Perspective

Points of Orientation

In times when the business of politics is usually conducted by the opportunistic and third-rate, the need for long-term and principled thought is more pronounced than ever before.

The following brief points of orientation aim to summarise some of the principles which should guide those who stand for the future of our civilization.

I. Man and Society

  1. Human societies are formed and subsist as a result of a complex set of factors. Some of these factors are their inhabitants’ cultural traditions and habits, languages, religions, biological traits, ethics and morality, consumer patterns, and their social, ethnic, and political identities.
  2. Human beings need an authentic identity and a historical context in order to feel as if they are in harmony with the societies in which they live. That need is not satisfactorily met by fluid, plastic consumer identities, or by utopian conceptions of what man should be, enforced from above. An authentic identity is founded on language, culture, identity, ethnicity, and social reality — not on opinions, sexual orientation, or media-induced impulses and artificial needs.
  3. Ethnic identity is today a natural point of departure for political organisation. The liberal concept of the individual, as well as the class analysis of socialism, have both been proved inadequate. Ethnic groups now constitute the fundamental factor in almost every context, and because of this constitute excellent points of departure for political analysis and practice alike.

II. Europe

  1. For many people their local, regional, or national affiliation remains the most important identity marker. Historical circumstance, however, has made these groupings insufficient, at least as political entities, for looking after the political interests of Europeans throughout the world. This was the case already during the Cold War, when the continent was cut in half by the Soviet Union and the United States, and it remains the case today, as Europe is a subordinate partner to the US, which is now in competition not only with Russia but also China, and perhaps eventually also with a resurgent Muslim world and India.
  2. For this and other reasons, a unified, independent Europe is necessary. A common foreign policy, a common military, and a common will to defend the interests of Europe globally is the only way in which the continent can protect itself and act politically in the world, without being nothing more than a vassal to one of the other great powers.
  3. The emergence of a multi-polar world has created hitherto unimagined possibilities for Europe to free herself from her subordination to the United States through purely diplomatic means. By balancing different superpowers against each other, Europe could seek and find her own way and attain a higher level of self-determination in political matters. If relatively small nations like Japan and Burma/Myanmar can accomplish a great deal by exploiting the increasing tension between China and the United States, Europe can do even more by only choosing to cooperate with superpowers which respect her sovereignty.
  4. Despite the need for political integration, local, regional, and national identities should be recognised, supported, granted rights, and further developed within the borders of Europe. The bureaucratic centralisation characteristic of the current European Union must be limited to areas where it is absolutely necessary; meaning primarily to security issues, trade, and foreign policy, but little else. Imperium Europa, or a European federation, to use a more modern expression, is desirable in a purely political sense, not as a means to create this or that ‘new man’ of a socialist or post-nationalist type. The regional and national identities of Europe should not be discarded, but rather strengthened within a pan-European framework.

III. Economy and Politics

  1. We advocate the primacy of politics over economics. Political power should be wielded in the open, by visible and responsible individuals who are answerable to the people they govern. The current state of affairs, in which corporations, organisations, or private individuals who have amassed vast power or wealth are permitted to freely influence or decide what happens in all areas of society is unacceptable. The genuine political representatives of the peoples of Europe must have the powers — and the will — to curb the corrupting influence of money from private actors in politics.
  2. Primacy does not equal regulation or planning. The capacity of free markets, free people, and free trade to create economic wealth should not be underestimated, and should not be limited for other reasons than curbing the influence of money in politics and dealing with social problems with which the market alone is unable to cope. The therapeutic welfare state has historically taken far too many liberties against individuals and groups in Europe, and it is well worth remembering that the majority of the victims of Communism were not shot, but starved to death on account of absurd economic policies. Furthermore, social services and aid which Europe provides for its people, such as healthcare and social security, should be limited to Europeans, and not extended to non-Europeans whose only interest in being in Europe is to selfishly take advantage of these resources which are freely handed out to them by utopian politicians and social crusaders.
  3. Economics is not the absolute fundament of society, and a dogmatic approach to its functions is never prudent. Alain de Benoist’s words are ours as well: we’ll gladly welcome a society with a market, but not a market society. Conversely, demands for economic equality for the people of Europe for its own sake must not be allowed to limit the positive, wealth-generating effects of market forces, in the way they have previously done and still do in some areas of the world.
  4. Spheres which are protected from the forces of the marketplace have value in and of themselves — religious communities, cultural and sports associations, local historical societies, and other such forms of community organisation are important elements of a healthy society, provided that they serve the interests of the European peoples and do not work against them.

IV. The Peoples of the World and Ethnic Pluralism

  1. Our historical subject is Europe, and we first and foremost stand for and defend the interests of her and her peoples. This does not in any way preclude good will towards, or cooperation with, other peoples and political groups. However, every person in Sweden and Europe deserves political authorities who will stand for the Swedish and European peoples, when their safety or welfare is under threat, and who will seek to preserve and improve their welfare. A politician who is motivated by some obscure notion that his or her primary loyalty should be to some abstract ‘humanity’ or ‘world’, rather than the actual people being governed, can never be tolerated as a ruler, or even as a legitimate democratic representative. ‘Humanity’ or ‘the world’ are concepts which refer to no concrete political, cultural, historical, or anthropological reality, and when they are invoked they inevitable serve to disguise questionable loyalties or plain political idiocy.
  2. As for the role Europe should play outside of her own borders, that will be up to history. Generally, it can be said that her function should not be to force patterns of life and political systems upon other peoples for which they have not shown explicit interest. The fanatical group of warmongers who, while mouthing platitudes about human rights and democracy, kill millions throughout the world while simultaneously, using the same rhetoric to encourage mass migration to Europe from the Third World must be deprived of any influence on the foreign policy of the West. Opinions on the way other peoples handle their affairs should be expressed solely through diplomacy and example, not through the wars of aggression and attempts at subversion which time and again in recent decades have come back to haunt us.
  3. The principle that every people, insofar as it is possible, must be allowed to live as they want is not based on any notions of cultural relativism, in which all ways of doing things are viewed as being of equal value for all peoples, everywhere. It is, instead, strictly pragmatic: war and revolutions are without exception worse than the alternative, which is simply to leave the development of each society to the people who are actually living there. For this reason we should not wage wars or foment revolutions and otherwise subvert the established orders in others’ lands.
  4. In return for this direct opposition to intervention and violence against cultures and peoples, we demand the same for ourselves. Mass immigration to Europe must cease. The Americanisation and the importation of stupid political ideas and an infantilising popular culture must be limited, and be replaced by a culture partly created from below by the various peoples of our continent, and partly by intellectual and cultural elites who are politically and spiritually loyal to Europe.

V. Parliament, Revolution, Reaction

  1. Parliamentary efforts can never be more than complements to broader cultural and political work. The results of elections are but products of how public opinion has been formed and how, what, and in what manner information has been spread between these elections. Our strength is that we speak of the actual circumstances everyone sees around them, as opposed to those anti-European political forces who continue to attempt to pull the wool over the peoples’ eyes by painting rosy pictures for them which fly in the face of the facts. This can be transformed into favourable electoral results for parties of a more or less positive orientation, but these results are never more than a slight advantage in work that must always be carried out with a broader and longer view in mind.
  2. Political violence, whether organised or committed by individuals, cannot play any positive role in the rebirth of Europe. Our current political establishment is superior, to a degree which begs any historical parallel, to anyone who seeks to challenge it within its territory — not only militarily and when it comes to surveillance and intelligence. To advocate a literal ‘revolt’ or ‘revolution’ under current historical conditions is to relate to society as an angry child to a parent, trusting that one’s tantrum will lead to a wish being granted simply on account of its very harmlessness. The best example of this is the ‘revolutionary’ Left: should an actual direct confrontation between the state apparatuses of the West and the ridiculous little hordes of Communists and anarchists who claim to want to overthrow them, the latter would be wiped off the face of the Earth within days and would be missed by none. The true Right should not seek to emulate their time-wasting idiocy. Revolutionary prattle can do nothing but agitate the mentally unstable into acts of violence which are both immoral and can have no practical value whatsoever. We should leave such acts to the extreme Left and the radical Islamists, where it comes naturally. We set higher standards for ourselves. Violence can only be problematic.
  3. Our method, once again, is the metapolitical method — the gradual transformation of society in a direction which will be beneficial to us and, more importantly, the population in general. Agents both within and outside the established political system can take part in this work, insofar as there is a will and thus a way. Revolutionary upheavals have wrought havoc on the European continent for over two centuries. The insanity ends now. The reaction is coming, step by step, and we will follow Julius Evola’s recommendation to ‘cover our enemies with scorn, rather than chains’.
  4. The success of our ideas is not only possible. It is certain.

 

(The above text is an excerpt from chapter 3: “Points of Orientation”, in my latest book, The Real Right Returns. If you enjoyed this article, please make sure to get the entire book.)

Share: