Your comment on Yockey is pertinent. Next summer TOQ will devote an entire issue to his thought. I also plan a few articles on him for early next year. We can debate the issues then. In the mean time, you might want to elaborate on your critique. Yockey deserves a major discussion.

As to the appearance specifically, the print is clear, the illustrations reasonable, although they will be larger subsequently, and the format is as an A5 sized digest, stapled in the center and trimmed. Some of the best publications from the Right that had come out of New Zealand were published three decades ago on duplicators; the strength was in their content, and few have been as good – from the New Zealand Right specifically – since, despite the advances in technology.

For those who want a commercial, glossy magazine with plenty of color pictures, I suggest they can go to any newstand and buy a ladies’ home journal.

Regards to all
Kerry Bolton
Publisher, Ab Aeterno

The clarification is appreciated (though, on re-reading your comment, I see that it was I who misunderstood you. For a moment there I thought I had read you wrong all these years).

We — you and I, European-Americans and European Australians — are in a struggle for our people’s very existence.

This determines, I think, where we both stand on the major questions — whatever our enemies say.

I shall definitely subscribe to your journal and support it by spreading the news. Judging by your comment it doesn’t look like you will let us down. It looks like I did not interpret the relevant statement in your constitution the way it was meant.

One note about Yockey, though. I do not ascribe to Francis Parker Yockey’s ideas, though they are poetic, intelligent, and great to get you thinking on these things. After reading Imperium, I though that the analogy of a living organism that lives and dies was excellent, but also obfuscates the underlying causes of this phenomenon to the point where we are resigned to decay as an inevitability. It does not have to be.

Those cycles of rise and fall are more due to the dynamic of the civilization-builder patterns vs the civilization-destroyers. It is like the cycles of population between groups of animals on the savanna and their predators — very successful predators tend to increase in number and their prey decrease until it cannot sustain them, then they predators decrease until the prey eventually starts rising in numbers again. With civilizations, the important thing we need to identify is those MOTIVES at cross-purposes to the aims (what makes them thrive and be successful) of all civilizations since they began. The Jews are only one of, but certainly the major instance of destructive patterns. others are criminality and corruption, and other selfish or short-term strategies. Civilizations amass wealth and attract these other patterns which are selected for (unfortunately) in the civilization setting. We fight against these things with laws, prisons, and even executions.

In my book, The Textbook of the Universe: The Genetic Ascent to God I go into great detail about these forces. I define cities and evolution itself as INFORMATION-based and so recent research from Los Alamos which shows that cities are optimally organized for information-exchange efficiency and NOT resource-distribution are perfectly understandable. Resource-based strategies are older and at odds with newer information-based strategies which are superior in the long run.

I think some further explanation is necessary. It is a pity that you confounded us with Alain de Benoist’s pluriversum. For Alain de Benoist wished this pluriversum to be established in his very homeland, namely France. We respect every culture–but every one must have his own “home.” Personally speaking, I admire Islam. For truth to tell, I see only Muslims and not Christians fighting the Jews. I do not want, nonetheless, Muslims in my neighborhood, because they have a quite different way of life. And of course I do not want our countries to become Muslim ones.

I think, moreover, that all of us reject “democracy” as an expression of egalitarianism. Every human being is different from every other human being. Regard every one as equal to every other is an illusion, that favors only the plutocrats. It is an absurdity, an imbecility: this is why “democracy” is so persistent. Stupidities endure; the good ideas have problems. So, we have to resist to the “levelers” of our time. They are Jews, crypto-Jews or Judaized “Christians”.

And last but not least: We do not accept superiority merely because of ancestry.
I think that Whites (Caucasians) were–and are–the creators of civilization. But if we keep accepting our extinction, our moral, and cultural, and physical extermination, being proud merely for our ancestors will prove to be only an absurdity–and an absurdity to laugh at.

Please have always in mind, that–in practice–only the Jews feel superior because of their racial/religious affiliation. Muslims, for instance, pretend their religion to be superior from the other ones. But they do recognize that, “individually speaking”, Christians and others may be superior to Muslims. Only a Jew, even a stupid one, thinks that, thanks to his ancestry and religion, is superior to any “goyim” (i.e. the “humanoid animal” who is not member of a Jewish religious and financial gang).

I hope that Ulf Larsen does not have any longer problems with our ASPR. (The only problem we had so far is the poor appearance of our Ab Aeterno.

Actually, I follow your argument completely. The emphasis should have been on the word ‘purport’. I was merely referring to persons who attach themselves to the white nationalist movement and operate minor coteries etc. within the broad camp, rather than the movement itself.

I think in the American case, you might easily (if minded to) refer at length to some elements which have been degenerative factors in the construction of a force for a true American renaissance. Such fringe dwellers are sometimes all who are ever reported in the mainstream media here. The efforts of TOQ and its affiliates and friends are, of course, noted by the most conscious elements of the Australian nationalist movement. We too, have our own versions of such people who do the cause no good.

It is all hardly a matter of bourgeois ‘image’, but it is a matter of ideological and political ‘style’.

We are all learning.

Fraternally,
Jim Saleam

I think you misunderstand us. White nationalism is a racial nationalism insofar as it affirms the nation’s right to defend its heritage, cultural and genetic. This is not a matter of 19th-century white supremacy. (The white man in any case is obviously not the most superior man. He has let Jews and even Negroes get the best of him.)

We are nationalists. We defend the European-American nation that created a prosperous European-like community in North America and we think it deserves a state of its own, just as we wish our white Australian cousins could have the whole continent to themselves again, as their ancestors did, and not be threatened with extinction, as they are today from the swarming Asian masses.

Much of this, if you want to argue on liberal terms, is simply an expression of the right to national self-determination. I, though, prefer to argue in explicitly nationalist terms, being the son of a Fenian exile.

What worried me was not that it was forbidden to feel superior because of ones ancestors, per se. I don’t feel superior because of my ancestors: Perhaps I feel that my ancestors were superior to many others, but naturally I have to show my own superiority through my own actions – my superior ancestors don’t give me a carte blanche to be worthless and still feel superior!

What worried me, rather, was that from an indefinite number of possible statements in the constitution one chose to mention this, instead of, for example: “people who feel masochistic about their ethnicity are excluded from ASPR”. It gives a certain flavour to it.

Very well, gentlemen. You have reassured me. I will give this journal a chance through a subscription. As I said in my first comment: the topics all sound very interesting!

I have no doubt this journal will evolve over time. I believe it will fill a real need. As to de Benoist’s pluriversum – not ever!

Jim Saleam

In regards to the pertinent question raised by Ulf Larsen: That constitutional clause, from what I gather, is aimed at Zionists or what in the USA is being termed “Jewish supremacists.” Ab Aeterno and its sponsoring Academy are however non-sectarian and broad spectrum within the context of the “Right” (by which I DON’T include libertarians and neo-cons).

Best wishes to all
Kerry Bolton
Publisher, Ab Aeterno

Like you, I am bothered by this stipulation. As I suggested above, the ASPR lacks the freedom to be explicitly racialist. I am assuming, until I am proved wrong, that this stipulation is mainly designed to protect the new association from the thought police. Those who have thus far identified with the ASPR are indeed those who share most of our concerns. But it’s important that the new journal continues in this way — which is why I think it’s important that racially-conscious American contributors participate in it. We don’t need another variation on Benoist’s pluriversum.

However, from the constitution of tne ASPR:

“3. ASPR is non-sectarian in regards to national and religious matters. Every person having a tertiary degree at least equivalent to a Bachelorate, may be associated with ASPR. However, because of the nature of ASPR, individuals committed to feelings of superiority because of their national or religious affiliation or their ancestral one, as well as people approving such an attitude are excluded from ASPR.”

Especially the very last part is a bit strange: “as well as people approving such an attitude are excluded from ASPR.”

Why are people who feel superior because of their ancestors so bad that you can’t even approve of their attitudes if you want to be a member? That sounds a bit sectarian (not to mention irrational) to me…

Yes. I couldn’t find it and thought it was gone. Thanks to you I now know otherwise. I’ve learned much from this site in the past.

I recommend it to all engaged in the pro-White cause, a treasure trove for all nationalists; you can even learn a thing or two about our Australian anti-liberal tradition. Saying that, it features more than just articles by Australians or on Australia, with a Spengler, Benoist and Yockey collection [among others], Moeller can den Bruck’s classic Das Dritte Reich, etc.