Thursday, December 22, 2005

In the wild and mythical landscape of Norway survived the old Indo-European word for the midwinter feast: Jul.
(Extract from J.C. Dahl - Fra Stalheim, 1842. Norway National Gallery)
God Jul (Merry Christmas)
from the New Right Australia / New Zealand
Posted by Picasa
Yule - midwinter celebration

Yule, or more precisely ‘Jul’ is a Nordic name for the heathen feast that was celebrated in the middle of January. There were at least two such feasts or offerings every year in Scandinavia, one in midsummer and one in midwinter.

While the English and Americans have their “Christmas” (‘The Mass of Jesus Christ’) and the Germans their “Weihnachten” (‘Holy Night’) the Nordic countries still have the original ancient word ‘jul’. Since the word occurs in different variations in other Germanic languages, it is likely to believe that the ‘jul’ celebration was a common Germanic feast.

The use of the word ‘Xmas’ is of cause due to the Americans' love for simplifications, Xmas is Christmas and the ‘X’ is also a symbol for the cross. The word is close to a pictorial word.

Yule - or more correctly ‘jul’ utmost origin and actual meaning is still somehow unclear since it is truly very ancient, but we can concrete trace the word back about 2000 years, even though it’s older than that. Today the Nordic people (Sweden, Denmark and Norway) all say ‘jul’, and they use the word in plural, and that indicates that there have been several feasts, a festival period.

The first time we hear about the word is in the poem by the Norwegian ‘skald’ (poet) Torbjørn Hornklove, ‘Haraldskvadet’ (The poetry for Harold’), from about 900. He writes about ‘drikke jul’ (‘drinking jul’). The saga tells us that people were gathering and brewing beer to be drink in memory of the gods. The beer drinking in honour of the gods was to increase the growth and to make peace.

“This memorial drinking was not to go away from the heathen tradition. The expression “at drekka jol”, to drink Christmas, was the common expression for Christmas celebrations even in the 16th century. The god of jul had the name Jolne, and that was Odin. We can find this name in a poem called ‘Jolna sumbl’. It means intoxicant of Odin. The beer drinking gave people courage to turn to the gods.” (source - the Viking Network)

In the wild and mythical landscape of Norway survived the old Indo-European word for the midwinter feast: Jul. (Extract from J.C. Dahl - Fra Stalheim, 1842. Norway National Gallery)
A few centuries later we find the word in Old-English “geohul”, but this word does not survive and in modern times the English looks north and borrow “yule” from Scandinavian languages. The same is story behind the Germans’ “Jul”.

The oldest source we can trace is in Gothic, a extinct German language that is preserved through a Bible translation that was made about 300 B.C. Bishop Wulfila (310-383) is most likely the translator, and thanks to him we have glance into early German in generality and the Gothic branch in special. The fantastic Silver Bible, that is stored and preserved in Uppsala, Sweden, is a transcript from about the 500-century of the above translation.

Even though the word ‘jul’ does not exist in the Bible there is a fragment of a calendar in the translation where the word “jiuleris” stands for the Christmas month” (Staffan Hammerman).
Scientist regards that the word “jehwla” is the oldest trace of the Common-German form. What it means is still debated. What we do know is that symbols used to represent “jul” are evergreen trees, yule log, holly, eight-spoked wheel, wreaths, spinning wheels. ‘Jul’ means “feast” and allegorical even “wheel”.

Why wheel?

Yule is also known as the Winter Solstice, Alban Arthan, Finn's Day, Festival of Sol, Yuletide, Great Day of the Cauldron, and Festival of Growth. It is celebrated between December 20th and 22nd. The reason it varies from year to year is that it depends on when the Sun reaches the southern most point in its yearly cycle.

A cycle is represented as a wheel, like the snake that bites it’s own tail. The celebration of the cycle of nature and a reaffirmation of the continuation of life where the Beginning meets the End like Death meets Birth.

“And from time immemorial, Yule has been a time of peace and charity. In Norway, work had to be reduced to a minimum, and no wheels were to be turned, for that would show impatience with the great wheel in the sky, the sun. As part of this time-- called Julafred, or Peace of Christmas -- neither bird, beast nor fish is trapped, shot or netted.” See

The root word for “jul” aka “Yule” came from the aboriginal Scandinavians, and in Norwegian we have the word “hjul” for “wheel”. The two words “jul” and “hjul” are nearly identical!

Still, in spite of the beauty of the above similarity, linguistics does not longer associate “jul” with “wheel” and they regard the connection to be a popular myth. Damn! “Jul” aka “Yule” has always meant concrete a feast, the festival at the Winter Solstice. The word for wheel, on the other hand, came from the Indo-Europeans who migrated to Scandinavia around 3800 BC. The daily use of wheels did not start until about 2500 BC!

God jul (Merry Christmas) !

The Myth of Equality

Jon Smith

Every age has had a foundational legend, an underlying mythos reflecting the zeitgeist of the era. Those of us who live in the contemporary West live in the shadow of the Myth of Equality. Our political and social institutions operate on the assumption that humans are fundamentally equal and that any real world inequalities are therefore aberrant and in need of coercive redress. Hiring, firing, entrance into insitutions of higher learning, even our speech patterns, all are dictated by egalitarian principles. We deify the champions of equality as saints of rationality and demonize its opponents as backwoods mouthbreathers or jackbooted thugs. What then are the roots and results of the Myth of Equality?

Equality: Origins of a Myth Given the way in which the Myth of Equality is packaged and marketed, its origins are rather surprising. Despite being trumpeted as the product of Enlightenment rationalism, and the "logical" choice for the thinking human, egalitarianism is rooted not in scientific evidence or rational inquiry, but rather in Christian theology and metaphysics. Indeed, empirical reality and science remain key stumbling blocks for egalitarian thinkers, for they reveal that human beings are NOT equal, but instead possess widely varying aptitudes and abilities. The simple reality is that some humans are vastly more capable than others, and thus, in a practical sense, are vastly superior to those who are less well endowed. As a result, egalitarians are forced to resort to an essentially metaphysical argument, that humans have equal "moral" or "spiritual" worth and essence, and thus deserve equal treatment. This assumption is, of course, rooted not in rational observation, but in Christian scripture, and derives ultimately from the notion that all humans are equal before God (cf. Galatians 3:26-29, Acts 10:34-35-17:26). Obviously, this gives lie to the rationalist veil in which egalitarians like to cloak themselves (and explains why egalitarians are curiously reluctant to introduce empirical evidence for their positions, while racialists, ethnic nationalists, anti-feminists and other non-egalitarians are able to back their positions up with copious statistical and empirical fact).

Social Consequences of the Myth of Equality

Their are, of course, dangers inherent in accepting myths uncritically, and the Myth of Equality is no exception. The ramifications of egalitarianism are manifest and manifold.1. The Myth of Equality penalizes the gifted and creates a society of mediocrity. Superior humans, those who are the most capable and most gifted, are systematically shortchanged in the effort to benefit their inferiors (affirmative action is one example of this process). Excellence is viewed with suspicion, and is certainly not rewarded. The end result is an "equality" of uniform mediocrity, a situation that is both counterproductive (obviously) and unnatural (evolution favors differentiation, hierarchy and the advancement of superior life).

2. The Myth of Equality leads to the degeneration of values and ideals. Honor, fidelity and transcendence are aristocratic virtues (that is, they are the virtues of superior men), and, as such, have no place in a society of "equals." The result, not surprisingly, is social decay. Broken homes, broken families, crime, vice, shortsightedness and greed, these are the fruits of egalitarianism. Even art is affected by the malign hand of egalitarianism, for egalitarian society directs all its energies towards the pacification and deification of "The Average Man" (in mathematical terms, the Lowest Common Denominator). The result is meaningless "art," tending towards shock schlock or simply bubblegum. This too is a travesty.

The truth, of course, is that there is no such thing as "equality." Human beings are different, not equal. Thus, human beings deserve, not equal treatment, but treatment befitting their abilities and value to society. The dangerous, irrational Myth of Equality must be rejected, for it is ultimately nothing more than a social cancer eating away the very fabric of civilized society.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Right and Wrong Racism

by Richard McCulloch

Reductionism and extremism both try to keep things simple. Reductionism attempts to reduce the complex to the simple, both in matters of type, kind or form, and causality. Where there are many types or forms, differing in both minor and major degrees, reductionism -- unable or unwilling to make distinctions -- claims there is only one type or form. Where there are many different causes combining to produce an effect, reductionism insists there is only one cause.

Extremism, the other product of simplistic thinking, defines an issue only in terms of its two extreme positions, denying the possible existence of alternative positions between the two extremes. For the extremist there is no middle ground, only one extreme or the other. Non-support for one extreme position is equated with support of the opposite extreme position. The problem with simplistic thinking, whether reductionism or extremism, is that in a world of almost infinite complexity and variety it rarely provides an accurate or truthful portrayal of reality.

This problem is particularly acute in the fields of definition and categorization. For example, racism -- the subject of this chapter -- is a term that is frequently subject to simplistic definitions. It is common to define racism as having only one cause and existing in only one form, or being of a uniform type. Definitions that describe a wide variation in types of racism, and a great diversity in causes or motives for racism, are conspicuous by their absence. Furthermore, the single uniform type that racism is usually reduced to in these simplistic definitions is almost always of an extremist character. In the hope of correcting the distortions, misconceptions and inaccuracies inherent in simplistic definitions, a more complete definition of racism, in its variety of forms, kinds and types, causes and motives, will be presented here.

Racism can be broadly defined as including any ideology -- or system of ideas, values, ethics and beliefs -- in which race and racial differences are recognized and regarded as valuable and important. It can also be defined as the opposite of racial nihilism, which denies race and racial differences and regards them as being without value or importance. In terms of causality or motive racism can be based on a wide variety of opposites, as can its own opposite -- racial nihilism. It can be based on love or hate, knowledge or ignorance, idealism or realism, loyalty or envy, benevolence or malice. [Note 1] These different bases, causes or motives can themselves interact and blend in such a wide variety of combinations that it is often difficult to determine which cause is primary and which secondary. In sum, the motives or reasons for racism are as varied and complex as anything involving humanity is likely to be. But for purposes of discussion they can be divided into the following categories -- factual beliefs, ethical beliefs, values and emotions.

Racism based on factual beliefs includes the racism based on the belief that one race is superior to another, as the belief in racial superiority -- whether factually right or wrong -- is a factual belief. (This factual belief is often improperly criticized on ethical rather than factual grounds by racial egalitarians who demand that all factual beliefs conform to their ethical beliefs.) Also included in this category is the racism based on the factual belief in significant racial differences and variation -- independent of issues of superiority or inferiority -- coupled with the factual belief that it would be biologically beneficial for life and humanity to preserve that diversity. The racism based on a religious conviction that it is fulfilling the divine will is also included in the category of factual belief.

Racism based on ethical beliefs includes the racism that supports racial rights and affirms the right of all races to life, independence (racial self-determination or liberty) and the conditions of racial separation required for both. At the other end of the ethical spectrum, but also included in the category of racism based on ethical beliefs, is the racism which rejects and denies racial rights in favor of a racial competition for territory, dominance, mastery and existence -- a struggle for racial survival unrestricted by moral considerations. This form of racism -- here designated as immoral racism -- is based on the ethical belief that there are no racial rights. This belief makes it the opposite of the racism -- here designated as moral racism -- that is based on the ethical belief in racial rights. Ironically, racial nihilism -- the opposite of racism in terms of its denial and rejection of the importance and value of race -- also denies and rejects racial rights, sharing this belief in common with immoral racism, and as a consequence also favors conditions (specifically, multiracialism) in which racial existence is not protected or secure, but is threatened with destruction by racial competition, replacement and intermixture.

Racism based on values includes the racism which regards the qualities of one race -- usually one's own -- as more important or desirable than those of other races. Values both influence and are influenced by -- and are closely connected with -- emotions, feelings and esthetic sensibilities that are deeply rooted in the human psyche, often subjective, and perhaps partially innate or genetic in origin. These can be either positive or negative. There are innumerable gradations or degrees of both positive and negative emotions, with love being the most positive and hate the most negative. There are many different definitions of both love and hate, but for general purposes love can be defined as a strong positive emotion or feeling and hate as a strong negative emotion. In terms of causality, the critics of racism commonly define it as motivated or caused exclusively by hate, or even as synonymous with racial hate. But there is both more than one type of racism and more than one cause. Each type has its own cause, and each cause creates its own type or form.

The emotions of love and hate are often the positive and negative poles of the same emotion, for as it is normal to love that which represents one's values, so it is also normal to hate that which represents the antithesis of one's values. Similarly, it is normal to hate that which threatens one's values with harm or destruction. This type of hate is a derivative emotion of love, with love being the originating, primary, active and determining emotion, motive or cause and hate being a derivative, secondary and reactive response to perceived threats. These two emotions, the one derived from the other, are often confused as to primacy, but they are different poles of the same emotion, their existence inseparably connected.

Although the role of love as a cause of racism is seldom admitted by its critics, who prefer to define racism in strictly negative terms, the fact is that the forms of racism based on values are most commonly caused or motivated by the positive emotion of love. Probably the most common form of racism may be simply defined as the love of one's race, a positive emotion which evokes feelings of loyalty to the interests of one's race and a desire to preserve it. Since the critics of racism presently enjoy a status of cultural dominance, and usually deny the possibility of any positive motivation for racism, the existence of the form of racism based on love for one's race and loyalty to its interests is not generally recognized. Therefore the most common form of racism is not recognized as such, and its existence is largely unconscious and invisible, repressed by cultural norms that discourage the expression of love for one's race.

The person who loves their own race may or may not love other races also, but if they do it need not be expected that their love or positive emotions for other races should be equal to what they feel for their own. It is normal to have a wide range of different emotions and feelings for different things, including different races, to value some more than others, to have preferences, likes and dislikes, and to discriminate on the basis of those preferences. It is abnormal to have the same or equal feelings or emotions for all things, including all races. Yet this is the egalitarianism of emotions, feelings and esthetic sensibilities, or emotional reductionism -- the reduction of a complex and diverse variety of different types, intensities and degrees of emotion to a single, uniform emotion in accordance with the egalitarian principles of agapic love -- that racial egalitarianism requires. It opposes the valuing or loving of one race -- normally one's own -- more than other races, and condemns as immoral any person who values or loves one race -- normally their own -- more than other races, or who values or loves different races unequally, or in different or unequal degrees.

Racism caused by values and love also includes the racism that values or loves human racial diversity and consequently supports racial preservation, and which may or may not love and value all the diverse races equally in accordance with the egalitarian principles of agapic love. The love of racial diversity is a love of humanity which has much in common with the love of nature. The love of humanity does not require that all the parts of humanity be loved equally, just as the love of nature does not require that all the parts of nature be loved equally. Love is not a level emotion, but an uneven emotion of infinite degrees and variety. Every individual loves different things differently. It is one of the things that defines individuality. But it is most natural to love most that part of nature to which one belongs, the part of which we ourselves are a part.

As the causality of racism cannot be reduced to a single cause, so racism cannot be reduced to a single form. The forms of racism are as varied as the causes. Each cause results in a different form, each with its own goals and methods, ends and means. For the moral forms of racism the goal is racial preservation and continuation, independence and liberty. For the immoral forms the goal is racial supremacy or mastery -- the ruling, controlling or subjugation of other races -- often attended by exploitation, victimization or, in the most extreme versions, genocide or racial destruction.

The most important distinction between the different types or forms of racism is the one based on morality. This moral distinction is determined by their different ethical beliefs, goals or ends, and methods or means of achieving those goals. There are moral and immoral ethical beliefs and values, moral and immoral goals or ends, and moral and immoral methods or means. Morality, like human rights, is a social construct. It is willed into existence by the members of a society. Its purpose is to direct and regulate behavior and relationships so as to serve and promote the general good, the interests of the society or racial continuum as a whole. Morality can be positive, requiring certain actions, or negative, forbidding certain actions, but its purpose remains the same. In practice morality can be defined as constructive behavior which promotes the preservation and continuation of life. Immorality is behavior that is destructive, either of oneself or others, or of one's own race or other races.

A fundamental principle of morality is respect and support for the legitimate rights and interests of all, of others as well as oneself, the famous "Golden Rule" of reciprocity. In terms of morality, the primary distinction between the different forms of racism is between those which recognize, affirm, respect, support and promote the legitimate rights and interests of all races -- the "Racial Golden Rule" -- and those which do not. Moral racism does, immoral racism does not. The distinction between moral and immoral racism is similar to the distinction between moral and immoral individualism. The defining characteristic of individualism is the assertion and promotion of individual rights and interests. The defining characteristic of racism is the assertion and promotion of racial rights and interests. The difference or distinction between the moral and immoral forms of individualism and racism is that the moral forms respect and promote the rights and interests of all individuals and races, while the immoral forms only respect the rights and interests of the subject's own self and race. This excessive subjectivity results in the denial and violation of the rights and interests of other individuals and races.

Moral racism can be defined as the recognition, affirmation and promotion of legitimate racial rights and interests, [Note 2] especially the primary or vital -- or life-essential -- right of a race to racial life (continued existence or preservation) and independence (control of its own life or existence in all spheres -- political, social, economic and cultural). Immoral racism and racial nihilism can both be defined as ideologies that deny and violate racial rights, the difference being that the immoral racist violates the rights of other races -- sometimes as an end in itself, but more commonly as a means to the end of benefiting their own race -- while the racial nihilist denies and violates the rights of all races in general, and of their own race in particular.

The forms of racism that have traditionally been defined, recognized, promoted and practiced as racism generally do not recognize or promote racial rights. Specifically, they have not upheld the rights of different races to life (continued existence), liberty (independence) and the pursuit of their own evolutionary destiny, or to the exclusive possession of their own territory as required for the realization of these rights. In fact, the forms of racism that have traditionally been defined and practiced as such have denied and violated these rights. The extent of their violation and denial of the rights of other races has varied. Some have been restricted or governed in some degree by moral considerations, so their violation of the rights of other races has not been total, while others have been virtually unchecked by such concerns. Moral racism has not yet been practiced as the guiding principle of racial relations.

Before moral racism can be practiced its existence -- or at least its possibility -- must first be generally recognized. But the very concept of a moral form of racism is viewed with suspicion and doubt, or outright denied, in a culture long conditioned to racial nihilist ideology. The only forms of racism commonly recognized as existing, or even being possible, are immoral forms, and these usually of the most extreme varieties. As a result, and fully consistent with the tenets of reductionism and extremism, the recognized alternative positions on racial matters have been reduced to the two extremes of racial nihilism and immoral racism, both of which deny and violate racial rights.

Extremism views a given matter as limited to two opposite extreme positions without other alternatives, as one or the other, either-or. Both extremes on the issue of race claim that there is no alternative to their position other than the opposite extreme, and deny or ignore other alternatives, insisting they do not really exist, or even that they cannot exist. Thus racial nihilism claims that the only alternative to its multiracialist version of racial destruction and violation of racial rights is the supremacist version promoted by immoral racism, and that any deviation from racial nihilism leads by inexorable extremist logic to acts of genocide against other races. Likewise, immoral racism claims that the only alternative to its supremacist version of racial destruction and violation of racial rights is the multiracialist version promoted by racial nihilism, and that any opposition to immoral racism is the equivalent of promoting multiracialism and racial destruction by intermixture and replacement.

Both claims are typical of the simplistic reductionist view of causality and form, reducing the complex and diverse to the simple and uniform. Neither will consider or admit the existence of an alternative that promotes racial rights, preservation and independence. Consequently, the racial issue has only been presented and defined in the form of its two opposite destructive extremes, with other alternatives or choices denied and excluded from consideration. The only choice offered is between different versions of racial destruction. But human racial diversity needs another choice, a better choice, an alternative that recognizes and defends racial rights and promotes racial preservation.

The distinction between morality and immorality often coincides with the distinction between preservation and destruction. Moral actions and ideas tend to preserve life. Immoral actions and ideas are more likely to be destructive of life. Races are living things, forms of life and continuums of life composed of generations of living things. Therefore those ideas and actions which promote racial preservation should be presumptively regarded as moral (i.e., should enjoy a presumption of morality) and those which promote racial destruction should be presumptively regarded as immoral. Immoral racism and racial nihilism both promote racial destruction, although the motive, the method of destruction, and the identity of the race -- or races -- marked for destruction are different. Moral racism is the only ideology that promotes the preservation of all races.

Moral racism is the preservationist middle way, the "golden mean" between the two opposite destructive extremes. It charts a racial preservationist course between the Scylla of immoral racism and the Charybdis of racial nihilism. It is the alternative choice, the conservationist choice, the position that affirms racial rights, especially the right of all races to life, liberty (freedom) and independence (control of its own life). In this it clearly differs from the two forms of racial extremism -- immoral racism and racial nihilism -- which deny and violate racial rights. Immoral racism violates the racial right to freedom and independence by the practice of racial supremacism, in which one race rules over, controls or is master of another, and -- in its extreme forms -- violates the racial right to life by acts of genocide. Racial nihilism violates the same rights by the practice of multiracialism, in which the different races are denied the condition of racial separation required both for continued life and for control of their own lives.
The existence of moral racism is not generally recognized for two main reasons. The first is the unwillingness of either of the two extreme positions on race -- immoral racism and racial nihilism -- to admit the existence of alternative positions. The second reason is that moral racism -- the ideology of racial rights, preservation and independence -- has not yet been consciously defined and conceptualized, intellectually purified and morally transvalued. This is a process that all values must go through before being recognized and persistently practiced -- and thereby "socially constructed" -- by a "critical mass" of persons, or a powerful and influential minority, sufficient to make them normative or dominant. Individualism and individual rights, as well as environmentalism and conservation, went through this process before being recognized as values, and so must moral racism, with its concepts of racial rights and racial conservation.

The essential process of definition and conceptualization, purification and moral transvaluation, requires above all that moral racism be clearly distinguished from all other positions on race, especially the various forms of immoral racism. In this the situation of racism is similar to that of individualism. The word individualism can be applied to any ideology that affirms the value and importance of the individual. It is generally recognized that there are many forms of individualism, both right and wrong, moral and immoral. They are distinguished by their different attitude toward the rights of others. The moral or right forms of individualism recognize and respect the rights of both other individuals and the larger society or race of which the individual is a part. The immoral or wrong forms do not, but deny and violate them.

The fact that there are immoral forms of individualism does not usually cause people to consider all forms of individualism to be immoral. In spite of the immoral individualists the mainstream culture generally sees individualism as a positive value, as morally right and good, and regards its immoral practitioners as exceptions to the rule. In modern Western culture individualism is more likely to have a positive connotation than a negative, more likely to be regarded as moral than immoral. This is because the moral forms of individualism have been successfully defined as distinct from the immoral forms, and so purified of any association or confusion with them. The same should also be true of racism.

The name racism can be applied to any ideology -- or system of ideas, beliefs and values -- that affirms the value and importance of race, or that is based on racial considerations. Like individualism, racism can be either moral or immoral, depending on its attitude toward the rights of others. But unlike individualism, the fact that there can be moral as well as immoral forms of racism is not generally recognized. Consequently, racism has an almost exclusively negative image and is routinely regarded as immoral. To be morally transvalued, and so recognized as moral, the moral forms of racism need to be successfully defined and conceptualized as clearly distinct from the immoral forms, purified of any association or connection with them (other than the fact that they are both based on race), and thus morally evaluated by a new standard in place of the conventional standard based on the immoral forms. It will then be possible for moral racism -- and its concepts of racial rights, preservation and independence -- to be socially constructed as a normative or dominant value by the cumulative effect of the decisions, beliefs and actions of a sufficient "critical mass" or influential minority.

Individualism in general is characterized by the factual belief that the individual is unique, important and has value. Moral individualism adds to this the ethical belief that the individual has rights, among which are the right to life and the conditions required for life, the right to control his own life (to rule or govern his own life), the right to the product of his own labor (the wealth he has created), the right to his own home, and the right to reproduce his life, so long as the exercise of these rights does not conflict with the same rights of others. Racism in general can be similarly defined as the factual belief that races are unique, important and have value. Moral racism adds to this the ethical belief that races have rights, among which are the right to life and the conditions they require for life, the right to control their own life and destiny (independence and self-determination), the right to their own homeland or racially-exclusive territory, the right to the product of their own labor, and the right to reproduce their life and culture through their children, limited only by the provision that the exercise of these rights does not conflict with the same rights of other races.

The Lockian doctrine of individual rights holds that each person is a sovereign being, not to be ruled by or to rule over others, but to rule only their own life. It rejects the doctrine that some people are justified in ruling over, controlling or being the masters of others. This is a central concept of moral individualism. Similarly, moral racism holds that each race is a sovereign entity, with the right to sole power and control over its own life, existence and destiny, in all its aspects, not to be ruled by or to rule over other races. It rejects the doctrine of racial supremacism -- typical of immoral racism -- that some races are justified, or have a right, to rule over, control or be the masters of other races.

As stated above, racism has an almost exclusively negative or immoral image in the present culture, and for good reason, since the only forms of racism generally known or recognized are the immoral forms. It is associated with immoral means or methods, such as intimidation or physical violence. It is associated with immoral solutions, ends or goals, such as genocide or enslavement of other races, or mass expulsion of other races without adequate provision of a homeland of their own, all of which offend the most basic civilized sensibilities. Finally, it is associated with totalitarianism, with the rejection of the political morality of liberal humanism and its values of democracy, individual rights and freedom. With regard to immoral racism these associations are well-founded. With regard to moral racism, however, they are not, but represent the opposite of its principles, values and goals.

Racial nihilism often uses extremist logic to morally discredit all forms of racism by claiming that racism must, if taken to its logical extreme, result in genocide. Much of the population has been effectively conditioned to perceive racism only in this extreme and morally discredited form.

This is combined with the use of reductionist logic to reduce racism to only one monolithic form -- the morally discredited extremist form -- and deny the possibility of any other form, especially a morally credible form. Both extremist and reductionist logic disallow any differentiation or distinction between different forms. In this matter the proponents of immoral racism are in agreement with racial nihilism, and are unwilling to accept the existence of an alternative moral form of racism. They both use extremist and reductionist logic to discredit efforts to promote a moral form of racism by claiming that, if taken to its logical extreme, it cannot be distinguished or differentiated from immoral racism.

One consequence of the general use of reductionist and extremist logic to portray racism as monolithic, reducing it to only one type which represents one extreme of the possible positions on race, is that the anti-racists who oppose racism rarely qualify their position by identifying which type or form of racism they are anti or against -- the moral or right forms that promote racial rights, liberty and preservation, or the immoral or wrong forms that promote racial supremacy, exploitation, subjugation, slavery or destruction. If they are only against the immoral forms it should be explained that moral racism is also against, or anti , immoral racism.

Only racial nihilism is anti or against both moral and immoral racism. For racial nihilism there is no right form of racism. By its standards all racism is wrong, for it seeks racial destruction and extinction to achieve its goal of Oneness, of one unified and uniform human race, and therefore opposes racial diversity, racial rights, preservation and independence -- the principles of moral racism.

Another consequence of the tendency to portray racism as monolithic, or limited to only one form, is a tendency to provide only one definition for racism. Given the preoccupation of the currently dominant ideology with the promotion of racial egalitarianism, many of these simplistic definitions of racism place a great emphasis on the issue of racial equality. Typical of these is the definition of racism as "A strongly held belief in the ethnic superiority of one race over all others." [Note 3]

The problem with the above or similar definitions is that they are based on a factual belief (in racial superiority) rather than an ethical belief -- on what one believes to be factually true or false, not on what one believes to be ethically right or wrong -- whereas moral racism is based more on ethical beliefs than factual beliefs. It is common for anti-racism to condemn the factual belief in racial superiority on ethical grounds by citing its use to justify unethical practices (such as slavery or genocide). By this logic one's perception of facts should be determined by the effect one believes they will have on ethical conduct, and one should deny facts that seem to disagree with one's ethical values. Ethical judgments should not be made on factual beliefs, but on ethical beliefs and behavior. Factual beliefs should be regarded as morally or ethically neutral, neither moral nor immoral in themselves. Only rigidly reductionist and extremist logic can assert that a factual belief in racial superiority necessarily leads to the violation of other races' rights.

The definition of racism as based solely on a belief in racial inequalities (another word for differences) reflects the obsessive concern of racial egalitarianism with the enforcement of its central dogma of racial equality, and hence its practice of defining all ideas and beliefs in terms of their conformance to that dogma. Belief in racial equality is usually an act of faith.

Unfortunately, as is so often the case with beliefs based on faith, the believers are intolerant of the nonbelievers, condemn their nonbelief on moral grounds, and focus exclusively on this heresy of nonbelief in their definition of them. Indeed, by their narrow definition of racism a person who supported racial preservation, independence and separation, but who did not believe in racial superiority, would not be considered a racist.

Moral racism is based on the ethical belief in racial rights, not on a factual belief in racial superiority or inferiority. The latter belief is irrelevant to moral racism, as it supports the same racial rights for all races regardless of whether they are superior or inferior in any trait. The factual belief in racial superiority is frequently used to justify racial mastery or supremacism, the rule of a supposedly inferior race by a supposedly superior race, whose "right" to rule is based on its supposed superiority. But an ethical belief in racial rights would prevent the promotion of supremacism even if it were combined with a factual belief in racial inequality.

Similarly, a race need not be superior or "special" to be entitled to racial rights, preservation and independence. Many racial preservationists wrongly assume -- as do many of their opponents -- that the case for preserving a race depends upon establishing its superiority or special value relative to other races. This false assumption is an all too common trap leading many to engage in a highly partisan criticism of other races and praise of their own in an effort to establish its greater value. Thus many of the claims regarding racial superiority and inferiority can be attributed to the false premise that the preservation and independence of a race can only be justified by its superiority to other races. Claims of racial superiority are necessary as a justification for racial supremacism, the rule of one race over others, but not for the advocacy of racial rights, preservation and independence, for which such claims are irrelevant. Under moral racism all races have an equal right to life and independence without regard to whether or not they are "special" or superior.

A person can be a moral racist whether they believe in racial equality or inequality, superiority or inferiority. Such factual beliefs are irrelevant to moral racism because it is primarily based on an ethical belief in racial rights rather than a factual belief in racial inequality. By its affirmation of the racial right to life and independence moral racism opposes any form of supremacism or rule by one race over another, regardless of whether one race is superior, inferior or equal to the other. Moral racism supports the above rights for all races, as moral individualism supports the same rights for all individuals, regardless of whether they are superior, inferior or equal. A moral racist may love, value and prefer their own race over others, and they may believe it is superior to others, but they recognize and support the same rights of life, liberty (independence) and preservation for all races, and expect this recognition and support to be reciprocated.
After the reference to a belief in racial inequality, the most common terms found in definitions of racism are prejudice, bias, discrimination, hatred, and the prefix anti (against). The first three terms -- prejudice, bias and discrimination -- are, like the belief in racial inequality, sins against egalitarianism, violating its demand that all be regarded and treated the same, without recognition of differences or variation of preference, love or value. There are many definitions of prejudice, but in reference to racial relations it often means no more than having a preference for one's own race, for its traits, qualities and characteristics, and special concern for its interests. "Bias" is commonly used to mean the same preference, and the "discrimination" referred to is based on this preference.

From the perspective of racial nihilism, which denies the value or importance of race and racial differences and seeks to reduce them to zero or nothing (nihil ), any preference based on race is regarded as irrational and unreasonable, arbitrary and unfair, and, ultimately, as immoral. But all life, all living things, and all life-forms strive to live and to continue their life, and the life of their own life-form or kind. This is perhaps the deepest command of nature, and it presupposes an innate or inborn preference for one's own life and one's own life-form or kind. The absence of this preference should probably be regarded as a defect, potentially fatal to one's own life and the life of one's own life-form or kind. The existence of this preference should be regarded as harmful or immoral only to the extent that it exceeds the legitimate needs and interests of the individual or life-form possessing it and disregards and violates the legitimate rights and interests of other individuals and life-forms.

Hatred is the strongest of negative emotions, but negative emotions or opinions -- including hatred -- are not in themselves immoral. What is immoral is behavior that disregards, violates or causes harm to the legitimate rights and interests of others, or an ideology -- or system of beliefs, values and ideas -- that sanctions such behavior. Such behavior, and such an ideology, is immoral whatever its emotional or other motivation, regardless whether it is motivated by hate or love or anything in-between. In the present culture love for one's race, preference for one's race, or the desire to preserve and continue one's race -- including opposition to racial intermixture and support for the conditions of racial separation required for racial preservation and independence -- are often wrongly described as hatred. In fact, much of the racism described as hatred is simply the unwillingness of members of one race to intermix with members of other races, and their resistance to this racially-destructive process, ultimately motivated by a desire -- whether conscious or subconscious -- for racial preservation and continuation, separation and independence. In the absence of any desire to harm the legitimate rights and interests of other races, this opposition to the destruction of their own race, or its loss of independence, would be more accurately, and more fairly, described as motivated by love for their own race rather than by hatred or ill-will toward other races.

The prefix "anti" means to be against. For the term to have any moral significance, to be "anti" or against a certain race or ethnic group must mean to be "anti" or against the legitimate rights and interests of that race or ethnic group, and to commit or promote harm to, or promote the violation of, those rights. An ideology or behavior which recognizes and respects the legitimate rights and interests of a race or ethnic group -- especially its primary or vital (life-essential) rights to life, liberty and the conditions required for its continued existence and independence, specifically its own territory and government -- cannot be accurately defined as being "anti" or against that race or ethnic group in any morally significant or meaningful sense. Also, to support, promote and advocate the legitimate rights and interests of one's own race or ethnic group -- such as its continued life or preservation, its racial liberty or independence, and its right to its own territory, country or homeland as required for its continued life and liberty -- cannot be accurately defined as being "anti" or against any other race or ethnic group in any morally legitimate sense. Moral racism affirms and supports the legitimate rights and interests of all races or ethnic groups, and therefore cannot be accurately described as being "anti" or against any race or ethnic group in any morally significant or meaningful sense. It is immoral racism and racial nihilism that are "anti" or against -- and which deny, violate or harm -- the vital and primary rights and interests of races and ethnic groups.

Racism, nationalism and individualism all assert the importance and value of a specific and particular entity and its right to be separate, unique and differentiated from the mass rather than be absorbed into it. They each assert and affirm the identity and rights of the separate entity, including its right to life or existence, to independence or control over its own existence, and to freedom or self-determination, with the only limit on its rights being that it not violate the same rights of other races, nations or individuals. Thus one race, nation or individual does not have a right to cause death or diminishment of life to another, to rule over another, steal from another, or to invade or take from another the territory or property that it requires for its existence and independence. These three ideologies -- or isms -- are thus all contrary to the various universalisms of the Oneness creed, such as racial nihilism, which reject and deny racial and national identity, rights and independence and seek to absorb all the diverse races and peoples of humanity into one vast undifferentiated mass.

In racism, nationalism and individualism it is moral to act in one's own interests provided such action does not violate the legitimate rights of others. This is the standard of morality differentiating their moral from their immoral forms. The moral forms respect the rights of other races, nations and individuals, the immoral forms do not. If taken to the extreme, immoral racism can promote genocide just as immoral individualism can promote murder. Genocide is to racism what murder is to individualism. They are the antithesis of moral racism and individualism.

According to the extremist forms of immoral racism we must choose between our race and other races, between destroying other races or their destroying our race. This is the adversarial concept of racial relations which typifies immoral racism. According to this concept (or perception) all races are seen as opponents in a hostile conflict situation similar to war, a zero-sum competition where if one race wins the others must lose. Thus immoral racism naturally assumes a very hostile stance toward other races, often expressing its attitude toward them in mean-spirited, hateful and critical terms that convey ill-will and an intent to cause them harm, to cause them to lose, and to violate their legitimate rights and interests rather than recognize and respect them. Like most extremist thinking it is not an accurate portrayal of reality, and begins and ends with a false premise. In reality there are other choices -- moral choices -- and other means -- moral means -- by which racial independence and preservation can be secured.
The most important consideration in the relationships between different races, as in the relationships between different individuals or nations, is that they recognize and respect the other's rights to life, continued existence, independence and self-determination. For races, the fulfillment of these rights requires a condition of racial separation, with each race possessing its own exclusive territory with its own sovereign government. The recognition and respect of these rights must be regarded as the primary indicator of good will in racial relationships, to the extent that if this recognition and respect is not present good will cannot be present either. A race that denies these rights to another race, or violates them, cannot be regarded as having good will toward that race. To deny a race the conditions it requires for existence and freedom is to wish it ill. To recognize and respect the right of a race to the conditions it needs for life and independence is to wish it well.

Moral racism avoids the adversarial concept of racial relations. If racial rights are recognized all races would be winners in the sense that all would be secure in their independence and continued undiminished and undiluted existence in their own homelands. To seek the continued existence of one race does not require the nonexistence of another race. It is not either-or, rule or be ruled, kill or be killed -- the position of extremist immoral racism. It is not a matter of choosing between the existence of one or the other. This is a false and unnecessary choice. We can choose for all races to exist in the future even as all existed in the past, by restoring and maintaining the conditions (territorial separation and reproductive isolation) they require for continued existence.

The mutual recognition of racial rights, the central principle of moral racism, would foster a cooperative relationship between races and a common effort to promote and protect racial independence and preservation. Whereas extremist immoral racism believes that other races must lose for it to win, moral racism believes that all races can win, that the interests of all can be served and protected, so that all can coexist -- which first requires that they continue to exist -- on the same planet in peace, each in their own homelands, each in control of their own destiny, each respecting the rights of the others in accordance with the Racial Golden Rule.

If there is such a thing as moral progress, and one should hope there is, then humanity can learn from past errors and enjoy progress in the moral or ethical sphere much as it has in the material, technical and scientific spheres. It would not be limited to the same standards of morality practiced by generations of past centuries or long-ago millennia. The pre-human law of nature, the brutal struggle for survival, of rule or be ruled, kill or be killed, has been superseded by the cumulative efforts of thousands of generations of humanity to rise above it through the recognition (or social construction) of human rights and the Golden Rule of live and let live. Immoral racism applies the law of pre-human nature to racial relationships. But the relationships between races can be raised above this brutal law by a morality that respects and affirms racial rights, just as the relationships between individuals have been raised above it by the morality that respects and affirms individual rights. There are limits to how far conduct can deviate from the laws of nature before the individual or race engages in conduct that is self-destructive, but within those limits humanity has sufficient leeway to create a just, humane and civilized society. [Note 4]

Racism is many different things. It covers a multitude of both sins and virtues. Racial supremacism is racist. Genocide is racist. But racial independence and preservation are also racist. So is valuing and loving one's race, being loyal to its interests and desiring its continued existence and control over its own destiny. The extremist claim that all forms of racism lead to genocide, coupled with the reductionist assertion that there is only one -- immoral -- form of racism, is a preemptive accusation often used to discredit, suppress and prevent any consideration of alternatives to the present destructive course of racial nihilism, especially any attempt to promote racial preservation and independence.

Reductionist logic was typical of the dogmatic thinking of medieval times when all alternatives were reduced to a Manichaean choice between good and evil -- either obeying church dogma or being in league with the satanic powers of darkness. In the reductionist logic of the dominant orthodoxy of the modern world all alternatives are reduced to a similarly Manichaean choice -- either obeying the dogma of racial nihilism or being in league with the evil powers of racial supremacism and genocide. With all other alternatives eliminated by the successful use of extremist and reductionist logic to produce such powerful Manichaean imagery, racial nihilism has enjoyed a position of virtually unchallenged cultural dominance.

That the future existence of human racial diversity is now imperiled is largely due to the success of racial nihilism in denying the existence of any alternatives to itself other than immoral racism. People are limited by the choices they are given. They cannot choose a moral alternative if they are unaware that it exists or is possible. So it has been with much of the immorality of the past and the present. Only if a sufficient number of people are aware of real moral alternatives to the immoral status quo can the future avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

Racial nihilism has a dream of a future in which race is not important, a dream in which separate races and racial diversity do not exist. It is the dream of Oneness, the merging or blending of all races into one uniform race where all the distinct traits and qualities created by divergent evolution -- and whatever creative force, cause or purpose might be behind that evolution -- would be destroyed. It is the ultimate reductionist dream, a dream of racial reductionism, of reducing the many different races to one race, the diversity of humanity to uniformity.
But racial nihilism is not the only possible dream of the racial future. There are other dreams. Moral racism also has a dream. It is a dream of racial preservation and independence, of continued racial existence and liberty, for all the diverse races of humanity, sharing the world together in mutual respect for the legitimate rights of their fellow races.

Moral racism supports friendly cooperation among races in matters of joint concern and mutual benefit. It also supports the right of each race to its own secure, separate and exclusive territory, country or homeland as required for its continued life and independence. It would encourage the diverse races of humanity to share the earth as good neighbors, recognizing that a good neighbor is one that respects the rights of others to the secure possession of their own piece of earth and to the conditions required for their continued existence. It is the racism that preserves, as opposed to immoral racism, the racism that destroys.

The dream of racial nihilism, the dream of Oneness, is a dream of racial reduction and destruction, promoted in the name of combating another form of racial destruction which is claimed to be its only alternative. The dream of moral racism is a dream of continued racial life and racial preservation. Moral racism -- the morally right or righteous form of racism -- is the alternative to racial nihilism that must be considered as a matter of the utmost urgency, as a matter of nothing less than racial life or death. It has not been practiced in the past, but in the moral development of humanity it must be hoped that a stage has now been reached where it can become the practiced morality of the present and the future. The future existence of at least one race depends upon it.


1. There are also false forms of racism that are motivated not by true racial concerns, but by economic or political concerns. These forms of pseudo-racism, as they are not really based on racial feelings or concerns, are only superficially racist. But racial nihilism, which evades the central concerns of race by denying their reality, prefers to attribute racism to non-racial motives, and can therefore only provide explanations that focus on such peripheral distractions. There are many different forms or types of racism, requiring many different definitions, but each form of racism should have at least one thing in common with all other forms -- it should be based on real racial values and concerns.

2. Legitimate rights and interests are here defined as primary or vital (life-essential) rights and interests as well as those lesser -- secondary or non-vital -- rights and interests which do not conflict with the greater -- primary or vital -- rights and interests of other races. The legitimate rights of one race end where the equal or greater rights of another race begin.

3. This is the sole definition of racism given in a "special report" titled The New Racism , televised on The Family Channel, December 29, 1990.

4. Whenever humanity takes another bite from the fruit of the tree of knowledge it often happens that the newly acquired knowledge, at least for a certain period of time, increases confusion and error as much as understanding and wisdom. So it was with Charles Darwin's epochal revelation of the mechanisms of biological evolution. Many learned the wrong lesson, or took the right lesson to excess, and rushed to apply the newly revealed practices and logic of pre-human evolutionary struggle or natural selection to human society. This school of thought, called Social Darwinism, wrongly assumed that the discovery of more ancient behavioral norms discredited and refuted more recent moral developments, and justified a rejection of the moral concepts of civilized existence in favor of a return to the morality that existed before civilization, or to the even earlier behavior of pre-human animal existence.

The ultimate purpose of morality is to promote and preserve life. Knowledge of the natural or pre-civilized state of existence should be used to identify and discard those distortions of morality which are destructive of life, not the advances in morality which serve to enhance and preserve life. Morality should seek to maintain a harmonious balance between the laws of nature and civilization that can accommodate both, reconciling the requirements of life and evolutionary progress with the desires of humanity for a secure and civilized existence.

Return to Racial Compact main page

Thursday, December 08, 2005

Who We Are

By Achilles Kritikos

During the past, the System used significant concepts like the idea of the homeland and of the nation as a mask in order to face public demands for social justice, thus striking out at the healthiest elements of the people. The System continues this attack today, but has changed its mask and now uses human rights and civil freedoms as a facade to justify its crimes. We do not demonise the values that the System uses today, as in the past with the values of the homeland and the nation.

We are racialists. We believe, however, that the migratory wave that is promoted by the System aims to create racial destruction rather than preserve race through segregation.The System knows that the only way to exterminate the white race and every race more generally is the Western way of life (consumerism, low birthrate, urban diastrophy). Look around you. The mixed marriages in Western societies can occur in only two cases: when the immigrant has been urbanised and acquired at least a sense of economic equality among the indigenous people, or when the indigenous people find themselves in the same sordid economic and educative situation to that of the immigrant.The System is exploiting the reality of racial differentiation. It promotes multi-racial societies because these are created within racial ghettos which have an intense opposition towards their immediate neighbourhood. Thus the System defuses the rage of the masses and because of the exploitation that people suffer at the hands of the System, it channels this oppositional conflict and thus avoids every united struggle against it.The left-wingers that have not realised that the loss of national conscience from the masses involves also the loss of class conscience are stupidly supporting and promoting this "multicultural" levelling, and the nationalists that stupidly demand the expulsion of the immigrants are thus accentuating the already existing opposition. They do nothing other than play a role that the System has aleady drawn up for them. The tyrants survive thanks to their old game of divide and rule.

The capitalists are deliberately puting in danger the future of humanity, along with the pollution of the environment (of food, water and air), illness and cloning. They try to create a new race of people; frail, and dependent upon medicines, that will live in an artificial environment, working as dogs for their masters. Thus becoming the convenient servants of the capitalists.

The white race has been corrupted by the Western way of life, even though we do not like it we must admit that our race has adopted such a way of life that she has become a useful tool in the hands of the Zionists. Today every anti-capitalist is connected much more closely with an Afghan or a Filipino Muslim than with the new bourgeois generation of Greeks. For two years now the Zionists have adversely started a war on the nations that dispute their power. In fact the Jews are preparing for a final confrontation: the Third World War. This was also pointed out by the leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran in his recent visit to our country. The Zionists have on their side the ultra-modern armies of the West, their governments and the white people whose stupefaction is so great that they would be willing to be sacrificed for the interests of their tyrants. On the other hand, the only arms that the forces of contestation have is their irremovable faith in the just struggle and their will to overcome or die. The world today has become separated between the faithful and the faithless. The Christians are guilty because they remain faithful to the word of Jesus and wish to achieve the salvation of their soul in a country whose soul is dominated by the monotheism of the market. The Muslims are guilty because they pray five times a day to Allah, contrary to the corrupted bourgeoisie of the West, which prays 24 hours-a-day to the golden god of money. The Marxists are guilty because they fight and require social justice, the equal distribution of wealth in the face of 350 capitalists with an allocated income equivalent to that of 3.5 billion residents of this planet. The anarchists are guilty because they ask for the release of the human being, his absolute independence, in a societal foundation which regards as a coercion that which excludes every essential freedom. The nationalists are guilty because they want to defend the particularity of every race, in contradiction to the Zionists who are changing the races into voracious and consuming robots.

We are all guilty because we chose a different system of values to those of commercialism, and because we are willingly defending the substance of human existence.

By Achilles Kritikos, editor of the Greek national-anarchist magazine

Monday, December 05, 2005

Shapes of the Wolf:
On the Various Incarnations of Globalization
by Darksphere

IN recent years something has grown out of the original Socialist and Anarchist Left. This being has been termed the anti-globalization movement. But is this really the correct term? When we look at the "anti-globalization movement" we find that it only stands in opposition to certain forms of globalization. In the words of many of its own members it opposes only globalization from above while it supports globalization from below. It is necessary to understand that while the anti-globalization movement opposes the free movement of money and companies across borders, it also allows businesses to exploit people in poor countries without consequence and supports the voluntary movement of people across the world.
Thus in reality we see that the anti-globalization movement does not rightfully deserve its name, because it opposes only some forms of globalization and supports others.
The thing is, globalization is a many-headed beast that takes on a number of forms. Globalization springs from the idea of empire that arose with the Roman Empire. Since the days of Julius Caesar the idea of a large-flung empire has haunted Europe. During the middle-ages it was passed on to the Catholic Church and then onto the bureaucracy of the great nation-states and finally to the new nobility carried to power on the wave of industrialization. As one can thus see, many different institutions have heralded this idea of empire during history and many of them still remain living side by side today, even battling each other over which incarnations of the idea shall reign. Be not fooled: In the core essence each these incarnations are the same and carry the death of cultural, religious and political diversity. The dream in the end bases itself upon the formation of humanity into a grey mass without a cultural, religious or political identity. Indeed, many of these versions of the 'empire-idea' try to sell themselves as a decentralized imperium; although in reality they are just a defensive frame for a flowery garden of diversity. On paper, at least, some of these imperial dreams do actually allow for a great deal of diversity in some areas. Even the most tolerant of them, however, do demand conformity and obedience in at least one area. The religious empires proposed by the Christian Church and globalist Islam may grant political and national freedom but they do not allow for religious diversity.
The industrialist corporations and their pet supra-national institutions may allow religious and social diversity (and this definitely creates economic diversity in that it allows a little elite to become rich off the backs of the ordinary populace) but they still demand that one adhere to the holy scriptures of Capitalist economy.
They all have one or two little arenas where they demand conformity. And in the end this little demand for conformity is actually very important, for the arena in which they demand conformity is always exactly the same as where the power will be vested in that particular version of the empire, i.e. in the industrial empire proposed by the multi-national corporations the demand for people to conform is in the area of economics: Exactly the area in which the power will be in that same industrial empire.
Thus there will be political or religious or social or whatever freedom on the surface, but never in reality because there will be no power for those areas where diversity is tolerated. You will be allowed to hold - for instance - whatever political views you like but you will not be able to carry them out in real life. So the bottom line remains that these imperial ideas and the efforts done to further them (globalization) will spell doom for all cultures and religions. This is a fact rarely realized by the so-called anti-globalists. The problem, presumably, is that they mix-up old dividing lines relating to the 19th Century (the Left-Right continuum most notably) with their growing but yet dim understanding of the many-headed monster that globalization really is. Thus they end up really just fighting one form of globalization in service of the other. The typical example is the one that has already been touched upon in the beginning of this essay: The radical Left fights financial empires only to support "globalization from below"; the large-scale immigration of people from the medium-wealthy countries of this earth to the most wealthy.
Seemingly, these Leftist "anti-globalists" cannot see that the end-result will be the same. Whether it be McDonalds or Shawarma bars that crowd the street corners, the result will be that all the cities of the industrialized world will become the same. Everywhere you go you will find the same food: That is the core of the McDonaldizione as well as the "globalization from below" that the Left argues for. So alongside the multinational companies the Left argues for the destruction of cultural diversity. Then what of the Nationalist or racial Nationalist insurgents that so boldly aspire to the name of the Radical Right? Are they the true anti-globalists? They surely aspire to be, it seems, with the recent National Alliance launch of a so-called anti-globalist site.
The fact, however, remains that the Nationalism (racial or cultural) pushed by these people is merely a form of micro-globalization. It calls for the abandoning of local peculiarities in favour of a grand nation-state or racial empire.
This is just another form of oppression. No! The answer to the greyish globalization cannot be micro-globalization. So what can be done to secure the rich heritage of the culture, religious teachings and social ideas that humanity enjoys? The answer lies in organic identities: In the ethnic group (which is something far different to the nation), in the regional communities, in the village-fellowship and in decentralized brotherhoods detached from the State and authoritarian organizations. These can be launchpads for the necessary counter-offensive that may fend off the tides of globalization.
This does not mean the abolishment of all international ties or a return to a medieval stage of history. One can well uphold values of ethnic pride and be part of organic communities and still uphold most of the values of civilization.

Saturday, December 03, 2005

Nationalism isn't necessarily Patriotic

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 28, 2005

Noam Chomsky Posted by Picasa
Big Business as a supporter of anti-racism

Noam Chomsky

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.

Incidentally, this is what unites the capitalist and the marxist mindset. Far from being polar opposites, both rely on the same simplistic model of "economic man" divorced for culture and history. As such, both capitalism and Communism are united not so much by being inhumane, but by being inhuman.


Question: Professor Chomsky, one issue where I've noticed that activists get kind of a good press in the United States -- and it seems out of sync with what we usually see -- is coverage of people protesting South African apartheid (official system of racial segregation and white supremacy, the legal basis for which was largely repealed in 1990-91). I'm wondering if you have any ideas why coverage of that might be a bit more positive.

"I think you're right: anti-apartheid movements in the United States do get a pretty good press -- so when some mayor or something demonstrates against South Africa, there's usually kind of a favorable report on it. And I think the main reason is that Western corporations themselves are basically anti-apartheid by this point, so that's going to tend to be reflected in the media coverage.

See, South Africa had been going through an internal economic transformation, from a society based on extractive industry to one based on industrial production -- and that transformation has changed the nature of international interests in South Africa. As long as South Africa was primarily a society whose wealth was based on extracting diamonds, gold, uranium and so on, what you needed were large numbers of slaves, basically -- people who would go down into the mines and work for a couple years, then die and be replaced by others. So you needed an illiterate, subdued population of workers, with families getting just enough income to produce more slaves, but not much more than that -- then either you sent them down in to the minds, or you turned them into mercenaries in the army and so on to help them control others. That was traditional South Africa. But as South Africa changes to an industrial society, those needs also are beginning to change: now you don't need slaves primarily, what you need is a docile, partially educated workforce.

Something similar happened in the United States during our industrial revolution, actually. Mass public education was introduced in the United States in the nineteenth century as a way of training the largely rural workforce here for industry -- in fact, the general population in the United States largely was opposed to public education, because it meant taking kids off the farms where they belonged and where they worked with their families, and forcing them into this setting in whcih they were basically trained to become industrial workers. That was a part of the whole transformation of American society in the nineteenth century, and that transformation is now taking place for the black population in South Africa -- which means for about 85 percent of the people there. So the white South African elites, and international investors generally, now need a workforce that is trained for industry, not just slaves for the mines. And that means they need people who can follow instructions, and read diagrams, and be managers and foremen, things like that -- so slavery is just not the right system for the country anymore, they need to move towards something more like what we have in the United States. And it's pretty much for that reason that the West has become anti-apartheid, and that the media will therefore tend to give anti-apartheid movements a decent press.

I mean, usually political demonstrations get very negative reporting in the United States, not matter what they're for, because they show that people can do things, that they don't just have to be passive and isolated -- and you're not supposed to have that lesson, you're supposed to think that you're powerless and can't do anything. So any kind of public protest typically won't be covered here, except maybe locally, and usually it will get very negative reporting; when it's protest agaisnt the policies of a favored U.S. ally, it always will. But in the case of South Africa, the reporting is quite supportive: so if people go into corporate shareholder meetings and make a fuss about disinvestment [withdrawing investments from South Africa to pressure its government], generally they'll get a favorable press these days.

Of course, its not that what they're doing is wrong -- what they're doing is right. But they should understand that the reason they're getting a reasonably favorable press right now is that, by this point, business regards them as its troops -- corporate executives don't really want apartheid in South Africa anymore. It's like the reason that business was willing to support the Civil Rights Movement in the United States. American business had no use for Southern apartheid, in fact it was bad for business.

See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist -- it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn't built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist -- just because its anti-human. And race is in fact a human characterstic -- there's no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangable cogs who will purchase all the junk that's produced -- that's their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevent, and usually a nuisance."

[Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky (New York: The New York Press, 2002), pp.88-89]

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Posted by Picasa

Alain de Benoist
Some Thoughts on GRECE's 'Manifesto of the New Right'

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).

De Benoist has in these endeavours been particularly influenced by the theories of the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci was a critic of the Marxist belief that power stems simply from the ownership of capital. He stressed instead the importance of people like journalists, academics and teachers in creating a climate of ideas which would be the precursor to successful political change. De Benoist set out to institute a 'Gramsciism of the Right', in which respect he met with some degree of success. In particular when in 1978 he and other key members of the New Right were appointed to the staff of the French daily Le Figaro. These appointments helped to spread the ideas of the New Right far more widely than would otherwise have been possible. The outcry from the left at this only served to increase publicity and ensured the ideas were even more widely disseminated. All this is credited with preparing the ground for the electoral breakthrough of the National Front in France in the early 1980s.

So what are these ideas? The defining document of the New Right is GRECE's 'Manifesto of the New Right' (Manifeste de la Nouvelle Droite), co-written by de Benoist and Charles Champetier. I think it justifies examination in some detail.

The Manifesto is divided into three sections, preceded by a short introduction. The first section provides an analysis of the ills of present-day society, the second expresses de Benoist and Champetier's vision of man and the world and the third states their position on major contemporary issues.

The introduction opens by making it clear that the New Right is a school of thought rather than a political movement. And taking up the Gramscian theme, the writers stress the importance of ideas in shaping human history. Philosophers, theologians, political thinkers and their like have through their ideas brought about revolutions the effects of which are still felt today. The history of ideas - as de Benoist says in the Right Now interview (following Herder) - is the key to the history of deeds.

De Benoist and Champetier also bring in another vital theme in the introduction - the need to think across accepted political divisions. We are living in an age, they tell us, in which traditional institutions (the political parties, the unions etc) are losing their power and the traditional left-right dichotomy is - along with other similar categorisations - becoming obsolete. In the fluidity and uncertainty of the modern world they seek therefore to develop a 'transversal' (transversal) mode of thought which ignores these decaying mental barriers.

The first of the three main sections of the Manifesto begins by declaring that we are today at a historical turning point: the end of modernity. How do the writers justify this rather startling claim?

They start by telling us exactly what they mean by 'modernity'. It is defined as the political and philosophical movement of the last three centuries of western history, and ascribed five principal characteristics: individualism, 'massification' (i.e. the adoption of standardised behaviour and lifestyles), the triumph of scientific over religious interpretations of the world, the triumph of the mercantile mentality and technology, and the planet-wide spread of a model of society - the western one - presumed the sole rationally possible.

The various schools of political thought of modernity may differ on many things, de Benoist and Champetier say, but all agree on this: that there exists a sole and universal solution to social, moral and political questions. Humanity must realise its historical unity, and in this respect the diversity of the world becomes an obstacle and what differentiates men from one another must be eliminated. Modernity has tried therefore by all possible means to tear individuals from their surroundings in order to universalise them and - introducing a theme that is a common thread throughout de Benoist's many works - the most effective means it has used to do this is the market.

De Benoist and Champetier go on to outline what they see as the crisis of modernity. Its central values - liberty and equality - have been betrayed. Cut off from the communities which protect them and give sense and form to their existence, individuals are subject to the iron rule of immense mechanisms (the market, technology etc) in relation to which their liberty is purely formal. And the promise of equality has brought on the one hand barbarous communist regimes and on the other capitalist societies which give equality in principle but in practice allow huge inequalities.

As for the idea of progress - the promise of an ever-improving future - for many this future is not now full of hope but rather of fear. Each generation faces a world different from that which the previous one faced. The speed of change produces anxiety not happiness.

We are living in the most empty civilisation in human history, the writers say: adspeak is our paradigm language, all is commercialised, technology rules and criminality, violence and incivility are widespread.

This shows that modernity is drawing to a close, according to de Benoist and Champetier. We are entering a period of post-modernity which will be not so much a return to what has gone before but rather a rediscovery of certain pre-modern values but now looked at in a post-modern way.

In the second section of the Manifesto that most vital and most controversial of contemporary issues - race - begins to make its presence felt.

Man's belonging to the human species is always expressed through a particular context we are told. Humanity is plural by nature - not one race. Diversity is of its very essence. Differences between cultures are neither an illusion, nor transitory, nor accidental, nor of trivial importance. All of which will have our anti-racist ideologues foaming at the mouth.

Human existence, the writers go on to tell us, is also inextricably linked to the communities and social groups in which it is set, the most basic of these being the extended family. This is an idea which would be anathema, they say, to the modern individualist and universalist who associates community with hierarchy, parochialism and claustrophobia.

In reality, though, modernity has not set men free by breaking the old bonds of family, locality, race, religion etc. It has, de Benoist and Champetier tell us (taking up again a theme from the first section of the Manifesto), just submitted them to different constraints - and harder ones at that because more distant, impersonal and demanding. In becoming more solitary man has also become more vulnerable and powerless. He has no sense of where to place himself in the world. The great project of emancipation has resulted in alienation on a massive scale. We must therefore reinstate the idea of community.

And on the economy again: contrary to what liberals and Marxists suppose, the writers assert, the economy has never formed the 'infrastructure' of society. In pre-modern societies the economy was embedded within and contextualised by the rest of human activity. Though it is undeniable that economic development has brought benefits it will eventually lead us to an impasse, not least because the world has finite resources.

De Benoist and Champetier say that the commercialisation of the world in the last few centuries has been one of the most important phenomena in human history and that its decommercialisation will be one of the great issues of the twenty-first century. The economy must be recontextualised. All the other important elements must be put back into the equation - ecological equilibrium and everything else. Even one might venture - though they do not mention it directly - the greatest bogeyman of all: race.

And there is a corresponding critique of the idea of universal human rights. Rights are social, we are told. They are only conceivable within a specific setting. Rights, like the economy, must be put back within a social context. What might our rapidly-proliferating human rights gurus and missionaries think of this?

Towards the end of the second section de Benoist and Champetier come back to the subject of diversity. They stress again that diversity is inherent in life itself - that there exists a plurality of races, languages, customs and religions - and that there are two opposing attitudes to this. There are those who believe such a diversity is a burden and always seek to reduce men to what they have in common and there are those - like the New Right - who believe differences are riches that should be preserved and cultivated. A good system, say the writers, is one that transmits at least as many differences as it has received.

The word 'diversity' here is quite rightly recaptured from our present rulers and their entourage of race relations experts. The New Right are the true upholders of diversity. When the proponents of our present multi-racial society use this word - as they so frequently do - they are being disingenuous. Racial diversity for these people is not something of value in itself. It is just a stepping-stone to their ultimate goal - the destruction of race through mass inter-breeding (the mixed-race society, one might say).

De Benoist and Champetier also take two other important and sensitive concepts - imperialism and ethnocentrism - and show just who stands where on these today. The attempt by our political class to impose the social and economic system and moral standards (human rights) of the west on the rest of the planet is the modern-day equivalent of the crusades or colonialism. It is an imperialist and ethnocentric movement which seeks to efface all differences through the imposition of one supposedly superior model. It is the New Right who are its opponents.
But unstoppable though our leaders' vision of society seems at present there are growing signs that they will not succeed. This is not the 'end of history' whereby the western model of society finally and permanently triumphs over all competing versions. Other civilisations are on the rise. The new century will see the birth of a multi-polar world in which power will be defined as the ability to resist the influence of other cultures rather than to impose one's own. Let us hope they are correct about this!

The third and final section expresses the New Right's position on a range of contemporary issues. The spread is wide and includes gender, democracy, Europe, the role of work in society, the modern urban environment, ecology and freedom of speech. I just want to concentrate here on a few points most relevant to my own interests (principally racial issues).

De Benoist and Champetier express their opposition to both homogenisation and tribalism and their support instead for what they term 'strong identities' (des identités fortes).

Homogenisation, they say, leads to extreme reactions - chauvinistic nationalism, tribal savagery and the like. By denying individuals the right to an identity the western system has paradoxically given birth to hysterical forms of self-affirmation. The question of identity is sure to become more and more important over the coming decades. Who could doubt that they are right about this?

And they continue by saying that the New Right is the defender of the cause of peoples. It defends not only its own difference but the right of others to be different too. The right to difference is not a means of excluding others for being different.

The right to an identity or the right to difference. A new human right? A universal right which is not universal, one might say. It is interesting to note that this type of right also appears, for example, in the programme of the Austrian Freedom Party where it is termed the right to a cultural identity.

De Benoist and Champetier go on to make clear the distinction between the right to difference and racism. Racism, they say, is a theory which holds that there exist between races inequalities which mean that one can distinguish 'superior' and 'inferior' races, that the value of an individual can be deduced from which racial group he or she belongs to, and that race is the central explaining factor of human history. All three of these assertions, the writers maintain, are false. Races differ but one cannot put them in a hierarchy.

Opposed to racism de Benoist and Champetier distinguish two very different forms of anti-racism: a universalist form and a differentialist form. The first, they say, is as bad as the racism it denounces. It values in peoples only what they have in common. These kind of anti-racists - the ones with whom we are all only too familiar, sadly - are incapable of recognising and respecting differences. Differentialist anti-racism, on the other hand - the New Right kind - considers the plurality of the human race to be a positive thing. The New Right, in short, rejects both exclusion and assimilation, the writers say. Neither apartheid nor the melting-pot are for them desirable forms of society.

But they then make it quite clear where they stand on immigration. In view of its rapidity and massive scale it is, they say, incontestably a negative phenomenon. And the responsibility for the problem lies not principally with the immigrants themselves but with the western system which has reduced man 'à l'état de marchandise délocalisable' (to the status of an uprootable commodity). Immigration is desirable neither for the immigrants themselves nor for the peoples of the receiving nations who are confronted with unwished-for and often brutal modifications to their environment. The problems of developing nations are not resolved by the large-scale transfer of population to the developed world. The New Right, we are told, therefore favours a restrictive immigration policy.

De Benoist and Champetier go on to say that as regards the immigrant population in France today it would be illusory to expect their mass departure (something which I could never accept in relation to the immigrant population of Britain, France or any other northern European country). But the writers declare themselves firmly in favour of immigrants being encouraged to retain their own cultures, rather than their being pressurised into integration - which I could hardly disagree with at least as a stop-gap or second-best measure.

There is just one further point I would like to pick out. Towards the end of the Manifesto - during a critique of modern capitalism - de Benoist and Champetier do a bit of very important transversal thinking. Taking up a cause which is normally thought of as belonging to the left they call for the cancellation of third world debt, the freeing of developing economies from the dictates of the World Bank and IMF and other changes to the relationship between the developed and developing world.

This kind of transversal thinking is not quite unique - there are elements of it in the programmes of many major radical right parties in northern Europe (the National Front in France, the Flemish Bloc in Belgium, the Freedom Party in Austria and the Danish People's Party, for example). You will also find such thinking in the programme of the Federation for American Immigration Reform and, though approached from a very different angle, in the famous speech given by the late Bernie Grant MP in the House of Commons in December 1995 in which he advocated government assistance for people from the Caribbean to return home. It is always welcome to see people prepared to ignore obsolescent political divisions in this way.

The Manifesto provides a strong foundation for the modern radical right. One can draw a huge amount of inspiration from it - for example, as regards the need for transversal thinking (as demonstrated above), or from the way the writers quite rightfully reclaim the word 'diversity', or from their analysis of what racism really means.

It seems to me, in fact, that de Benoist, Champetier and other like-minded people are the only true opponents of globalisation in the west. Their sole rival in this respect is the green movement. But greens are inconsistent in their opposition to globalisation. Whilst they are staunch opponents of economic globalisation they also tend, bizarrely, to be among the most enthusiastic supporters of the globalisation of people - i.e. of increased immigration, particularly the de facto mass immigration scheme known as the asylum system, and of the multi-racial society generally (this, incidentally, is a mirror image of the criticism that is often made of Enoch Powell - that his views were inconsistent because he opposed immigration and the multi-racial society yet was at the same time a strong supporter of capitalism).

There are things I would disagree with in the Manifesto too. Not only the dismissal of the possibility of the departure of non-white immigrants but also the pre-eminent position accorded to the market as regards responsibility for our present ills. I would put the largest share of the blame on the perverse doctrine of universalist anti-racism with the capitalist economic system as its hand maiden (it is the economic system that goes naturally with such a credo). After all, as I have pointed out elsewhere, how many non-Oriental immigrants are there in the paradigm capitalist society of Hong Kong, or in Japan? Though they have the most capitalist of economies they have relatively few immigrants because they do not suffer from the sickness of universalist anti-racism.

So when are the kind of ideas contained in the Manifesto going to be taken up by a political organisation in Britain? When is there going to be some concrete, pragmatic initiative? The creation of an organisation which displays similar transversal thinking in its programme. And one too, I would argue, which focuses very much on the tackling of the most sensitive and difficult issue of all - race - and does so in a more daring and forthright manner than de Benoist and Champetier. We had better hope it is soon.