What do you think?
Rate this book
The Real Right Returns: A Handbook for the True Opposition
The Right is coming back. After decades of humiliation and political failures, the opposition is reorganising, catching up with the times, and getting itself in order. It is none too soon. Europe faces numerous challenges, challenges which the entrenched, incompetent elites of politics, academia, and the mass media are unable and unwilling to confront. Uncontrolled immigration, the mindless waste of resources, and destruction wrought by consumer society upon the very core of Western man — these are problems posing questions which the ‘establishment’ cannot answer.
Daniel Friberg, MBA, is CEO of the Swedish mining corporation Wiking Mineral and was a founding member of the Swedish metapolitical think tank, Motpol. He has a long history in the Swedish opposition, and was one of the founders of Arktos.
Daniel Friberg, MBA, is CEO of the Swedish mining corporation Wiking Mineral and was a founding member of the Swedish metapolitical think tank, Motpol. He has a long history in the Swedish opposition, and was one of the founders of Arktos.
138 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 4, 2015
23 people are currently reading
359 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
February 22, 2017
This book gets to the heart of many of our cultural problems. While I would not concur with every point made, it is worth reading. You may obtain and read it through Kindle Unlimited.
December 22, 2025
The most valuable part is a discussion of meta-politics, how we were softened to accept
Marxism.
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 [[ASIN:1907166467 Guillaume
Faye]] and [[ASIN:B007TXXOYU 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, [[ASIN:9527065682 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 [[ASIN:0759672229 trilogy]] on the
[[ASIN:1410792617 evolutionary]] [[ASIN:0595228380 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
[[ASIN:0143127160 less capable intellectually]] and [[ASIN:0993000118 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 [[ASIN:1594036063 Marxist
gatekeepers]] of American higher education.
The Internet is loosening up even graduate education and academics. People whom
the academic left reviles, like [[ASIN:027597510X Richard Lynn]], [[ASIN:1621573753
Brion 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.
Marxism.
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 [[ASIN:1907166467 Guillaume
Faye]] and [[ASIN:B007TXXOYU 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, [[ASIN:9527065682 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 [[ASIN:0759672229 trilogy]] on the
[[ASIN:1410792617 evolutionary]] [[ASIN:0595228380 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
[[ASIN:0143127160 less capable intellectually]] and [[ASIN:0993000118 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 [[ASIN:1594036063 Marxist
gatekeepers]] of American higher education.
The Internet is loosening up even graduate education and academics. People whom
the academic left reviles, like [[ASIN:027597510X Richard Lynn]], [[ASIN:1621573753
Brion 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.
November 24, 2023
Horrible in Both Competence and Morality
(I would give 0 stars, if that was an option) I am no Leftist. But I am absolutely not what Friberg is, and no one should be if they care about reality or morality. And what is Friberg, according to his very own words? White supremacist, collectivist, authoritarian, and honestly just not very bright. Either he's very unintelligent or very dishonest, because he contradicts himself backwards and forwards.
- He literally ignores that there is any actual reality of racism. I've heard people like him pretend they themselves are not racist, but never have I heard someone so stupid or dishonest as to implicitly or explicitly deny racism even exists.
- He claims he is against assimilation or for a right to difference, yet in complete contradiction says people SHOULD be assimilated to their ethnic group. Because, and this is emphasized about an actual 100 times in the writing, he's against individualism. And yet he says autonomy and freedom matter to him, BUT that someone is basically somehow just a predetermined product of their race. Again, either very stupid or very dishonest.
- He talks about man as spiritual and against attacks to this, yet then he goes on to root all spirituality biologically and ethnically, which if one has even the most basic understanding of philosophy, even ancient, they know that makes no sense. And although he doesn't outright say so, many of his influences, especially Evola, literally, explicitly hate Christianity. Even Leftist atheists understand Christianity to at the least have contributed culturally. But oh, that's where the alt right doesn't like it, because God forbid God himself preach equality of all human beings in ontological value. They therefore think themselves as God who gets to deem truth and right simply because they say so.
- He claims he is against Negative Legitimization, where he says the Left says "Vote for us, because we're not the alt right," but he does the EXACT SAME thing. He says the Left is wrong on this and that. Why, you ask? Because he said so. He says he is right on this or that. Why, you ask? Because he said so. He offers no proof of what is natural, unnatural, true, false, etc. - no argumentation, no evidence, not even statistics. He just says to believe him because he's not them. Again, very stupid or very dishonest.
- He is authoritarian. He believes that hierarchies should rule people, rather than persons ruling themselves. But of course he thinks that if they're the same race, then it'll all be just fine. How stupid is this man? Obviously completely illiterate in history. Neither Left nor Right authoritarianism has ever been good for any subjected to it. He says he believes in autonomy at all nonpolitical levels, but in politics, he thinks you must submit to masters over you who are superior because of God only knows why - just like extreme Leftist communists. He thinks "if only we have the right people." Like. Every. Stupid. Communist. Again, very stupid or very dishonest.
- The man is racist. Let's be honest here. I'm not saying he's racist because he's born white and stained with the sin since being a baby or whatever bogus comprehensive explanation he waves around to make the magic trick of disappearing racism by saying only those explanations of it are used by all people to refer to it. The man is literally racist. He thinks a human being is determined by their genetic history. Ah yes, because Socrates' dad, grandfather, and great-great-great grandfather were all as bright as him. And Friberg lives in Viktor Orban's Hungary now, literally somewhere where Chinese, Central Asian nomads, and Iranian peoples comprise much of the genetic makeup of the people (since global migration has occurred for all time, since before there were even homo sapiens!) - a cool diversity I myself think is awesome and fascinating; yet he and Orban, if they were consistent with everything they say, they would claim it to LITERALLY ruin the country, yet to the contrary they think the country is awesome - how do they explain their total contradiction? And Friberg says he respects a right to difference, but he then states that Europeans are superior and literally calls other people groups "subordinate." Not only does he make this obviously and unambiguously racist claim, but he does so with absolutely zero argument, zero evidence, zero examples, zero anything. He just says it as a matter of dogma. You're supposed to believe him because he said so. Which is literally how every white supremacist grounds their entire argument: "Uh huh, because I said so, and because it's the case because." Again, either very very very stupid or very very very dishonest.
The last thing I'll add to all this is, I might be wrong. He might not be either very stupid or very dishonest - he might be both! And evil. Let's not forget that.
(I would give 0 stars, if that was an option) I am no Leftist. But I am absolutely not what Friberg is, and no one should be if they care about reality or morality. And what is Friberg, according to his very own words? White supremacist, collectivist, authoritarian, and honestly just not very bright. Either he's very unintelligent or very dishonest, because he contradicts himself backwards and forwards.
- He literally ignores that there is any actual reality of racism. I've heard people like him pretend they themselves are not racist, but never have I heard someone so stupid or dishonest as to implicitly or explicitly deny racism even exists.
- He claims he is against assimilation or for a right to difference, yet in complete contradiction says people SHOULD be assimilated to their ethnic group. Because, and this is emphasized about an actual 100 times in the writing, he's against individualism. And yet he says autonomy and freedom matter to him, BUT that someone is basically somehow just a predetermined product of their race. Again, either very stupid or very dishonest.
- He talks about man as spiritual and against attacks to this, yet then he goes on to root all spirituality biologically and ethnically, which if one has even the most basic understanding of philosophy, even ancient, they know that makes no sense. And although he doesn't outright say so, many of his influences, especially Evola, literally, explicitly hate Christianity. Even Leftist atheists understand Christianity to at the least have contributed culturally. But oh, that's where the alt right doesn't like it, because God forbid God himself preach equality of all human beings in ontological value. They therefore think themselves as God who gets to deem truth and right simply because they say so.
- He claims he is against Negative Legitimization, where he says the Left says "Vote for us, because we're not the alt right," but he does the EXACT SAME thing. He says the Left is wrong on this and that. Why, you ask? Because he said so. He says he is right on this or that. Why, you ask? Because he said so. He offers no proof of what is natural, unnatural, true, false, etc. - no argumentation, no evidence, not even statistics. He just says to believe him because he's not them. Again, very stupid or very dishonest.
- He is authoritarian. He believes that hierarchies should rule people, rather than persons ruling themselves. But of course he thinks that if they're the same race, then it'll all be just fine. How stupid is this man? Obviously completely illiterate in history. Neither Left nor Right authoritarianism has ever been good for any subjected to it. He says he believes in autonomy at all nonpolitical levels, but in politics, he thinks you must submit to masters over you who are superior because of God only knows why - just like extreme Leftist communists. He thinks "if only we have the right people." Like. Every. Stupid. Communist. Again, very stupid or very dishonest.
- The man is racist. Let's be honest here. I'm not saying he's racist because he's born white and stained with the sin since being a baby or whatever bogus comprehensive explanation he waves around to make the magic trick of disappearing racism by saying only those explanations of it are used by all people to refer to it. The man is literally racist. He thinks a human being is determined by their genetic history. Ah yes, because Socrates' dad, grandfather, and great-great-great grandfather were all as bright as him. And Friberg lives in Viktor Orban's Hungary now, literally somewhere where Chinese, Central Asian nomads, and Iranian peoples comprise much of the genetic makeup of the people (since global migration has occurred for all time, since before there were even homo sapiens!) - a cool diversity I myself think is awesome and fascinating; yet he and Orban, if they were consistent with everything they say, they would claim it to LITERALLY ruin the country, yet to the contrary they think the country is awesome - how do they explain their total contradiction? And Friberg says he respects a right to difference, but he then states that Europeans are superior and literally calls other people groups "subordinate." Not only does he make this obviously and unambiguously racist claim, but he does so with absolutely zero argument, zero evidence, zero examples, zero anything. He just says it as a matter of dogma. You're supposed to believe him because he said so. Which is literally how every white supremacist grounds their entire argument: "Uh huh, because I said so, and because it's the case because." Again, either very very very stupid or very very very dishonest.
The last thing I'll add to all this is, I might be wrong. He might not be either very stupid or very dishonest - he might be both! And evil. Let's not forget that.
October 24, 2024
This raises the prospect of an alternative to Life as we are increasingly forced to live it, according to the politically correct dictats of a system which the individual challenges at his/her peril. This system would have us wallow in a debilitating guilt for sins which a few of our ancestors may have committed centuries ago. To buck this system will earn the opprobrium of this society and a label (or four, if you’re particularly lucky)! Examples might include racist, white supremacist, fascist, nazi….ad infinitum...particularly if you are foolishly tempted to point to any downsides to mass immigration and diversity.
[What might our Celtic/ British ancestors say, I wonder – have a few more Romans, Saxons, Vikings et al? And as for those surely mad monks from Lindisfarne disinterring the blessed Cuthbert and hawking him around the north of England until quieter times, when he could be laid to rest in Durham cathedral...Well, I ask you]!
Red pill anyone?!
(I believe Friberg is a Swede = Viking)!
[What might our Celtic/ British ancestors say, I wonder – have a few more Romans, Saxons, Vikings et al? And as for those surely mad monks from Lindisfarne disinterring the blessed Cuthbert and hawking him around the north of England until quieter times, when he could be laid to rest in Durham cathedral...Well, I ask you]!
Red pill anyone?!
(I believe Friberg is a Swede = Viking)!
June 16, 2018
Not the best writing style. Makes it hard to read at best, unreadable typically.
February 28, 2023
A deracinated Right can never be the real thing.
Like John Tyndall, of the British National Party, I find this book’s beloved French New Right to be beside the point, tinkering round the edges.
How do they expect to inspire new recruits when they eschew the core issue (race)?
It is really, in the end, faux-Right. There is a Capitalist on the cover.
Like John Tyndall, of the British National Party, I find this book’s beloved French New Right to be beside the point, tinkering round the edges.
How do they expect to inspire new recruits when they eschew the core issue (race)?
It is really, in the end, faux-Right. There is a Capitalist on the cover.
July 3, 2016
While I agree with many of the strategies he gives, this book is very weak piece of propaganda. Content wise its worse than Wikipedia and some ideas are dangerous, like a individual isnt born with rights.
July 16, 2016
Very poor, like a day spent in a poor corner of the social media. Lots of impotent rage and few ideas
November 16, 2016
good for those who want to understand the right wing goal for reclaiming europe. you will also get a guide for living and being apart of this metapolitical war. highly glourious
May 22, 2016
The real right, the one that brought Franco to power or the colonels in Greece.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews