Thursday, August 17, 2017

Book Review: 'The Real Right Returns' by Daniel Friberg

What does one learn from this book?

First of all that Sweden has been involved in the so-called new right for longer than one would imagine. It is finally coming into its own. It is closely linked with the French new right, exemplified by Friberg's Arctos Media stablemates Guillaume Faye and Alan De Benoist.

It is decidedly European. This book does not talk much about the United States. Europe's issues are somewhat different, and certainly the chronology of their development has been different

Friberg talks about the difference between the real right and the so-called conservatives in modern European and American politics. The so-called conservatives are advocates of globalization, immigration and the dissolution of national identity. They do not recognize ethnicity or nationality. They do not recognize the distinct interests of the peoples within a nation.

Establishment right-wing parties' locus of action is at the national level, removed from the hoi polloi. No established party seems to favor the departmental/provincial or local governments over the national government. They favor bureaucracies, and are quite comfortable with central planning, having "experts" in the capital cities make blanket decisions that favor apply uniformly within the realm. They are not interested in preserving cultures or the multiple ethnicities native to a given country. While they may, in a self-congratulatory fashion, allow immigrants from the Middle East to cling to their tribal ways as they dilute the native Europeans, they're not politically thrilled when Bretons, Occitanes and Savoyards in France maintain their individuality. Conservativism as it has been practiced favors big business at the expense of the people, the center at the expense of the fringe.

The New Right favors the people. It is conservative in the sense of conserving what the people have among themselves. In some senses it is rather socialistic. It appeals to the ethos, the traditional culture, and the mutual support that is present in a traditional society. It celebrates not the atomized individual, but the local community in which that individual exists. It celebrates not that atomized individual, but his family, his heritage, and his progeny.

There is a triumphal tone throughout the book. Friberg believes that the European traditional left is collapsing. It is certainly the case that membership in the New Right parties, such as the Sweden Democrats, is burgeoning. He also credits the Internet with the decline of the traditional centers of liberal power, the newspapers.

Friberg has a valuable chapter on meta-politics, the cultural precondition for political change. People do not support a political system that is out of step with their beliefs. Italian Communist Gramsci noted that the Communists had been unsuccessful in attempting to the socialize factories after World War I because the people were simply not ready for it. The Frankfurt school set out to change culture, and thus it is prepare the intellectual soil for a communist takeover. To this end they changed the infiltrated and changed, the whole schooling system in both the United States and Europe. They introduced political correctness. They introduced idealistic notions such as the New World order, multiculturalism, diversity, and so on. As they trumpeted these notions they likewise downplayed the concepts of nationalism, differences among the races, and other things were antithetical to their program. Once this indoctrination had been done, the populations were prepared to be seeded with leftist thought. The seeds took root.

I witnessed it to some degree as a high school student in the 1950s, and especially as an undergraduate at Reed College from 1960 to 1962, then Berkeley 1965-66. It was a wrenching shift from the values I had internalized growing up. I questioned myself, and then questioned the indoctrination. I was among a minority who stuck with traditional values. My grown children, and most of their peers, have been thoroughly indoctrinated in cultural Marxism, from children's television through Howard Zinn in high school history and Andrea Dvorkin in college.

An interesting observation is that in the belief of the author the leftists were dominant from 1945 through 1989. 1989 seems like an early date at which to fix the beginning of their demise. It appears to me that their power remains quite strong today to this observer. However, Friberg sees the traditional left as being rather in retreat. He scoffs at their increasingly frantic and futile efforts to stem to stanch the rise of the new right, the Identitarian movement.

Friberg offers specific advice for should be done in Sweden. If a Swede is approached by a journalist from the left, or especially somebody from the Expo organization, he should simply say "no comment." Do not talk to Expo. You have nothing to gain. This echoes what Vox Day advised Americans in his book, SJWs Always Lie.
There is a new line of thought emerging worldwide, a rebellion in the confrontation of culture against cultural Marxism. In the United States this is exemplified by the rise of Donald Trump in the current election cycle. Perhaps the most telling thing about Trump is his defiance of political correctness. The American populace is tired of it. The American press absolutely cannot understand, cannot fathom, how Donald Trump can so thoroughly ignore political correctness can be cheered and celebrated by the populace. They are tired of it.

One sees the same in Europe. Nigel Farage in England it does a wonderful job of putting down the cultural left. Marine Le Pen and her niece do the same in France. Geert Wilders does it in Holland. It is marvelous to see these voices rise up. Even when Wilders is brought to court for supposed hate speech against Muslims or something like that, it is now more of a victory than a defeat. What he wins by confronting political correctness far overshadows what he may lose in fines and so on. The left is simply losing the ability to stanch the wave of revulsion at the mass immigration and political correctness.

Friberg includes a wonderful piece on the difference between men and women. We are genetically, culturally and traditionally different in that we have different roles to fill in society. Unfortunately, our leftist dominated education has attempted to force upon us the notion that gender doesn't matter and that we are all equal. This is not true. Men have a leadership role to fill and we should willingly step into it. We should marry and pass on not only our genes but our culture. We should marry early and be loyal to our women. His challenge to women is even harder. Give up the feminist myth that you can "have it all" and commit to being, above all, a good mother. Children and grandchildren are indeed, as the Bible has it, an older woman's "crown of glory." More concretely, government safety nets are fraying worldwide. Without family, there will be nobody to care for you in old age.

That is the last chapter of the book. So, here ends the book review as such. I follow up with my own interpretation of where the threads lead to next.

* * * * * * *

Among the words that do not appear in this short book are Jews, banks, evolution, intelligence and education.

Modern conservativism, free-market liberalism, is an economic competition that assumes all people are equal. There are winners and losers, a fact that is accepted as the natural order. It has always been thus.

Northern European societies especially have had a significant belief in egalitarianism. Evolutionary psychologist Kevin McDonald says that this was essential in their harsh Nordic homelands. The survival of the group was of paramount importance. Therefore the relatively homogeneous groups of Norsemen would overlook individual differences in ability in order to preserve all individuals. That was best for the survival of the tribe. It provided them with more warriors. Greater numbers were more important than assessing the value of each individual among them. They therefore also had a fairly strong belief in monogamy. Everybody got a mate, although the stronger men in the tribe as always certainly enjoyed a better selection.

This altruism, this mutual support worked well among homogeneous, relatively isolated tribes whose greatest threat was invasion from other tribes. This habit of mind has led the northern Europeans to an altruistic acceptance of people who are altogether different from them, first the Jews, and now Muslims and Africans.

McDonald's most well-known works are a trilogy on the evolutionary psychology of the Jews. Like the northern European peoples, they seek the survival of their own. Unlike the northern Europeans, the Jews for the past 2500 years have lived in diaspora. They have been scattered among host populations who were indifferent, often hostile. Therefore they have evolved the ability to not only exist, but to thrive among people unlike themselves. They have succeeded because they are in general more intelligent than the people among whom they live, and they succeed because they support one another. They support their own group interests above the interests of the groups among which they live.

This has certainly been true in Europe and the Americas. The Jews had dominated banking, the media, entertainment and other industries. They have used this domination to propagate their views, the views which according to this book have so weakened traditional Europeans. To be specific, the Frankfurt School of Horkheimer, Adorno and others, implementing Gramsci's cultural Marxism, was a Jewish project. Let me, the reviewer, emphasize that the word Jew never appears in Friberg's book. It is certainly an intentional omission. He does not need to be picking enemies. I simply bring it up to tie the intellectual concepts of this book in with other modern currents of thought.

McDonald's thesis is that this is not an articulated, conscious survival strategy on the part of the Jews, but rather one that has evolved over the course of 2 1/2 millennia. One can even remark that it is not particularly beneficial to the Jewish population today. As is observed in Friberg's book, they are losing their grip. The ability of the Jewish population and the Jewish culture to reproduce itself in Europe has been at least as badly impacted by sexual ambiguity and immigration as that of European gentiles. As is often the case in evolution, a strategy that evolved as advantageous in one epoch is disadvantageous in the next. Evolution is not an articulated, reasoned process.

The situation with Middle Eastern and African immigrants to Europe is the opposite of that of the Jews. Like them they are interested in their own evolutionary goals, which are antithetical to those of the host populations. Unlike the Jews, they are less capable intellectually and less controlled temperamentally than their host populations. The Nordic countries' altruism is simply misplaced. The immigrants come, in the best of cases, to seek work. However, they generally lack the intellect and the discipline required to succeed in the European workplace. In the worst case they come simply to sponge off the wealthy Europeans, for whom they have no respect, and whom they regard as dupes to be parasitized and exploited. In neither case does the Europeans' altruism any longer serve their evolutionary interests.

To repeat, a word that does not appear anywhere in the book is "Jew." The great majority of the Swedish press has been owned by Jews. Friberg mentions Expo, a publication which he equates with the Southern Poverty Law Center in United States, which zealously prosecutes its enemies, conservatives. What he does not note is that the ethnicity of Robert Aschberg, the driving force behind Expo, and Morris Dees, the driving force behind the Southern poverty Law Center. Likewise, George Soros is a persistent backer of unlimited African and Moslem immigration to Europe. There are ethnic interests at play which Friberg chooses not to address.

Friberg does not delve into how deeply compromised our entire system of education has become. Vox Day's advice in the above-referenced book is that when an organization has been thoroughly compromised by SJWs there is no point in trying to fix it. It is better to start over.

In K-12 education this means avoiding government schools. Choose a private school or home schooling. Tellingly, these alternatives are illegal in Sweden and Germany. The classic American text is "Teach your own," though Calderwood and many others tell you how to do it. The Internet is a great boon to home schooling, delivering curricular materials and bringing like-minded parents together.

Today's University is already obsolete. Its bloated cost structure simply cannot stand in the face of distance learning over the Internet. Accreditation is the major remaining problem: how to certify that the individual in question actually mastered the material at hand, and thus ensure the integrity of the degree awarding process. This problem, of course, exists on campus as well. Outsourcing term papers to India is a big business. In any case, it will become increasingly easy to circumvent the Marxist gatekeepers of American higher education.

The Internet is loosening up even graduate education and academics. People whom the academic left reviles, like Richard LynnBrion McClanahan and Kevin MacDonald (above) are able to get their voices heard despite concerted efforts on campus to shut them up.

That's my conclusion. I agree with Friberg that the tide is going out on cultural Marxism. However, feminism, the emasculation of our men, and the usurpation by government of the rights and responsibilities of self-sufficient individuals with regard to safeguarding their health and income and childrearing have done their damage. We have lost the drive to form families and bear children. Just as important, and often overlooked, is the fact that we have destroyed the institutions such as schools, church, Boy Scouts and the like that used to socialize them to perpetuate our culture. The challenge is even more formidable than he would have it.

Editor's note: This review has been published with the permission of Graham H. Seibert. Like what you read? Subscribe to the SFRB's free daily email notice so you can be up-to-date on our latest articles. Scroll up this page to the sign-up field on your right. 


  1. I don’t know why Swedish Globalists say Swedes have no ‘indigenous culture’.

    Now, it may be true that Christianity came from outside Sweden. And Swedish art, music, literature, architecture, drama, dress, food, and etc were inspired from outside forces.
    But even if they did, they became Swedish by Swedes using and shaping them in their own way.

    It’s like much of Japan came from outside Japan. Confucianism and artistic motifs from China, Buddhism from northern India, cinema from the West, and etc. Nevertheless, Japanese made it their own by shaping it and changing it to suit their needs. So, Japanese temples look like Chinese temples but also different and unique. It’s like Germans took opera and classical music instruments from Italy but they made their own music. And blacks took white instruments and white musical forms and processed them through their blackness and made it ‘black’.

    Ingmar Bergman owes a lot to film masters outside Sweden. But he was a great Swedish film director. He made his films both personal and unique to the culture that made him.

    This is what globalism threatens. Nationalism allows all the world to learn from the world, but at the end of the day, each nation processes these influences and makes them their own.

  2. I am reminded of the early scene in Eyes Wide Shut where Dr. Bill (no doubt a graduate of a fine school) and his wife walk past a wall of books on the way out the door. All those books and not one has told the couple how the world really works.

  3. You've been fooled. Friberg is controlled opposition. If you read the book more carefully, you would have noticed it echoes the idea for a global open society & piecemeal social engineering. Friberg and Arktos are part of the Open Society Foundations.