Post-Election Right

K R Bolton

Presently there are Rightists working with relatively ‘mainstream’, albeit still somewhat ‘fringe’ parties, such as the NZ Public Party, Direct Democracy, NZ First, New Conservatives, and Social Credit. Others more specifically regarded as ‘Right’, such as the One NZ Party (in at least its third incarnation) and the South Island Independence Movement, are expected to put up candidates.

Only Social Credit, and One NZ in its present form (as distinct from past efforts focused solely on Treaty issues) have any perceptions as to the necessity of addressing banking reform. Social Credit harkens back a century to the Theory of Major C. H. Douglas, whose doctrine once had an influential presence in New Zealand, in the Labour Party, Country Party, Farmers Union, and New Zealand Legion green-shirts; an influence sufficient to enable the establishment of the First Labour Government on a policy of state credit, which was particularly enacted via the state housing programme, while today’s Labour does not have the foggiest idea of how to get any such construction started.

The Great Purge

In addition to these new and older parties, which some Rightists are assisting on a low level individual basis, there is a proliferation of what might at most be called ‘soft right’ lobby groups. The frenetic reaction of the Labour Government after the March 2019 Mosque shootings was intended to crush all dissent. A witch-hunt ensued to try and harass anyone critical of some part of the left-liberal globalist agenda. With the arrogance that comes with hubris the Labour Government, media and the ever-ready whores of academia thought they would steam-roller over any dissent in the name of ‘anti-racism’. Even Act’s MP David Seymour was accused of being ‘racist’ and personally threatening by Green MP Golriz Ghahraman, who postured to the media that she required security after receiving threats following Seymour’s criticism of her call for restrictions on political comment. [1]

Ms. Ghahraman, a marginally dark-complexioned Iranian (i.e., Aryan, Indo-European) has no qualms about solidarity with the most psychotic elements of the extreme Left in the cause of ‘anti-racism’ (Europhobia), having been a featured speaker for a frenzied mob of communists and anarchists at Parliament grounds in 2017, intent on preventing a peaceful and legal annual rally by the marginally marginal National Front. [2]

Sundry individuals, from hunters and ‘free speech ‘advocates to the few actual dissident Rightists were targeted in the witch-hunt, as police and intelligence services sought an elusive – because imaginary – ‘Terrorist network’ in the wake of the Mosque shootings, while the State’s hurrah-chorus in media and academia cheered on the amok-run of the Establishment. This was the opportunity at last for a Great Purge, gun confiscations, police memos on snooping into private bank accounts, and denial of gun licenses to those who own a Confederate flag, have certain prescribed tattoos or books, or dress in camouflage jackets and trousers.

Labour’s justice minister Andrew Little saw the opportunity to introduce something that has long been an aim of the neo-Jacobins: a ‘hate speech law’. This is right out of 1960s New Left guru Professor Herbert Marcuse’s treatise called ‘repressive tolerance’, where the intellectual giant of the Left explains that there is an absolute, sacrosanct right of free speech other than for those who disagree with Leftist dogma, a double- think doctrine that has been operative for years, as much within the bigoted faculties of the hallowed halls of academia, where actual scholars such as Drew Fraser and Ricardo Duchesne are hounded out by their intellectual ‘peers’, as on the streets among screaming ‘Antifa’. [3]

These heavy-handed actions from the Government caused dissent to proliferate. While the National Front, a few actual Rightists represented by Dominion Movement, and even a Norse religious – Asatru – group, were intimidated into self-liquidating through hysteria generated by police and media, gun and free speech lobbyists, critics of the U.N. global migration compact, and ‘one nation’ advocates, were activated, along with sundry small parties such as those mentioned above. The motivating factor underlying all of these is opposition to the Labour Government, with the Act Party able to tap into this discontent, especially drawing support from gun-owners and free speech advocates, with the possibility of winning a handful of seats while the opposition from the National Party has been lacklustre.

Where is the ‘Right’?

None of this reaction should be defined as a revolt by the Right. The Right-Left dichotomy is poorly understood in the Anglophone world, least of all by academics and journalists. The Right is not Classical Liberalism, or neo-liberalism, and never has been. The Right is Tradition. As Marx correctly observed in the Communist Manifesto, capitalism and the bourgeoisie have been revolutionary agents in the historical dialectic to destroy tradition: family, village, church, guild, homeland, craft. From the Rightist position Thomas Carlyle five years prior to Marx’s manifesto, deplored the rise of capitalism the destruction of organic societies and their replacement by the ‘money nexus’. Anyone who wants to really understand the ‘right-wing’ position on capitalism should read Carlyle, after which there is no excuse for mistaking the Right for being a custodian of the free market. [4]

So who of the so-called ‘right’ in New Zealand among those we have mentioned represents a restoration of traditional society; that is, a pre-capitalist society? The Libertarians, or Classical Liberals, see any such restoration as undermining their cherished but inane idolisation of ‘individual liberty’. On the other hand the Left never aimed to transcend capitalism but to appropriate it, as Spengler and Evola pointed out. Both Libertarians and Marxists repudiate tradition, for a historically fallacious concept of ‘progress’; the notion of a kind of historical tapeworm crawling along in one direction towards what the Liberal ideologue Professor Francis Fukuyama called the ‘end of history’, where market capitalism and liberal democracy, under U.S. auspices, are the culmination of all human achievement, beyond which there can be nothing better.

Of groups I can only see one that is Right in the traditional sense, Action Zealandia, and one other project, The European New Zealander. The National Front never had a doctrine, strategy, or organisational structure. The Neo-Nazis are an aberration of a doctrine that is less intrinsic to the historical legacy of the Right, than the doctrines of Marquis de Sade or Rev. Jim Jones or Leon Trotsky are to the ideology of the NZ Labour Party.

The NF, and indeed most of the groups referred to previously, have considered only symptoms at best. The usual bugbears – Jews, Muslims, non-whites, immigrants, et al – do not cause any problems. The causes are intrinsic within the present epoch of Late Western Capitalism. If the USA ‘leads’ the ‘free world,’ or ‘the West’, then it is because the USA is the most deeply flawed of states among the West; but many of the ‘soft right’ see the USA as our ‘traditional ally’. It is rather the centre from which the pathogens of the West are most pronounced and proceed over the world in the name of ‘globalisation’ , ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’, as heralded for example by the neocon strategist Lt. Col. Ralph Peters. [5]


Hopefully a ‘network’ can be formed from among the dissident Right after the September elections. While there seem only to be two actual projects of the dissident Right, it is likely that there are further elements from among the ‘soft right’ that can be co-opted. Both Chris McCabe of The European New Zealander and Action Zealandia have alluded to the possibilities of a ‘network’ of autonomous groups. In an interview with Action Zealandia, Francesco Dotro, a liaison officer for the newly formed Italian movement, La Rete (Italian, The Network), explains how such an alliance can work; how it emerged to revitalise the Italian Right, and aligns dozens of autonomous groups under a common symbol, directorate and fundamental programme. [6]

Dotro mentioned the way by which the once burgeoning ‘Northern League’ in Italy has collapsed because it sacrificed principles in pursuit of Establishment political positions, and states that something similar happened to the Gold Dawn movement in Greece. However, an even more apt example would be again from Italy. The Italian Social Movement (MSI) endured many years, forming soon after World War II. The MSI remained true to the ideology of the Italian Nationalist Right until a modernising faction assumed control under the young and charismatic Gianfranco Fini, who had a blueprint on how the MSI could become closer to the centre of Establishment power, rather than remaining forever shut out. In 1995 the MSI under Fini’s leadership merged with elements of the defunct Christian Democrats and established the National Alliance. This aligned with Berlusconi’s Forza Italia party to form a coalition in Parliament and Fini assumed high posts including those of Deputy Prime Minister, and Foreign Minister. As one might assume, by this time there was nothing left of the MSI legacy. Both NA and Forza Italia combined to form the People of Freedom party in 2008 and Fini became Speaker of the House of Parliament. Continuing on the path to self-oblivion in the quest for the mainstream Fini formed the Future and Freedom for Italy party in 2013, which resulted in total political obliteration.

What remained of the Nationalist Right in Italy was fragmented, with sundry efforts to maintain the legacy of the MSI. However, the most vibrant, Casa Pound, was established in 2008 from a Rightist autonomous zone formed in 2003 in a deserted housing complex, and having roots in the community and multiple outreach programmes, from sports, to culture, to local politics, to free medical care, and food distribution drives.

In New Zealand the Social Credit party subsumed its identity within a coalition of Leftist groups called the Alliance Party, and tried various alterations of image such as dropping the title Social Credit for the name Democrats, then Democrats for Social Credit, and again assuming the title Social Credit NZ.

The lesson is that quick and easy victories are not to be had by compromising fundamental principles, only to end in self-obliteration.

If a network of Rightists is formed post elections there must be a Rightist minimum, without which any such alliance will become too nebulous to be worth pursuing. If one is not attempting to advance certain core principles what exactly is the point? Action Zealandia has proven its worth, and must assure that its identity is not compromised within any broader movement, while nonetheless being involved – indeed, being the vanguard – of such a movement. If a broad alliance fails, at least some of its constituent parts must have remained sufficiently intact to withstand such drawbacks.

Rightist Minimum

With a plethora of ‘soft right’ and centrist groups that hack journalist and academics somehow define as ‘right-wing’, the dissident Right must make its minimal demands unequivocal, and the first is to decide what it is not; a ‘need not apply’ checklist. This is my preference:

  1. No pro-Zionist, Israel first, Islamophobes. To the extent that Islam poses an existential threat to European civilisation, it comes from one aspect of Islam, Wahhabism, sponsored primarily by the USA’s Saudi allies. It is a bizarre situation when the ‘soft right’ condemns Islam for not embracing – assimilating into – the most depraved elements of the modernist West; its usury, hedonism, and consumerism.
  2. The USA is not our friend and ally. It is the ‘leader of the West’ to the extent that the West is in an epoch of decay and the USA is the centre of that decay. This is not our ‘West’; it is the Antiwest.
  3. Rejection of free market capitalism as inherently antithetical – like Marxism – to the organic social community that the Right aims to restore.
  4. Rejection of the ‘one nation’ melting pot as an option even worse than multiculturalism.

These four points – Islamophobia, Americophilia, libertarianism, and assimilationism – are embraced by most of what is assumed to be ‘right-wing’ in New Zealand. The Right is nothing if not a will for the restoration of perennial values and organic social bonds. That must be the bottom line for any such alliance.

Generally, any position adopted by such an alliance should be based on analyses of causes.

Quality of membership should be maintained as a priority. It is better that an organisation did not exist than to be compromised in the quest for numbers.

Ideologically well informed cadres must be the basis of any such organisation. Without a sound ideological core there is no permanence. Even burgeoning movements overseas, such as the British National Front or subsequent BNP easily collapsed through gradual diminution of an ideologically, and even more so, a spiritually, motivated cadre, which must see aims far greater than superficialities such as immigration or Treaty issues.

The first requirement is to clear away the debris of the pseudo-right. With the convergence of major crises both domestically and globally, the time is now more than ever before to establish a broad but clearly defined movement.

[1] Security escort for Green MP, Stuff, 21 May 2019,

[2] Shameful protest, Whaleoil, 2 February 2018,

[3] Herbert Marcuse, Repressive Tolerance (1969),

[4] Thomas Carlyle, Past & Present (1843)

[5] K R Bolton, Constant conflict,

[6] Voice of Zealandia, Episode 8,

3 thoughts on “Post-Election Right

  1. Thank you for your comment, Dr Bramhall.

    If the organic social community seems like classical anarchism or Left libertarianism that is because certain left thinkers converge with the Right, rather than the Right compromising with the Left. Both the Right and classical anarchism sought alternatives to capitalism and industrialism which took them back to pre-capitalist epochs. Bakunin started as a pan-Slav who sought organic communities, referred to a ‘racial dialectics’ in history about which he critiqued Marx for not recognizing , but seems in his later period to have become a dialectical materialist, and started preaching internationalism. Kropotkin’s ‘Mutual Aid’ examined nature in which survival is maintained by co-operation within communities, rather than as a struggle for individual existence , and survival of the fittest. Such organic social reciprocity makes more sense to the Right than the Darwinian struggles that were upheld by both capitalism and Marxism, applied to economics.

    Proudhon, the first to use ‘anarchism’ as a descriptive term, rejected it for what he called ‘mutualism’. In France the monarchist right of Action Francaise and the syndicalist Left around Sorel united in what Maurras called ‘integralism’. Here also Catholicism found common cause, because the Catholic social doctrine of Rerum Novarum and other encyclicals also sought alternatives to both capitalism and socialism, which the Church saw as underpinned equally by materialism, and looked also to the pre-capitalistic epoch of guilds and group association in what they updated as the law of ‘subsidiary’ organisation; organic communities with power at the local levels, but held together around a traditional axis of church and monarch.

    Late 19th and early 20th centuries, there was a crisis in the Left as socialist thinkers began seeing economic determinism as insufficient, particularity in the Francophone states and among syndicalists. In Belgium Henri de Man rejected Marxism and developed neo-socialism. In France there was the Cercle Proudhon. In Italy the Nationalist Association of Corradini saw in syndicalism a type of modernised guildism and the means by which the classes could be brought together as a unified social community (Gemeinshaft in sociological terms) rather than fractured by class and money.

    However, the Right had been undermined for decades by whiggery, and you will recall that when Dr Christopher Lasch rejected the Left in the 1970s and sought out ‘true conservatism’ (i.e. that which upholds traditional, perennial values) he could not find it within contemporary American conservatism, which had become shaped by a herd of Trotskyists and Mensheviks, taking the side of the USA during the Cold War, clustering around Bill Buckley and becoming Free Marketeers. Hence the Right was distorted beyond recognition and it took la Droite Nouvelle and others in Europe to restore the Right to its origins, while paradoxically being described by the media as the ‘new’ right.

    Yet if one looks at an actual traditional conservative such as Thomas Carlyle and his book Past and Present , written a few years prior to the Communist Manifesto, there is a much more cogent critique of capitalism, or Spengler’s Prussianism & Socialism (1919) in which he explained the fundamentally capitalistic nature of the Left.

    As you will have observed today’s Left, and much of that of the prior decades, has been easily co-opted by the Establishment, including the inanity of what is today called anarchism, echoing the calls by Soros et al for open borders, one world, and the destruction of organic difference through the demand for contrived differences.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s