action and acquire the capability of making history” (Critique de la raison politique, op. cit. p. 207). In liberal societies, the suppression of the sense of meaning and identity embedded in national values leads to the dissolution of social cohesion as well as to the dissolution of group consciousness. This dissolution, in turn, culminates in the end of history.

Being the most typical representative of the ideology of equalitarianism, modern liberalism, in both its libertarian and socialist variants, appears to be the main factor in this dissolution of the ideal of nationhood. When the concept of society, from the sociological standpoint, suggests a system of simple ‘horizontal interactions,’ then this notion inevitably excludes social form. As a manifestation of solidarity, society can only be conceived in terms of shared identity—that is, in terms of historical values and cultural traditions (cf. Edgar Morin: “The communal myth gives society its national cohesion.”)

By contrast, liberalism undoes nations and systematically destroys their sense of history, tradition, loyalty and value. Instead of helping man to elevate himself to the sphere of the superhuman, it divorces him from all ‘grand projects’ by declaring these projects ‘dangerous’ from the point of view of equality. No wonder, therefore, that the management of man’s individual well-being becomes his sole preoccupation. In the attempt to free man from all constraints, liberalism brings man under the yoke of other constraints which now downgrade him to the lowest level. Liberalism does not defend liberty; it destroys the independence of the individual. By eroding historical memories, liberalism extricates man from history. It proposes to ensure his means of existence, but robs him of his reason to live and deprives him of the possibility of having a destiny.

There are two ways of conceiving of man and society. The fundamental value may be placed on the individual, and when this is done the whole of mankind is conceived as the sum total of all individuals—a vast faceless proletariat—instead of as a rich fabric of diverse nations, cultures and races. It is this conception that is inherent in liberal and socialist thought. The other view, which appears to be more compatible with man’s evolutionary and socio-biological character, is when the individual is seen as enjoying a specific biological and cultural legacy—a notion which recognizes the importance of kinship and nationhood. In the first instance, mankind, as a sum total of individuals, appears to be “contained” in each individual human being; that is, one becomes first a “human being,” and only then, as by accident, a member of a specific culture or a people. In the second instance, mankind comprises a complex phylogenetic and historic network, whereby the freedom of the individual is guaranteed by the protection of family by his nation, which provide him with a sense of identity and with a meaningful orientation to the entire world population. It is by virtue of their organic adherence to the society of which they are a part that men build their humanity.

As exponents of the first concept we encounter Descartes, the Encyclopaedists, and the emphasis on “rights”; nationality and society emanate from the individual, by elective choice, and are revokable at any time. As proponents of the second concept we find J.G. Herder and G.W. Leibniz, who stress the reality of cultures and ethnicity. Nationality and society are rooted in biological, cultural and historical heritage.

The difference between these two concepts becomes particularly obvious when one compares how they visualize history and the structure of the real. Nationalists are proponents of holism. Nationalists see the individual as a kinsman, sustained by the people and community, which nurtures and protects him, and with which he is proud to identify. The individual’s actions represent an act of participation in the life of his people, and freedom of action is very real because, sharing in the values of his associates, the individual will seldom seek to threaten the basic values of the community with which he identifies. Societies which lack this basic sense of national unity are inherently prone to suffer from repeated situations wherein the opposing values of its egotistical members conflict with each other.

Furthermore, proponents of nationhood contend that a society or a people can survive only when: a) they remain aware of their cultural and historical origins; b) when they can assemble around a mediator, be it individual, or symbolic, who is capable of reassembling their energies and catalyzing their will to have a destiny; c) when they can retain the courage to designate their enemy. None of these conditions have been realized in societies that put economic gain above all other values, and which consequently: a) dissolve historical memories; b) extinguish the sublime and eliminate subliminal ideals; c) assume that it is possible not to have enemies.

The results of the rapid change from national or tribal-oriented societies to the modern, anti-national individualism prevalent in contemporary “advanced” societies have been very well described by Cornelius Castoriadis: “Western societies are in absolute decomposition. There is no longer a vision of the whole that could permit them to determine and apply any political action … Western societies have practically ceased to be [nation] states … Simply put, they have become agglomerations of lobbies which, in a myopic manner, tear the society apart; where nobody can propose a coherent policy, and where everybody is capable of blocking an action deemed hostile to his own interests.” (Liberation, 16 and 21 December, 1981).

Modern liberalism has suppressed patriotic nationhood into a situation in which politics has been reduced to a “delivery service” decision-making process resembling the economic “command post,” statesmen have been reduced to serving as tools for special interest groups, and nations have become little more than markets. The heads of modern liberal states have no options but to watch their citizenry being somatized by civilizational ills such as violence, delinquency, and drugs.

Ernst Junger once remarked that the act of veiled violence is more terrible than open violence. (Journal IV, September 6, 1945). And he also noted: “Slavery can be substantially aggravated when it assumes the appearance of liberty.” The tyranny of modern liberalism creates the illusion inherent in its own principles. It proclaims itself for liberty and cries out to defend “human rights” at the moment when it oppresses the most. The dictatorship of the media and the “spiral of silence” appear to be almost as effective in depriving the citizenry of its freedom by imprisonment. In the West, there is no need to kill: suffice it to cut someone’s microphone. To kill somebody by silence is a very elegant kind of murder, which in practice yields the same dividends as a real assassination—an assassination which, in addition, leaves the assassin with good conscience. Moreover, one should not forget the importance of such a type of assassination. Rare are those who silence their opponents for fun.

Patriotic nationhood does not target the notion of “formal liberties,” as some rigorous Marxists do. Rather, its purpose is to demonstrate that “collective liberty,” i.e., the liberty of peoples to be themselves and to continue to enjoy the privilege of having a destiny, does not result from the simple addition of individual liberties. Proponents of nationhood instead contend that the “liberties” granted to individuals by liberal societies are frequently nonexistent; they represent simulacra of what real liberties should be. It does not suffice to be free to do something. Rather, what is needed is one’s ability to participate in determining the course of historical events. Societies dominated by modern liberal traditions are “permissive” only insofar as their general macrostability strips the populace of any real participation in the actual decision-making process. As the sphere in which the citizenry is permitted to “do everything” becomes larger, the sense of nationhood becomes paralyzed and loses its direction.

Liberty cannot be reduced to the sentiment that one has about it. For that matter, both the slave and the robot could equally well perceive themselves as free. The meaning of liberty is inseparable from the founding anthropology of man, an individual sharing a common history and common culture in a common community. Decadence vaporizes peoples, frequently in the gentlest of manners. This is the reason why individuals acting as individuals can only hope to flee tyranny, but cooperating actively as a nation they can often defeat tyranny.

http://www.geocities.com/integral_tradition/society.html