DOMINIC HAMPSHIRE has been a key New Right commentator and thinker for almost two decades. He has been a regular contributor to THE SCORPION, a journal which first helped to bring the tradition of conservative revolution to English shores. Throughout the last two decades this intellectual rallying-point has served many sides of the ideological spectrum, examining a whole range of diverse issues and discussing important figures such as Lovecraft, Nietzsche, Jung, Hamsun, Schmitt, Moeller van den Bruck, Lorentz, Strasser, Junger, Heidegger and many others.

Itis an encouraging sign that a new publication is appearing in England which seeks to bring together different strands of opposition to the New World Order. I am flattered that the editors have invited me to write for the first issue. The title of this magazine, Synthesis, indicates exactly what is needed to provide a revolutionary impetus to the forces opposed to the New World Order in the new century. Over 20 years ago I was drawn to what has been dubbed the French New Right because of what seemed to me then and still seems to me, to be its far better understanding of the social and political world and the forces moulding it than the traditional conservative right and the hard right of the various European nationalist parties.

IT is an encouraging sign that a new publication is appearing in England which seeks to bring together different strands of opposition to the New World Order. I am flattered that the editors have invited me to write for the first issue. The title of this magazine, Synthesis, indicates exactly what is needed to provide a revolutionary impetus to the forces opposed to the New World Order in the new century. Over 20 years ago I was drawn to what has been dubbed the French New Right because of what seemed to me then and still seems to me, to be its far better understanding of the social and political world and the forces moulding it than the traditional conservative right and the hard right of the various European nationalist parties.

There in fact a measurable correlation between the emphasis which a nationalist organisation puts on economics and its popular success. The ruling elite is well aware of this and is very careful to ensure that all forms of economic discomfort are cushioned by benefits and emergency measures to ensure that the depression of the ‘thirties is never repeated. And the elite is buying time on the basis of what I call the “David Duke scale theory” . This theory postulates that white people increase their support for radical right movements to the extent that a real economic threat created by non-whites is felt by them but that paradoxically the greater the threat really is the lower the population of whites to resist it. When David Duke was candidate for the Senate he needed 80% of the white vote to win a seat simply because he could discount 50% of the voters who were not white. Essentially, the David Duke scale theory means that these days a radical right movement cannot hope to win an election other than in a few still predominantly white small nations. No wonder then that the illuminated rulers of the world are hastening the process of economic and political integration of small white nations into large associations at the same time as threatening to speed up immigration.

The traditional left, for its part, has moved to an international liberal, that is pro-capitalist, position. The ultimate logic of socialist intervention in the free-market place is autarchy, which presupposes national sovereignty. But that would be incompatible with internationalism. Left-wing political parties rooted as they are in the demand for economic betterment for all, are unable to do more than tinker with the rules of global economy. They are bereft of power and influence. For years opposed to any manifestation of national identification they are now forced to accept the rules of new world order, since to oppose such rules would force them to declare an anti-internationalist identity. But where does that leave the former leftist whose conviction that capitalism is fundamentally unfair and unnatural forms the sine qua non of his political nature?

What is needed is indeed a synthesis of those who form one tradition or another or both, not in a party but in a movement, for they represent not a ‘part’ of something but a complete movement in the direction of something which is different to the present. A movement has the enormous advantage over a party that it is not bound by strict rules of doctrine, membership, leadership decisions, splits expulsions and all the other diseases which dog a political party. A movement is an active and activist association of the like-minded and the like-disposed. And our synthesis and our movement as I understand it is a movement of nature, quite literally so, for the natural wilderness of the world is being destroyed under they eyes of the very internationalist organisations which boast that they seek to make the world a better place for all, but who destroy all life human and non-human which stand in the way of progress. the individual alone may ignore this alone but he or she cannot fight it alone. Solidarity is essential but solidarity is hard to find today. The old organisations and groups which encouraged it are in a poor state. New organisations more appropriate for the times we live in, must come forward to replace the old ones.

A new movement must be many things. It must be coherent: not living in crass contradiction to what it preaches. It must be young, in the sense that it speaks more of the future than the past. It must be positive: harking always on defeat is the sure sign of the defeatist. Moaning and groaning are the prerogative of those who have given up and they are more damaging than outright opposition. They who constantly moan and wring their hands cause more destruction than a score of open enemies. They are balanced at the other extreme by those who see nothing fundamentally wrong and merely play at politics for personal reasons which may well not last. Neither the over ‘optimistic’ nor the over ‘pessimistic’ should be permitted to linger in any serious-minded movement. It must be without prejudice, not assume that it has a friend or an enemy without the evidence of action to point in one direction or another. It must be humorous because the humourless do not attract a following. It must show its strength because by nature people are drawn to strength and repelled by weakness more than they are repelled or drawn by arguments. It must be ruthless with the ruthless. When it knows and identifies a real enemy it must not shy from striking before being struck yet it must be more interested in winning than fighting for fighting’s sake. It must be a social unite, a centre not only for the exchange of ideas but also for comradeship, friendship and yes, also love. Marriage outside a movement saps it at the core. Do you recognise the old fashioned ‘far left’ or ‘far right’ movements today in such a description? I don’t. Opposition to organisations like the World Bank is drawing together activists from widely different political families, united in their wish to bring down the powerful but unelected institutions which are ruining the planet in the name of a non-existent ‘human race’ and their scheme to reduce the populations of the world to the status of happy lobotomised patients on the one-world farm. Animal support groups and environmentalists do not have to be right or left, they only have to be radical; that is what the synthesis is about! Very important: they must be tolerant to the insider. They must never allow themselves to be split by the rumours and suggestions coming from those outside their ranks who do not have their cause at heart. The test of the genuineness of an activist is in is or her actions and not in what he or she believes about subjects not related to the action or what other political affiliations he or she may have. At the same time we should be wary of the ghetto, the ‘them and us’ syndrome with regard to the public. Many members of the public would be in the movement if were they not ignorant or lazy (or both, for ignorance and laziness are close relations).

Former leftists need to learn the importance from former rightists of rootedness, of identifying with a group of the same nature. The love of one’s own is something they lost with all their talk about the love of humanity. Loving everyone is much the same as loving nobody since love is a differentiation. Former rightists need to learn from former leftists the hard realities of economic unfairness and exploitation. It is not enough to speak vaguely of ‘capitalism’ but to know how much the top cats earn and the top jobs bring and fight to create an economic system in which wealth is more equitably distributed. Both need to learn that our species is not alone on this planet, that we have a responsibility to life as a whole and not just the human species. The economic disorder of the present is turning a green planet into a desert. If they continue they will destroy everything. The sold politicians of the political order regard the destruction of the peoples of the European heartland and ultimately of the Earth itself with icy complacency. In the past the supporters of multi-racialism refused to put a figure to their schemes, that is they refused to say how many immigrants should enter Europe from across the seas. Now they are talking figures at last: half a million a year for Germany alone over the next ten years. The EU countries will need to import, sorry, to “receive”, 25 million immigrants to make up for the falling birth rate. This is capitalism folks: nothing, really nothing, may halt the engine of profit. Certainly not the environment, patrimony, white race or all the other non-profit making nonsenses dreamed up by the capitalism’s romantic enemies.

Facts are on our side. Facts, facts, facts. Facts about the population explosion, about what people want and what they get, facts about who holds power. Facts about who finances war and who profits from it. Facts about who was behind what decision and why. Facts about who causes what kind of crime and why. Producing facts is the strongest intellectual weapon any honest organisation can have.

But intellectual weapons are not enough as the fate of all the world’s martyrs shows. We also need activism, the focussing on key enemies, like McDonald’s and the World Bank. (That they have become enemies to be targeted as the cultural and economic poison they are shows a welcome progress in the last 20 years in the consciousness of the radical activist!). The rise of the NGO is one of the most significant and helpful signs in recent years of a challenge to the NWO. Also important but what is sorely lacking to date, is the creation of common ‘mysteries’ in the old-fashioned Greek sense of the word. I mean ceremonies, customs, ritual, by which are own come together and by means of which we recognise our own and express solidarity. This and the lack of social cohesion, and bonding is in my opinion the weakest part of the opposition to the NWO. Winter and summer solstice, for example as folk festivals need to be much better known. And what about political ritual? How about a day in the year where militants everywhere burn the tacky decoration called the European flag. Such an act creates a great sense of bonding and identity. More positively, is it not time that Europeans created their own flag? Their own festivals? There are too few of them and too little known. Comrades! To work!

SYNTHESIS would like to thank MR. HAMPSHIRE for his fascinating article. THE SCORPION, can be obtained from BCM 5766, London WC1N 3XX, England. The magazine also has an interesting website at http://stormloader.com/thescorpion.