NOTES ON LIBERAL DEMOCRACY AND ITS ALTERNATIVE

by John Gordon

The political regime under which much of the world labours (and the entire Western world) is called “Liberal Democracy.” Francis Fukuyama has praised the ever widening expansion of this regime over the globe as “the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and [it consists in] the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”[i] The source of Fukuyama’s thesis, the Russian Hegelian Marxist, Alexandre Kojève, called this End State the “universal and homogeneous state”: it is the ultimate goal of both Liberalism and Communism.

We often refer to our system of Liberal Democracy simply as “democracy” and use it as our undisputed standard with which to judge the political arrangements both of ourselves and other countries (“But that’s undemocratic!” is often heard in political debates to settle any issue under discussion, as if there were no legitimate regimes besides democracy). Its mere mention is enough to anaesthetise lingering doubts about the justice of our system of government and the fairness of its delivery of “outcomes.” “Democracy” is however a term which is equivocal, having more than one meaning, and Liberal Democracy – the system which promotes the bourgeois, capitalism, and now globalisation, is not the only type of democracy nor even the only type of legitimate government. Inasmuch as Liberal Democracy is the system which has (intentionally) caused and ensures the continuance of our present problems of neo-liberal capitalism, individualism, and (latterly) globalisation and its accompanying universalistic suppression of the particular ethnic diversity of nations and exploitation of workers (wherever possible), it is in our interest not only to critique it, but also to look for alternatives to replace it.

What has obscured the fact that there are other legitimate forms of government and even of democracy than what is presently put forward as the only possible one is that the predominant political regimes of the last 100 years or so have been Statist in nature, namely: Liberal Democracy, Communism, and Fascism, and that out of these, Liberal Democracy became the “last man standing” by the beginning of the last decade of the previous century with the fall of Soviet Communism. Liberal Democracy has also had the good fortune to be the best of these Statist alternatives (merely in a strictly comparative sense), so that while Bolshevik Communism was presenting itself as the wave of the future the lesser of the two evils was certainly Liberal Democracy. However, the fall of Communism now allows us to re-examine our own system of government without the charge being laid against us that we are enemy agents working on behalf of a foreign power, nor that what we want for our own country is manifestly worse than what is being presently provided for us.

Nor should we meekly accept the commands of others on what we can or cannot find objectionable, just because the Left thinks that it has a monopoly on political issues. Graham D. Macklin’s reactionary defence of leftist only criticisms of Liberalism, Capitalism, and Globalisation is a typical reaction of the Traditional Left when it is outgunned on what it considers its own turf. His desperate plea for such groups as “ecological subcultures” to remain limited or fully-committed only to critiques of the means to achieving the “universal and homogeneous state” show that the left establishment is intellectually powerless against the more consistent and thorough-going criticisms of those who reject both the means to the end and the end itself of Globalisation. Further, his article is premised on an unreflective and unargued charge of “racism” (left undefined) amounting to the political demand that acquiescence or indifference to injustice and exploitation – if it is whites who are the ones who are being suppressed – is the only course possible and that such injustice and exploitation need not concern us nor should that injustice be the basis of corrective political action. Macklin here plays the part of Christ in the New Testament in his political insistence not to resist evil, but without the accompanying divine promises of Redemption and Retribution that underwrite Christ’s command. Yet, Macklin remains unaware that his position is not at all persuasive. Criticism of Globalisation – its causes and inherent features – is not the privileged prerogative of self-appointed spokesmen on the Left. In fact, it is more important for those who oppose Globalisation in toto to speak out against it and to organise activism against the injustices that necessarily – and not accidentally – follow in its wake.

With regards to the most notable feature of Statist political regimes – the separation of State and Society – which all Statist political regimes embody, it is neither the only possible political arrangement nor the only legitimate one. The political writings of the German legal theorist, Carl Schmitt, can be of use in formulating how and why this is so.[ii]

Despite Liberal Democracy being conflated into the single term, “democracy,” Carl Schmitt insists that “Both, liberalism and democracy, have to be distinguished from one another…” since “[t]he belief in parliamentarism, in government by discussion [i.e., by one of the two distinguishing features of Liberal Democracy, the other being “openness”], belongs to the intellectual world of liberalism,” and it “does not belong to democracy.”[iii] In other words, two separate ideas are combined in Liberal Democracy which are in tension with each other. Further, the Liberal element in Liberal Democracy takes precedence over or supersedes its democratic element: this is what causes “the crisis of Liberal Democracy,” viz. its lack of legitimacy and reliance on legality (or force) alone: it brooks no fundamental opposition.

So, if – according to Carl Schmitt – Liberal Democracy is characterised by government by “discussion” and by “openness,” what are the defining characteristics of non-liberal Democracy? It is that of an identity of the ruled and ruling, where there is a shared common good – achievable through homogeneity of the populace.[iv] Parliament (the cornerstone of Liberal Democracy) impedes the common good, i.e. the identity of the ruling and ruled, by relying on 50% + 1 votes (always ensuring that there is rule of a majority over a minority). This leads to the separation of the political rulers from the constituency that they are meant to represent and the creation of an impersonal system of bureaucratic rule indifferent to the content or interests of the society over which it presides.

Party rule predominates – where representatives of the people rule and the people themselves do not rule nor do they rule in turn. Thus, “parliamentarism has become an object of spoils and compromise for the parties and their followers, and politics, far from being the concern of an elite, has become the despised business of a rather dubious class of persons.”[v] Who does not immediately recognise the character of Australian politics here summed up both presently and indeed since Federation? And Schmitt’s holding to account the Liberal Democratic cheer-squad of the 19th century rings just as true now as then: “It is like a satire if one quotes Bentham today: ‘In Parliament ideas meet, and contact between ideas gives off sparks and leads to evidence’.”[vi] A perusal of Hansard or the televised sessions of Parliament Question Time emphatically confirms Schmitt’s assessment. And the entire reason for the rotten edifice in the first place is brought undone by considering its own claim to legitimacy: “Where is there any kind of certainty that the possessors of particles of reason are to be found precisely in parliament?”[vii] The suggestion only has to be articulated to be revealed as absurd. And “[if in reality] in the actual circumstances of parliamentary business, openness and discussion here become an empty and trivial formality, then parliament, as it developed in the nineteenth century, has also lost its previous foundation and meaning.”[viii] And so, the arguments originally used to found, support and defend Liberal Democracy are irredeemably obsolete: “Burke, Bentham, Guizot, and John Stuart Mill are thus antiquated today.”[ix]

However, there is yet a further equivocacy with the term “Democracy,” related to the long history that this word has. This is revealed when Carl Schmitt asserts, “Every actual democracy rests on the principle that not only are equals equal but unequals will not be treated equally.”[x] The source cited for this statement is supplied by the editor of this book by Schmitt, Ellen Kennedy, is Aristotle’s Politics, 1280a (using the standard reference of the Bekker edition’s page and column number). We will compare Carl Schmitt and Aristotle on this point in a moment.

The conclusion Schmitt derives for this principle of treating equals equally and unequals unequally is that “Democracy requires, therefore, first homogeneity and second – if the need arises – elimination or eradication of heterogeneity.” “A democracy demonstrates its political power by knowing how to refuse or keep at bay something foreign and unequal that threatens its homogeneity.”[xi] Universal equality detracts from politics and obliterates true differences: “Equality is only interesting and valuable politically so long as it has substance, and for that reason at least the possibility and the risk of inequality.”[xii]
The term used by Carl Schmitt to oppose Liberal Democracy is democracy (without the attached ‘liberal’ qualification). The reference to Aristotle’s Politics which links this term to the notion of treating equal things equally and unequal things unequally shows that Schmitt has in mind the type of regime called by Aristotle – not “democracy,” but – politeia, the general term for any type of regime or form of government. Politeia gets translated by Latin authors as res publica, which has as its descendant our English word “republic.” A politeia in the sense of a specific type of regime (rather than as a term for regimes generally) is a mixed regime, using the principles of both democracy (viz. equality) and oligarchy (viz. inequality).

Is there anything to be said for Liberal Democracy? A final, rearguard support for Liberal Democracy which is neither unreflective nor oblivious to modern liberalism’s inherent theoretical and practical failings has in fact been put forward by Leo Strauss: “… liberal democracy, in contradistinction to communism and fascism, derives powerful support from a way of thinking which cannot be called modern at all: the pre-modern thought of our western tradition.”[xiii]

Liberal Democracy could be based on two different understandings of liberalism:
1. Modern liberalism (the type we call “Democracy” or Liberal Democracy),
or
2. Ancient liberalism (the “pre-modern thought of our western tradition,” viz. Plato and Aristotle, in particular).

Recall that Schmitt used the pre-modern understanding of “democracy” to draw a useful distinction to critique modern Liberal Democracy. This pre-modern understanding of “democracy” is equivalent to option number 2, the variety of ancient liberalism.

Strauss provides a handy summary of this development of modern thought by use of a “poetic analogy” which helps us visualise the successive innovations which led to the foundation of Liberalism and Liberal Democracy in the first place: that of the “Three Waves of Modernity.” The main regime types we see or have seen and are aware of in the world today (or in the recent past) have all had philosophic founders. These founders emerged in a sequence and relied on earlier developments upon which the further articulation of their own positions was founded, while having a beginning and source which presented itself as a revolt from the thought of the past. This provides us with the following schema:
First Wave: the repudiation of pre-modern political thought (both Classical and Biblical) by Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke: this culminates in the foundation of Liberalism, and capitalism (the advocacy for a “commercial society” –cf. Adam Smith).[xiv]
Second Wave: J.-J. Rousseau’s critique and adaptation of the First Wave. Kant, Hegel and Marx (and therefore Communism) find their basis here.
Third Wave: Friedrich Nietzsche and his successors.

According to Strauss, “The theory of liberal democracy, as well as of communism, originated in the first and second waves of modernity; the political implication of the Third wave proved to be fascism.”[xv]

If it is true that modern thought arose as a break with the past (in the “first wave of modernity” and on which the subsequent “waves” also depend as their own foundation) in full awareness of what it was doing (as Strauss asserts was in fact the case) it is hard to see how pre-modern thought could be somehow incorporated into the modern thought represented by Liberalism or how that modern thought could draw support on the very past with which it consciously broke and repudiated.

In another work, Liberalism, Ancient and Modern, Strauss repeats and amplifies some of these contentions. While still claiming that “There is a direct connection between the notion of the mixed regime and modern republicanism [i.e. Liberal Democracy],”[xvi] and that there are two senses of the term “liberal,” he now provides what the content of these different conceptions is. The original, pre-modern sense of being liberal is displaying the virtue of liberality where “the genuinely liberal man is identical with the genuinely virtuous man,” and in contrast the modern sense of liberal as that which underlies contemporary Liberal Democracy: negative freedom, in the Isaiah Berlin sense, i.e. a freedom from something, not a freedom for anything.[xvii] This is confirmed by the original form of liberalism being opposed to the very end posited by modern Liberalism and Communism: “…classical political philosophy [viz. that of Plato and Aristotle in particular] opposes to the universal and homogeneous state [i.e. the goal of both Liberalism and Communism] a substantive principle. It asserts that the society natural to man is the city, that is, a closed society that can well be taken in in one view or that corresponds to man’s natural (macroscopic, not microscopic or telescopic) power of perception.”[xviii] The “city” here is the Greek polis, which does not separate State and Society like modern Statist regimes, such as Liberal Democracy, et al. By being a closed society, it protects and favours its own, and is opposed to universalism which threatens both its ethnic identity or particularity and its homogeneity.

On the basis of this closed society which antedates the distinction between State and Society concomitant with Liberal Democracy, the political thinkers of classical antiquity favoured the following solution to the political problem: “For all practical purposes they were satisfied with a regime in which the gentlemen share power with the people in such a way that the people elect the magistrates and the council from among the gentlemen and demand an account of them at the end of their term of office. A variation of this thought is the notion of the mixed regime, in which the gentlemen form the senate and the senate occupies the key position between the popular assembly and an elected or hereditary monarch as head of the armed forces of society.”[xix]

The Athenian Democracy of the 4th Century BC, though not fully embodying the combination of equality and inequality as recommended by Aristotle that could have stabilised its political history, certainly overcame the separation of State and Society, and thereby the symptoms of political and civic alienation and degradation and withdrawal which we experience and witness in our own societies today. The political and social interaction of the average citizen is quite extraordinary for us to behold: “Historians have often described the wide array of institutions in which the Athenian democrat took part and the intense civic experience it produced. By 400 BCE, property qualifications for citizenship had been eliminated; the principal legislative body was the Assembly of all citizens; the boards of lawmakers (nomothetai) and the juries were chosen by lot from the citizens; the Council, which prepared the agenda for the Assembly was chosen annually by lot from the citizenry; the decisions of the Assembly were subject to review only by the people’s courts. Citizens not only deliberated and took decisions in the Assembly, Council, and the courts, but they chose leaders, made decisions about foreign policy and war, judged the credentials of officeholders, issued decrees, and much more. To this should be added the flourishing local political cultures centered in the demes.”[xx]

The problem now is: How to obtain a viable modern equivalent to the ancient achievement of republican government in the small, closed society which does not separate State and Society, and is neither Statist nor Liberal Democratic.

Bibliography

Caton, Hiram. 1988. The Politics of Progress: The Origins and Development of the Commercial Republic, 1600-1835. Gainesville. University of Florida Press.
Fukuyama, Francis. 1989. “The End of History?” The National Interest 16 (Summer): 2-18.
Fukuyama, Francis. 1992. The End of History and the Last Man. New York. Free Press.
Hamilton, Alexander, Jay, John, and Madison, James. 1937. The Federalist: A Commentary on the Constitution of the United States, ed. Edward Mead Earle. New York: Modern Library Edition.
Kojève, Alexandre. 1968. Introduction to the Reading of Hegel. (Ed. Allan Bloom, Trans. James H. Nichols, Jr.) Ithaca, N.Y. Cornell University Press.
Macklin, Graham D. 2005. “Co-opting the Counter-Culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction,” in Patterns of Prejudice, vol. 39, no. 3, 301-26.
Schmitt, Carl. 1923. The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. (Trans. Ellen Kennedy). Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press, 1985.
Schmitt, Carl. 1932. The Concept of the Political. (Trans. George Schwab). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Strauss, Leo. 1968. Liberal Ancient and Modern. New York. Basic Books.
Strauss, Leo. 1975. “The Three Waves of Modernity,” in An Introduction to Political Philosophy: Ten Essays. Indianapolis and New York. Bobbs Merrill/Pegasus.
Wolin, Sheldon S., 1993, “Democracy: Electoral and Athenian,” in PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 26, No. 3. (Sep.), 475-477.[i] Fukuyama (1989) 271.[ii] Even though Carl Schmitt is compromised by his later opportunistic submission to Statist Fascism, this need not retro-spectively invalidate his analysis – at least for those of us who wish to avoid the charge of committing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.[iii] Schmitt (1923) 8-9.[iv] Ibid. 15.[v] Ibid. 4.[vi] Ibid. 7.[vii] Ibid. 35.[viii] Ibid. 50.[ix] Ibid. 7.[x] Ibid. 9.[xi] Ibid.[xii] Ibid.[xiii] Strauss (1975) 98.[xiv] Cf. Caton, Hiram (1988). The Politics of Progress: The Origins and Development of the Commercial Republic, 1600-1835. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.[xv] Strauss (1975) 98.[xvi] Strauss (1968) 15.[xvii] Ibid. ix.[xviii] Ibid. x.[xix] Ibid. 15.[xx] Wolin (1993) 477.

THE PARIS HILTON SYNDROME

by Welf Herfurth

This article concerns something that receives little attention from nationalists: celebrities and popular culture, and their influence on both our liberal democratic system and our consumerist society. More specifically, it concerns the role of women in our liberal democracy and popular culture. This subject matter is very much part of our lives: one cannot avoid the celebrity trash gossip magazines, American TV shows, and the role prominent women in our liberal democracy (such as Hilary Clinton). Moreover, our economy relies, to a great extent, on both consumerism – especially a consumerist lifestyle promoted heavily to women, through advertisements and celebrity culture – and female labour.

From a political view, does any of this matter? Do the antics of Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan matter? Did Princess Diana matter? A person with an old-school, left-wing point of view would say, ‘No’. The fetishisation of celebrity women in our culture is a symptom of the fetishisation of capitalist consumer commodities. Once capitalism is abolished, the only women who will appear in advertisements, films and the like will be female communist role models – factory workers, rice paddy farmers, mothers bearing socialist babies and the like.

After the advent of the New Left, the analyses – of images of women in a capitalist society, as expressed through popular culture – became a little more sophisticated. The stern Soviet and Maoist bromides became somewhat old-fashioned, and the neo-Marxists argued that there was something deeper going on.

Here I will be taking an approach similar to that of the New Left – but will drawing upon Evola instead of Marcuse. Bill White, before his Nutzi phase, used to write some intelligent articles. One of them was on the subject of women in American popular culture, and used some Evolian concepts. (Unfortunately, it is no longer available on the Internet). Evola, I think, is a thinker who is the most suitable for this sort of thing. After all, many of his ‘spiritual types’, or ‘races’ (as he defines them) possess masculine and feminine characteristics. In essays like ‘Do we live in a gynaecocratic society?’ (1936), he said nearly all there is to be said on the subject. The present article will add little to the discussion – much of what Evola has written has yet to be surpassed – but the articles from the 1930s and 1940s are lacking in that they are out of date. They appear dated because Evola did not live in our age – the age of Angelina Jolie, ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ and the Hilary Clinton presidential campaign bid.

1. Evola’s spiritual types

Evola’s work, as readers familiar with him know, defines a number of spiritual types, which are known to us through myths, religious texts, folklore and the like. Evola believes that these contain metaphysical truth – and that the task of the Traditionalist scholar is to interpret them. He regards descriptions of ancient events in the Bible, for instance, as history which is literally true – that is, accurate descriptions of the metaphysical states of affairs.

Evola often begins his narratives of ‘metaphysical history’, of the various ages of the metaphysical development (or, in his view, degeneration) of man, by positing a primordial ‘solar’, ‘Uranian’ spirituality, which is followed, in time, by the appearance of ‘Demetrian’, ‘Titanic’, and ‘Amazonian’ spiritualities (among others). It is the Amazonian spirituality which we shall first examine here.

The Amazonian spiritual type represents an interesting combination of both male and female spirituality. To Evola, Amazonian is both a reaction and a transmutation. ‘Demetrian’ spirituality is feminine, maternal, egalitarian, pacifist, collectivist – the closest there is to modern day pagan worship of ‘Mother Earth’ and the New Age cults. (Possibly, there is a link here to modern environmentalism as well). In contrast to this, there is the coarse ‘Titanic’ spirituality – cruel, masculine, militarist, phallic (in a purely physical way) and forever seeking after the higher, spiritual state as represented by the ‘Uranian’ and ‘solar’ spirituality. (There are several myths of giants and other demonic races who sought to attain the ‘solar’ spirituality by force – by storming Mount Olympus and so forth – and being punished by the Gods for their impudence). Amazonianism is a reaction against the coarseness of the Titanic spirituality, and is a defence of the virtues of Demetrianism. In Evola’s narrative of metaphysical history, the two rival spiritualities – the ultra-female Demetrian and the ultra-masculine Titanic – clashed, and produced a feminine spirituality which was not quite one or the other. Amazonianism is feminine, all right, but has taken on assertive, masculine and warrior characteristics. (Evola, of course, has nothing against militarism and the warrior: only the expressions of militarism without a higher, ‘solar’ spiritual aspect. The militarism of the Titanic spirituality is militarism devoid of any transcendent spirituality: it is the use of force only to attain purely material goals).

This Amazonianism is prevalent today. As Evola writes:

The woman often asserts her primacy in new 'Amazonian' forms. Thus we see the new masculinised sportswoman, the garconne, the woman who devotes herself to the unilateral development of her own body, betrays the mission which would be normal to her in a civilisation of virile type, becomes emancipated and independent and even bursts into the political field. And this is not all. (‘Do we live in a gynaecocratic society’ (1936), translation copyright © 2003 Thompkins and Cariou).

2. Amazons go pop

One can say that those tendencies identified by Evola in 1936 continued into the modern age. Indeed, to look at the popular culture of the last ten or so years, we can say that we are living in the age of Amazonianism. Women warriors abound: killer cyborgs, fighter pilots, deadly martial artists, female soldiers… One only has to think of Lara Croft, television shows like ‘Xena: Warrior Princess’, the remake of ‘Bionic Woman’, ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’, ‘Battlestar: Galactica’ (in which every single female character is an Amazon of some kind), ‘Dark Angel’, films such as ‘G.I. Jane’ (a 1997 film which was a portent of the future), ‘Kill Bill’, ‘Charlie’s Angels’… Even Guinevere, a more Demetrian figure, was reinterpreted as a bow-wielding Amazon-type in the 2004 film, ‘King Arthur’. (Of course, there are plenty of films and TV shows from the recent past with women warriors – there is ‘Barbarella’ (1968), the sixties British TV series ‘The Avengers’, the seventies version of ‘Bionic Woman’, Sigourney Weaver in ‘Alien’ (1979) and its sequels, the Afro-American kung-fu heroines of the seventies Blaxploitation films, the Linda Hamilton character in ‘Terminator 2’ (1991). There are also the multitude of heroines in American comic books. But it is only recently – in the past ten or so years – that the Amazonian woman warrior has reached the forefront).

Now, I am not such a prude that I dislike all American popular culture. I have enjoyed at least a few of the above films and TV shows. But the striking thing is their unreal depiction of women. A reviewer of ‘Charlie’s Angels’ (2000) at the Vanguard News Network site acerbically noted that the film simply wasn’t real: no amount of martial arts training, and psychological ‘positive thinking’, could give women the physical strength to overpower a man in a fight – it simply doesn’t happen. They do not have the strength, or the aggression. He cited an anecdote of an incident he witnessed in a parking lot, where a man was berating a woman for her poor driving manners. The woman was twice the man’s size, but put up with the man’s tirade and nodded meekly before climbing back into her car. In a ‘Charlie’s Angel’-type universe, she would, of course, given him a roundhouse kick or thrown him over her shoulder in a judo manoeuvre.

We all know from real life that female aggression is the exception and not the rule. War is a man’s business, and it is men who do most of the fighting (and dying) on the battlefield. True, there were female communist soldiers in the Vietnam War, and in the Soviet Union’s so-called ‘Great Patriotic War’: but again, these are exceptions.

So why is it, then, are women, in today’s action-based films and TV shows, increasingly depicted as flying fighter jets, kickboxing, shooting, breaking necks, etc., like men? Why are there women who are portrayed as having inhuman physical strength – a strength which exceeds that of the male characters (e.g., the superwomen in ‘Buffy’, ‘Xena’, ‘Battlestar’, ‘Bionic Woman’)? They are often shown bending steel bars, terrorising hapless male characters, and engaging in protracted martial arts contests with other warrior/killer women – all the things that men, or at least the men in the absurd pop fantasy world, should be doing.

Popular culture is all about fantasy – a character like James Bond, who is a connoisseur of fine wine, food and clothes, a great lover, a successful gambler, an unbeatable action hero – appeals to male fantasies. Possibly, the new wave of women warriors appeals to female fantasies. That is, the women who like these films and TV shows have wanted to do these sorts of things, but now, under the aegis of feminism (which teaches that women can be equal to men in every way), they can see those fantasies put up there on the big (or small) screen.

Nationalist writers who have touched upon the subject usually blame it on a conspiracy – a conspiracy, by the writers, directors and producers of Hollywood, to turn women into men, to masculinise them. Usually these analyses are couched in white nationalist terms: the white race is dying, and needs more children; but, because of feminism and other modern ills, white women are not reproducing enough.

Western popular culture, which is tremendously influential, certainly encourages ‘feminist’ childlessness. One can think of a few of the female warrior characters mentioned above who do have children – e.g., the Uma Thurman character in ‘Kill Bill’ – but childlessness, and the absence of the comforts of the hearth and home, are the rule. The women characters lead a transient life of adventuring, and children, husbands, mortgages and homemaking only serve to get in the way. (A hit single from the ‘Charlie’s Angels’ soundtrack was, appropriately enough, titled ‘Independent Woman’).

Whether or not white women are staving off pregnancy, in order to imitate the feminist pop icons, is beside the point. Likewise, it is beside the point whether or not white women should be bearing as many children as possible (and Evola would be vehemently against that notion). The point is that we are seeing an eruption of Amazonianism. Why?

Many white nationalists would blame it on the ethnicity of the group which controls Hollywood and the American TV studios, record companies, etc. – this group, they charge, wants to ‘Destroy the white race’ through promoting feminist childlessness, and race-mixing. Evola’s interpretation, in contrast, is that the explanation is metaphysical: we are living in a dark age (what he calls the Dark Age) which is seeing the eruption of spiritualities which are the negation of the Uranian, solar spirituality that he favours most. In other words, pop-culture Amazonianism is merely a sign of the times, and there is no one ethnic group foisting it upon us. It is an explanation I myself tend to agree with.

I should note here that a recent trend in the celebrity news media is to dwell obsessively on celebrity pregnancies. The media is in a frenzy of speculation over whether or not Nicole Kidman, or whoever, is pregnant, and stars who are already pregnant receive maximum news coverage. Certainly, 2007 was, in the world of the trash media, the Year of the Pregnant Celebrity. Which has drawn protestations from some female journalists, who complain that the trash media seems to think that the pregnancies of these celebrities is more noteworthy than their artistic accomplishments. (I myself think that the artistic accomplishments of the majority of both male and female celebrities in the 2007 were not very noteworthy, myself – so maybe celebrity pregnancies make better copy than anything Kidman, Heath Ledger, Naomi Watts, Russell Crowe and the rest have done this year).

Related to this is the practice of celebrity adoption, particularly the adoption of children from the Third World. Madonna and Jolie have adopted children from Africa, and, in Madonna’s case at least, have removed the child from its birth parents. Africa, of course, is portrayed in the Western media as a continent wracked by war, poverty, famine, corruption, repressive government, and barbaric sex crimes. And, what is more, Westerners – who are, in the liberal democratic discourse, citizens of a globalised world – are obliged to take care of Africa’s problems, through aid and peacemaking efforts, but also through adopting orphans from Sudan or wherever, and giving them ‘a better life’ in the West. Certainly, to judge by their actions, the Madonnas and Jolies seem to think that way. (Likewise, immigration of Africans, on humanitarian grounds, is another form of aid. That is, African immigrants from war-torn, oppressive countries, have the ‘right’ to a life in the West, to share in its abundance and prosperity).

3. Aphroditism and consumerism

It is a fact that women are very big consumers of luxury consumer goods: that is, consumer goods that we could easily live without – expensive clothes, shoes, home furnishings and the like. Any man who has ever leafed through a woman’s magazine, or watched a TV program on woman’s beauty ‘needs’, would draw the conclusion that women’s inner thought processes revolve largely around hair and skin care, makeup, diets, the prevention of ageing, makeovers, ‘looking good’ by buying the right clothes and shoes (and wearing them the right way) and the like. In comparison, men seem to pay little attention to these things: advertising aimed at men, for instance, gives the message that men are creatures whose sole preoccupations are beer, sport, cars and DIY home repairs.

My own conclusion is that the advertisers, magazine editors and others are largely correct: the vast majority of men, and women, are interested in those subjects, almost to the exclusion of anything else. I say this because those advertisers, manufacturers of luxury consumer goods, etc., would hardly be able to make a living otherwise, and they do – the market for women’s rejuvenating skin creams, for instance, is huge. Partially, this is all a result of living in a technologically-advanced society where machines do much of the ordinary, hum-drum chores of the household for us. Traditionally, women in the past had to look after the house, and attend to the domestic chores. But they did not have the labour-saving, and time-saving, devices that we have now. Food had to be consumed quickly because there no refrigerators; washing had to be done by hand. Children had to be looked after, with direct supervision, and now the TV functions as a babysitter. Because of automatic dishwasher, the washing machine and all the other domestic labour-saving devices, women who stay at home become bored, and tend to go shopping to relieve that boredom. Which is natural: many shopping malls are pleasant places, and buying a new consumer item – especially a luxury – can generate its own short-lived ‘high’, just like a cigarette, a cup of coffee, or a win at a poker machine. As a result, the instinct which leads a mother to provide for her children, the hunter-gatherer instinct, is inverted, and turned towards consumerism. And, for adolescent girls, spending on luxury items becomes a competition, fuelled by peer-pressure. They feel compelled to keep up with the likes of Paris Hilton – but do not have the means to keep up, i.e., Hilton’s inexhaustible wealth.

In addition to shopping-mall consumerism, another pleasure is the celebrity gossip magazine, covering the dreary trivialities of the lives of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, and the rest, and the latest sordid escapades of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Princess Diana continues to generate news stories almost daily, even though she has been dead for ten years, and obviously, there is a market for every new scrap of information about her. (Incidentally, in my own experience, the majority of people interested in the British Royal Family are female).

The reason why such figures generate such fascination among women is vicarious identification: or rather, women want to be like Angelina Jolie and Princess Diana – they want that money, that luxurious lifestyle, the clothes, mansions, expensive holidays in luxury resorts, and affairs and marriages with handsome wealthy men. They also want to have their cake and eat it, too: that is, they want that lifestyle, and children – hence the media obsession with the pregnancies of wealthy female celebrities. All of this represents an escape from the routine, budget-restricted life: and the fact that the grass is always greener.

There is also an element of drama in the lives of these celebrity women, and danger: did Katie Holmes marry a Scientologist nutcase? Will Brad return to Jennifer Aniston and abandon Angelina? What does Kate Moss see in the out-of-control drug addict Pete Doherty? Will Victoria Beckham drop dead from an eating disorder? The media constantly focuses on scandal, infidelity, marriage troubles, anorexia and obesity, and general drama of all kinds – and where there is no drama and scandal, the media invents.

To a certain extent this is natural. Often, more politically-correct observers are surprised by the extent of two things: a) women’s tendency to place other women on a pedestal (e.g. Princess Diana, Jacqueline Onassis, Elizabeth Taylor, Princess Grace of Monaco and other celebrities, who exist on a hierarchical plane far above the masses); and b) women’s appetite for luxurious consumer goods. One has to recall the socialist ‘queen’ of Argentina, Evita Peron, a beautiful woman who clothed herself in expensive furs, wore expensive jewellery, etc. A true socialist should never do such things, but Evita was wildly popular with her constituency - impoverished, lower-class women - who approved of Evita’s ostentatious displays of wealth and conspicuous consumption.

Even though we live in a liberal democratic society, the masses still seem to feel the need for royalty, or at least, elevated figures of great wealth, beauty and refinement.

Vicarious identification, and wish-fulfilment, is at the heart of the fascination with the likes of Jolie and Princess Diana. But what of Lohan, Hilton and Spears? No woman would want to be like them, surely? I say this because these women are the unfortunates of the celebrity world: they are always in trouble, always having trouble with husbands and boyfriends, always going on self-destructive, booze- and drug-fuelled rampages (which often lead to arrest). And, not to put a fine word upon it, they are trash – they lack class.

For all her money, Britney Spears is trailer-trash, a lumpenproletarian who celebrated her wedding to the hip-hopping Kevin Federline with a wedding reception at KFCs. In addition, both Spears’ and Lohan’s careers are in decline: I know, from reading the entertainment pages, that Spears’ new album was outsold by a new release by the Eagles, and that Lohan is virtually broke from spending her wealth on drugs, dresses, extravagant holidays, houses, etc. No doubt many women envy the wealth of Hilton, Lohan, Spears (and that of a comparatively minor, but equally self-destructive celebrity, Amy Winehouse); but few would envy their lives. And then there is the question of sexual morality: conventional, conservative sexual morality – which still governs much of our lives – frowns on Hilton and her pornographic videos, etc., and certainly would not approve of a woman in real life who mimicked her behaviour, and that Lohan and Spears.

All of this is a kind of rebellion. But, instead of being a political rebellion, it is an individualist one. The energies that would be channelled into activism are now channelled into consumerism, escapism, and debauchery.

In my view, the cult of Lohan, Spears and Hilton is a symptom of what Evola calls ‘Aphroditism’. As Evola writes, in a rather sensationalistic passage:

Baumler wrote this, in the introduction to the already mentioned selected writings of Bachofen: "In the streets of Berlin, Paris or London, all you have to do is to observe for a moment a man or a woman to realise that the cult of Aphrodite is the one before which Zeus and Apollo had to beat a retreat...The present age bears, in fact, all the features of a gynaecocratic age. In a late and decadent civilisation, new temples of Isis and Astarte, of these Asian mother goddesses that were celebrated in orgies and licentiousness, in desperate sinking into sensual pleasure, arise. The fascinating female is the idol of our times, and, with painted lips, she walks through the European cities as she once did through Babylon. And as if she wanted to confirm Bachofen's profound intuition, the lightly dressed modern ruler of man keeps in leash a dog, the ancient symbol of unlimited sexual promiscuity and infernal forces"... Woman and sensuality often become predominant motifs almost to a pathological and obsessive degree. In Anglo-Saxon civilisation, and particularly in America, the man who exhausts his life and time in business and the search for wealth, a wealth that, to a large extent, only serves to pay for feminine luxury, caprices, vices and refinements, has conceded to the woman the privilege and even the monopoly of dealing with 'spiritual' things. (‘Do we live in a gynaecocratic society’ (1936), translation copyright © 2003 Thompkins and Cariou).
This explains, to my mind, the cult of Lohan, Spears and Hilton – trashy women who lead opulent lifestyles, who have public affairs, make pornographic films and who, despite their lumpen-esque behaviour, still occupy a privileged place in our society. They are like the pagan priestesses of the Venusian cults of the ancient world. (It can be said, too, that the explosion of pornography (and nudes in advertisements at newspaper stands, billboards and the rest) in the modern age, especially Internet pornography, is another sign of the resurgence of the cult of Venus, so to speak).

Men are the biggest consumers of all this pornography. But this is precisely the point: they are bound, spiritually, to this cult of Aphrodite, as manifested through ubiquitous pornography, nudity in advertising, etc., which has been created by other men (usually in the United States). They wallow in decadence while their countries, politically and economically, go to ruin. The situation is not so different from that of Germany in the time of the Weimar Republic, when the young men of Germany indulged in ‘Aphrodisian’ sensuality instead of defending their country against communism, and working to fix their country’s myriad foreign policy and economic problems.

4. Women in politics

The reader may point out that here I have neglected to examine another form of Amazonianism: the rise of the woman Statesman. At the time of writing, Hilary Clinton is making a bid for the White House – and many liberal feminists are supporting her campaign, regardless of what her actual policies are, because they feel that ‘It’s time for a woman president’.

Margaret Thatcher and Indira Ghandi were two women who set precedents for women being Heads of State (and it is no coincidence that Thatcher’s propagandists compared her to the British warrior queen, Boudicea, a decidedly Amazonian figure who will soon have a Hollywood film, in the style of ‘King Arthur’ (2004), made about her). But more interesting is the role that women play in getting male politicians elected. As 50% of the electorate, they play a vital role, of course: but they also, as wives and partners, play a role in motivating men to run for office. One only has to look at the instrumental roles Cherie Blair and Hilary Clinton played in elevating their respective spouses. Some wives, like the former Australian prime minister John Howard’s wife, and George W. Bush’s wife, seem to play a minimal role; others, like Cherie Blair, Hilary Clinton and wives of despots such as Marcos and Suharto, are a driving force.

This is natural, to a certain extent. Wives and female partners often tend to encourage their spouses to achieve more, to do more with their lives, to obtain the respect that they rightfully deserve (‘How could you let x work colleague speak to you like that?’), to occupy the station in life that they truly deserve. There are many examples from literature and popular culture (Lady Macbeth being one of the most famous). To a certain extent, this is all healthy, and the consequences are not always as evil as in the cases of Blair, Clinton and Macbeth.

Part of the problem in nationalism is not merely the lack of female members, but the lack of female members who are driving forces in men’s lives. Instead of constructive political activism, many men use nationalism as an excuse for drunken get-togethers, where the conversation consists of complaints about the behaviour of certain ethnic minorities. Without motivation, without the desire for success and achievement in politics, and all the appropriate skills for success, professionally and in the community, nationalists will accomplish little. They will also fail to attract admiring, supportive spouses.

And this, I think, is one of the many reasons why women are not attracted to nationalism (at least in the Anglo-Saxon countries): they see little in the way of material and social benefit. A woman who is a former trade-union lawyer can achieve a great deal of success in the Australian Labor Party, by simply mouthing all the things that the unions want her to say; but a similar career path, leading to similar success, is not available in nationalism – either for a woman or her spouse.

Having said that, an increase in the number of women members will not cure all ills. One only has to look at the Australian communists, who attract plenty of young women, all right – but women who are, in my experience, bitter and twisted because they feel persecuted against and discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.

One of the other things that women find unattractive about nationalism is, I think, its emphasis on women’s role as the progenitors of the white race – specifically, their responsibility as progenitors – brood mares, so to speak. (Both fascism and communism, historically, tended to laud women as child-bearers, homemakers and housewives. Nowadays, of course, women see this as too limiting). While, of course, the majority of women will end up having children at some point in their lives, there are metaphysical types – or what Camille Paglia calls ‘sexual personae’ – besides The Mother. (Indeed, the image of woman in nationalist propaganda, especially white nationalist propaganda, is often evocative of Demetrian spirituality – the exception being, of course, that the Demetrian, lunar mother type in nationalist propaganda is racialist.

Demetrianism is egalitarian, rejects hierarchy, and treats all people and all races as being equal. Nationalism, of course, does not reject hierarchy, and makes distinctions between the races. Its propaganda emphasises that it supports the notion of white motherhood, not motherhood in general). Nationalists should, I think, try and give women more options – and not restrict the role of woman to The Mother. After all, we nationalists do not want to produce another generation of bored housewives like those of the fifties, sixties and seventies, who resorted to anti-depressant pills and other legal drugs to relieve their boredom.

The solution? We do not want go down the communist route – communist ideology draws on Amazonian imagery (e.g., women as soldiers, factory workers in overalls and the rest). At the same time, it should be pointed out that fascism, historically, while championing the role of woman as mother, also possessed a modernist, feminist tinge (often overlooked by hostile communist and liberal commentators), making icons out of Amazonian figures like Leni Reißenstahl and Hanna Reitsch. Fascism owed its successes in winning the support of millions of Europeans, and many European women, because, I think, it was flexible in its ‘party line’ when it came to women.

5. Masculinity in nationalist politics

I was discussing the contents of this article with a friend of mine who is a nationalist intellectual and who writes articles for nationalist publications. I mentioned that I would touch upon the subject of Amazonianism in popular culture. Inevitably, we started talking about a related issue: the subculture of male ‘nerds’ in the West who are vociferous consumers of American pop culture (especially with a science-fiction or fantasy theme): e.g., films, television shows, comic books, manga, anime, role-playing games, computer games and the rest.

These men, who are often physically out of shape and badly groomed, seem to live in a world of pop fantasy which is completely disconnected from reality. They seem to have little interest in politics or anything else that happens in the real world. They also have little interest in anything which is part of the tradition of ‘high’ Western culture (that is, novels, films, plays, operas, paintings, sculpture which is not mass-produced American or Japanese junk). If a film does not have a science fiction or fantasy theme, they will not watch it: trying to sell them on the virtues of classic filmmakers, such as Godard, De Sica, Jean Renoir, for instance, is a futile task.

In the West, the phenomenon of ‘nerdism’ is ever increasing. From a nationalist standpoint, nerdism is harmful: it is, in fact, a selfish form of consumerism, of liberal individualism, which is about as bad as Paris Hilton, indiscriminate credit-card driven consumerism – in fact, it is probably the male equivalent. Young, impressionable women waste huge amounts of disposable income on shoes to increase their physical allure; young men, ‘Warhammer’ figures, to retreat from traditional masculine imperatives like finding a mate. (A young man playing a ‘World of Warcraft’ game can be transformed into a hero – that is, a hero on the Internet. In this, they are not so different from the ‘keyboard commandoes’ of nationalism, who are heroes on the Internet, but politically ineffectual in real life).

Again, I am not being prudish here: games like ‘World of Warcraft’ and the like are fun. But these young men are concentrating on these mass-produced entertainments to the point of excluding everything else; and, if they do not concentrate on some of the other problems afflicting our civilisation – e.g., the demographic threat posed by immigration – they will, in the end, have no popular culture entertainments left to enjoy. (E.g., the actors in any upcoming fantasy epics will all be non-white; traditional European themes, based on medieval European, and Celtic and Teutonic folklore, will be replaced by Hindu or African ones).

So how do we attract such young men to nationalism? Well, the problem is just that: how to attract them. Why should they want to be nationalists?

The answer is, I think, by appealing to a sense of heroism. Nationalist ideology, at its best, rests on, among other things, confrontations and glorious struggles against our enemies (who are, more often than not, the communists). Nationalist man is very much a heroic, martial man: someone brave enough to march down the street, in a demonstration, and stand side by side with his comrades, waving a nationalist flag and enduring the jeers, screams and provocations of the assembled communist Left who seek to ‘smash fascism’ by smashing him, physically. Martyrs in the nationalist canon, like Daniel Wrestström, are glorified – just like Boromir in ‘Lord of the Rings’. (More than a few observers have pointed out the correlation between nationalist ideology and epic fantasy – in particular, their glorification of daring, heroic feats). Nationalism, too, has a place for the physically slight men who are not street fighters – men like Goebbels, John Tyndall and William Pierce – who function as agitators, writing politically provocative speeches and articles, an act which, in our present age of politically-correct anti-free speech laws, carries its own risks. One can say that it takes a certain type of man – a man with guts – to want to become a nationalist. And this, I believe, is how one can appeal to the nerds: by offering them, like the army recruiters of old, the prospect of a life of excitement and danger (while hoping, of course, that none of them meet the end of the unfortunate Daniel Wrestström).

6. The Traditionalist rebellion

Fascism, and much of post-war nationalism, has always promulgated the one metaphysical type: the ‘heroic’, ‘solar’ type of spirituality. In Evola’s writing, the heroic spiritual type as an attempt to regain the primordial Uranian and solar spirituality, lost after the successive waves of distortions and deviations of previous epochs. The heroic epics of Hercules, Gilgamesh and others describe spiritual journeys – not mere adventures – which are quests for that lost, solar spirituality. It is masculine – Evola uses the term virile to describe it – but not the coarse, phallic masculinity of the Titanic type.

Now, this brand of metaphysics is bound to appeal to men in the current age, which is very much a feminised age. I am not talking here of the proliferation of Amazonianism in pop culture, or Aphroditism, etc., but in the structure of our economy itself.

I once read a statistic (which I am unfortunately able to find again and reproduce here) that most of the hundreds of thousands of jobs created in Australia in the last ten or so years have gone to women. Anecdotally, this seems to be the case: in our everyday dealings with the banks, the electricity companies, government agencies like the educational institutions, the hospitals, social security, the Road Traffic Authority and the like, are staffed by young (20s, 30s) white-collar women, who are (again, statistically) more likely than not to be single. Our lives, in the West, have become bureaucratised, thanks to the proliferation of government red tape, rules and regulations for everything, and most of the bureaucrats one encounters in one’s daily dealings with the banks, government institutions and the like, are, more often than not, from this class of young white-collar women.

So men are bound to encounter ‘bureaucrats’ of this type, again and again – dealing with bureaucracy is inevitable in today’s world – and certainly, this must have a demasculinising effect on men over the long term, especially given that our conventional morality tells us that it is a man’s responsibility (and a man’s alone) to support his wife and his children. That, of course, has changed, with the rise of the single-parent household: but the perception that a man has these moral responsibilities still lingers, and certainly, I know many men still have them. And the question is whether having households without fathers – in Australia, we have 750,000 people on sole parent’s benefit, the majority of them being female sole parents – is, socially, good or not. I myself would say no.

So why are there so many women in employment? The answer is, economics – or at least, the economics of the post-1970s period. The inflation of the 1970s - following the break-up of the Bretton Woods system of the gold standard and fixed exchange rates – led to an economic deterioration which was so widespread, and so ruinous, that men were unable to support their wives and children on one wage, as they did in the 1950s and 1960s. So women were forced to go out and work.

The solution to the problem is, of course, economic. In economist’s jargon, we need to increase the capital-labour ratio in favour of labour: that is, capital, invested in the market, has to become plentiful in comparison to labour. A bidding war for workers, between rival capitalists, will begin, and wages will go up – which will enable men to support wives and children on one income again. (That is, of course, that single income will be enough to pay for high house prices (for houses located near the city centres) and the modern consumerist lifestyle. Some would say no, and that a two-income household is necessary to meet such demands).

But, of course, such a solution is nowhere insight, especially given that incompetents today are in charge of running the economies of the West, as evinced by declining share market values, inflation, high interest rates and all the other ugly economic phenomena.

In the meantime, until the economy is fixed once and for all (and I myself am convinced that, under the system of liberal democracy, the economy will never be fixed, i.e., it will never benefit the good of the wider population but only to big business and its shareholders). Instead of purely economic solutions, we need nationalism of the kind described above – one that resurrects the imperial, solar and ‘virile’ virtues, in defiance of the present depraved age of Aphroditism, Amazonianism and all the anti-Traditionalist spiritualities. Nationalism becomes an act of rebellion.

Subconsciously, I think, the masses are Traditionalist: the ‘solar’ virtues are what the men and women of the West want. So we nationalists must be prepared to give ‘heroism’, in Evola’s sense, to them.

*Welf Herfurth is a political activist who lives in Sydney / Australia. He was born and raised in Germany. He can be contacted on herfurth@iinet.net.au

The Tyranny of Individualism in a Liberal Democratic Society

by Welf Herfurth

(This article contains one sick photo. I included it in the article to show how perverted society has become at least in my opinion - Welf Herfurth)


Introduction

This is an article divided up, roughly, into two halves. The first concerns liberalism, or what liberalism has become. It details a transition in liberalism – from a cult of elections and parliaments, to a cult of doing your own thing (even if that involves sexual and other debauchery). The second half outlines what I consider to be the New Right antidote to the poison of modern liberalism, and explores some of the ideas of a liberal democratic anti-intellectual, Karl Löwenstein, who, in 1937, wrote a paper describing some of the political techniques used by the fascist political movements of the time. Some of those techniques are still being used by nationalists around the world (Hungary, Sweden, Russia, Britain, etc.), and, in my opinion, we in Australia can apply them equally as successfully here.

What is liberalism really?

Nowadays, one can read, in the Western liberal democratic press, daily denunciations of General Musharaff of Pakistan and the Burmese Junta. The two dictatorships have attracted media attention recently because of their flagrant crackdowns on ‘liberal democratic’ political opponents (or at least, opponents who the Western media assumes are liberal democratic).

Now and then, other dictatorships and/or authoritarian regimes will occupy the spotlight. One recent case is Georgia, which is led by an American-backed liberal democrat, Mikhail Saakashvili, who came to power through an ‘Orange Revolution’-type coup (nicknamed the ‘Rose Revolution’) in 2003, but is now in danger of being overthrown, and now, as a result, has declared a state of emergency and is using state repression – including tear gas and rubber bullets – to subdue the populace.

A perennial target of the Western media is Vladimir Putin. Despite his massive support among the Russian people, and massive election results in his favor, the Western media still considers him to be ‘undemocratic’ and ‘illiberal’, and upholds his critics – small groups of ‘liberal democratic’ dissidents, who have no popular support, and no agenda beyond being anti-Putin – as being more ‘democratic’, and certainly more morally worthy.

So we have a collection of countries – Burma, Pakistan, Fiji, Russia and others – which are manifestly illiberal and democratic in the eyes of Western liberal democrats. But what is it, exactly, that makes our liberal democracies so good? Why are they preferable to these dictatorships and authoritarian regimes? The answer is, simply, that people in liberal democracies are ‘more free’ – in fact, they are ‘free to do their own thing’.

To explain. One of the objections the Western liberals have against Iran is that supposedly Iran (along with other conservative Islamic States) imposes a strict dress code upon women. Women are allowed to dress freely in the West, as well as engage in nude sunbathing and the like: part of that, in my view, is because of the Western cultural heritage (particularly in the northern European countries) which traditionally has given more freedom to women compared to, for instance, the Mediterranean cultures of North Africa and the Middle East. But according to the liberals, this freedom has nothing to do with the West and its cultural heritage, but is, or at least should be, universal. What is more, that freedom should be forced on to countries with a low regard for the freedom of women, and even on ones (like South Africa or Papua New Guinea) with a high incidence of rape. Israel is held up as a model to other Arab nations – ‘the only democracy in the Middle East’ – because of, among other reasons, its high degree of personal freedom (which translates into a thriving gay and ecstasy culture). Such a level of freedom is ‘Western’. Consistent liberals, however, will acknowledge that liberal freedom cuts both ways: a recent article in the British Guardian newspaper denounces the fact that the secularist regime in Tunisia encourages harassment of women wearing the hijab and men wearing beards.

A country needs more than a high level of personal freedom to qualify as a ‘democracy’ in the eyes of the West, of course. For one thing, there must be a separation of powers: the executive, judiciary and legislature must be separate. And, as Carl Schmitt would say, there must be debate: all legislatures must go through the farcical process of debating the pros and cons of each piece of legislation before the members vote on it (even though the passage of each bill is determined, well in advance, along party lines). The Israeli parliament, the Knesset, allows plenty of debate, all right – mostly on the topic of how best to kill, starve or drive out the Palestinians, or who to bomb first (Iran or Lebanon or Syria?). Because of the daily debates in the Knesset, Israel qualifies as a ‘liberal democracy’.

On top of that, there are other requirements: elections, a multi-party system...

These days, however, there are many countries which do have elections, and an ostensible multi-party system, which are still condemned as ‘un-free’ and ‘un-democratic’: Russia, Belarus, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Venezuela. The Western liberals claim that the governments of these respective countries repress the political opposition, fail to hold elections which are completely, a 100% ‘free and fair’ (that is, meeting the Jimmy Carter electoral observer-standard), reduce the legislature to a rubber stamp, and censor journalists. The worst thing about these countries is that they do not see changes of government: an opposition party is rarely, if ever, voted in: so they are de facto single party States. So, then, these countries are situated in the hazy no-man’s land between complete dictatorship and complete liberal democracy. (And even pro-Western countries like Singapore and Malaysia fit into this category). Some are worse (or better) on the liberal democratic scorecard than others: Russia and Syria tolerate opposition political parties more than Saudi Arabia and Iran – just barely. In many cases, e.g. Russia, Belarus and Iran, a real opposition exists. In other cases, e.g., Venezuela and Egypt, there is a political opposition which does win seats in parliament, but suffers from repression.

Again, though, we have to ask: what is all this freedom for? Surely elections, multi-party systems, frequent changes of government, the freedom of the press to snipe and criticise the government of the day, parliamentary debates, cannot be an end in themselves? Was Iraq invaded to give the Iraqis these dubious blessings? No: the answer is that the Iraqis were not free, as the Israelis are (or as Americans are) – not free to be gay, for instance, or drop ecstasy pills, or consume pornography, or to cross-dress. The Iraqis, and the Iranians, must reach the lofty status of Israel, which sent a transvestite singer to the Eurovision song contest – and won. Ahmedinejad attracted much Western condemnation for his insistence that ‘There are no gays in Iran’ (a mistranslation: he really said that there is no gay culture in Iran like there is in the West). The most strident criticisms against the Iranian political system is that it is run by Mullahs (democratically elected or not) who ‘repress the rights of women’ and repress gays.

This freedom occurs within a context, a structure, of course: in the West, and in Israel, the consumption of drugs like ecstasy is not legal, or de facto legal. It is merely widespread and socially acceptable – the outcome of a liberal society. (Whereas the consumption of heroin and ice, on the other hand, is not socially acceptable). It is fine to use drugs like ecstasy, marijuana and cocaine, or be a homosexual, or dress as a Goth or an Emo, or for a man to dress as a woman, so long as it does not harm others (to the extent that the consumption of ice and heroin does). If women are to be allowed to dress immodestly (immodestly in comparison to Iranian standards), this does not stem from traditional Western freedoms granted to women, and to tolerance of nudity, but to a woman’s universal right to freedom of self-expression.

Some countries are more socially conformist than others: Japan springs to mind. Ironically, America, up until the 1960s, used to be a very conformist country. One only has to look at the films from that time, the fashion magazines, newsreel footage, to see this. Francis Parker Yockey wrote on this topic in Imperium (in the chapter ‘America’, under the heading ‘World outlook’). The passage is lengthy, but is worth reproducing here in its entirety:

Every American has been made to dress alike, live alike, talk alike, behave alike, and think alike. The principle of uniformity regards personality as a danger and also as a burden. This great principle has been applied to every sphere of life. Advertising of a kind and on a scale unknown to Europe is part of the method of stamping out individualism. Everywhere is seen the same empty, smiling, face. The principle has above all been applied to the American woman, and in her dress, cosmetics, and behaviour, she has been deprived of all individuality. A literature, vast and inclusive, has grown up on mechanizing and uniformizing all the problems and situations of life. Books are sold by the million to tell the American “How to Make Friends.” Other books tell him how to write letters, how to behave in public, how to make love, how to play games, how to uniformize his inner life, how many children to have, how to dress, even how to think. The same principle has been extended to higher learning, and the viewpoint is nowhere disputed that every American boy and girl is entitled to a “college-education.”... A contest was recently held in America to find “Mr. Average Man.” General statistics were employed to find the centre of population, marital distribution of the population, family- numbers, rural and urban distribution, and so forth. Finally a man and wife with two children in a medium-sized town were chosen as the “Average Family.” They were then given a trip to New York, were interviewed by the press, feted, solicited to endorse commercial products, and held up for the admiration of all those who fell short in any way of the desirable quality of averageness. Their habits at home, their life- adjustments generally were the subject of investigation, and then of generalizing. Having found the average man from the top down, his ideas and feelings were then generalized as the imperative-average thoughts and feelings. In the American “universities” husbands and wives attend lecture courses on marriage adjustment. Individualism must not even be countenanced in anything so personal as marriage... The men change from felt hats to straw hats on one certain day of the year and on another certain day discard the straw hats. The civilian uniform is as rigorous— for each type of occasion— as the strictest military or liturgical garb. Departures from it are the subject of sneers, or interrogation [...]

All one can say is: how things have changed. America is now the land of the non-conformist, in every way in which Europe was supposed to be. In Europe in the twentieth century, the cultivation of one’s personality – i.e., emphasising one’s differences from the rest, one’s eccentricities – was always tolerated, if not encouraged. (The one exception? Nationalism: if you are a nationalist, and against multi-cultism, you are a Nazi, fascist, racist, bigot, etc., etc).

Non-conformism was part and parcel of the European aesthetic and intellectual tradition. America, though, had always resisted this – being the land of the conformist, the ‘square’, the ‘average man’. That was until the 1960s. I would hazard that the main cause was the shift in American popular culture. In the fields of music and film, the role of the individual genius, in revolt against society’s norms, came to the forefront. Even the films like Top Gun and Flashdance, which embody the ethos of the conservative 1980s – supposedly a return to traditional ‘American values’ – celebrate the heroic, non-conformist individual. There are still plenty of ‘average Joes’ depicted in American popular culture, but the protagonists of television shows like Desperate Housewives and House are eccentrics – the ‘average Americans’ are background characters.

The odd thing is that this attitude of individualism, eccentricity and non-conformity has filtered through to the American (and Western) population at large, and, in the end, has become a new kind of conformity. Everyone has to be different: the subsumption of oneself to a group, or a higher ideal, or to anything besides one’s own individual desires and preferences is an offence against the liberal spirit of the age. And it is this individualism which lies at the heart of modern liberal democracy. A country like Germany may be only barely liberal democratic – with its State control of the media, its repression of nationalists and Holocaust deniers, its thousands of political prisoners. In this, it is not so different from a country like Egypt or Tunisia. But where Germany is genuinely liberal democratic is its parliamentary debates, its multi-party system – and its tolerance of ethical hedonism and individualism. One cannot wear a ‘fascist’-style political uniform: that would be ‘Nazi’. But one can prance around, high on drugs, in a strange costume, at the Berlin ‘Love Parade’, a kind of annual Mardi Gras event where the attendants openly consume party drugs like ecstasy – while the police turn a blind eye. (In Singapore, or Belarus, it would be a different story).

Freedom and degradation

My own views on this are as follows. Freedom to take drugs in public, or for gays to marry one another, or to dress ‘differently’ (i.e., dress like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan) are low on my list of priorities. Freedom to take a revisionist view of German history, and the history of the Second World War, or to criticise immigration, are, on the other hand, very high. My view is that if that freedom is not possible, then other freedoms are not worth having at all. From my perspective, Russia is more free than the West. Russia, like the West, makes the Allied-Communist interpretation of the Second World War, part of its State ideology; but, unlike the West, it is indifferent to those who disagree with the government’s line on those subjects. Russia does not persecute people who take an alternative view of the history of WWII; and it could not care less if Russian nationalists oppose immigration. A German with a long history of nationalist activism, like myself, can walk the streets of Moscow a free man; but is in danger of arrest if he visits his own country.

Regarding the other freedoms – which my liberal democratic countrymen prize so highly – I am largely indifferent: the consumption of drugs, liquor, pornography, etc., have been part of civilisation ever since it existed; likewise, individualism, the right to act ‘crazy’ or different’, is part of European culture and history. (One only has to look at the Weimar Republic, with its cult of drugs and individualism. Because of the lack of individual identification with the community and the State, the Republic fell apart; out of the ashes arose the Third Reich).

But a recent incident has forced me to reconsider my views. Recently, I took a holiday in the United States, and, while in San Francisco, happened to be in a main street where a local, American version of the German ‘Love Parade’ was passing through. As in Germany, the revellers were high on drugs, prancing around to music, and wearing outlandish clothes. Being a good tourist, I started taking photos on my digital camera. I then saw, out of the corner of my eye, a grossly overweight, middle-aged bearded man, entirely naked except for a pair of sneakers. He had shaved all the hairs off his body (except for the hairs on his face), and, judging by his even tan, must have been a frequently-practicing nudist. I then became aware that he was masturbating – openly, in front of everyone. I must admit I was completely taken aback. Thinking that no-one back home would believe me, I took photos of the man. He looked up, saw me, and continued to masturbate – and even struck poses. Finally, he finished doing what he was doing. Another of the attendees – another overweight person, this time a woman, dressed in strange attire (somewhat reminiscent of a Viking costume) – came up and hugged him.


The man clearly must have been on drugs: ecstasy, fantasy, ice, goodness knows what. The essential thing is, it dawned on me that: this is the ‘freedom’ that George W. Bush speaks of; that he defends; that he insists on imposing on other countries through the unilateral use of military force. Liberalism has changed: from a doctrine of pluralism (manifested through a multi-party electoral system, parliamentary debates, a free press giving dissenting views) to a doctrine of complete individualism free of any restraints.

The liberal argument now is that individuals should be given the maximum amount of freedom, and be allowed to do what they like, so long as those people are not ‘hurting others’. With this principle in mind, the Netherlands allows the smoking of marijuana; it also allows gay men to organise sex parties. Unfortunately for the Dutch liberals, the principle was challenged recently, when it was revealed that gay men, infected with AIDS, would lure young men to these parties, drug them with a date rape drug (called, appropriately, ‘Easy Lay’) and inject them AIDS-infected blood. This caused a scandal.

But, presumably, the liberal position is: organising sex parties is OK; gays should be allowed to do what they like; they only cross the boundary between right and wrong when they hurt others – and injecting men with AIDS-infected blood is ‘hurting others’. The same principle applies to the revellers in the San Francisco Love Parade: the revellers high on drugs, masturbating publicly in the nude, were not ‘hurting others’. There may be laws on the books against indecent exposure, and the consumption of party drugs, but these are written by prudes, moralists, ‘wowsers’ (as the Australians like to call them). It’s OK for people to let their hair down once in a while and break those minor laws. Why not let people be free individuals and do their own thing? What is wrong with that?

Freedom and Tradition

The answer is long and complex. I will give it as follows.

Evola, in his work, gives an outline of the various kinds of spiritualities, as they have appeared in human civilisations: he identifies, following Nietzsche, a ‘Dionysian’ spirituality, which is a spirituality of shamanism - achieving altered states of consciousness through the use of drugs, alcohol and revelry. Evola has ambivalent views towards ‘Dionysianism’: on the one hand, he believes that it is an attempt to reach a mystical state of being which is truly ‘Traditionalist’; on the other hand, he thinks that is a mindless, debased spirituality, which breaks down all barriers, all hierarchies – between the sexes, between the classes, between all ethnic groups. What is more, ‘Dionysianism’ is a feminine spirituality – which explains the frequent association of the god Dionysos with female worshippers and revellers. Evola, of course, has nothing against femininity: merely the feminisation of men. Evola’s preference, as his readers know, is for the ‘Olympian’, ‘Solar’, ‘Apollinian’ spirituality, which is ‘virile’ (from the word viros, meaning male).

Now, all this is rather metaphysical: but Evola was a nationalist philosopher, or at least a philosopher of a kind of nationalism which many nationalists today are sympathetic with. Certainly they reject ‘Dionysianism’, or at least, the debased elements. And clearly, in my view, the phenomena of the Love Parade, and the behaviour I saw there, fits into the category of ‘Dionysianism’. As a New Rightist, then, I must reject it. Evola writes of the ‘lunar’ spirituality, which rejects hierarchy and authority, and regards all men as ‘one’ – no matter their race or social position. Certainly, the self-debasement of the Love Parade fits into that category too.

And it is a small leap from the ‘lunar’ spirituality of the Love Parade to the ideology of the Antifa. The Antifa objects to nationalism because that ideology draws distinction between races, and refuses to acknowledge the non-Western immigrant as being the equal, and deserving equal rights, as the indigenous Westerner. The Antifa accepts the immigrant, and the gay, as ‘brothers’. The stereotype of the ‘Lefty’ or ‘Crusty’ is someone who wears his hair in dreadlocks, Rastafarian-style, to show his affinity with the Negro, and smokes marijuana, which, as anyone who has tried it knows, is a notoriously egalitarian drug (which makes one accepting of all people and all things).

All rather complex and metaphysical, true: but Evola’s descriptions get right to the heart of things. He was an eloquent man; not surprisingly, he was a poet as well as a philosopher, and could be described as the ‘poet of fascism’. No-one managed to put the tenets of that ideology in clearer terms than he did.

New Rightism in action

All of this raises one question: what is that we from the New Right offer, precisely, which is in contrast to the individualism of the Love Parade and George W. Bush’s America? It is all very fine to talk of he nationalist’s affinity for ‘Olympian’ spirituality – one can be as ‘spiritual’ as one wants – but how does it manifest itself in our actions?

As part of the research for this article, I have been looking at a number of film clips of nationalist rallies on YouTube, from Hungary, Rumania, Russia, Italy, Sweden, Britain, Greece. Despite the national differences, a number of similarities emerged. (These similarities were even present in the film clips from different times: I watched one of National Front demonstration in the 1970s, and one in 2007).

One writer who identified those core elements is an American political scientist, Karl Löwenstein, who wrote a classic article, ‘Militant democracy and fundamental rights’, in the ‘American political science review’, volume 31/no. 3, 1937. The article is one of the most influential ever written: it consists mainly of recommendations for a series of ‘anti-racist’, ‘anti-fascist’ laws (against wearing uniforms, ‘defaming ethnic groups’, etc.) which have been put into practice by Germany, France and a number of other Western countries which have sought to clamp down on resurgent ‘fascism’ and ‘Neo-Nazism’ in their midst. It ought to rank as the holy scripture of the Antifa movement: except that Löwenstein preaches the state repression of nationalism, not in the name of multi-cultism, but of liberal democracy. But I will not dwell on this side of the Löwenstein doctrine, important as it is, here. I will instead quote a number of things he has to say on the subject of ‘fascism’ (loosely defined). In my view, he could almost be speaking of nationalism today. He remarks on the surprisingly international character of fascism:

A closer transnational alignment or “bloc” of fascist nations, a “Union of Europe’s Regenerated Nations”, a fascist International of the multi-colored shirts, is clearly under way, transcending national borders and cutting deeply across historical diversities of traditionally disjoined nationalisms. The modern crusaders for saving Western civilization from Bolshevik “chaos” – a battle-cry which in all countries gone fascist has proved invaluable – for the time being sink their differences and operate jointly according to a common plan. Under this missionary urge, which is one of the most astounding contradictions of a political system based on the superiority complex of each individual nation, what exists of distinguishing marks in program, ideology, and nationally conditioned premises of Realpolitik shrinks to insignificance [...]
He writes, disparagingly, that:

Fascism is not a philosophy – not even a realistic constructive program – but the most effective political technique in modern history. The vagueness of the fascist offerings hardens into concrete invective only if manifest deficiencies of the democratic system are singled out for attack. Leadership, order, and discipline are set over against parliamentary corruption, chaos, and selfishness; which a cryptic corporativism is substituted for political representation. General discontent is focussed on palpable objectives (Jews, freemasons, bankers, chain stores).... In brief, to arouse, to guide, and to use emotionalism in its crudest and its most refined forms is the essence of the fascist technique for which movement and emotion are not only linguistically identical [...]

So how precisely does the ‘fascist technique’ work? Löwenstein writes:

Concomitantly, the movement organizes itself in the form of a semi-military corps, the party militia or private army of the party. Under the pretence of self-protection, the original nucleus of the personal bodyguard of the leaders, and of the stewards for the maintenance of order in meetings, is developed into a large fighting body of high efficiency equipped with the fullest outfit of military paraphernalia, such as military hierarchy, uniforms and other symbols, and if possible arms. Again, this technique has strong emotional values and purposes. In the first place, mere demonstration of military force, even without actual violence, does not fail deeply to impress the peaceful and law-abiding bourgeois. Its manifestation, so alien to the normal expressions of party life, is, as such, a source of intimidation and of emotional strain for the citizens. On the other hand, while democratic parties are characterized by the looseness of their spiritual allegiance, the military organization of the fascist parties emphasizes the irrevocable nature of the political bond. It creates and maintains that sense of mystical comradeship of all for each and each for all, that exclusiveness of political obsession in comparison to which the usual party allegiance is only one among many pluralistic loyalties. When party allegiance finally transcends allegiance to the state, the dangerous atmosphere of double legality is created. The military routine, because it is directed against despised democracy, is ethically glorified as party of party symbolism which in turn is part of the emotional domination. Disobedience towards the constituted authorities naturally grows into violence, and violence becomes a new source of disciplined emotionalism. The conflicts with the state – unavoidable when this phase of active aggressiveness is reached – increase the common sentiment of persecution, martyrdom, heroism, and dangerous life so closely akin to legalized violence during war. In addition, the movement is, within its own confines, genuinely democratic. A successful roughneck forwith rises to distinction in its hierarchy [...]

The quasi-military structure and attributes of fascism are one of its distinguishing features:

The uniform has a mystical attraction also in avowedly non-militaristic countries. The effect of military display on the “soft” bourgeois is all the more last because he contrasts the firmness of purpose of accumulated force in fascism with the uncontrolled fluctuations of normal political life. In politics, the only criterion of success is success. Fascism has been irresistably successful in other countries; thus far, it has never met with a reverse. In any democratic country, be it traditionally ever so sober and balanced, the existence of a political movement organized as military force makes the average citizen uneasy and creates the feeling of restiveness which emotional politics needs [...]

He then goes on to list a few more of the ‘essential techniques’, and lists means of combating fascism through legislation:

All democratic states have enacted legislation against the formation of private para-military armies of political parties and against the wearing of political uniforms or parts thereof (badges, armlets) and the bearing of any other symbols (flags, banners, emblems, streamers and pennants) which serve to denote the political opinion of the person in public. These provisions – too light-heartedly and facetiously called “bills against indoctrinary haberdashery” – strike at the roots of the fascist technique of propaganda, namely, self-advertisement and intimidation of others. The military garb symbolizes and crystallizes the mystical comradeship of arms so essential to the emotional needs of fascism [...]

That ‘militarism’ is applied, by the fascist, as follows:

Political strife carried by the fascists to the extreme of organized hooliganism made the fundamental right of assembly more or less a sham. Creating disturbances in or wrecking meetings of opposing or constitutional parties not only proved a favorite test of the fighting spirit of militarized parties ((“meeting-hall-battles” – “Saalschlacht”), but also deterred peaceable citizens from attending meetings of their own selection. The task of the police to keep peace and order at meetings and public processions became increasingly difficult. The ordinary criminal codes being wholly insufficient to curb the deliberate tactics of extremist parties, more stringent legislation was introduced in Czechoslovakia, Great Britain, and proposed in Switzerland [...]

Löwenstein describes the method of the ‘provocative march’:

A different problem arose when it became obvious that fascist demonstrations, processions, and meetings were held in districts where they could be considered only as a deliberate provocation because of the hostility of the bulk of the people living in these quarters. If, in such cases, disturbances occurred, they were actually created by the opponents. Exploiting this situation was one of the favorite methods of rising fascist methods whereby they could stand on the constitutional right of free processions and assembly [...]

He details, interestingly, the use of the weapon of ‘political abuse’:

Overt acts of incitement to armed sedition can easily be squashed, but the vast armory of fascist technique includes the more subtle weapons of vilifying, defaming, slandering, and last but not least, ridiculing, the democratic state itself, its political institutions and leading personalities. For a long time, in the Action Française, the finesse of noted authors like Daudet and Maurras developed political invective into both an art and a science. Democratic fundamentalism acquiesced, because freedom of public opinion evidently included also freedom of political abuse, and even malignant criticism was sheltered. Redress had to be sought by the person affected through the ordinary procedure of libel, thereby affording a welcome opportunity for advertising the political intentions of the offender [...]

In an unintentionally amusing passage, he takes note of the distinctly fascist method of using martyrs to exalt one’s cause – and dubious martyrs at that:

More patently subversive is fascism’s habit of publicly exalting political criminals and offenders against the existing laws – a practice which serves the twofold purpose of building up the revolutionary symbolism of martyrs and heroes and of defying, with impunity, the existing order. It is still remembered that Herr Hitler, in August, 1933, when the rowdies of his party murdered, under particularly revolting circumstances, a political adversary in Potempa and were sentenced to death by the court, proclaimed his “spiritual unity” with them. Only Czechoslovakia and Finland have provided against this practice of morally aiding and abetting the political criminal [...]

Fascism as technique?

At first, when I read Löwenstein’s article, I was somewhat offended by it – in particular, by his characterisation of fascism as being mere ‘technique’, not a real ideology. After all, fascism attracted many intellectuals who gave fascism a well thought-out philosophy, an intellectual basis. And certainly, the post-war ‘neo-fascist’ writers – Yockey, Thiriart, Evola – gave fascism a real intellectual grounding. But, the more I thought about it, the more I saw that Löwenstein’s contention was true. After all, it has to be admitted that nationalism – which Löwenstein would classify, rightly or wrongly, as ‘fascist’ (and certainly his followers in the Bundesrepublik do) – is vague. What the liberal democratic media calls ‘policy detail’ has never been our strong suit. We are not used to contesting in elections, like the mainstream liberal democratic parties, and, when we do, we do not produce budgeted, carefully-crafted plans to improve children’s health care, combat global warming, fix petrol-price gouging, etc., like the Labor and Liberal parties are doing at this Australian federal election. Part of this is sheer lack of experience and money – whereas the mainstream liberal democratic parties have plenty of both, and are very good at organising the logistics of elections.

New Rightism, more than anything else, is an ‘action’ movement, not a ‘talking’ movement, and the heart of our policy, if not worldview, lies in our day to day living: living in community, working in the community, transforming it through our actions.

Nationalism, of course, does tend to elevate people who have fallen in battle – either through actual military conflict, or in the context of a political struggle – into martyrs. Of the film clips I saw, one was a commemoration of a Swedish nationalist martyr – Daniel Wretström, a 17 year old Swedish nationalist killed by immigrants; the other, a wreath-laying ceremony in Hungary commemorating the country’s servicemen who had fallen in WWII.

The ultimate historical fascist martyr figure is, of course, Horst Wessel. There is a scene in ‘Triumph of the Will’ where assembled National Socialist personages sing the Horst Wessel Lied, accompanied by the inevitable salutes and giant banners: the camera focuses on Göring for a few moments, and one can see the beginnings of a tear forming in the hard man’s eye. Without a doubt, nationalists – whether today in Greece or Hungary or Russia, or in yesterday in France or Germany – rely heavily on emotion. These emotions are: indignation, against our liberal democratic and communist enemies; a feeling of the rightness of the cause; self-sacrifice; self-abnegation (which comes from service to a higher goal)… All of this is transmitted through formalities and ceremonies: the Swedish nationalists, for instance, put on a candle-lit vigil and procession for the young Wretström. (Swedish nationalists have set up a site, outlining the rules for the annual march, and meeting points, at: http://www.salemfonden.info/index_eng.php ). Whereas, in a liberal democracy, the Berlin Love Parade has replaced the torchlight processions of the SS: individuality takes the place of community as an object of veneration in the Bundesrepublik.

Even liberal democrats have to admit that, compared to the political street theatre of nationalism, their brand of conventional politics is mundane. There is nothing in mainstream conservatism, social democracy, environmentalism, liberalism, etc., to compare with it. There is a real pleasure in being part of a crowd of demonstrators, marching past communists who are swearing, spitting, jeering, singing communist anthems, who are being held by mounted police (as in one of the old National Front film clips). It is a peculiar pleasure, to be sure, and not for everyone. But once one has a taste of it, one becomes addicted. I am often chastised by liberal democratic friends, and I have plenty of them, for being part of the so-called ‘Neo-Nazi’ nationalist scene: I retort to them, ‘What am I meant to do? Join the Liberal Party, attend boozy functions, sit among fat, middle-aged men in suits, and listen to speakers like Tony Abbott and Peter Costello drone on about the unions?’ The mainstream liberal democratic parties do not give anyone much of a scope for real political activism. What they are about is power to political parties but not the people they claim to represent. New Rightism, on the other hand, is activist-based: and it has the potential to encompass nearly all spheres of life.

One other advantage of nationalism is that it is virtually indestructible. The National Front imploded after reaching a peak in the late 1970s: but it is still in action, albeit with reduced numbers, and this time demonstrating against Islamic immigration and gay marriage. Certain of the problems afflicting Britain have changed, but others remain the same. The prime example of nationalist indestructibility, though, is Germany and Eastern Europe. The Allies and the Soviets embarked on a campaign of unprecedented genocide against Germany and its Allies – with the intention of eliminating ‘fascism’. But nationalism has grown back. Part of the reason for nationalism’s success is that, being a technique, it is easy to apply in all manner of times and places.

So why do some nationalist movements in some countries grow and others do not? I am biased on this. My belief is that, if the British nationalists, for instance, invested as much time and effort in constant, round the clock demonstrations – and taking the ‘war’ to the enemy, the communists and Antifa – as they do in trying to win council seats, they would achieve better results (and certainly earn themselves more media notoriety that way). The Internet has proven to be a boon to nationalism, but it has also made nationalists stay at homes – preventing them from going out, mixing with other nationalists on group activities (like hiking trips), meetings, conferences and the like, and engaging in demonstrations and rallies.

The demonstration is really at the heart of nationalist ‘technique’. Demonstrations are a public show of power: they are political street theatre. What matters in a demonstration is force, strength. Large numbers are required – and flags on poles to make the nationalist crowd look bigger than it really is. Loudhailers, loudspeakers mounted on cars, whistles, drums (the National Front in the 1970s made effective use of drums), ect, are all important for drowning out the hateful cries of the enemy (with their inevitable boring chant of ‘Nazis out!’). It becomes a pitched battle between the nationalist and the communist counter-demonstrators: and the biggest and loudest crowd wins.

I myself recognise the supreme importance of this: and the importance of getting as many nationalists and New Rightists as possible to attend a demonstration, and take the blows directed at them by the communist enemy. But nationalists, it has to be said, spend too much time on doctrinal disputes. On the National-Anarchist and New Right mailing lists, for example, there was a recent debate on whether or not ‘New Right’ and ‘National-Anarchism’ were appropriate names for our ideas. Should we not look for alternative names? Alternatives were suggested: e.g., ’New Left” (the affiliate of the New Right in Portugal actually calls itself ‘New Left’), ‘New Reason’ instead of ‘New Right’. One of the objections to the use of the term ‘New Right’ was that it may be confused with the Anglo-Saxon neo-liberal movement of the same name from the 1980s (as if the average man can remember back that far). As for ‘National-Anarchism’, are not nationalism and anarchism mutually exclusive concepts?

All of this is somewhat missing the point. The early fascist activists cobbled together an ideology which was ‘Left’ as well as being ‘nationalist’: no doubt it confused a good many people. A typical response would have been: ‘I can’t tell if you people are Left or Right: your ideology is an incoherent mish-mash’. (Some commentators characterised German National Socialism, when it first appeared, as ‘conservative Marxism’). I am sure that Mussolini’s movement started off without a name: and that finally, at some point, someone felt that they had to give their rather loose collection of ideas a proper name, and someone came up with ‘fascism’. But what is in a name? And why do political ideas have to be consistently ‘Left’ or ‘Right’? Political theories, in my view, are not mathematical proofs, where every step proceeds logically from the other. The essential thing is to go out and do. The trouble is that the liberal democratic system wants the Left and Right to fight one another; it is happy with the Left-Right divide; it likes the simplicity of the concepts; it does not want people to think; rather, it wants them to be conditioned, to categorise themselves as green or socialist or conservative. That way, a person only sees himself in terms of that category: the ideology does the thinking for him. Which is why Greens feel that they have to fight nationalists, despite their similarities: Bob Brown and the Green Party have ordained that nationalism is evil, racist, and has nothing to do with environmentalism; so the individual ends up not thinking for himself, and instead obeys his party leaders and the dictates of the mainstream political consensus.

What to do

Sometimes, when I look at the hostility nationalism generates – from the ‘militant democratic’ governments of Germany and France, in particular – I wonder why it is these governments are so afraid. Look at the footage of any nationalist march, and all you will see – in the last analysis – is a large group of men and women carrying flags and banners, walking along a road. But, from the way the liberal democrats and communists behave, such activities are heinous, and must be stopped by any means necessary. Nationalism will lead to a second Holocaust, etc., etc. (even when the marchers are British or Russian). My pragmatic response, though, is: so what? A bunch of people are marching down the street, waving flags with old Teutonic and Celtic symbols on them – what harm does it do? I wonder what would happen if the German government banned the prohibition of uniforms or Holocaust literature. Would mass riots and discord ensue? Would the Bundesrepublik cease to exist overnight? Simply because ‘fascism’ in the 1920s and 1930s became a Europe-wide movement, embracing millions of men and women, is no reason to believe that it will happen again. The pettiness and stupidity of the ‘militant’ liberal democrats expresses itself in actions like the withholding of two years worth of mail to Ernst Zündel, for example.

Having said that: laws come, and laws go (Holocaust denial in Spain has just recently been legalised again) and there is no body of legislation in existence anywhere which has succeeded in shutting down nationalism completely. The Russian nationalists wear masks and uniforms at their rallies, and use the Roman salute; they also engage in paramilitary training, and even own their own Kalashnikovs. The Italians, on the other hand, labour under the same restrictions as the Germans: but that does not stop them from putting on large demonstrations. It is all a matter of working around the Löwenstein-style laws.

The main strength of our movement is our organisation – our ability to mobilise large numbers of people for mass action. This, of course, occurs only under optimal circumstances – we waste a good deal of time debating doctrinal differences among ourselves, instead of going and doing what we do best. No doubt the demonstrators in Sweden, Hungary, Russia and other countries have, as individuals, a number of doctrinal differences with one another: but the main thing is that they were sufficiently united, and organised, to take to the streets in defiance of communism and militant anti-racism. Ideally, I would like political activists from all over Europe to converge on London – in particular, the financial district (the City of London) – for an annual pan-European anti-capitalist march. And if police and the media, and the communist enemy, descend en masse upon the march, all well and good. That will garner the attention that we need. Because of the location, we would be sure to get worldwide English media coverage, which is considerable.

The main thing which is holding us back is wrong thinking – and lack of courage, or at least, an unwillingness to offend bourgeois proprieties. One German poster, at a mailing list I frequent, wrote recently:

The so-called "free nationalists" are only free from responsible behaviours. They mimic American dress codes and copy antifa strategies which basically makes them appear as dangerous, violence-prone hooded hoodlums. If you disguise your face you not only have something to hide - you also won't garner any sympathies from the populace...

That is a common fallacy among some nationalists. The fact of the matter is that the German populace have been trained to hate all forms of German nationalism; the same goes, to a milder extent, for the rest of the world. They are conditioned, Pavlov-style, to react with disgust. Non-German nationalism in the West is fast going the same way – that is, our liberal democratic masters in the media, the church, the parliament, the trade union leadership, the university, are training the Western masses to find it nearly as equally as abhorrent. The notion, then, that this hatred (and that is what it is) can be done away with by aping bourgeois manners, is wrong.

Related to this is the fact that many people – especially young people – like outlaws and rebels. You can appeal to more people by trying not to appeal to anyone at all, by being yourself and by making your own values in contrast to the norms of the society you live. In popular culture, this fact has been known at least since the 1950s: James Dean, Marlon Brando, Elvis Presley, were marketed, deliberately, as moody, dangerous rebels – and all three of them made fortunes as a result. Many rock bands nowadays are still being marketed as being rebellious as the Rolling Stones or the Sex Pistols. Although rock and roll rebellion has now become something of a tired old cliché, the youngsters never seem to get tired of it, as we see with the continuing popularity of likes of the EMO cult. Almost everyone understands this, except for the nationalists who are desperately trying to look respectable and liberal-democratic. Instead of acting independently and doing what has to be done ,they are more concerned about what the apolitical consumer orientated Zombies thinks about, and trying to appease them.

Other nationalists have described their reluctance to refer to the Antifa enemy as precisely that: the Antifa. Why? Because if the Antifa are anti-fascist, it implies that their enemies – us – are ‘fascist’. And we can’t have that. I am surprised that Australians, of all people – a people who wrested this country from the Aborigines, and built a country and a State literally from the dirt, facing great personal hardship and struggle – are afraid of a mere word.

To conclude: what we in the New Right offer is an alternative. Löwenstein is quite right when he says that ‘fascism’ is a method, of confrontation – and investing the political struggle with an honour, dignity and nobility (although he would not use those words). At the risk of sounding ‘irrationalist’ or ‘anti-intellectual’, we New Rightists have to make use of the method (and I am stressing the word method) and get to work – the time for talking is over. We have to show the world our anti-liberal alternative – our alternative to the tyranny of individualism in a liberal democratic society.

*Welf Herfurth is a political activist who lives in Sydney / Australia. He was born and raised in Germany. He can be contacted on herfurth@iinet.net.au