New Right Versus Old Right

By Greg Johnson

Review: V. Caine

NewRightOldRightMany of the readers will already be familiar with the website Counter-Currents, but not everyone will be familiar with the ideas of its owner, Greg Johnson. Though I myself am not a White Nationalist nor an American, there is still a very obvious difference between how Greg Johnson envisages nationalism in America and how the average White Nationalist perceives the issue. This difference has two primary aspects 1) Greg Johnson is more intelligent and 2) His ideas don’t involve the crass knuckle dragging mentality and hate mongering we find on other sites like VNN, which tends to deter most normal people.

Greg Johnson has, quite simply, evolved past that point and seems to wish to disassociate himself from the lunatic fringe of the Right wing ‘scene’ in America. Instead Johnson is interested in concentrating on a metapolitical focus very similar to that of the European New Right, and is trying to emulate this strategy on American soil. Sans the Dugin and Eurasia however, as it would beyond ridiculous to support Eurasia from within North America. When introducing his metapolitical strategy Johnson explains that,

Political change does not just happen. It has necessary causes and conditions. Metapolitics refers to the non-political preconditions of political change. These conditions fall into two broad categories: (1) education and (2) community organizing. Education refers to the creation and propagation of a world-view, an intellectual case for a new political order. Community organizing refers to the creation of an actual, real-world community that lives according to our world view in the present day and serves as the vanguard and nucleus of a new political order to come.[1]

In the first few pages Johnson clearly explains his mission statement and premise for the book so that there is no possibility of the reader failing to understand, and then proceeds to state how there are three branches of what is popularly referred to as the ‘Right’ and the differences between them.

The true Right rejects egalitarianism root and branch. The true Right has three species: traditional society, the Old Right, and the New Right. […] For our purposes, the Old Right means Fascism, National Socialism, and other national-popularist movements.[2]

So how does the New Right differ from the Old Right then? According to Johnson “The North American New Right, like the European New Right, is founded on the rejection of Fascist and National Socialist party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide.” Nothing could be clearer in terms of the denunciation of the Old Right and the rejection of 1930’s Fascist style party dogma. Indeed, Mr. Johnson even repeats this statement again on the third page to reinforce the statement. This establishes the tone for the rest of the book: no Facismo.

Greg Johnson also makes his goal very clear. The goal is a metapolitical one, which is not tied to any specific platform, but is instead disseminated in the form of education to create a cultural environment as precursor to any political one. In short, Johnson is laying the foundations for a future organisation, because cultural change is the necessary condition, and only condition, that could ever bring a new form of politics to power. All else is mere presumption, to put the horse before the cart. Moreover, this is why all political parties seeking to create a radical reform fail to do so – they did not lay the foundations for their ideas first and because they deviate from the norm (and thus the power base of any democratic system) they are destined to become trampled by the hoof of the Herd.

Johnson also quotes Julius Evola on the concept of ‘occult war’ – occult meaning ‘hidden’ and not duels between wizards – this is essentially the same as metapolitics: a cultural war of ideas. In regards to this tactical deployment of metapolitics Johnson states that the central questions which must be asked are those which “deal with identity, morality, and possibility.”[3] This leads us to another interesting chapter: the role of Christianity in American Nationalism. It’s a thorny issue and filled with land mines at every corner which Johnson successfully manages to avoid.

What is probably of the most interest to you (the reader) is Johnson’s chapter entitled “Notes on Popularism, Elitism, and Democracy”. Here he points out that “for Aristotle democracy is by definition a bad form of government. But he believes that “polity” – popular government for the common good – is at least conceivable.”[4] Johnson then goes on to say that,

The idea that the common good is the proper aim of politics if often mistaken for democracy, but they are not the same thing. The common good can be served by one man, the few or the many. Furthermore, it is an open question as to which group – the one, the few, or the many – is most capable of securing the good of all.[5]

Further in the chapter Johnson moves on to the topic of traditional aristocracy declaring that the best vehicle for attaining the political success is “an intellectual and spiritual aristocracy, organized as a non-hierarchical network that can penetrate, subvert, and control all existing institutions that shape consciousness and culture.”[6] Such a form of aristocracy would of course dominate at the metapolitical level, even though its existence may be non-detectable at the political level. However Johnson also pragmatically points out that “metapolitics is necessary, but not sufficient to save us.” Theory alone is never enough. One day the metapolitical strand must be evoked out of the world of ideas and into the world of politics. What is learnt on the theoretical plane must eventually be deployed on the practical level. But only when the time is correct, the pawns are correctly positioned on the chess board, and victory is assured.

New Right Versus Old Right is available here

[1] Johnson, G., New Right Versus Old Right (USA: San Francisco, Counter-Currents Publishing Ltd., 2013), p. xiv.

[2] Ibid., p. 1.

[3] Ibid., p. 56.

[4] Ibid., p. 136.

[5] Ibid., p. 136.

[6] Ibid., p. 141.

 

%d bloggers like this: