By Michael O'Meara | 17 Comments | 
Print
Ab Aeterno & The Occidental Quarterly
The first issue of Ab Aeterno: Journal of the Academy of Social and Political Research has just appeared.
Ab Aeterno (which means “from the most remote antiquity”) is a joint venture sponsored by nationalists of Greek, Italian, Australian, and New Zealand origins — Dimitris Michalopoulos, José Maria Ingrassia, Jim Saleam, and Kerry Bolton, respectively.
The last two figures should be recognizable to English-speaking nationalists. Jim Saleam is a director of the Australia First Party and a leading ideologue of Australian nationalism. His former website was a treasure trove of texts pertinent to the white nationalist cause, some of which have been re-posted at the Australia First site.
Kerry Bolton, whose work have appeared at TOQ Online, is a one-man think-tank, whose knowledge of our history and whose contribution to our understanding of contemporary developments are matched by few others. He is also the director of New Zealand’s Renaissance Press (which has reprinted many classic writings on 20th-century anti-liberalism), as well as the Secretary of NZ’s National Front and one of the world’s leading authorities on Francis Parker Yockey.
Though the new journal is not explicitly racialist and Jew-wise (this is a luxury now denied to most publications in the white world), it is implicitly so. This is evident in Ab Aeterno’s eloquent “Introductory Message.”
After noting that the Cold War’s end has ushered in a Brave New World, in which the entire planet has been turned into “a vassal of Mammon,” it claims that there is now no future for “our Nations . . . our History . . . our children under this post-Cold War globalist regime.”
Worse, “the eternal principles that guided humankind [i.e., our kind] in its evolution from the caves and forests of Prehistory to the Acropolis, to the Gothic Churches and [to] the literary, artistic and melodic masterpieces of History” have now been lost to most European-descended peoples.
As the journal’s founders see it, we have entered a Dark Age, “an interregnum in the long process of History’s cycles of rise and fall,” where it is no longer possible to appeal to man’s higher spirit.
This present historical cycle, though, is nearing its end — an end that cannot be averted, but is nevertheless one that will announce another beginning. In evoking Ab Aeterno, the eternal principles which “have fallen into oblivion,” the journal’s founders do so with no illusion that these principles can now save us from the coming fire. Rather, their hope is that through their efforts these principles will find their way to future generations, once the wheel of history turns and a new era dawns.
Not since the demise of Carto’s Western Destiny and Bardèche’s Défense de l’Occident has there been such an undertaking by the battered forces of international anti-liberalism. It’s obviously important that such a project succeed. For this reason I urge TOQ Online readers and contributors to visit the journal’s website and consider taking out a subscription to enable it to grow and attract an even wider circle of distinguished contributors.
I might add that it is only by “putting your money where your mouth is” that our people will have a chance of surviving the coming interregnum. To this end, I want especially to appeal to the mighty online Aryan Warriors, Brownshirts, Berserkers, and the like to take their participation in the white resistance to the next step beyond mere venting in cyberspace.
And while plugging Ab Aeterno, let me also use this occasion to urge those TOQ Online’s readers who haven’t yet done so to consider taking out a subscription to The Occidental Quarterly.
It seems hardly accidental that in less than a year, TOQ Online, in alliance with its sister site, The Occidental Observer, has established itself as the most authoritative cyber tribune of the white resistance. This is due not just to the dedication and leadership of its editor, Dr. Greg Johnson, though he stands a head higher than the rest of us. It is due no less to the impressive print legacy of The Occidental Quarterly.
For nearly ten years now, the Quarterly has been publishing the most original and innovative thinking of the white resistance — and doing so without succumbing to the sectarian and personal vendettas that have long divided the highly individualistic ranks of our movement.
This achievement would not have been possible, however, without that small handful of individuals who have used their modest fortunes to fund its activities and of a slightly larger group which has contributed the time, energy, and thought to making it such a success. The significance of TOQ‘s achievement, it’s worth pointing out, has been totally out of proportion to the size and resources of those who have made it possible.
If just a fraction of the tens of thousands of visitors to this and other racially-conscious websites would simply subscribe or donate to the journal, they could make a genuine contribution to our cause and help it grow.
In the name of The Occidental Quarterly, I am not, though, asking for a hand-out. I ask only that those who identify with the white nationalist project do a bit more than flick on the power button in the evening — that, instead, they open their wallets for a small sum that hardly covers our publication costs. In return they will receive a quality-produced work that is unique in the English-speaking world, comparable to the best of its European counterparts.
At the same time, new subscriptions will help relieve some of the financial burdens that bear so heavily on TOQ‘s sponsors, as well as enable it to extend its influence. But above all, those who support the Quarterly will take a small step toward joining that rare company of men and women who have devoted thousands of hours of their life to our cause in the real world.
Michael O'Meara
Michael O’Meara, Ph.D., studied social theory at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris and modern European history at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of New Culture, New Right: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe (Bloomington, Ind.: 1stBooks, 2004).
Is this Jim’s site you referred to?
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/
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.
Morgan,
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.
Thank you for mentioning this new journal, Mr. O’Meara. The topics for the first issue sound very interesting.
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…
Ulf,
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.
Thanks, Michael, for an exceptionally excellent review of Ab Aeterno. Also for the red-facedly flattering comments about myself (although I only served with the NZNF for a year – in 2004).
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
To the comment by Ulf Larsen, I interpreted the ASPR constitution reference really to mean a rejection of ideology which asserts a crude racial supremacism in general. In the case of the European world, I think that sort of ‘racist’ view passed away historically with the old imperialisms and in the case of America – in the Second Reconstruction. However, it stays alive in some marginal quarters today which purport to represent (to use Michael’s catch–all term) white nationalism. Without speaking for the others, I suspect we are all rather cautious about any claim of ‘supremacism’ on the part of any member of the white race. Its present state hardly warrants such self-praise. Having said that, it is a matter of securing alternate formulae to serve a survival and re-affirmative agenda.
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
Thank you all for your comments to my question.
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!
Jim,
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.
Dear Michael, dear friends,
Thank you for your comments on our Journal. Truth be told, its appearance is poor; and we shall try to improve it in the -near- future (our problem being the common one: lack of means). I think, nonetheless, that the contents are really interesting.
Please have in mind the following explanations:
1. We are trying to provide our -common- struggle with a scientific basis. For without such a basis our efforts are doomed.
2. The reference in our Constitution to people who, because of their “national or religious affiliation” are “committed to feelings of superiority” of course has to do with the Jews as well. I think that they are now the main problem of our world. For they believe (regarding themselves as the descendants of the Judah tribe) that God gave them a sovereign power over the rest of humankind – even the other Hebrews, too, who, as it is well known, did not tolerate such an attitude and prefered to get lost for ever. (The famous story of the lost ten Hebrew tribes.) Now they have the power – and they consider us to be their slaves. The uncontrolled (or rather: compulsory) emigration from Asia and Africa to Europe is the corollary of their arrogance and power: they know that it will be easier for them establish their power (given, as they think, by God!) in societies without a prevalent culture, composed by mediocre individuals.
But I think we shall be able to do further discussion on these matters in the future.
Michael,
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
Gentlemen,
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.
Excellent article. I am going to subscribe to that journal! sounds excellent.
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.
No problems at all, Mr. Michalopoulos.
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.
Jim,
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.
In regard to Dimitris’ comment on the ‘poor appearance’ of Ab Aeterno, I should perhaps explain that this should NOT be taken to imply its presentation is particularly shabby; simply that it is economically produced. The advantage is that I can personally handle production without being reliant on commercial printers and exorbitant costs; thereby making an enduring continuity, and in particular regularity as a quaterly, more likely. The price is also most unlikely to raise in the foreseeable future (while the bit extra that will hopefully be made can subsidise gratis issues to some of our veteran Thinkers and activists). There is after all quite a large grave-yard of ambitious Rightist publications that floundered due to rising costs.
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
Steven,
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.