ARE WE RIGHT? (PART I)

by James Lawrence

Long before choosing to involve myself in the Alt-Right in 2012, I used to lurk around the fragmentary dissident Rightist scene as a passive observer, red-pilling myself on various topics. From that time back in the early 2000s up to the present day, as the range of official thought has narrowed and dissent has expanded, I have watched one truth go from a pessimistic suspicion to an article of faith among the awakened. It is this: the so-called “mainstream Right” is not a secret sympathiser or potential ally, but a deadly enemy that loathes us just as much as the Left.

The “free competition of Left and Right” in the “democratic public sphere” is a sham. “Conservative” politicians – those who are not outright imposters – are essentially client rulers, allotted some political power in return for pacifying and misdirecting our people, true advocacy for that people’s interests being forbidden. Disturbing as this may be, accepting it meant that dissidents no longer had to cut themselves loose from all ideological tradition by framing themselves as “beyond Left and Right”. The modern Left was indeed the same force that had bathed humanity in blood under the guise of Communism; the Right, properly understood, was the antithesis to this force; but the “mainstream Right” known to the general public was a kept eunuch of the enemy.

THE LIMITS OF WHITE TRIBALISM

Tribalism just isn't our thing.

by James Lawrence

In a classic 1995 article for American Renaissance, Michael W. Masters defended the “morality of survival” against what he saw as the self-destructive universalism of the Western peoples, arguing that morality should instead be practiced according to an in-group/out-group distinction.

This position has clearly been inherited by many on the Alt-Right, who propose to solve the problem of white passivity in the face of dispossession by narrowing our moral horizons. In this view, universalist ideals drive whites to engage in indiscriminate altruism towards other peoples at the expense of their own kith and kin; thus, whites need to do their best to forget about moral standards that encompass the whole of humanity, and revert to the “morality of the tribe” in which altruism is restricted to one’s genetic in-group and enmity or indifference are shown to those outside it.

THE NOMAD VS. THE SEDENTARY: SURVIVING THE ROOTLESS FUTURE

by Charles Jansen

An important vector of human difference is that between the Nomadic and the Sedentary. It allows us to interpret a host of related issues, ranging from the uprooting of Europeans to the celebration of Nomadism itself, and the unequal toleration for certain groups.

What do the terms mean? Nomad comes from the Greek νομάς, designating shepherds who moved with their flocks from pasture to pasture. Sedentary comes from the Latin sedentarius, which can be interpreted as designating a state of sitting, but also a state of stability or rest.

The Biblical story of Cain and Abel presents two embodiments of each lifestyle: Cain is a farmer, hence a Sedentary, to the point of being the alleged founder of the first city, while Abel, as a shepherd, is the archetypal Nomad. Interestingly, the Bible shows that despite their common origin, the relationship between Nomad and Sedent is fraught with tragedy.

"RENÉ GUÉNON DOES NOT EXIST": A REMINDER FOR THOSE ON THE RIGHT

by Charles Jansen

René Guénon (1886-1951) is mainly acknowledged on the Right for having had a deep influence on Julius Evola. Though both thinkers could disagree on small issues, the latter held the former in a sufficiently high esteem to praise him as “a teacher for modern times”, something he would never have said about any philosopher or post-Enlightenment intellectual.

Beyond Evola, Guénon also had an important legacy in religious and comparative studies. His detailed works on Hinduism played a crucial role in shaping research of the so-called Oriental world. Despite the fact that some of Guénon’s reflections are far from politically correct, his books are still sold by the prestigious and over-the-counter Parisian publisher Gallimard. The religious historian Mircea Eliade, whom one may hear about if he opts for comparative studies today, also held a deep interest in Guénon’s views – at a time when he was also close to Corneliu Codreanu.

Even though he achieved success through his works, Guénon always rejected the labels of “philosopher” or “intellectual.” Such labels, he wrote in The Crisis of the Modern World, correspond to men who pursue innovation or originality at all cost, by “put[ting] their name to a ‘system’, that is, to a strictly limited and circumscribed set of theories, which shall belong to them and be exclusively their creation.” Rather than that, Guénon merely aimed to be a messenger, someone who gives to others a renewed access to a long-forgotten transcendence.

INDIVIDUALISM VS. PERSONALITY

The path of individualism (image courtesy of AllRiot).

by Daniel Spaulding

In a West that declines as surely as the course of the sun, opponents of the incipient World State often define the modern situation as a dialectical struggle between collectivism on one side and individualism on the other. Usually "collectivism" is meant to define any manifestation of state power, be it fascism, communism, the liberal managerial state, or globalist technocracy, though many would expand the classification to include traditional religious institutions and even the family.

What is less clearly defined is "individualism," a slippery term that means different things to different people. Popular opinion holds that "individualism" is the ability to choose and follow one's desires for self-expression, be it spending one's money how one prefers or something more trivial such as dying one's hair blue.

MERCURY RISING: THE LIFE & WRITINGS OF JULIUS EVOLA

The Life & Writings of Julius Evola

by Gwendolyn Taunton

If the industrious man, through taking action,
Does not succeed, he should not be blamed for that –
He still perceives the truth.
                    　　　　～The Sauptikaparvan of the Mahābhārata (2,16)

If we could select a single aspect by which to define Julius Evola, it would have been his desire to transcend the ordinary and the world of the profane. It was characterized by a thirst for the Absolute, which the Germans call mehr als leben – “more than living.” This idea of transcending worldly existence colours not only his ideas and philosophy, it is also evident throughout his life which reads like a litany of successes. During the earlier years Evola excelled at whatever he chose to apply himself to: his talents were evident in the field of literature, for which he would be best remembered, and also in the arts and occult circles.

THE TRUE RIGHT: JULIUS EVOLA, SOVEREIGNTY & TRADITION

by Gwendolyn Taunton

"Not to know what happened before you were born is to be a child forever. For what is the time of a man, except it be interwoven with that memory of ancient things of a superior age?" ～Cicero

Evola’s theories concerning the role of the Kṣatriya varna (caste) in antiquity are both a progression on and a refutation of Rene Guénon’s work. Despite their sharing of the same foundational source in perennial philosophy, there are a number of points on which they differ, the most obvious point of contention being the role of the Kṣatriya in relation to a hierarchical model of civilization. Guénon held that the textual model in Hinduism was correct, with the Brahmin holding all power as priests/philosophers in Traditional India. Evola, however, declared that this model was theoretical only – in practice the Kṣatriya varna held all the power. Normally associated in the West with the military, Evola instead offered a paradigm which depicted the Kṣatriya as the aristocratic caste – composed of the nobility as well as the warriors. Because Evola links the Kṣatriya to aristocracy, this becomes a central motif that is of extreme importance.