The Mission of the New Right

This article is dedicated to Jean-Marie Le Pen. Que la mort ne vous arrête jamais.

It's been a long & bloody century for the New Right, as well it's adjacent groups. During a conversation with a French friend, he brought up how disappointing it is that many of the main theorists of the NR have died before seeing their work being taken up by mainstream parties like RN. I agreed with him at the time, but after thinking about it further I see that it was necessary.

As I brought up in my article on the Years of Lead, the RW had a very specific mission during the Cold War years. This included everyone from more Libertarian types in the US to armed militant groups in Europe to the governments of various global south nations. This mission was to stop the spread of Communism by any means necessary. This was the common thread between ex-SS soldiers fighting in Indochina, McCarthy blacklisting Marxists in Hollywood, the New Right effecting politics from an extraparliamentary angle, all of it. Every action taken during the Cold War was justified to destroy the Marxists, and we won eventually.

Unfortunately, this mission left little room for taking power. The truth is, this was an impossible task in those times anyway. For most of the Right, liberal democracy was acceptable when faced with the only real alternative. Even many of the critical failures of the liberal governments, such as the civil rights movement in the US, was subtly the work of Marxists simply playing on the moral axioms of the liberals. There was no breathing room for philosophic or political infighting in the West. These theorists were writing in a bubble, they did not have the social movements to put that theory into practice. This was a key factor in the revolutionary movements of the interwar period, from the Blackshirts to the NSDAP to the Iron Guard, these were all mass social movements that many in our age fail to comprehend.

"The national revolution in the course of which we find ourselves today is an elementary event, which only came unexpectedly for one who lived apart from our times. He who has co-operated in creating this event has hoped for it. It started on 30 January of this year, and it is not going to come to a stop before it has inundated the entire life of the German community and has permeated it even in its very last phases.” -Joseph Goebbels

This zeitgeist is necessary for any grandiose social change, just as indispensable as the leaders & foot soldiers of these movements. This does not happen overnight, nor is it contingent on any rational decisions. Contrary to the hopes of many in The Movement™, theres no such thing as “waking people up” with clever infographics or factoids. Memes have proven to be far more useful in affecting public opinion than any long winded essay, these only affect the few people who have an academic interest. Normal people don't read political essays, at the very best some may listen to a Jordan Peterson lecture on YouTube.

In reality, people are influenced by almost imperceptible ‘vibes.’ This is a concept already common in German philosophy under the term geist. It's uncertain how real this all is. Depending on who you ask, the geist of a given group at a particular time is simply due to the inherent social nature of mankind, which trends towards a rough conformity more often than not. Others will have a view that this is essentially a thoughtform, created by human minds & spreading memetically through a sort of ideosphere. Alternatively, some see these as spiritual entities of sorts. An amorphous daemon whose effects can be seen in culture & emotion. Similar to the Hindu notion of the ‘Age of Kali.’

Regardless, this geist is the main focus of the illiberal or otherwise extraparliamentary Right. In the West, there are two types of countries. The first are the ones where it is effectively illegal to be RW, especially as an organized political party. The second is the United States, where trying to break the mold of the two (extremely similar) main parties is extraordinarily difficult & slow going. When people talk about why there's few “Far Right” parties in Europe, it's because the leaders would be arrested after the first speech. It's already common for members of AfD to be fined for criticizing politicians or migrants, not to mention the very real effort to ban the party entirely. The only real reason America doesn't have similar laws is because the two-party system makes this a non-threat anyway.

True liberal democrats are rare nowadays. Mainly older people without much understanding of modern sociopolitical systems. As sides have diverged, neither is very concerned with democracy. Leftism has ultimately become synonymous with Marxism. All their theorists are only 2 steps removed from Marx himself at best. At the same time, much of the anti-democratic RW has grown in popularity as more people become disillusioned with universal democracy for some reason or another. Imperium Press had an article that spoke of this, that liberalism is woefully unprepared for combating Marxism. This is because it ultimately relies on the same moral axioms (such as the general notion of equality), simply taking them further to their natural conclusions.

This leaves the “moderate centrist” with the options of flowing down that line or rejecting the basic principles of liberalism. These principles are not debatable. No amount of appeals to consequentialist morality or empirical data can actually break one away from the notion that “all men are created equal,” regardless of what form it takes. These principles shift solely in the realm of a geist. The amount of people who hold ideologies seriously contrary to the overall zeitgeist or volkgeist is rare, probably around 10% of any given population. The rest of the population can be effectively thought of as zombies that default to cultural currents. I should clarify that this isn't actually a terrible thing, a world where everyone had complete agency would likely get no where. There needs to be “lower classes” (non-derogatory) to do the work. Officers need soldiers, architects need builders, so on.

The goal of most New Right thinkers is to provide the necessary foundations for a counter culture. The basic tenets that led to Fascism, Monarchism, etc., that are utterly alien to someone in the liberal worldview. Rather than attempt to fruitlessly swim against the riptide of modernity, the mission is simply to survive & pass the torch until the conditions for positive change are in place. In the meantime, the mission is a sort of spiritual insurrection - a guerilla war within the ideosphere. This is how the “pipelines” are created. Members of the New Right will take a stand on a seemingly trivial matter, which will plant the seeds of doubt in those watching. An example is the IQ & Race question, which served to make people rethink the concept of racial equality & put them on the ideological path. This started in the early 2010’s & has been very successful.

You see, the point is subtlety. Contrary to popular belief, there are actually a lot of academics & other people with influence that are roughly on our side. Naturally, they generally remain quiet to avoid being fired or worse. But they certainly do exist, & they read the same authors as us. Every so often you will see their influences in their work. I only know this because of how many friends with roughly similar ideological backgrounds I have seen reach these positions - having met them during high school years & watched them go through university, later getting jobs in positions of influence. You would be shocked how many otherwise “normal” people have bookshelves filled with Evola, Mike Ma, Spengler, and others. Bronze Age Mindset is particularly common in my experience.

Those who have been around the internet for a while will already infer that these people don't know each other very well, if it all. This represents the entire New Right sphere as a whole. It's never been organized, it just occasionally crystallizes for a purpose. I don't generally like bringing up internet culture here, but the whole HWNDU campaign by Shia Lebouf shows this well on the small scale. This is also a good point to bring up that organization doesn't actually matter. Most social movements had very poor organization, & only crystalized into organized political parties & such at late stages. There are certainly exceptions, like the NSDAP, but even then they existed as a nucleus for the zeitgeist to mobilize around.

Grandiose political leaders, anyone from extreme examples like Caesar & Hitler to more mundane ones like Trump, are effectively willed into existence. They serve as avatars for the zeitgeist, all others are effectively possessed by it. If we take a look back, through their lives, we can see a series of events that directly led them to their apogee. All of it served a purpose to prepare them for their future roles. All in service to the unseen geists they represent.

These geists are the objective of the New Right. The realm they inhabit, whether psychological or metaphysical, is what we try to change. It should come as no surprise that we’ve historically dabbled in “alternative” psychology & occult theories to both explain the crisis of modernity as well as find a way out. Surprisingly to some, this has been effective. Many of the esotericist types are held in similar regard to less “spiritual” individuals like Schmitt or Strauss, though there's usually considerable overlap. This is the temporary end goal of the New Right, to survive the anticulture of modernity & establish a foundation for what comes next.

Much debate is given about the Left-Right spectrum, about what it actually measures. I don't think anyone seriously believes that these matters can be represented by a one or two dimensional graph. Often you’ll hear that it's based on economic freedom, or on morality. None of this is adequate in the long term, it's based purely off of temporary matters that did not exist a few centuries ago & will not exist a few centuries from now. A better spectrum would be something we can apply to any topic, at any point in time, even to non-human organisms.

For this, Left & Right can be replaced with Equality & Quality. This isn't a new concept by any means, others have made the same claim before. But it is something that stands the test of time, it shows a common link between a 21st century Marxist & an agrarian village elder in the Stone Age. Both show an absolute disdain for anything that strives for something higher. Russel Walter recently wrote about this on his article about the term ‘longhouse.’ Marxists, despite their moralized rambling, truly hate the bourgeoisie because they are a higher level than the proletariat. They are resentful that the business owners or landed aristocracy doesn't have to toil away in the fields or factories, & live a more privileged lifestyle. This can still be seen today when Leftists complain about “the rich,” it always takes the form of declaring that they should be slaving away in service job instead of accumulating generational wealth.

This is definitive of this ideology. Although Leftists claim to want to “bring the working classes up,” the reality is that it always takes the form of dragging everything else down to the level of the lowest common denominator. They are against the West, & it's people, because it's a shining light in a world filled with comparably impoverished & undeveloped cultures. They aren't swayed by factual statements about how colonialism & actually greatly benefited almost every culture subjected to it, they are abhorred by the fact that these colonists were blatantly superior to the local population & lived better lives.

No where can this be seen more clearly than in the arts. It's well established that Leftists hate beauty, the aesthetics of Leftism are virtually always derivative & low effort. The absolute best of it is crude caricatures of the posters made by the Punk scene during its heyday. Most often, it takes the form of something resembling that minimalistic “corporate” art style. Architecture is even more on the nose. Leftist architecture falls somewhere between utilitarian brutalism & the glass monoliths of the city. Devoid of beauty or basic personality. This is why many on the Right take so much interest in architecture, especially old churches & government buildings that were crafted with ridiculous amounts of effort during artistic periods that valued beauty as much, if not more, than practicality. This is because art, and the more general concepts of beauty or aesthetics, is inherently in the realm of the Right due to the inherent hierarchy within it. Only in the last several decades, after the rise Karl Popper’s new strain Leftism have art critics begun deciding that beauty is in the eye of the beholder & whatnot.

This also explains the vitriolic hatred for Christianity in the modern Left, which is far different than criticisms from the Right like Nietzsche or Evola. I still hold my opinions that Christianity is a fundamentally Leftist religion, but certainly not all the way. Leftists hate religion because they can't stand that there's something higher than them. They also can't stand that the concept of piety introduces yet another hierarchy that they may find themselves at the bottom of. It goes without saying that they despise the highly organized religions (Orthodoxy & Catholicism) especially due to the clerical hierarchy. Over time this hatred of the spiritual higher power has led us to the modern Atheist, a zealot of materialism that makes everything the same without anything above them.

This is endemic to the Eternal Left. Alamariu speaks of this extensively in both of his books, but appreciation of beauty is a rare trait in the world that is only found in a handful of cultures historically. Virtually all of them European. This is why the ancient Greeks stood out in the world with their grandiose cities full of marble, statues, & large buildings inscribed with various symbols. This is also why the Indo-Europeans, the Aryans, stand out so much against the backdrop of their contemporaries. They are one of the few cultures, probably the first, to value beauty & other intangible qualities. This can be especially seen in how Aryan peoples have historically been more prone to selecting romantic partners for beauty rather than arranged marriages for material gain, as seen in India & similar cultures.

On that note, this is the reason militarism is so prevalent among the Right. Why so many figures, from philosophers to theorists to leaders, began their lives as soldiers. Warfare is fundamentally anti-egalitarian. During times of combat, there is no time to moralize about equality or tradition. Strength & cunning are the most import virtues, & they both exist at different levels in each man. The war hero archetype is a perfect representation of the earliest hierarchies. Most of all, combat displays the need for rulers. The oldest records of the Aryan Koryos showed that accomplished older warriors led the less experienced boys in battle. This was the foundation of what would eventually become the military officer. Ernst Jünger talks of this extensively, but many older cultures simply took it as self-evident. This is not surprising since virtually every aristocracy has come into being by way of combat & conquest.

In a way, the Eternal Right can be said to have started with the Aryan invasions of Europe & beyond. The first RWer was an Aryan who conquered a neighboring village & put the local population to work for his own ends. As he cut down the formerly omnipotent village elders, he effectively ended the primordial Communist hegemony & gave birth to Imperialism. This would only develop further in the coming millennia.

The eternal struggle of the “Right,” of those who value quality, is to rise higher. It is to continuously overcome itself & fight the Left’s attempt to drag everything down to the metaphorical primordial soup. This permeates every aspect of reality that it almost enters the realm of metaphysics. In matters of spirituality, this can be seen in the ancient Chaoskampf motif in many ancient religions, where a ‘demiurge’ character creates the Cosmos out of a primordial chaos. In my view, this can be seen as synonymous with the creation of civilization out of the aforementioned primordial communism. Similarly, stories like the Tower of Babel narrative are a representation of the opposite, of dragging down those in search of a higher level of being back into the masses. The ultimate goal of humanity ought to be apotheosis.

Earlier I brought up the Equality-Quality model as a linear spectrum, but in reality it's more aptly described as the Chinese Yin-Yang. The human soul is necessarily split between the two dichotomies. Pure Leftism would see a world where all life is confined into a single primordial soup of perfectly equal cells. Pure Rightism leads to a world where social connections, even to the level of immediate family, are completely meaningless in a sea of hyper-individualization. This is something that many on the Right are very critical of, as it is seen as an aspect of modernity to some extent.

This is also impossible in our current state, given human psychology, and thus necessitates a complete overcoming of humanity - Der Übermensch. Conversely, it could also lead to the mobilization of a group (ethnic or otherwise) for a purpose, to the point that this ‘society’ is functionally an independent super-organism of its own, which is actually in line with the organicist notions of the State within the German Völkische community, later inherited by the National Socialists. A physical manifestation of the volkgeist.

Nietzsche thought that any written work should also be a call to action. For this, I will give advice on how to judge any incident in the realm of sociopolitics. I’m sure you could use this to judge more personal or grandiose matters as well. Consider which side of the issue is striving for a higher level, and which is trying to drag down. Things that play off of principles of 'fairness’ or 'equality’ should be avoided. Things that trend towards individuation & reaching towards greater heights is something to strive towards. Of course, there is nuance to this. Either side will often frame their position as the opposite, such as Leftists painting their equality as “lifting the lower classes up” even though in reality they just drag the higher classes down. The same is true for Rightists at times. There's also almost always a mix of the two, just as the small circles in the Yin-Yang.

Regardless, it's an effective way to view reality through a simple binary system. Far more than trying to scan out certain buzzwords or whatnot. This allows us to more effectively visualize & carry out our mission, in the short & long terms.

Hail Victory.