What do you think?
Rate this book
Our Path: New Politics for a New Time
The English version of the manifesto of The Nordic Resistance Movement.
52 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2016
28 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 - 2 of 2 reviews
September 30, 2022
Very insightful and elucidates the goals of the organisation rather well. They could have been more concise at certain times, and the choice to repeat previous paragraphs as bullet points seems needless. The book's format is kind of like a hybrid between a manifesto that outlines their positions and goals, as well as including some rhetoric and educational content for the reader on certain topics which I think takes away from book's potency and precision.
It would be interesting to see what an updated version of this would look like, they could probably cut about a third of the pages and improve the terminology to better represent the understanding of the situation that exists today in the revolutionary nationalist sphere.
Overall it's a good read with some good ideas without really many, if any, bad ideas. Definitely recommend it to anyone who wants to understand contemporary revolutionary nationalist organisations in Europe and America.
It would be interesting to see what an updated version of this would look like, they could probably cut about a third of the pages and improve the terminology to better represent the understanding of the situation that exists today in the revolutionary nationalist sphere.
Overall it's a good read with some good ideas without really many, if any, bad ideas. Definitely recommend it to anyone who wants to understand contemporary revolutionary nationalist organisations in Europe and America.
August 11, 2020
I'm only writing this review for two reasons: firstly, I am worried that someone who has not read this book but knows what it is will see that I didn't give it a "low enough" rating and I'll be labeled as something I'm not. Secondly, nobody has written a review yet so I felt it my duty to enlighten the populace.
The way I see it these folks should not be villainized as they are. Their policies are protective of their language, culture, history, and yes, even their ethnicity, but they're not offensive (although they will be "offensive" to many).
Me saying that does not however mean I agree with them. Especially in the Anti-Judeo Christian sentiments (which are of course the most offensive part of this to most people, albeit only the Judeo part, nobody cares these days about anti-Christian sentiments) and in the area of socialism among other things.
Some of these policies are in fact really good. Environmentalism plays a key role, humane treatment of everybody both within and outside of the nordic ethnic group, thoughtful treatment of animals and those dependent among us with a keen eye to prevent greed and power from getting in the way of helping and lifting up the fellow man.
The question is though, can this be implemented in a way that won't turn violent as it did in other contexts? Firstly, that is a ridiculous question, every form of government has turned violent in almost every case that it's been implemented. Secondly, it might not. In fact one of the key points of this platform is anti-imperialism. There is no agenda to dominate or exterminate here. But we may likely never know because around politics of this sort people operate from a place of ignorance and fear, not of understanding and as a result, most people in society would give their lives to stop an ethnic-nationalist-socialist party from being elected (keyword, friends: elected), even in a country they don't belong to.
Of course, there would be re-patriation (I'm sure some would see this as exile which isn't the same thing, let's treat things as they are folks) of those who are not Nordic. But as I see it, as one who is not Nordic, if I were living in a Nordic country where this platform was voted in I would, having understood that the majority of the nation voted to essentially have me move back to my homeland and would, therefore, most likely not want to be there anymore anyway either because I would feel "offended" or because I no longer believed in the values of this nation. This is of course also not without commenting on the commendable fact that they would give consideration to situations of exemption such as when a person is adopted or mixed race or if they have no family in their country of origin.
The beauty of democracy and of free speech is that these things can be said and these things can be political platforms and if they upset you, instead of trying to censor it like totalitarian communists we can speak out against them, suggest nuance or change, and of course vote against it as many have obviously done (this party has never won a seat as far as I am aware).
However, as the last thing to keep in mind. There are several nations across the globe that have similar ethno-nationalist policies that are not questioned or deemed racist or offensive - i.e. Japan, Israel, - other states where citizenship is based on blood rather than "civil citizenship" (as far as I understand it) yet these are somehow acceptable to society. In the words of Taro Aso (Japanese Prime Minister 2005) speaking of his own country "one race, one civilization, one language, and one culture" (there are reasons of similarity as to why Japan had ties to Fascist nations in the past). If we find this a permissible thing for Japan to do in its functions as long as they are not violent or malicious about them, why cannot others?
Of course, I say this as one who disagrees with the platform, I merely encourage freedom of thought in society whether I agree with it or not, especially when it is not hurtful, as this is not (I don't mean it won't hurt people's feelings, it will. Not mine though.). As a mixed individual with Jewish blood who is firmly rooted in the Christian faith, and decidedly anti-socialist I see no reason for these people not to have a seat at the political table. And even - dare I say it, they have things to say that we need to hear, i.e. environmental care and protection of our neighbor's well-being
I'll close with a statement from Pope Pius XI's encyclical on Race and National Socialism entitled "with Burning Concern"
No one would think of preventing young Germans establishing a true ethnical community in a noble love of freedom and loyalty to their country. What We object to is the voluntary and systematic antagonism raised between national education and religious duty... He who sings hymns of loyalty to this terrestrial country should not, for that reason, become unfaithful to God and His Church, or a deserter and traitor to His heavenly country. You are often told about heroic greatness, in lying opposition to evangelical humility and patience... You are often told about the human deficiencies which mar the history of the Church: why ignore the exploits which fill her history, the saints she begot, the blessing that came upon Western civilization from the union between that Church and your people?
The way I see it these folks should not be villainized as they are. Their policies are protective of their language, culture, history, and yes, even their ethnicity, but they're not offensive (although they will be "offensive" to many).
Me saying that does not however mean I agree with them. Especially in the Anti-Judeo Christian sentiments (which are of course the most offensive part of this to most people, albeit only the Judeo part, nobody cares these days about anti-Christian sentiments) and in the area of socialism among other things.
Some of these policies are in fact really good. Environmentalism plays a key role, humane treatment of everybody both within and outside of the nordic ethnic group, thoughtful treatment of animals and those dependent among us with a keen eye to prevent greed and power from getting in the way of helping and lifting up the fellow man.
The question is though, can this be implemented in a way that won't turn violent as it did in other contexts? Firstly, that is a ridiculous question, every form of government has turned violent in almost every case that it's been implemented. Secondly, it might not. In fact one of the key points of this platform is anti-imperialism. There is no agenda to dominate or exterminate here. But we may likely never know because around politics of this sort people operate from a place of ignorance and fear, not of understanding and as a result, most people in society would give their lives to stop an ethnic-nationalist-socialist party from being elected (keyword, friends: elected), even in a country they don't belong to.
Of course, there would be re-patriation (I'm sure some would see this as exile which isn't the same thing, let's treat things as they are folks) of those who are not Nordic. But as I see it, as one who is not Nordic, if I were living in a Nordic country where this platform was voted in I would, having understood that the majority of the nation voted to essentially have me move back to my homeland and would, therefore, most likely not want to be there anymore anyway either because I would feel "offended" or because I no longer believed in the values of this nation. This is of course also not without commenting on the commendable fact that they would give consideration to situations of exemption such as when a person is adopted or mixed race or if they have no family in their country of origin.
The beauty of democracy and of free speech is that these things can be said and these things can be political platforms and if they upset you, instead of trying to censor it like totalitarian communists we can speak out against them, suggest nuance or change, and of course vote against it as many have obviously done (this party has never won a seat as far as I am aware).
However, as the last thing to keep in mind. There are several nations across the globe that have similar ethno-nationalist policies that are not questioned or deemed racist or offensive - i.e. Japan, Israel, - other states where citizenship is based on blood rather than "civil citizenship" (as far as I understand it) yet these are somehow acceptable to society. In the words of Taro Aso (Japanese Prime Minister 2005) speaking of his own country "one race, one civilization, one language, and one culture" (there are reasons of similarity as to why Japan had ties to Fascist nations in the past). If we find this a permissible thing for Japan to do in its functions as long as they are not violent or malicious about them, why cannot others?
Of course, I say this as one who disagrees with the platform, I merely encourage freedom of thought in society whether I agree with it or not, especially when it is not hurtful, as this is not (I don't mean it won't hurt people's feelings, it will. Not mine though.). As a mixed individual with Jewish blood who is firmly rooted in the Christian faith, and decidedly anti-socialist I see no reason for these people not to have a seat at the political table. And even - dare I say it, they have things to say that we need to hear, i.e. environmental care and protection of our neighbor's well-being
I'll close with a statement from Pope Pius XI's encyclical on Race and National Socialism entitled "with Burning Concern"
No one would think of preventing young Germans establishing a true ethnical community in a noble love of freedom and loyalty to their country. What We object to is the voluntary and systematic antagonism raised between national education and religious duty... He who sings hymns of loyalty to this terrestrial country should not, for that reason, become unfaithful to God and His Church, or a deserter and traitor to His heavenly country. You are often told about heroic greatness, in lying opposition to evangelical humility and patience... You are often told about the human deficiencies which mar the history of the Church: why ignore the exploits which fill her history, the saints she begot, the blessing that came upon Western civilization from the union between that Church and your people?
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews