Saturday, December 03rd, 2005

Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, a leading Scottish opponent of the Treaty of Union with England in 1707, provided us with a most perceptive definition of nationalism:

“Show me a true patriot, and I will show you a lover not merely of his own country, but of all mankind. Show me a spurious patriot, a bombastic fire-eater, and I will show you a rascal. Show me a man who loves other countries equally with his own and I will show you a man entirely deficient in a sense of proportion. But show me a man who respects the rights of all nations, while ready to defend the rights of his own against them all, and I will show you a man who is both a nationalist and an internationalist.”

From that, it is easy enough to see where the confusion has arisen today between “patriotism” and “nationalism”. The saying about patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel is often indeed the truth, by the latter-day definition of patriotism as being loyalty to the existing State (in whatever form) and its institutions… Thus “patriotism” on its own is really just a commitment to the maintenance of the status quo. We have seen too many profiteering wars, too many acts against the interests of the nations and their people disguised and justified in fervent flag-waving, to doubt the accuracy of the statement. A good nationalist will reject the institutions of the State and the system, if they no longer serve the interests of the Nation. Yet nowadays it is “nationalism” which is the vilified concept, smeared in negative connotations, despite its true definition being that given by Fletcher of Saltoun; while “patriotism” is of course permissable…. since it effectively endorses the existing power structure, economic system, and Establishment.

Monday, November 28th, 2005

This is one of the most insightful passages on the issue of race. How ironic that a left-anarchist is far more honest about the question than self-styled “conservatives” in this country.

It also sheds light on the fact of why establishment conservatives are “anti-racists” who say that “race doesn’t matter.” To the plutocracy, a human being is not a creature with a mind, a culture, or any kind of identity, but simply a unit of production and consumption. Therefore race naturally “doesn’t matter” to those who think in strictly economic terms.

Because of that, Multinational corporations are usually amongst the biggest supporters of anti-racism you will find anywhere. Its important to understand the link between late capitalism and antiracism, how we went from being producer to consumer societies. Late capitalism is a grossly inefficient economic system. It produces far more junk than anyone can possible consume. So it sets out in search of new markets. In fact, the advertising industry is constantly creating new markets from scratch, simply by creating needs where they previously did not exist before. And this is another one of the big reasons there is so much emphasis on ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’ these days. Business likes to create all sorts of fetishes and lifestyles in order to create new markets. Also, the vast majority of potential consumers in this world are non-Europeans. Western markets are typically highly saturated as well. Businesses are targeting and appealing to this demographic.
more…

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2005

Inspiration from France

This article appeared in the October 2001 issue of ‘Middle American News’ in the USunder the title ‘French Manifesto Could Be Basis For A New Political Movement’.

The Centre for Research and Study on European Civilisation (Groupement de Recherche et d’Études sur la Civilisation Européene – GRECE) was founded in France in 1968. It is the most prominent representative of the European New Right (Nouvelle Droite) – which is in no way to be confused with the Anglo-American free-market New Right – and is closely identified with its leading member, Alain de Benoist.

The European New Right is, in de Benoist’s own words, ‘in no sense a political movement, but rather a current of thought and cultural action’ (Interview for Right Now magazine, April 1997 – echoing the opening lines of the ‘Manifesto of the New Right’ below). Its activities encompass the publishing of magazines and books, the organisation of conferences and debates and so forth, rather than either electioneering of paramilitary action. De Benoist himself has published something in the region of forty books – among them Vu de Droite (Seen from the Right) for which he was awarded a prize by the Académie Française in 1978 – and either founded or been associated with a number of magazines (Nouvelle École, Éléments and Krisis).
more…

Sunday, November 20th, 2005

The European New Right (ENR) presents itself as a contradictory phenomenon. While many of its arguments sound radical and original, they owe a great deal to traditional European thought — especially Catholic organicism. Although the ENR has rejected the far Right, some questionable links remain. Despite this, it may become the ideology of choice for those intellectuals still opposed to capitalism — a possible place for that intellectually-honest part of the Left attempting to come to terms both with the collapse of “really existing socialism” and a triumphant Western consumerist society predicated on managerial-therapeutic capitalism.

The ENR cannot be understood independently of its history. As Marco Tarchi, a leader of the Italian New Right put it: “What we must do today is to illuminate the fundamental novelty of the New Right, to put the emphasis on the term ‘new’ and no longer on the term ‘Right.’ Otherwise we will still be clinging to the heritage of the decrepit and worm-eaten currents of thought of the 1950s and 1960s which, in the face of all opposition, are still churning out the same old slogans with their whole perception of reality built around bygone political divisions. The desire to restore chauvinistic nationalisms is part of this archaic way of thinking. . . . It is up to us, to our generation, definitively to surpass these outworn ideas.”[1]

The ENR has made a major effort to break with its far Right roots. In this sense, it is misleading to call a tendency strongly opposed both to Anglo-American conservatism (with its emphasis on bourgeois individualism, capitalism, and property rights) and traditional Continental conservatism (with its emphasis on monarchy and Church) “right-wing.” The conventional notion of “right-wing” in the Anglo-American context is so different from what the ENR represents that it is almost useless when it comes to describing the latter phenomenon.
more…

Tuesday, November 15th, 2005

Most philosophers, in all periods of history, have at some point discussed suicide, and either condemned it or justified it in various ways.

Aristotle condemns suicide absolutely, regarding it as an injustice committed against oneself and against the City, and as an act of cowardice, opposed to virtue. For Plato, even if the philosopher aspires to leave this body, in which the soul is jailed, and to return to the world of the Ideas, as a mere man he has no right to decide by himself the moment of at which his soul may leave his body, since it is the Divinity which put him there. Besides, the philosopher, through a Divine gift, possesses the privilege of contemplating supreme reality and the Idea of the Good, and thus of discovering that evil is a lack, an ignorance. It is the duty of the philosopher to try to share this truth with other men. So long as he is alive, he must work for Good in the City. Basically, one who commits suicide does it out of ignorance of the true Good. However, Plato is more moderate than Platonism. He admits three exceptional situations in which he tolerates suicide: condemnation, a very painful and incurable disease, and a miserable fate.
more…

Friday, November 11th, 2005

Taken from Crikey

Crikey reporter Jane Nethercote writes:Last night, a gig going under the name of “Rock Against Racism” was to be held at the student union’s SAMbar at Macquarie University. The event was all about raising money for an African community centre. It was also an effort by students to create a public front of solidarity for an open and tolerant society – most specifically to try and counteract the damage done to Macquarie University’s reputation by Andrew Fraser, the controversial professor who opposes non-white immigration and was banned from teaching at the Sydney university earlier this year.

But according to organisers, the bar’s management cancelled the gig a week ago – apparently after receiving a threat from a right wing or neo-nazi group – citing a “duty of care” to their patrons. They could have beefed up security, says one of the organisers L’amahz Bah, President of the African Communities Council, but instead they cancelled the event without consultation – and without detailing the nature of the threat. It was an “act of cowardice really,” says Joseph Pugliese, associate professor of the Department of Critical and Cultural Studies. Students and staff are “pretty disappointed” – staff had been very supportive of the event (the gig appeared in the university’s staff newsletter).And Pugliese agrees with Bah that the reasons for cancelling are “problematic,” given that a forum held two months ago to debate Fraser’s convictions received similar neo-nazi threats, but went ahead after security had been increased. So there’s a precedent for overcoming these kinds of threats, he says.
more…

Wednesday, November 09th, 2005
NEW RIGHT is metapolitical beyond movements and organisations.

NEW RIGHT seeks to influence all parties and none.

NEW RIGHT puts intellect before dogma.

NEW RIGHT puts common sense before the party line.

NEW RIGHT will raise ideas above economics.

NEW RIGHT stands for tradition against modernity.

NEW RIGHT adds substance to human will.

NEW RIGHT gives meaning to action.

NEW RIGHT is virile and uranian, not impotent or tellurian.

NEW RIGHT meets chaos and discord with transversal solutions.

NEW RIGHT rejects egalitarianism and political correctness.

NEW RIGHT is elitist and anti-democratic.

NEW RIGHT defends the sacred against the profane.

NEW RIGHT is opposed to mass societies and plebian dictorship.

NEW RIGHT stands for pan-Europa against American hegemony.

NEW RIGHT is polytheistic and supports diversity.

NEW RIGHT promotes the individual above individualism.

NEW RIGHT heals division with synthesis.

NEW RIGHT pursues a global agenda against globalisation.