Alt-Right

Sunic, Tomislav wrote:

When the New Right announced its official entry into the European cultural and political scene in the mid-1970s, the timing was not accidental. Several years earlier a tacit ideological realignment had begun in France and other parts of Europe; notably, a considerable number of former Left-wing socialist intellectuals had ceased attacking capitalism and the United States and in turn became ardent supporters of NATO and the American crusade for human rights.
The former Left-wing ‘romanticists’ — to borrow Schmitt’s term — suddenly became aware of the rigours of ‘real socialism’; anti-Communist dissidents, such as Solzhenitsyn and the Sakharovs, began to be hailed as new prophets of liberty; and the American way of life became a guideline for a new political preference. About the same time, the Marxist credo started gradually losing its political and cultural grip on the post-war intellectuals after its influence had already been reduced to a handful of isolated and dwindling Communist parties in Western Europe. It may be said that the process of ‘intellectual de-Marxification’ in Europe was considerably accelerated by the growing awareness of the ongoing human rights violations in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
It is in such a social context of apparent ‘de-ideologisation’ and disenchantment with Marxism that the New Right appeared. Suddenly, conservative ideas again gained in popularity, America came to be hailed as the centre of world democracy, and proclaiming oneself on the ‘Right’ no longer ran the risk of being met with intellectual disapproval.
The European New Right, which also calls itself GRECE (Groupement de recherche et d’études de la civilisation européenne, or the Research Group for the Study of European Civilisation), characterises itself as ‘an association of thought with an intellectual vocation’. Its avowed goals are to establish an association of thinkers and scholars sharing the same ideals, as well as to organise its membership into the form of an organic and spiritually-based working community. The choice of the word GRECE is not accidental: the
acronym GRECE is a homonym of the French word ‘Grèce’ (Greece), suggesting that the New Right’s long-term objective is the revival of the pre-Christian and Hellenic heritage.
In addition, the term GRECE indicates that the New Right does not limit its cultural activity to France or Germany alone, but attempts to extend its influence to all Indo-European peoples — Slavs, Celts, and Germans alike.
In many aspects, in terms of cultural strategy, the New Right shows a striking similarity to the New Left. Numerous critical analyses by the New Right regarding the danger of mass society, consumerism, and economism closely parallel those of the New Left, to the point that their ideological differences often appear blurred. The main figure of the New Right, the French philosopher Alain de Benoist, explains the ideological posture of the New Right in the following words:

Personally, I am totally indifferent to the issue of being or not being on the Right. At the moment, the ideas that [the New Right] espouses are on the Right, but they are not necessarily of the Right. I can
easily imagine situations where these ideas could be on the Left. The extent to which these ideas can change will solely depend on how the political landscape will have evolved.

From the above lines, it appears that the New Right is opposed to being labelled with the tag ‘Right’. Instead, it contends that its theories are meant to cross the ideological divide irrespective of the fact that it presently espouses ideas that are more in accordance with the conservative agenda.

Against Democracy and Equality

Sunic, Tomislav wrote:

Although the European New Right shares some ideas with the American ‘new right’ and other American conservatives, notably staunch anti-Communism, and to some extent anti-egalitarianism, it must be pointed out that, unlike its American counterpart, the European New Right opposes the free market, as well as American economic and cultural predominance in the world. The European New Right has so far not elaborated its own economic doctrine, although one may suspect it of having some sympathy for the theories of ‘organic’ and corporatist economics, advocated earlier in the Twentieth century by Othmar Spann and Léon Walras.
As we shall see later, the main thrust of the New Right’s argument is that economics must be completely subordinated to politics and culture and not the other way around.

Against Democracy and Equality

Satyr wrote:

Taylor is making the point that these emotional vampires have already put us in their little boxes, to dismiss us.
Feeding into this adds to it by swaying those who are fence-sitters.
Cowards and hypocrites will not be convinced. For them this is a threat no their existence....reasoning that is.
They will find a loop-hole in mysticism, or theoretical physics, or philosophical prose to wiggle through.
Feeding into their little abstractions does not only validate their lies, but it becomes evidence to those who are still unconvinced.

Let's face it, this is an uphill climb.
Rational thinking is not for all.
With no external threat to awaken people up, with no bigger threat, the morons of the world will run to anything that offers comfort and pleasure.
Europeans evolved in times of austerity and war.
This is why we excel in the sciences, in art, in anything creative and pragmatic....and in rational philosophy.
We challenge authority, the status quo and to do so we must be sober and lucid...as realistic and clear-headed as possible.

In a battle praying to god, or for a fantasy creature to swoop in and save you, will get you slaughtered....in battle reason is a do or die situation...you either see what is occurring, as clearly and honestly as possible, and construct a difficult but necessary course of action, or you die.
There's no time for debating, word play, mysticism...holy symbols, magical incantations.

That's for the women and old people, behind the lines, lending their spiritual support....noetically.
When it's a matter of life or death, there is no debating, or word-selecting, no sacred symbols....
These are used before to raise courage and to fuels passions, in preparation.

Why are close bonds made in times of war...between strangers?
Bonds that last a lifetime and may be stronger than between blood relatives?
Because in battle there is no hypothetical, to 'what if' this and 'what if' that.
There is no theory in war.
There's only action.
this is where Europeans excel....and always have.
Others are good in abstractions, in words, in metaphors, in athletics....but none are as good as Europeans  in pragmatic application.
This is why we dominated.
This is why they fear us and want to castrate us with rules and language games.
This is why the effete and the weak, rally against us.

Guillaume Faye wrote:

Eurosiberia

Celts, Germans, Greeks, Slavs, Scandinavians, Romans, Iberians... or, rather, we, the descendants of these peoples, must now see ourselves as part of the same folk and the inheritors of a common land – a vast motherland with colossal resources, both material and human, shaped by a common history.
According to the less ambitious hypothesis, this land would stretch from the Atlantic to the Russian borders; according to the most ambitious one (which must always be promoted), it would be identified with Eurosiberia, which may also be taken as a paradigm for the idea of ‘Greater Europe’: a land stretching from Brest to the Bering Strait, twenty-four times the size of France. This would be the largest unified political entity in the history of mankind, one extending across fourteen time zones.
‘Politics is only for those capable of having a broad, very broad view of things’, as Nietzsche said.
One of our frontiers would be the Amur River – our border with China. Others would be the Atlantic and Pacific, our borders with the imperial American republic, the leading world superpower but one whose geostrategic and cultural decline has already been ‘virally’ programmed for the first quarter of the Twenty-first century – as foretold by Zbigniew Brezeziński (an apologist for American power nonetheless). Two other frontiers of ours would be the Mediterranean and the Caucasus, our borders with the Muslim block (which is less divided than is commonly thought). This block will give us no quarter and will probably represent our greatest threat; but at the same time, if we are strong enough, it may represent an excellent partner...
We, the descendents of related peoples, are being offered the chance to share a space that, already in our children’s lifetime, may come to embody what Charles V dreamt about but was unable to preserve: ‘An empire on which the sun never sets.’ When it is noon in Brest it is 2 AM on the Bering Strait (and vice-versa). This is an ideal we can pursue, one of the few remaining ones in this age of pessimism: to build an empire of our own. What a haunting dream! Great plans are drawn not with pomp and solemnity, but in the silence of cabinets; and they are implemented by predators on their guard for a historical disaster to happen and make their prey emerge from the undergrowth in panic.
The folk unconscious will always be the hardcore stuff upon which the plans of revolutionary leaders will rest.
In human history, the establishment of a Eurosiberian complex would represent a revolution greater than that of the short-lived Soviet Union or even the United States of America. This event of global importance could only be compared with the foundation of the Chinese or Roman empires.
Whatever the reasons explicitly given to justify the process – and which are of little importance – the European family is coming together in its common home. As in the past – like the Greeks against the Persians almost 2,400 years ago[198] – we are uniting our cities to face a vague but already perceivable threat. Greater Europe must be peaceful and democratic, yet autonomous, inflexible and invincible – clearly, in the technological and economic sphere too; for what need does an empire have of being imperialistic? An imperial logic will extend to all peoples of the earth. Each folk in its own land to defend itself from the aggressions of others, effectively managing the destiny of spaceship Earth.
The chaotic event we are witnessing – this disorderly grouping of Europeans, which only awaits to organised – may represent the reconstitution and historical reoccurrence, in a different and larger form, not only of the Roman Empire, with its centre in the Mediterranean, but also of the Holy Roman Empire, with its centre on the vast Eurosiberian plain, which opens onto four seas. Leviathan and Behemoth rolled into one.
A view of tomorrow: from the harbour of Brest to Port Arthur, from our frozen islands in the Arctic to the victorious sun of Crete, from the fields to the steppe and from the fjords to the maquis, a hundred nations free and united, regrouped to form an empire, will perhaps be winning for themselves what Tacitus called the Kingdom of the Earth, Orbis Terrae Regnum.

The more important examination that should be undertaken by whites is, why is this only happening to whites in white countries? Who are the people making such demands of whites? What are their objectives? What is the pattern? So many things to examine here [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— McFeels (@JMcfeels) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Satyr wrote:

Drinking loosens inhibitions and bring forth the private man, overpowering the public man.
The 'true' self comes out in a drunk.
If he refuses to drink, he is hiding something about his nature.