By Jane Everdene:
One of the worst – even fatal – ideological errors we can make as ethno-nationalists would be to adopt the label “right wing,” either to describe ourselves or any organic nationalism by Europeans.
At some point, the label “right wing” and indeed the derogatory term, “extreme right” has been applied to movements and people who, contrary to being ‘extreme,’ merely desire the organic normality of racial and ethnic loyalty and identity as a group.
The “right wing” label itself was no doubt devised and propagated by the very same pseudo-intellectuals who decided that National Socialism in the 1930s would have to be branded as “fascist”.
Stalinists, both within and without the Soviet Union, had decided that they could not in any way permit or recognise an alternative socialistic concept that may undermine the flimsy brand of Marxist tenets which they adhered to.
Indeed, throughout the Second World War, propaganda commentary that referred to Germany as “fascist” was almost exclusively the mark of a Soviet sympathiser.
The more neutral journalists and observers had not caught on to using this misnomer, as, at the time, the term only applied accurately to fascist Italy under Mussolini, a system that is primarily focused on state control.
We can take it for granted that the mislabelling of nationalism generally is something emanating from the enemies of nationalism; from those very people who instead argue in favour of a world-wide Universalist vision of blending races and nations.
In short, those who work feverishly – be it intentionally or otherwise – for the degradation and destruction of our people.
This is the reason why our collective love of our folk, in our own nation, is today dismissed by our enemies as “extreme right,” with no logical way to justify such terminology.
Unfortunately we find that labelling ideas in a confusing way leads to difficulty in grasping those ideas.
For example, if the word “love” was suddenly brought under a heading of “prostitution,” many may find it difficult to grasp that love cannot be about exploitation and that it is surely about affection, kindness, devotion, tenderness, purity of spirit and all the other positive qualities that we associate with the term “love”.
However, in this present decadent society that degrades and commercialises sex and relationships, this scenario of debasing and undermining the very meaning of “love” is really not so far from becoming a truly warped reality.
Once we have it pounded into our heads often enough that “love” is prostitution, a commercial transaction, we could well come to believe it.
Yet it seems many nationalists have become so confused with the “right wing” labelling of our collectivist concern for our folk that they have come to adopt views that are totally/wholly incongruous to the well-being of the race.
Additionally, the public perception, and especially the so-called “Leftist” perception, of nationalism is coloured by their biased assumptions about what being “right wing” entails.
This has indubitably held our cause back enormously.
Unless one knows better, the impression is given that nationalism, being labelled as “extreme right,” is something along the lines of, or in conjunction with, the Conservative Party, only far more vicious in its callous disregard for society and in its rejection of the fair treatment of our folk.
When we allow such reprehensible ideas to permeate our thinking it actually helps recruit those rather unsavoury and disagreeable individuals into our ranks, who then set out to further wreck nationalism by their hostility to the healthy socialist elements within.
We eventually hear these very impostors bleating and expressing their disgust at the growth of Islam in Britain, while at the same time suggesting that no one unemployed should be permitted to reproduce and have children – including working class White women.
When we take an objective look at the anti-social “right wing” one can begin to see that they are best categorised as selfish individualists.
Basically they are “libertarians” and, ironically, in many cases these hedonists become the “liberals” they purport to despise.
How could racial loyalty be “right wing”? Where is the logic here?
Capitalists absolutely and unreservedly hate racial loyalty and see profit for themselves from mass immigration. Racial loyalty is not one jot libertarian, liberal or right wing.
Racial loyalty is one hundred percent collectivist.
After all, it is the Zionists and radical promoters of homosexuality, substance abuse, disregard for the environment and career-orientated feminists that are the kind of unpleasant, selfish individualist types one should consider as right wing.
The primary reason why racial socialism is disparagingly called ‘right wing’ or ‘extreme right’ is to fool people into thinking racial loyalty is something practiced and championed by pure misanthropes with an ideology akin to Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.
Racism becomes an aspect of misanthropy, and there is hypocrisy where exceptions are made allowing the daughter to marry a wealthy businessman of another race with relish, or making an issue out of which groups are to be regarded as “superior” or “inferior” based on snobbishness.
These superficial comparisons should never get in the way of unconditional racial loyalty.
If there is any consistency at all in the decadent ideas of “right wing” politics, then the understanding of this block in terms of this self-centred libertarianism has to be the common thread.
There is nothing monolithic about politics. It is all about radicals forcing change and the rest adapting to change. The original idea of right and left wing in politics, taken from the seating arrangements in the French Assembly just prior to the revolution, is nothing like the current assumptions of the dualistic terms: Left and Right.
At present, a big shift is underway which will highlight a sharp contrast between the libertarian agenda and the collectivist agenda. This change is largely caused by a gradual revolution that has quietly allowed phoney “Leftists” – who were never genuinely socialist to begin with – to move from being the underdog to becoming part of the establishment elite itself.
These insidious masters of deceit don’t need to pretend to be fighting for equality and fairness any more. They are now in a position to be more open about their triumphant oppression of the ordinary people who lose their human rights and find themselves (ourselves) treated as contemptible brutes, only fit to be exploited financially or sexually.
At its most extreme, the libertarian outlook is that of the anti-social personality, namely the psychopath or the sociopath. Individuals with such a mindset can work together for an agenda, but they would have no real group loyalty beyond the expedient, and would promptly attack each other if they saw advantage in so doing.
A prime example of such psychopathic behaviour was when two Russian, Jewish, oligarchs recently fell out. It was reported that, “Berezovsky decided to sue Roman Abramovich for $5bn – in what was the biggest private litigation battle ever”.
Tribal loyalty came second to financial greed.
There are clues here as to why one particular nation – the Jewish state of Israel – is so very keen to move from its previous heavy leaning in the “Left” and become “right wing” instead.
This development in no way negates the libertarian stance of the “Right” nor creates a contradiction between libertarian values and the ruthless authoritarian boot Israel uses to force their will against their perceived enemies, most obviously the Palestinians.
As British nationalists we must recognise that the ground is shifting under our feet.
We mustn’t lose track of where it is that we should be standing.
We should let no one else tell us who we are and what we stand for.
We baulk at the notion that we ought to be the bedfellows of the libertarian individualists.
We must see them for what they truly are – the ideological antithesis to ourselves.
The father of modern political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, felt that Zionists should begin as agitators on the “Left,” but that once they were sufficiently powerful enough they would vacate and trash that vehicle and move to occupy an establishment position on the “Right”.
Here is a revealing quote from Herzl’s 1896 work ‘Der Judenstaat,’ which is considered one of the most important texts of early Zionism:
“When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of the revolutionary party; when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse.”
This process became glaringly obvious from the time of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia to the present.
What could be a clearer manifestation of this shift than the open conversion of the Trotskyists to their new “Neo-conservative” incarnation?
They make no secret of this. Consider Christopher Hitchens; Paul Wolfowitz; Richard Perle and really just the names of prominent neo-cons generally.
Neo-conservatism was founded as an idea and chiefly promoted by former Trotskyist Irving Kristol, a man who candidly boasted in a New York Times Magazine article titled ‘Memoirs of a Trotskyist’ (published January 23, 1977): “the honor I most prized was the fact that I was a member in good standing of the [Trotskyist] Young People’s Socialist League (Fourth International).”
As these Trotskyists made their way to a more natural home in the “right wing” and dropped the mask of socialism, they forged the path that the current Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, has urged his fellow Jews to follow.
And that is to move out of a “Left” that is increasingly characterised by an anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist flavour.
It really is inconsistent that any non-Jewish socialist could support the aggressive military state of Israel.
And it’s interesting that there is now a well-funded push by Zionists the world over to encourage all Jews to support Israel by voting for right-wing parties if they live abroad.
The recent presidential election in the United States illustrates this campaign. Netanyahu openly backed the Republican candidate, the Mormon, Mitt Romney, and the Zionist lobby in the US spent a fortune trying to persuade the American Jewish population to abandon their long-term allegiance to the Democrat Party.
It seems however that old habits die hard, as a majority of the Jewish demographic went on to vote for Obama regardless of orders from the humiliated Netanyahu.
Still, the trend to the “Right” was established and is likely to grow. Meanwhile in Europe, the presence of the Islamic threat and attached “anti-Semitism” is more keenly felt and Zionists must be rather less comfortable mixing in with the “Left” over here compared to America.
Both UKIP and Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom are just two examples of parties that fit rather well into the category of “right wing”.
They fit in with the libertarian flavour and the neo-con agenda, being basically liberal and individualist in their policies.
Consider Wilders’ support for gay marriage, which shows the homosexual lobby is really more suited to this libertarian category than to any socially motivated collectivism on the Left.
Yes, you read that correctly: ‘homosexual rights’ are yet another cause that began on the Left but have now gravitated, like Trotskyism and Zionism to their more natural, individualist – selfish – home on the Right.
There have, of course, been a preponderance of homosexuals within the Conservative ranks for quite a while now, and their supreme focus on making money and disregarding the family unit, or the social ramifications of their lifestyle, is consistent with that.
True conservatism, in the sense of a dedication to tradition, is incongruent with this libertarian-right paradigm. For what motivates the traditionalist?
True traditionalism is motivated by a concern for the nation and, of course, concern for the long-term benefit of a collective, unless it is merely ritual.
No doubt there are individualists who glean some kind of personal comfort or pleasure by regarding themselves as traditionalists, but the sentiment makes no useful sense at all unless it is an extension of concern for society and the well-being of future generations.
It must now be acknowledged that it is much too late for conservatism as a strategy, since that which the conservative would wish to conserve has become so utterly eroded.
Defence, in this case, is neither an effective form of defending values nor can it attack. Standing one’s ground as a reactionary in the face of a constant push and relentless barrage by radicals cannot achieve anything significant for the future of our nation.
Traditionalism of course has a place in nationalism because it is integral to group identity.
It is most odd that the new establishment elite of triumphant radicals that were bred on the “Left” and who now are throwing off their mask of socialism and embracing their true colours, that most cruel form of individualism, will lose any radical edge and become the reactionaries themselves.
Thus will genuine socialists be left battling against them and their inhuman exploitation.
However, the socialists in this scenario are by no means a united front.
They would have in common simply a concern for a group, be it their own tribe, or “humanity” in the case of humanists and various Christian groups.
No doubt the libertarian hope is that pluralism and the Orwellian might of the police state have deprived the masses of any hope for a cohesive movement, let alone revolution.
For wherever there is a socially cohesive ethnic group that practices socialism, the organic expression being tribalism, that group will surely have the advantage in the long term.
The “right wing” however – the libertarian, fractured, selfish individualists who only look out for “number one” – cannot maintain their grip on power as it is a short term decadent vision that extends no further than their own pleasure.
So it is a reassuring and encouraging thought to know that such an evil attitude would most likely burn itself out, like an epidemic of Ebola. But our own ethnic group is being weakened and our people encouraged to become the same kind of individualist monsters.
This is what happens, of course, when you introduce massive genetic diversity and destroy the basis of the nation, which is the family unit.
For truly, the most organically socialist nation has healthy family values and is a relatively homogenous group. It is this successful genetic strategy that is the formula for our advancement. This is the way of life that is under attack.
Let me give you an example of genetic diversity in action.
The Indian shop owners, so beloved by the Tories, originate from a diverse country in which a lack of concern for the poor is as inevitable as mass corruption.
The desperate plight of the disease-ridden populace is met with a shrug of the shoulders, as a mere fact of life.
Now let us compare this to the opposite result in Scandinavia, where the most homogenous of humanity would never treat their own people with such heartless contempt.
Socialism fits best with kin loyalty. The phoney socialist who advocates mass immigration and the libertarian who stands for sexual minorities, drug abusers and other anti-social elements are abandoning the “Left” in their droves.
They are allowing the “Right” to assume a less confusing and more consistently shameless character.
This ultimately means that all genuine nationalists have to move away from that silly “Right Wing” label entirely and leave it to the Geert Wilders, the Nigel Farage and the Margaret Thatcher types.
One can see all too clearly that many of the most influential personalities have concluded that their guru, Theodor Herzl, had a point regarding the need for this shift of a large part of the “Left” to assume their role in the ruling establishment.
Just a year ago, May 2012, the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research held a conference in New York in which a number of scholars debated the pros and cons of the Jewish loyalty to the “Left”.
In his “Introductory Remarks,” Prof. Jack Jacobs of CUNY asserted that “the one-time ties between Jews and the left can best be explained by political, economic, and sociological conditions which existed in the 19th century, and which went out of existence in the twentieth” — that Jewish leftism was thus a creation of a time and place that no longer exists, not an enduring reflection of either Jewish religion or Jewish traits.
Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/jews_jewish_leftists_and_the_anti… Leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom, Geert Wilders, is true to the right wing description: radical individualist, liberal, Zionist and ambivalent on racial issues – just like the English Defence League.
A number of nationalists might welcome the idea of Jews moving to the right and stamping their mark with that general template.
Some may advocate that we see them as allies arguing this development shows how we think alike! We do not.
Rather it is a time for those within the nationalist community to decide their future direction and choose either to be “right wing” individualists or embrace a truly authentic ethnic/racial socialism. Whether or not one plays the game and calls it “left wing,” is open to debate.
Nationalists are simply not “right wing extremists” so we would not be nationalists at all if we positioned ourselves as such.
To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, in keeping with a nationalist concern and putting our folk first, you must ask not what your nation can do for you — ask what you can do for your nation.
The radical individualism of the “Right” is completely antithetical to the aforementioned sentiments and the two simply cannot coincide in one organisation.
The shift in politics will make it necessary to nail one’s colours to the mast either one way or another.
By Jane Everdene © 2013
# # # #
Steve
- Edit
I think it was the Daily Telegraph who had some years ago a test you could do to determine whether you were “right wing” or not.
It was in the form a cross & your answers steered a dot from the centre & settled in a quadrant showing how supposedly left or right wing you were.
A lot of BNP types who did it including me ended up just left of centre because of our empathy & concern for our society.
But if you basically said you hated everything & everyone, you fell off of the right hand side of the scale.
Steve
- Edit
Apparently for Nazi there is Sozi but you never hear that mentioned much.
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
A most apposite article by Jane Everdene. It’s essential that all intelligent Racial-Loyalists read and thoroughly digest this essay. By thinking of ourselves as “Right” or “New Right” we’re simply playing the game according to the rules of the our political oppressors. As Jane Everdene indicates, it could be even more of a mistake to regard the “Left” as our enemy. Despite the Marxian preference for the term “Fascist” over “National Socialist” when describing the Third Reich, we can but point out that Mussolini came from the Left and was previously a member of the Italian Socialist Party.
However, an important philosophical consideration as to whether we should now consider ourselves “Left-wing” in view of the shifting sands of political debate is whether we should choose a Manichean framework for our self identification. The Manicheans were a group of fanatical Jews who saw everything in terms of light and dark, no colour in between. Such thinking is typical of the fanaticism of the Middle East and the desert religions. It is the sort of thinking, encouraged by Zionists, to cajole us into an equally fanatical hatred of Islam.
The truth of the matter is that Indo-Europeans have no need or use for generalsed concepts which mean different things to different people. “Right-wing” and “Left-wing” are just ways by which our enemies herd us into doing their bidding. The terms “Left and Right” have no more and no less moral authority than the football team we might support, Jane Everdene has given us a lead in “thinking outside the box”, and as such by eradicating the Left/ Right dichotomy from our thinking we go a long way towards freeing our minds for the greater task before us.
Steve
- Edit
Yes I think the terms left & right are rather misleading, I also heard stories that Hitler had looked at Communism before going the Nationalist route.
Franklin Ryckaert
- Edit
In this field there are four parameters with three variants by which you can classify all political movements :
1) a) nationalism, b) internationalism, c) balance of a and b.
2) a) collectivism, b) individualism, c) balance of a and b.
3) a) statism, b) liberalism, c) balance of a and b.
4) a) populism, b) elitism, c) balance of a and b.
Explanation : with a or b we mean that a is pursued at the cost of b, while c is the balance of both.
For 1a that means nationalism at the cost of the interests of other nations (even to the extent of conquering and exploiting them), 1b means internationalism even at the cost of the interests of the own nation, while c means the pursuit of national interests within the framework of international respect for each others rights. 2a means collectivism at the cost of individual rights, 2b means individualism with neglect of the common good, while 2c means the balance of both.
3a means a totalitarian state, 3b means individual freedom approaching anarchy (the Ayn Rand ideal), while 3c means the balance of both.
4a means the pursuit of the interests of only the masses, 4b means the pursuit of the interests of only the elite, while 4c means the balance of both (so no “class struggle” here).
Socialism (and its more extreme form of communism) is : 1b + 2a + 3a + 4a
Liberalism is : 1b + 2b + 3b + 4b.
Fascism is : 1a + 2a + 3a +4c
Italian Fascism and German National Socialism were both extremely 1a in that they tried to expand their nations at the cost of others. Spanish Fascism was 1c. And of course Fascism sees the nation as an organic whole, so it knows no “class struggle”, it is therefore 4c.
Jews are always extremely 1a but they chose (or pretend to chose) from the rest as it suits them.
Ideally our form of ethno-nationalism should be : 1c + 2c + 3c + 4c. It would then be moderate in all its aspects and by no means “extreme”. Ethno-nationalists strife for the best interests of their own ethnic group while allowing other ethnic groups to do the same. They are therefore no “supremacists”. The term “white supremacist” often used against us is almost always a misnomer.
The paradigm of “Left’ vs. “Right” is too simplistic to describe the whole gammut of possibilities, and as the writer of this article has shown, is often misused for propaganda purposes.
Steve
- Edit
I never got taught that sort of algebra!
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
Thank you Franklin Ryckaert for your thoughtful and enlightening response to Jane Everdene’s article. My only question is whether your well balanced paradigm is entirely practical or true to the situation as we find it. For instance, whilst we might all dream of a world where there is a place for everybody and everybody is in his place, where the lion lies dawn with the lamb and everyone respects the self-determination and cultural integrity of everyone else, unfortunately the world is not always like that. In reality it might be more realistic to see different races in a constant state of competition in a finite world. If this sounds bleak we might consider Kipling’s idea of ‘taking up the Whiteman’s burden’ but that would entail some form of control and White supremacy.
Steve
- Edit
Sadly due to over population the unviable & unsupportable need to die out.
Daniel
- Edit
Wonderful article. This is what is needed. A Nationalist Left Party.
Steve
- Edit
Isn’t that National Socialism?
Though people are suggesting Social Nationalism these days, the differences are a bit lost on me.
Endangered
- Edit
Just about every nationalist party ever formed in Britain could be considered ‘left’. The NF and BNP have always been socialist oriented.
ConnalOakesHolt
- Edit
A very important article for all Nationalists.
It is often lazy journalists and those who with deliberate intent, seek to poison the minds of those who are want of the true definition of Nationalism, which we have here from J. Everdene.
However, to understand and explain the right wing as different from Nationalism and then to swing to the other end of that dichotomy, is I believe, to repeat that mistake,except in reverse.
We are neither left, nor right. A third position, which the term National Socialism describes , in my opinion, is accurate.
Why not just Nationalism ? Why the Socialism, which may be, as a term or description, be tinged, or marred by bolshevism or marxism or even fabian socialism.
Nationalism, alone, I reckon, points toward a more totalitarian form of government. Or implies it, at any rate. The Nation before the people, kind of attitude.
To use the term National Socialist, in my view, is a way of saying, the Nation are the people. Or , the Nation is “our” people. Our people are the Nation.
Perhaps to use Social Nationalist, does away with any adulteration that may be only percieved, in folks minds, of marxist socialism.
Steve
- Edit
I think Tony Bliar tried to make the idea of a third position his own but he turned out to be more of a fifth columnist.
Steven
- Edit
I consider myself to be a nationalist and thus ‘Right-wing’. Tories often call nationalists ‘socialists’. I have never described myself as such because I have always thought of nationalism as being on the ‘Right’ of politics and Internationalism as being on the ‘Left’.
It is clear we inhabit a different part of the ‘Right-wing’ political spectrum than ‘modern’ Tories and certainly UKIP do.
Nationalism IS a form of collectivism like socialism is BUT unlike socialists we don’t seek an impossible ECONOMIC equality so we AREN’T ‘socialists’ in that way. Nationalism is a sort of ‘socialism’ (ie it IS concerned with the COLLECTIVE rather than the individual) OF THE RIGHT.
PS. This can get very complicated but broadly-speaking the old political labels of ‘Right’ and ‘Left’ make little sense nowdays and political parties should be defined as either nationalist on the one had or internationalist/globalist on the other.
Steve
- Edit
Yes I’d go along with that but the labels are encouraged for mainstream propaganda purposes to help bang home the message that “left” is harmless & “right” is very bad.
I think we are concerned with the national interest & its preservation but the mainstream is globalist, ultimately a one world government type of thing.
So dividing people into Nationalist or globalist tells you where their priorities lie, friend or foe.
Steven
- Edit
Yes, if you are considered by the powers-that-be as being on the ‘Left’ of politics you are deserving of virtual sainthood but if they think you are on the ‘Right’ then you are the epitome of evil.
I think Nationalist/Globalist/Internationalist is a good shorthand to use otherwise it can get very complicated.
Sir Oswald Mosley described his BUF as being in the ‘RADICAL centre’ whereas the Liberals were the ‘soppy centre’.
Steve
- Edit
I think keeping that ‘simple’ is best and easiest when selling to the soundbite masses who don’t want to think too hard about things.
I have used Nationalist vs Globalist idea with people, who are either on one side or the other, but a lot of people don’t realise the full implications of either.
Steven
- Edit
I certainly reject the ‘far right’ label given to us by our media enemies. A lot of the things we stand for were supported by some Tories in the 1930’s and they have never been called ‘far right’. You could say we stand on the TRADITIONAL or ‘Old’ Right ie
we are concerned with nationhood.
In truth, the old ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ labels really refer to economic positioning and I would say I am either centrist or slightly left-of-centre on economics.
P.S If any party in British politics deserve the title of ‘FAR RIGHT’ it is UKIP with their adherence to ultra-globalist free market economic liberalism which would make even many Tories blush.
I support free market economics BUT ONLY WITHIN national limits and the sort of state-directed free enterprise Japan used to enable it to rise from being the world’s only nuclear-bombed country and an economic wasteland post-WW2 to being an economic superpower by the 1960’s.