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
- 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.
- 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.
- Ethnic identity is 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 proven inadequate. Ethnic groups constitute the fundamental factor in almost every context, and because of this constitute excellent points of departure for political analysis and practice.
- 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.
- For this and other reasons, a unified, independent Europe is necessary. A common foreign policy 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.
- 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.
- 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. The regional and national identities of Europe should not be discarded, but rather strengthened within a pan-European framework.
III. Economy and Politics
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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 goodwill towards, or cooperation with, other peoples and political groups. However, every person in Europe deserves political authorities who will represent the interests of their 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 inevitably serve to disguise questionable loyalties or plain political idiocy.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 infantilizing 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
- 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 favorable 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.
- Political violence, whether organized 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.
- 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’.
- The success of our ideas is not only possible. It is certain.
(The above points of orientation are loosely based on 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.)
This pales in comparison with say, the work of Kai Murros. It also falls into the stupidity of the “multipolar world” which is a codeword for Jewish control of the international financial system through the United Nations.
The repudiation of violence, frankly, is just absurd. This is a war. Does anyone honestly think we can win the ballot box? Oh, now let’s spend the next hundred years on metapolitical bullshit!
I spotted an error:
“and when they are invoked they inevitable serve to disguise questionable loyalties or plain political idiocy.” Replace “inevitable” with “inevitably”.
Great article btw.
Giving our vital interests an intelectual frame is repeating the errors of the enlightened whites who unfolded uncertainty instead of creating joined proudness. Forget typing manifestos. The plot is clear.
I can agree with most of Mr Friberg’s ideas, however I would like to mention some important points he didn’t touch :
1) What about the Euro ? Does Mr Friberg want to retain the Euro or does he propose a return to national currencies ?
National currencies (not based on debt like the dollar) are less likely to be manipulated by international finance and the less corrupt nations will not be forced to support the corrupt ones. (like Germany vs. Greece).
2) What about immigration? I suppose Mr Friberg wants to stop all further immigration from the Third World, but what about those foreigners already in our countries ?
My proposal is to repatriate all non-European foreigners from our countries, even if they are already second or third generation immigrants. Their eventual European spouses and their mixed-race offspring should be included in the repatriation, as should be such ancient minorities like Jews and Gypsies, who never fitted well in our societies. Europeans who want to marry non-Europeans should be allowed to do so, but they will not be allowed to bring their spouses into Europe. Thus such marriages will mean emigration for them.
3) I suppose Mr Friberg proposes religious freedom for Europe, but I would except Judaism and Islam from the tolerated religions, due to their subversive character. European peoples who are historically Muslim, such as Bosnians and Albanians however will be allowed to retain their religion. For other Europeans conversion to these religions should mean expulsion.
I kindly invite Mr Friberg to respond to my remarks.
1) The Euro is, much like the EU, a failed project, and I advocate a return to national currencies.
2) A humane and comprehensive remigration program is necessary. I recently republished a piece making a case for this, here: https://altright.com/2017/10/04/they-have-to-go-back/
3) I mostly agree with you on this issue.
The first three points are the most important. They are Alt Right fundamentals and need to be talked about & shared with everyone. They are also so self-evident and obvious — I always approach red pilling people with what amounts to those first three points. Brilliantly stated.
However, I think that emphasizing that Europe needs to exist in a unified way is not positive. It is going to be much easier for us to get each nation out of globalism one by one then to talk about getting it out as a single, unified whole. I also think that, moving forward, we can have each European state represent its own interests independnetly.
Being chained together is not my idea of independence — even if it is similarly minded Europeans.
Power always gravitates toward the center. Having a Central European government inevitably means that it will meddle in the affairs of the regional governments. We will see the same technocratic arguments the EU uses to standardize and control. It is a very bad idea. Common European armed forces are an extremely bad idea.
I notice the language of the essay is highflown and extremely vague. Never forget that ”the devil is in the details.”
The part about European integration is however a natural response to the “Clash of Civilisations” we currently find ourselves in, where cooperation regarding the protection and defense of our outer borders is necessary.
How to Embarrass and Shame the American Alt-Right…….
I hope this is a Joke…..
If it’s a Joke…..you shouldn’t even Joke like this………
Theoretical Physics/Cosmology/Astrophysics are the Province of Great White Goy Minds……….
GREAT White Goy Minds…….
In fact, that’s one of the Reasons that I’m Alt-Right…….
I understand the History of Science……..
I also understand Empirical Science……
Biology, Physics, Chemistry……….
I LOVE Science…….
I won’t use the WT phrase to Trash my People anymore……….but, it’s at the Tip of my Mind……..
….in this Instance…….
Science is AMAZING………
Even if Jews are involved………..
Plank, Heidegger, Heisenberg, Dirac, Faraday, Maxwell, Rutherford, Hubble, Hertz, Tesla, Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Watson/Crick, Wohler, Pasteur, Mendel………
And that’s a TINY List of the Great White GOY Minds…….
Start reading Other Books besides Alt-Right Manifesto’s………
The Earth is a Sphere (Kindergarten Science) and Gravitational Waves are a Reality………..
And Einstein was a Genius……..even if he was a Jew………
Get over it…….
flat earth is a Sinead meme, c’mon son
Memo to Americans from Europeans. We don’t want a unified Europe so fuck off. We will make defence and trade alliances while maintaining absolute independence. We don’t want yet another superstate overriding our laws and sovereignty and we will never accept a unites states of Europe. Capiche?
Take it easy. Most of us Americans agree with you. The author of this essay does not appear to be American. He isn”t English, either.
Americans are the ones advocating for it? Tell that to Mosley, Degrelle and Devi. It’s a defense against the hegemonic federal superstates that will always menace Europe (America being the present example) until it too becomes one. Rather than it being a case of Americans not understanding the realities of life in Europe, I think we’re dealing with certain Europeans being too petty and conservative to realize the validity of what their greatest luminaries were advocating five decades ago.
I would tell it to all three of them loudly and be supported by the mass of European nationalists who are fighting for freedom from any type of European federation or superstate, in particular the current Jew-EU. Sort out your own United States before telling us what to do.
I am Swedish, not American. And I am absolutely opposed to any European superstate, or any “United States of Europe”.
Conservatism is about roots, and a people cut off from their roots are nothing. White Americans must indeed be proud Americans, but they also need to know where they came from. White race existed for 10,000s of yrs before there ever was America, which is only 240 yrs as a republic. Indeed, if the New World didn’t exist and if America had never come into existence, the white race and culture would still exist.
White identity pre-exists even European civilization. It is the product of biology and evolution and climate. So, white Americans need all three: biological-racial consciousness, a sense of how they were forged as a race in the European continent even before there was European history and high civilization. Indeed, it was evolution that formed those very traits among white people that made European civilization possible. So, biology precedes culture. If evolution had given whites different genetic traits, would they have created European civilization? Not likely. If evolution had made whites look, feel, and act like African bushmen, there wouldn’t have been Hellenic civilization and Germanic mythology and culture.
Also, European civilization existed for thousands of yrs prior to rise of America. If anything, America is essentially just an extension of European peoples, cultures, and civilization. The language & literature, architecture, political theories, and sense of history and roots all go back to Europe. Founding Fathers would have been lost without their deep connection to Mother Europe. They sought political independence, not cultural or historical independence. America didn’t grow from American soil. Rather, it was a tree that was transplanted from Europe to America. America is not an indigenous creation but an import from Europe. It’s like a Mars Colony wouldn’t truly be Martian but Earthian transported to Mars. Therefore, Earthlings who colonize Mars would have no meaningful identity IF they ignored their ancestral connection to Mother Earth.
America is both a great blessing and a great curse. It gave opportunity and freedom to many peoples around the world. But it also turned them amnesiac almost overnight to their rich history and ancestry. Attracted to American liberty and materialism, many Americans just turned their backs on their ethnic kin and even grew to hold them in contempt. Also, as American history isn’t deep — US is still a young nation — , it is never enough to be an American. The only people with relatively deep roots in America are Anglos and maybe blacks with slave ancestry. There are many Americans of immigrant background whose history in America go back only a few decades… or few yrs. When Anglos were dominant, other groups tried to respect and assimilate to Anglo narrative. But with Jewish takeover of the US, the new American Formula is amnesia. America is a blank slate where all Americans must just think in terms of ‘muh constitution’, ‘muh burger and fries’, and ‘muh wars for israel’. Also, this immigration-centric view of America says Americans-yet-to-be are more American than Americans who already are. It’s like a shopoholic woman is bored with clothes she already has and just looks to clothes to buy in the future. Americanism has been consumerized.
America liberated many peoples but also turned them into traitors. It made Anglos turn against their mother country. It made Italian-Americans fight Italians in WWI. It made German-Americans fight Germans in WWI and WWII. It made Russian-Americans go against Russia during the Cold War. It made Muslim-Americans support US wars on Muslim nations under Bush and Obama. It made Chinese-Americans side with US against their own kin and brethren. The ONLY exception is Jews. Jews would never support a US that is anti-Jewish or anti-Israel.
Anyway, what is the source of Jewish Power? Jews claim to love America, but they never forget their identitarian tribal roots. Indeed, American Jews feel more in common with Jews in Russia, Hungary, Britain, France, and Israel than with gentile Americans such as white working class, Mexicans, Muslims, blacks, and etc. Sure, Jews work with gentiles in every profession, but away from work, they maintain their Jewish identity and interests that are so much deeper than Americanism. Jewish history goes back 3500 yrs while Core Jewish-American history is 120 yrs old, with large numbers of Jews arriving only in the late 19th century. The thing is Jews try to juggle both: Jewish identity and American citizenship.
And that is the way it should be. Take THE GODFATHER. Young Michael tries to be just a good patriotic American. But he realizes he is his father’s son, and when he makes ‘aliyah’ to Sicily, he feels a connection with his culture and roots. So, even though he lives and works as an American, he is something MORE. He is also part of a culture that is much deeper. Today, why is Italian-American culture so worthless and trashy? Because Italian-Americans have forgotten their roots and only care about pop culture. It’s Jersey Shore.
Even though AVALON by Barry Levinson isn’t a great movie, it illustrates the importance of roots and culture… and how those things are ultimately threatened by the homogenizing impact of TV and Pop Americana.
It’s not a case of either/or. White Americans should be American. But their identities can be multi-layered. Americanism can be layered with Europeanism. Americanism forges a bond between white Americans and non-white Americans. (Pan)Europeanism sustains a bond among all whites in US, Canada, Australia, and Europe and Latin America.
And ethnicism connects each white ethnic group to his particular tribal history. A white man can have all three in balance.
At any rate, would Jews be as powerful IF they only chose to think of themselves as American and not as Jewish with deep roots and powerful connections to Jews around the world?
If one were to meet two Lithuanian-Americans, whom would deserve more respect? One who is patriotic and American but also has a deep sense of Lithuanian heritage, history, and knows the language OR one who is entirely American but knows or cares almost nothing of what it means to be Lithuanian? This occurred to me in college when I met this Lithuanian guy who was American as apple pie but also so knowledgeable about his mother nation and culture. It deserved respect.
Now, there’s gonna be tensions between these various identities: ethnic, european, and American, but tension, if managed right, is good. Tension makes people feel alive. It forces them to be creative in trying to maintain a balance among the ideas and identities that are, at once, contradictory and complementary.
The New Right must be about accepting the tensions and conflicts of existence. It’s not the Happy Meal conservatives of cucks like Ben Sasse who have easy answers for everything.
I am not against a supranational organization to take care of security and to solve conflicts among European nations peacefully. But that is it. Such organization would have zero influence on how issues are resolved internally.
I am very very much against any kind of “white multiculturalism” in Europe. There are huge white minorities all over Europe which were formed mostly in recent decades. All of that needs to be reversed. Multiculturalism of any kind leads to conflict and that includes white multiculturalism.
I agree completely.
I always thought that the EU was formed to do exactly what was described in this very good article.
What a disappointment it was to realize the bitter truth. But apparently there is hope.
I think we have to do everything we can to normalize our narrative and spread these ideas.
I do what I can and I never mention altright or right in general, just purely the ideas. It works much better compared when I state that this is actually an altright idea.
The EU is working exactly as intended, if you will look into the history of it. This may be Mr. Freiburg’s view but it is not an “”Altright” idea and he shouldn’t claim it as such. Europeans badly need to forget the blasted Roman Empire.
European countries need to cooperate to secure our outer borders and defend ourselves properly against the hordes from the Global South. I am not advocating for a liberal superstate or anything of the kind.
I agree with most of this with some caveats –
1. Political violence is not necessarily bad and in some cases is both righteous and pragmatic (The American revolution comes to mind), but as a rule we should do all in our power to remain peaceful and reject random and unnecessary acts of violence, such as what we have seen with Dylan Roof and Timothy Mcveigh, as evil, barbarous, and anti-Aryan.
2. We do not need some sort of United States of Europe, that would never really work in the long run and would only lead to the destruction of the cultures of the various Aryan tribes. What we need is a confederation, like the Delian league or the Socii states in the Roman Republic. Let people maintain their identities, national borders, economic protections, and security forces while presenting a unified front to non-Aryans.
3. The Free market should be regulated and we should use the economic theories of Gottfried Feder to create a strong and prosperous Aryan middle class and allow REAL economic competition. We should also ban usury, which is what got us to this point to begin with.
4. We cannot and must not advocate for or maintain the evil democratic parliamentary system. Democracy is a lie and should be condemned as such. We should advocate for the leadership principle, which is not present in the democratic system. Leaders MUST be held to the highest levels of accountability and have their actions questioned and examined, as Hitler taught us in Mein Kampf.
5. We should deregulate the ownership of weapons and allow all Aryans over the age of 18 to own rifles and handguns so long as they are not adjudicated mentally ill, convicted criminals, or marxists. We must always remember that there is no liberty without arms.
Solid feedback. I agree that political violence can sometimes be righteous and pragmatic. This brief set of principles are meant as a starting point for further discussion, so all feedback is appreciated.
Well we need to start our somewhere. They are good principles but we need to be anti-usury. We can’t back down on that issue, not a single step. Interest on money is what got us into this mess.
You guys should take a look at this info, this could be great propaganda for us – https://www.youtube.com/wat…
16 hours ago
PAY ATTENTION – I have been posting on twitter since 8 am that this is ANTIFA. His girl friend IS Antifa, They ANTIFA got suddenly quiet, went sorta underground and they have planted this clown Paddock in that room after funding his gambling with payoffs to him for straw gun purchases then the day of this shooting he had met them in that room with but loads of guns and ammo. They busted out the windows and started shooting the crowd with him in their. Cameras were set up to see the cops coming, they ran, leaving him to get all blame. SURE AS THE DAY IS LONG, its going to happen again real soon.”
16 hours ago
Weeks ago Speaking to a guy on the CB who trucks through Vegas said they were spending weeks trying to get straw buyers to kick off a big party in Vegas. They approached him 2 times in 3 days in the TA Truck stop and others and offered him big money to buy lots of guns then claim they were stolen, to deliver them in vegas. ( truckers warn other drivers about things)
Random CB talk with a OTR driver yes, but now apparently not some kook when seeing this all happen. rest is common sense.
16 hours ago
$100 bet you get the TA on IH-15 on the edge of Vegas to roll beck their lot cameras you will see these crazy leftist fuks in their vans or bus nearby. They sorta home base a bunch near there, you see them staging for runs there in Henderson behind the Autozone, its common.
I think an emphasis on maintaining territorial, ethnic and cultural
sovereignty for every nation in Europe is paramount (blood and soil) and I doubt us Europeans who do not want the EU would unite as ‘Europe’, however united we are strong and alone we all fall. Europe needs to come together in a ‘Europe of nations’, respecting all European ethnic groups in order to be viable geopolitically and to ensure we have no more brother wars.
The Visegrad Group is already doing this in a sense. Imo it will be the model for the future of Europe, so best get involved.
Fantastic piece Daniel.
Thank you, Justin!
Well done Daniel Friberg that was an excellent article.Bravo.
Agreed, well thought out and well written. Brave indeed!