Keith Preseton interviews Richard on his new program, Attack The System. They discuss the essence of the alternative Right, Nietzsche, speaking the unspeakable, and the need for a post-American political movement.

I can’t say that I’ve been supportive of the “Anonymous” online movement—the collective of hackers associated with, among other things, the outlandish wiki-page Encylopedia Dramatica, the antiwar Wikileaks.com, and various denial-of-service attacks against Master Card, PayPal, and the federal government. That said, even if their ideology was something on the order of “FUCK EVERYTHING!!!”-Anarcho-Leftism, Anonymous certainly had the right enemies: political correctness, the military industrial complex, the Federal Reserve System, etc. That’s a start.

Moreover, Anonymous represents something that is necessary, if potentially toxic—a vanguard that aggressively calls out the System as morally and intellectually bankrupt. (We and Anonymous can be allies, if not quite friends.)

Looking at Anonymous’s latest project, however, the thought crossed my mind that it 1) had been captured by the System 2) was a group of System operatives all along, or 3) includes people so deluded by the System’s ideology that it is unwittingly working on the System’s behalf.

A new title issued by the Portuguese publishing firm Finis Mundi Press, Welf Herfurth’s, A Life in the Political Wilderness, is unquestionably one of the most interesting politically oriented books I have encountered in quite some time. It is the work of a remarkable individual whom I am also pleased to call a friend. This book, which includes an introduction by Troy Southgate and a preface by Dr. Tomislav Sunic, is partly autobiographical, partly analytical and partly polemical. Welf is a thirty-year veteran of radical nationalist political activism, and has collected a treasure trove of insights from his many varied experiences over the decades.

Welf Herfurth was born in West Germany and grew up in a small rural community until his family relocated to Iran when he was a teenager. As a 17-year-old, Welf witnessed the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, and subsequently returned with his family to Germany. He became politically active with the NPD not long afterward because of his interest in the cause of German reunification. From the start of his political life onward, Welf experienced persecution by left-wing fanatics, even having eggs thrown at him during the very first political rally he ever attended. While traveling in South America during the early 1980s, Herfurth became aware of the pernicious effect of U.S. foreign policy in that region and throughout much of the globe and abandoned his previous pro-American sentiments. He was dismissed from three different jobs in West Germany because of his political activities. Eventually settling in Australia and becoming a successful businessman, Welf has been involved in dissident politics in that country for a quarter century, even achieving high level positions in party politics and working in parliament. Along the way, he has also continued to travel extensively, having visited nearly seventy different countries.

A Life in the Political Wilderness is a collection of thirteen essays discussing many of the major issues of our time from a decidedly politically incorrect perspective. These issues include the mass media, economics, international relations, political repression, culture, women, questions of political strategy, immigration and race. An aspect of Hefurth’s political odyssey that I predictably find to be the most fascinating is his embrace of the philosophy of National-Anarchism after more than twenty years of participation in party politics, even to the point of spending six figure amounts of his own money on his partisan activities. Indeed, his hard-earned insights into the futility of participation in the “democratic process” reminds me a bit of similar insights gained by the classical anarchists Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Johann Most after having served in the French and German parliaments, respectively.

A refreshing aspect of Welf’s outlook is its positive and optimistic nature. Unlike many nationalists, he refrains from denigrating or attacking other races and cultures, and indeed expresses a profound respect for the many variations of human culture that he has experienced during the course of his travels. Welf writes disdainfully of the effect of American cultural imperialism on the world’s historic cultures and civilizations. One of the illustrations he is fond of using involves his experience of observing a McDonald’s in Saigon and Vietnamese kids imitating American “gangsta” rappers. One of the book’s essays, “The Paris Hilton Syndrome,” provides a powerful Evola-influenced critique of American popular culture symbolized as it is by the nation’s reigning bimbo-supremo. While sharply observant and critical of the effect of mass Third World immigration on Western nations, Herfurth avoids falling into the trap of the “kill ‘em all, send ‘em back” fantasies and deification of past “radical right” movements common to some within the white nationalist milieu. His proposed solutions to the immigration crisis are instead nuanced, practical, forward-looking, and heavily influenced by the “ethnic federalism” concept advanced by Alain De Benoist.

Indeed, Welf Herfurth’s suggestions to contemporary “alternative right” movements might be summarized to a large degree with the slogan, “Go left, young man!” He advises activists of the present day radical Right to adopt the symbolism, style and many of the issues of the radical Left. He asks the question of why, for instance, the Left should have a monopoly on environmentalism? On many economic questions, he follows the lead of many of the nationalist parties of Europe in taking essentially left-wing positions. Aside from their immigration restrictionist views, the BNP, National Front, and NPD are arguably the most left-wing parties in their respective nations on economic matters.

Herfurth likewise points to the struggle of the Tibetans and the Palestinians to preserve their traditional ethno-cultures and national sovereignties in the face of political and demographic aggression by the Chinese Communist Party or the Zionist state. He notices the similarities between their struggle and the situation of those of us in the West and asks why the Left should dominate the “Free Tibet” or Palestinian statehood movements in Western countries. Welf and his fellow New Right and National-Anarchist activists in Australia have participated in left-wing demonstrations and activities, much to the frustration of the more conventional Left. This approach has likewise been utilized by the “free nationalist” or “autonomous nationalist” groups in Germany.

A particularly insightful aspect of Welf’s writing involves his critique of modern systems of “liberal democracy.” His ideas on this question are heavily influenced by Carl Schmitt and he discusses how the meaning of “democracy” in political discourse has shifted over time. Previously, “democracy” was principally a synonym for party politics, elections, and parliamentary debate. Herfurth notes that Iran has all of these things but is not regarded as a “democracy.” Free speech was once considered a core component of democracy, yet Germany is considered to be a democratic regime despite having as many political prisoners as some Middle Eastern autocracies. Welf examines the heretical question of why this is so.

He concludes that the meaning of “democracy” in the West has shifted from its previous emphasis on parliamentary politics and the classical liberal ideal of achieving the good society through political competition and open debate and has instead become synonymous with mere personal hedonism. A nation is judged to be “democratic” not on the basis of its institutional procedures or protection of political rights but according to such criteria as the frequency of its Pride Marches, the amount of public nudity it permits, and its efforts to eradicate “hate.” By this standard, a state could exhibit the legal norms and level of toleration of political dissent of Enver Hoxha’s Albania while still maintaining its status as a “democracy” so long as hate speech is prohibited, abortion on demand is permitted, and spectacles such as the Folsom Street Fair are allowed to flourish.

While reading this book, I was amazed by the fact that Welf and I have come to nearly identical conclusions on so many questions but from opposite ends of the political spectrum. During the years of the 1980s and 1990s while Welf was involved with the NPD or One Nation, I was involved with CISPES, the IWW, the WSA-IWA, the Greens, the ACLU, the U.S. Libertarian Party, and other not exactly rightist organizations. Then as now, my primary areas of interest were the growth of plutocracy in the United States and the declining economic condition of the working to middle classes, aggressive war carried out by the American empire, the ongoing expansion of the police state in the name of fighting crime, drugs, or guns (and, subsequently, terrorism), and the all-pervasive statism endemic to modern societies which seemingly has no end. My experience of coming from the far Left to the New Right, National-Anarchism and other overlapping perspectives was triggered by my realization that the “far Left” in its present incarnation is actually the mirror image of the ruling class it claims to oppose.

The values of the present day hard left are a kind of caricature of the norms of the liberal establishment that approaches the level of parody. A particularly obvious example is the antifa phenomena. The antifa ideology differs in no particularly significant way from that of the establishment in the sense that both regard differentiation along the lines of race, gender and other taboo areas to be the ultimate moral transgression, and that fighting discrimination and “hate” is the principal social and political value. Further, I became aware that this radical egalitarian ideology was in fact being used to justify the ever-expanding statism and aggressive warfare (what the Marxists call a “superstructure”) of which I was so critical. Additionally, I came to realize that my own ideals were essentially an outgrowth of the wider cultural and intellectual heritage of the West and that the unrestrained importation of immigrants with no similar cultural heritage was not compatible with those ideals. Finally, I came to understand the role of mass immigration as a weapon being utilized for the sake of strengthening the state and the plutocracy at the cost of the dispossession of the working to middle classes and the lower proletariat and lumpenproletarian orders alike.

Like Professor Gottfried (see here and here), I consider the state itself to be the source of many of our present day problems. As I have written elsewhere:

The state by itself does not comprise the full body of the elite or the ruling class as a whole. Rather, the state is the core institution through which layered networks of systems of institutional power interact. The political class is merely the highest body of the ruling class, its top layer. The state contains within itself multiple layers and contending factions. It is the state through which the other core institutions of ruling class power such as banking and finance, international commerce, industrial corporations, systems of mass propaganda (i.e. education and the media), the legal caste, other professional castes such as medicine (“the white coat priesthood”), and military and police power are coordinated.

As a consequence of this viewpoint, I consider the eradication of the states that are imposing the twisted ideology of “totalitarian humanism” upon us to be the key to our civilization’s salvation. My pessimistic view of human nature leads me to the conclusion that systems of centralized authority are inherently dangerous and cannot be controlled simply by the ideological enlightenment of the political class. It must also be recognized that to at least some degree immigration is a done deal in the West and that cultural and ideological diversity is here to stay. Indeed, even among those of us who resist the reigning ideological paradigm there is a great deal of diversity (for instance, there seems to be about as many branches of the alternative right as there are adherents of the alternative right). Clearly, all of these things need to be considered when examining the question of what a “post-postmodern” political order in the West might look like. Hence, there is a need for smaller scale, less bureaucratic institutions that are capable of accommodating genuine irreconcilable differences among population groups.

Over the past decade, I have tried to promote and apply many of the same ideas that Welf Herfurth similarly advocates. Consequently, I have developed a kind of “alternative anarchism” that incorporates many of the core ideas of the present day radical right or alternative right into a wider anti-statist philosophical paradigm that also draws from the many different strands of anti-state thought and even aspects of the radical Left. To a great degree, the alternative right of today is in the same position as the classical socialists of the nineteenth century or the New Left during the 1950s in that the alternative right is now the true radicalism or true anti-establishmentarianism to be found in Western societies. Many amazing parallels exist along these lines.

My approach thus far seems to be working as I have achieved a fairly large audience for my own outlook not only among the many scattered elements of the “far right,” but also among conventional libertarians, some ordinary conservatives, some liberals, some antiwar leftists who take their anti-imperialism seriously, some left-wing anarchists who take their anti-statism seriously, some Green decentralist or bioregionalists, some nationalists or neo-tribalists among the racial and ethnic minority groups, and even some libertine-individualist types who oppose the puritanical moralism of PC and the therapeutic state.The end game of all of this is, of course, to build an opposition political movement that is large enough and powerful to eventually topple the entire institutional and ideological apparatus of totalitarian humanism. (Hear my recent interviews with Robert Stark on this question here and here.)

It may well be that the ideas advanced by National-Anarchism and related tendencies are the last hope for our civilization given the failures of conventional rightist politics. If so, Welf Herfurth’s A Life in the Political Wilderness is in many ways the handbook for approaching political activism in the twenty-first century.

 A video of a talk Welf gave in San Francisco last year concerning his ideas and experiences is available online. Likewise, his book may be purchased through either the publisher or from Amazon.Com. I also have a limited number of copies for sale as well. I may be contacted by means of the Contact page on AttacktheSystem.Com.

Matthew Lyons is a leftist writer of  the "watchdog" variety and has in the past worked as a co-author with Chip Berlet. He currently operates a blog called "Three Way Fight" which previously featured a critique of AlternativeRight.Com from a hard left perspective. More recently, Lyons published an extensive critique of the ideas and work of yours truly on the socialist New Politics website. I have since produced a three part response. See Part One, Part Two, and Part Three. Lyons has posted a very brief reply to my reply. Readers of AltRight may find the exchange interesting or at least amusing.

Every year, Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe hosts a conference of his Property and Freedom Society at the Hotel Karia Princess in Bodrum, Turkey, which happens to be owned by his wife. Richard was one of the speakers at last year's conference and has written about his experiences there and about Hoppe, his organization, and ideas. Every year Sean Gabb of the U.K.-based Libertarian Alliance diligently films the events of the PFS conference and makes the footage available online. This year was no exception and Sean's video record of the 2011 conference can be viewed here.

I would invite readers of AltRight who are understandably turned off by libertarianism and associate it with globalist, plutocratic, or open borders nonsense to check out the writings of Dr. Hoppe and Dr. Gabb. In the tradition of Nietzsche, Schmitt, or Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Hoppe ranks alonside Alain De Benoist as one of the the fiercest contemporary critics of modern liberal democracy, albeit from a different theoretical premise. I wrote a review of Hoppe's landmark work on the democracy question some years ago which is still available online. Meanwhile, Sean Gabb has emerged as one of the U.K.'s leading critics of Political Correctness and has produced a highly valuable book on the subject which he distributes online for free. It might be said that Sean is for England what Paul Gottfried is for this side of the Atlantic. Suffice to say that Sean Gabb and Hans Hoppe are not your garden-variety U.S.-style libertarians obsessed with conspiracy theories, drugs, and science fiction novels. Indeed, I've always thought that the libertarian movement from outside the United States is of much higher quality than what we Yanks have on our side of the pond, probably due to its smaller size. Quantity often comes at the cost of quality. The Property and Freedom Society and the Libertarian Alliance are the leading lights of non-U.S. based libertarianism and, in my opinion, two of the very best libertarian groups anywhere in the world.

Meanwhile, I would particularly recommend this video of Dr. Gottfried's talk at this year's PFS gathering. What I find personally interesting about Professor Gottfried is that while he originates from the traditional conservative, Buckleyite Right and I came from the Chomskyite Left, we have reached a virtually identical analysis and conclusion concerning the state of our civilization and what the most viable solution to the crisis might be. For those who find Gottfried's speech at PFS interesting, I would also like to suggest this talk given last year by my National-Anarchist colleague Welf Herfurth, a native of Germany who was an activist in German far Right politics in the 1980s and who now resides in Australia. Welf has likewise come to a position not dissimilar to that of Paul Gottfried and myself.

Samuel Francis defined “Anarcho-Tyranny,” which he saw regnant in most Western nations at the time of his death in 2005, as a political arrangement in which government does everything it shouldn’t with great vigor and exactitude (Tyranny) and everything it should with sloth and willed negligence (Anarchy).

Washington, DC, has more or less decided to leave well enough alone along the Mexican border, and yet will send military units to prevent mass immigration into Iraq. The European Union has declared its right to regulate the content of chocolate and imprison those accused of  “minimizing” the Jewish Holocaust, and yet if ever challenged militarily, it would be unable to exercise the most basic function of sovereignty.

And then there’s Toronto, Ontario: Canada’s financial capital, whose municipal government forbids by law owning Pit Bulls and positively encourages the homosexual lifestyle. This is a place I’ve called home for the past six months, and which this weekend hosted the “G20 Summit” of “world leaders.”

Toronto has mastered the Anarchy part of Francis’s expression. “Hog Town” was once a jewel of the Anglo-Saxon world. When I was a child, I remember hearing the city referred to as “the clean, safe New York” or “New York in the ‘50s” (that is, New York without the minorities.) Today, Toronto represents the most evolved case of state-engineered -- and historically incoherent -- multiculturalism on the planet: only 52 percent of the city is white, and it now boasts large blocs of South Asians, (more assimilated) Chinese, blacks, and Filipinos. No one knows who’ll ultimately win the demographic battle, but I have a good idea who won’t.

Canada has even had a little Tyranny, too (despite its reputation for down-to-earth goofiness.) Pierre Trudeau pioneered the promotion of “visible minorities” in the Great White North; his political following has been compared to “Obamania.” And yet when in 1970 the Front de libération du Québec began kidnapping politicians, Trudeau enacted emergency measures and began sounding like J.D. Hayworth:

Trudeau: Yes, well there are a lot of bleeding hearts around who just don't like to see people with helmets and guns. All I can say is, go on and bleed, but it is more important to keep law and order in the society than to be worried about weak-kneed people who don't like the looks of ...

Tim Ralfe (CBC): At any cost? How far would you go with that? How far would you extend that?

Trudeau: Well, just watch me.

(The fascinating confrontation can be watched here.)

Canada has been quite welcoming to one and all from the third-world, as its quarter-century demographic transformation can attest. Whenever I re-enter the country, however, I usually begin sweating about the possibility of someone in the government reading my blogs, deeming me a threat to the nation, and ordering the border guards to hold me indefinitely in Diversity Training Gitmo. (I don’t think this is a case of overestimating my own significance; Anarcho-Tyrannies do ridiculous things like this.)

This past G20 weekend certainly had some of the “just watch me!” feel. Ontario reportedly spent upwards of 1 billion on security. And on Friday, the province revealed it had passed emergency legislation in secret that allows police to demand papers and search anyone -- for any reason -- who was within five meters of designated “security areas.”

By the end of weekend, close to 600 protestors had been arrested. Quite a sum, though as revealed in the television interviews of those released, detention life wasn’t too shabby: the camps were equipped with lawyers and counselors. Anarcho-Tyranny in action!

There was also a kind of Anarchy in the air that was more immediate than anything Francis described. I don’t exaggerate when I write that on Saturday, the city had begun to resemble the surreal, post-apocalyptic wastelands of The Omega Man or Cormac McCarthy’s The Road -- commercial activity was shut down, store fronts bashed in -- bands of black-clad “anarchists” roamed the streets smashing things with hammers and putting abandoned police cars to the flame -- groups of pranksters, literally dressed like circus clowns, cackled and danced -- protesters marched under a cacophony of flags, signs, and banners -- thousands of normal Torontonians (the ones who were brave or foolish enough to leave their homes) wandering the streets befuddled. (I was one of these.)

This scene was encircled by militarized police in riot gear, equipped with Plexiglas visors and Praetorian shields. I got the sense that things wouldn’t look too different if a nuclear device had just gone off somewhere in North America or a total collapse of the economy had just ensued.

We weren’t witnessing a disaster, of course, but the culture of the contemporary state -- which loves to put on billion-dollar “Global Summits” -- and that of the contemporary Left -- which loves to protest them.

The Left is variegated, of course, ranging from the suit-and-tie NGO “professionals,” who go on TV, to the unkempt, unwashed (literally), unemployable, universally ugly hangers-on, who schedule their lives around “the next protest.” Such Left People were able to turn the park just outside my apartment into a kind of Lallapalooza-cum-tent city-cum- fornication and defecation zone.

Most of the damage to private property was inflicted by another subgroup, labeled the “black bloc,” which would precipitously come out of the woodwork at opportune moments and start indulging in ultra-violence. (The phrase "black bloc" was unknown, at least to me, before this weekend, but by Saturday afternoon, it had become a dreaded household term.)

And despite the billion spent on security and the large number of arrests, the bloc didn’t have much trouble destroying Starbucks and bank storefronts, their preferred representations of, so I understand, Global Corporate Fascism.

One might presume that in the Dark Ages (Before Sensitivity Training), a cop who saw a “anarchist” dancing atop a flaming police car would grab the perpetrator by the scruff of the neck and rough him up a bit before the arrest. Again, welcome to Anarcho-Tryanny -- where the police are militarized and wussified.

Smashing up Starbucks is certainly pointless -- and fitting for the “black bloc,” whose “Fuck the System!” revolt amounts to a re-rerouted teenage rebellion against their parents. That said, the tens of thousands in damage they inflicted should be compared to the billion spent on “security” and the fact that most all shops in the financial district and Yonge Street area were closed, costing them untold amounts in lost business. Hosting, say, the Superbowl can be a bonanza (at least for hoteliers, restaurateurs, and t-shirt vendors.) The “G8 Summit” was, however, a pure loss of at least 2 billion for everyone in the region. The mayhem I describe in this essay would never have occurred if Obama, Merkel, Cameron & Co. had just decided to have a Skype teleconferece.

(And the price tag doesn’t include the actual programs enacted by the summit attendees. On Friday, at the more elite “G8” in nearby Huntsville, Canada promised 1.1 billion for “maternal health” in “developing nations.” As a good conservative, Prime Minister Stephen Harper refuses to support birth control in Africa … but he still wants to give the continent vast amounts of cash.)

Some rather hysteric Torontonians interviewed on television kept saying, “I don’t know what happened to my city”; others claimed that Toronto had “changed” utterly due to these events. (Since the coverage of the “peaceful protestors” had been universally positive, one must assume that the reaction was against the black bloc and armored police.)

But in fact, the G20 protests were entirely predictable and hadn’t changed anything. Much like the “avant-garde” art world has been engaging in the same high jinx for the past 40 years, the Baby Boom and Gen X/Y Left has been essentially rehearsing the 1968 protests in Paris and Berkeley ad nauseam for just as long.

One might call this political masturbation, or the Left’s version of Civil War re-enactments, but then leftist protest isn’t simply a subculture but an industry. (In this line, it’s fitting that the G20 protests overlapped with Toronto’s state-funded “Pride Week” (which actually lasts 10 days)).

Conservative critics could easily point out the glaring, amusing, contradictions among the Left groups. There’s the quasi-primitivist rejection of the goods of the marketplace, expressed by suburban kids chatting on cell phones and typing “status updates” -- along with their demand that these wicked capitalist goods be redistributed to the masses. There’s the pretense of “anarchism” by groups that also claim every person on earth has the “right” to housing and a “living wage.” There’s the flirtation with Muslim activists by groups staffed by lesbians, gays, and Jews. There’s the unending multiplication of contradictory new fragments and new “rights.” And so on.

But in pointing out the obvious, one misses the guiding threads that run throughout the Left, and which unite it in ways the Right could only dream of.

One of these is the embrace of the “inverted world”: that is, anything -- truly, anything -- that is anti-white, anti-European, anti-Christian (unless you’re supporting “social justice”), anti-male, anti-heterosexual, anti-meat-eating, anti-beauty (I’m not kidding), and anti-traditional family (unless you’re helping “working families” of labor unionists). Disputes between lesbians and Muslims will be settled after The Revolution.

(If you don’t accept the racial aspect of the Left, imagine going to the G20 and holding up a sign reading “Stop Boer Genocide Now!” Such a sentiment could be described as “leftist” in that it involves helping a small people oppressed by a hostile majority. But as we all know, sticking up for White Protestants in Toronto is dead on arrival. Indeed, it might get you arrested!)

The other thread that runs through the contempo Left is that all its groups seek to be recognized -- and, most importantly, funded -- by the federal governments they condemn as “fascist.” As I was passing through the foul-smelling, hippie-like gathering that had cropped up in a nearby park, I watched as a nerdy white girl took the mike and started complaining about how “the government doesn’t respect us.” Ontario apparently only gave her project -- for lesbians or labor unions or Palestinians or who knows what -- five grand in funding. (If only AlternativeRight.com were so abused by the authorities!)

The Anarcho-Tyranny state, in turn, adores these groups, as all of their “problems” can be solved by new federal initiatives. Every “radical critique of bourgeois society” is in practice an excuse to expand a bureaucracy. The state will never oppose the Left -- and never stop importing the Left’s favored third-world populations -- until this arrangement ends.

For a long time in Western history, a state would establish sovereignty by appealing to theology and natural order (e.g. “the divine rights of kings”), or, with the birth of liberalism, the need to secure liberty. (Carl Schmitt: “All significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts.”)

The postwar world not only witnessed the triumph of the said “radical critique of bourgeois society” -- what Kevin MacDonald has identified, in its active, subversive form, as the “culture of critique” and Paul Gottfried, in its passive, decadent form, as the “politics of (white) guilt” -- but its institutionalization in education, big business, and, most of all, government.

The critique is the establishment. The culture it engenders eventuates in scenes like the one we saw in Toronto this weekend.

As part of the process of developing what might be called a “revolutionary Right” for North America, I have endorsed both anarchism and secession. Yet anarchism is merely a theory of the state (or against the state) and secession is simply a tactic. Anarchist theory per se has little to say about what kinds of communities might exist independently of an overarching state, and no one is going to endorse secession for its own sake without some wider end in sight. I suggested in a recent interview with Dr. Tomislav Sunic that anarchism, secession, and white nationalism have something of natural triangular relationship with each other. While I do, indeed, believe this to be the case, the question remains as to whether white nationalism is an adequate intellectual or strategic paradigm for the growing alternative right. I would maintain that it is not.

This is not to say that white nationalists do not raise many perfectly reasonable and legitimate issues. Such issues include affirmative action and other forms of “reverse discrimination,” mass immigration and immigration abuse, the high rates of violent crime in minority communities, the formal or informal forms of censorship associated with “political correctness,” state interference with associational liberties, anti-white bias in hate crimes reporting, the desire for cultural self-preservation, the double standards involved with the label of “racist,” the extra-legal actions by left-wing vigilantes against those with views on race that defy liberal orthodoxy, the suppression of scientific inquiry in the name of egalitarian ideology, the influence of foreign lobbies on U.S. foreign policy, and a good number of other things. Nor should we be interested in taking seriously the liberal dogma that any sort of expression of political and racial self-interest, or ethnic pride and celebration, by whites constitutes “hate” or “racism.” One can love one’s wife or mother without hating all other women. One can have a preference for one’s own family without feuding with other families. One can favor one’s own children without abusing or mistreating other children. So the issue is not whether white nationalism violates this or that liberal taboo, but whether white nationalism “alone and unaided” is the most effective way of addressing matters such as the aforementioned.

The first order of business is the identification of the enemy, and the enemy is clearly those who are currently in control of the institutions that rule us: the state, the corporate plutocracy, the banking cartel, the mass media, academia, the legal system, and others whom our fearless editor has with great perspicacity dubbed the “sociopathocracy.” Nowadays, even an ostensibly “conservative” institution such as the military has succumbed to political correctness. White nationalists and those who share their concerns are certainly under attack by these institutions, but so are plenty of other people. Consequently, a resistance movement that defines itself exclusively, or even primarily, under the banner of race will be unnecessarily self-limiting. Far better to incorporate the issues raised by white nationalists, immigration restrictionists, and others with related concerns into a wider paradigm that packages together the issues raised by parallel movements and overlapping interests who are under attack by the same institutional authorities. There is a nearly inexhaustible list of such tendencies, including advocates for fathers’ rights, men’s rights, family sovereignty, religious liberty, the right to bear arms and act in self-defense, anti-tax, pro-life, national sovereignty, property rights, cultural preservation, quality and freedom in education, local autonomy, and many other things. Additionally, there is the growing list of economic issues generated by the ongoing dispossession and eradication of the traditional middle class courtesy of our plutocratic overlords.

The label of “white nationalism” brings with it a good deal of baggage that is not easily discarded. What do most people think of when they hear the term “white nationalism”? Do they think of Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, and Steve Sailer or do they think of the KKK, David Duke, Tom Metzger, uniform fetishists, the Aryan Nations, and The Turner Diaries? If we must choose a label, would not something along the lines of “conservative revolution” be more appropriate? Such self-identification puts us squarely in the tradition of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Junger, Schmitt, Spengler, Pareto, Mosca, Michels, Evola, De Benoist, and Faye. Such a label allows us to group together a wide assortment of issues and movements under a common banner and against a common enemy. Beyond that, we need to consider the not insignificant number of minority, mixed race, or persons from mixed families that share many of our ideological and cultural concerns, or at least sympathize with many of our issues. Is it wise to push away an Elizabeth Wright, Paul Gottfried, Norman Finkelstein, David Yeagley, Carol Swain, Michael Hart, Michael Levin, Jesse Lee Peterson, Israel Shamir, or Mayer Schiller?

“Conservative Revolution” is conceptually broad enough to accommodate an array of anti-liberal forces within a framework of respect for natural hierarchies and particular attachments to family, community, religion, tribe, ethnicity, and other primary reference groups, and in a way that is compatible with traditional conservative and libertarian skepticism of “big government” and overly centralized power. On a horizontal level, it can accommodate tendencies ranging from fervent white nationalists to religious conservatives who are indifferent to race issues per se but oppose Cultural Marxist attacks on their faith and traditions to Jews and African-Americans who oppose mass immigration from the Third World. On a vertical level, it can include scholars of Machiavelli, Burke, and Nietzsche on the high end and conspiracy-mongers or Alex Jones fans on the low end. Such a framework also opens the door to wider acceptance by a threatened middle class that is rapidly sinking into the ranks of the lower proletariat and lumpen sectors. It is those sectors that will ultimately feed the numerical ranks of our movement, and in politics there is no victory without numbers.

Patrick Ford's recent discussion of the "libertarian problem" observed how resistance to the neoconservatives had produced an unusual alliance on the Right between such divergent elements as "hedonistic anarchists and medieval Catholics." Patrick expressed skepticism of whether the libertarian-traditionalist alliance can be a durable one, given the sharp differences to be found among the respective philosophical foundations of the two camps. Traditionalist objections to libertarianism are usually rooted in what is often described as libertarianism's "atomistic individualism" whereby an ideologically constructed conception of "abstract liberty" is elevated over and above more concrete and immediately tangible matters of culture, history, tradition, community, family, religion, and so forth. Libertarians are accused of deifying the economy as an end unto itself, rather than as a means to the end of meeting human needs and irrespective of the impact of economic forces on non-material values. The traditionalists will say that while libertarians may deny the innate equality of individuals, libertarians implicitly endorse an egalitarian ethos regarding human groups such as nations, cultures, religions, regions, races, and genders. Libertarian economism simply regards these things as interchangeable commodities, and no more significant than different brands of deodorant or fast food. In other words, libertarians are simply liberals who reject the welfare state, according to the traditionalist critique. For this reason, many libertarians see mass immigration from the Third World into the West as no big deal, as human cultures and ethnic populations are interchangeable, with economics and political ideology being what really matters.