Christian Bouchet

Christian Bouchet was on the National Directorate of Resistance, a French national-revolutionary group. The following interview first appeared in Issue #9 of The English Alternative magazine.

Q: Would you provide our readers with a brief history of Revolutionary Nationalism in France, particularly with regard to your own previous involvement with Troisieme Voie?

CB: Revolutionary Nationalism came from the radical Leftist current of the French Revolution, with men like Hebert, Marat and Baboeuf. After that it was embodied in the Blanquist Movement until after the French Commune of 1870-1. These militants were at the same time both Socialists and Nationalists. At the end of the Second Empire this current was anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and believed in a form of Darwinian eugenics.

During the boulangisme and the Dreyfus Affair, the current became split between a section of the Left and Nationalist organisations. After that, and after the First World War, there were some Revolutionary Nationalist or Fascist movements like the Faisceau of Valois (a former Anarchist leader), the Parti Fasciste Revolutionnaire of Lamour, the Parti Populaire Francais of Doriot (a former Communist leader), and the Rassemblement National Populaire of Deat (a former Socialist leader). This ended in blood with the so-called �liberation� of France by the Allies. Thousands of people were killed by mobs or condemned to death by popular - in fact Communist - juries, because they were Fascists, Monarchists, Rightists and so on. At this time my grandfather was also condemned to death (thanks to the gods that he was not shot) and my whole family put into jail.

After the Second World War some tiny groups were founded like the Phalange of Lucas, which was in contact with Otto Strasser and the French section of its European Popular Movement. In the 1960�s Thiriart�s Jeune Europe came, too, followed in 1970 by Duprat (who was slain by Zionists in a car bombing). He formed the Groupe Nationaliste Revolutionnaire de Base as a faction operating both in and out of the Front National, which was created in 1972. After Duprat's death the same year, the Mouvement Nationaliste Revolutionnaire was formed by merging former members of the Group d�Action Jeunesses (an anti-Communist youth action group), the organisation Lutte du Peuple (a tiny group of Thiriart partisans, in which I served as Administrative Secretary), and the Groupe Nationaliste Revolutionnaire de Base. In 1985, the Mouvement Nationaliste Revolutionnaire changed its name to Troisieme Voie, with a youth wing called Jeune Garde.

Sometime later on, I was duly elected as the group's National Secretary. Within Troisieme Voie there was a struggle between disciples of Jean Thiriart - led by myself in a faction called Les Terceristes Radicaux [Radical Third Positionists] - and Malliarakis, the President of the party who was a reactionary. We expelled him in 1991 and then changed our name to Nouvelle Resistance. We had in Nouvelle Resistance a very National-Bolshevik orientation, and we were very active. We met and worked with former Communist leaders in Russia, officials in Libya, Islamic leaders, independence activists and so on.

At the same time we published a bi-monthly publication which was sold in all the newspaper shops in France and for two years we published a small weekly, too. We also used entryism to infiltrate the Greens (taking control of their youth section), regionalist movements and anti-fascist groups. In fact one of our members was able to infiltrate the International Socialists (French section of the Socialist Workers Party) to such an extent that he even slept with one of their female leaders! This led to great amusement when it was actually revealed in our newspaper that penetration had actually taken place on two fronts!!

Q: When and why did you actually decide to form Resistance?

CB: Our main problem was the growth of the Front National (FN), which became very popular amongst industrial workers, poor people and the youth of the lower social classes. So for us it was very difficult to gain new members and keep those we already had. In the summer of 1997 we decided to dissolve Nouvelle Resistance and to work as a fraction both in and out of the FN using the names Resistance and Jeune Resistance. Since this time, we have also worked alongside a student action group, called the Groupe d�Union et de Defense (GUD).

Q. What is the Movement�s attitude towards Jean Marie Le Pen and the Front National?

CB: For a very long time we were bitterly opposed to JMLP and the FN, but gradually the FN began to change under the influence of New Right thinkers. Its social base also changed, and the FN is now the leading workers� party in France. So it is difficult not to agree with it and impossible for a Nationalist to oppose the FN because its enemies are the same as ours: Zionists, Red activists, liberals, 'sexualdeviants' and so on. We now try to have an influence on its youth group and on its more radical wing. In many ways, we try to work as Militant has done in the Labour Party.

Q: You were heavily involved in the establishment of the European Liberation Front (ELF), so perhaps you would care to outline the aims and objectives of this committee?

CB: I think that we must unify the National Revolutionary forces in Europe and prepare them for a more effective war against the System. It is not easy. Usually, radical Nationalist groups are happy when they are exchanging letters and newspapers, and as far as they are concerned this is called �international relations�. The ELF believes that we must create a European Party, with one national directorate at a European level and regional directorates in each nation. In many ways, we must work like the Komintern.

Q: Who does Resistance consider to be its chief ideologues?

CB: The founders of Revolutionary Nationalism in France like Blanqui and Valois, but also Russians like Oustrialov, Germans like Paetel, Lass, Niekisch, Strasser and Junger, Italians like Bombacci, Evola and the Futurists, and Spaniards like Ledesma Ramos. We are also very influenced by Juan Peron, Jean Thiriart and Alain de Benoist.

Q: Given your support for political decentralisation, is a centralised Nationalist administration really a viable option or should we be looking to emulate certain strains of Anarchism?

CB: We need organic, grass-roots democracy and subsidiaries. Each level must decide to the best of its abilities.

Q: What do you consider to be the greatest single hurdle facing National Revolutionaries today?

CB: Non-European immigration and globalisation.

Q: What is your current position on armed struggle, and can you ever see this changing in the future?

CB: Before speaking of armed struggle you must determine who is the enemy. You must also have a wide social base like the PIRA, the Spanish ETA or Corsican FLNC. But even then armed struggle is very difficult. Jean Thiriart wrote that it needs an exterior lung (a non-European country which can assist) or a Piedmont (a European country which has begun the war abroad). We have neither of these. In France, the last armed struggle was that of the OAS during the early 1960's and it suffered a bloody defeat. I think that it is not yet the time to speak of armed struggle. It is romantic but not very serious, although the time will come.

Q: How do you view the current situation with regard to Revolutionary Nationalism in England?

CB: I have been interested in Mosley for a long time, and particularly with the post-war ideas of the BUF. I find it very strange that they are not more popular in English Nationalist circles, as their ideas of European union were good, better than petty bourgeois Nationalism. Since the demise of the National Front I had close links with Patrick Harrington and Third Way, but I do not understand the group�s evolution. It is too soft and liberal. I do not understand what he wants to do and where he wants to go. Ulster Nation is a courageous newspaper, but so tiny. Once I met Derek Holland and various other ITP leaders, but they were strange bigots with strange ideas who, when you oppose them, do not answer politically but label you either a faggot or a Satanist!! For me the ITP is not Revolutionary Nationalist but petty bourgeois and bigoted. In fact England is crying out for the creation of a real Revolutionary Nationalist organisation, one which will be proud of the past but look to the future. I think that the cultural fight must be as important as the political fight. A grass-roots cultural fight and not one of the university variety.

Q: And finally, Christian, is there anything you wish to add?

CB: Read Gramsci, learn of the good and bad experiences of groups in other countries. Be the best and you will attract the best.

We would like to thank Mr. Bouchet for taking the time to send us his thoughts.

Misanthropic Humanitaryanism

What is Misanthropic Aryan Humanitarianism you may be asking yourself? To understand what this term means to me, and to fully understand what I mean by using the term "Misanthropic Aryan Humanitarianism", we must first understand what these two words mean separately. First we will look at humanitarianism, or rather it's root word, humanitarian. Wikipedia defines humanitarianism as:

".....an informal ideology of practice, whereby people practice humane treatment and provide assistance to others.

Humanitarianism is based on a view that all human beings deserve respect and dignity and should be treated as such. Therefore, humanitarians work towards advancing the well-being of humanity as a whole. Humanitarianism is the antithesis of the "us vs. them" mentality that characterizes tribalism and ethnic nationalism. Humanitarians abhor slavery, violation of basic and human rights, and discrimination on the basis of features such as color of skin, religion, ancestry, place of birth, etc. Humanitarianism is embraced by movements and people across the political spectrum, and particularly (but not exclusively) by leftists."

Like you might have expected, it seems like hard leftist, multicultural non-sense that denounces tribalism and ethnic nationalism, two very important issues to me. I believe that these two important characteristics that make up who we are must be preserved. Think of it like this: our own people with their own people, fighting for our own people with our own people, against anything that threatens us or our own people.

This definition also describes how a humanitarian is against slavery, violation of basic human rights and discrimination based on "...color of skin, religion, ancestry, place of birth, etc.". I would agree, that I am not pro-slavery, but on the other hand, I do not agree with humanitarianism's views of race and religion. Race exists. It's a fact. Some try to say that we are all the same, it's just skin difference. They are sadly wrong and either are brainwashed by the liberal pro-Zionist media to believe that the multiculturalist spectrum is working, or they truly believe this garbage and wish to spread their hate(anti-white, pro-everything else).

If race does exist, then one must be better, just as it is in the rest of the natural world.

Think of dogs for example, some breeds are smarter then others, some are more able to perform certain tasks then other breeds, and some are more likely to attack a human then other breeds. Well, this applies to the human world as well, and we see it all around us. I'm sure you can guess which breed of human I consider the best of the best.

Now to the point. You may be wondering how I consider my self a humanitarian yet condone what many call a racist ideology. Well, I do not consider myself a humanitarian. I am a humanitaryan. Did you notice that in the Wikipedia quote that they point out that not all humanitarians are leftists? I'm one of these people. In fact, I consider myself a misanthropic humanitaryan, but I'll get to the Misanthropic part later.

Now let us examine the word "Aryan". The original use of this word and it's meaning seems to be the topic of controversy among almost anyone who discusses it. Let's refer to Wikipedia again. It describes "Aryan" and the "Aryan Race" as follows:

"Aryan (/ɑːrjən/) is an English language word derived from the Iranian and Sanskrit terms ari-, arya-, ārya-, and/or the extended form aryāna-. The Old Persian and Sanskrit languages both pronounced the word as arya-/ɑːrjə/) and aryan. Beyond its use as the ethnic self-designation of the Proto-Indo-Iranians, the meaning "noble/spiritual" has been attached to it in Persian and Sanskrit. In linguistics, it is sometimes still used in reference to the Indo-Iranian language family, but it is primarily restricted to the compound Indo-Aryan, the Indic subgroup of the Indo-Iranian branch.

Because of ethnolinguistic arguments about connections between peoples and cultural values, "Aryan" peoples were often considered to be distinct from Semitic peoples. By the end of the nineteenth century this usage was so common that "Aryan" was often used as a synonym for "gentile", and this popular usage persisted even after academic authors had ceased to use the term in any other meaning than "Indo-Iranian". Among White supremacists the term still sometimes functions as a synonym for non-Jewish 'white person.'......

.......The "Aryan race" is a concept in European culture that was influential in the period of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It derives from the idea that the original speakers of the Indo-European languages constitute a distinctive race. In its best-known incarnation, under Nazism, it was argued that the earliest Aryans were identical to Nordic people. Belief in the superiority of the "Aryan race" is sometimes referred to as Aryanism. This should not be confused with the unrelated Christian religious belief known as Arianism."

You may or may not be familiar with what a "Gentile" is. A gentile is a non-jewish White person. An Aryan is the same thing, BUT it also means nobel. I personally believe you must be a noble White person to be an Aryan, and not just White. Some consider Germanic/Scandinavian/Nordic blond haired, blue eyed tall people to be what Aryan is, and only this. This stereotype was enforced by National Socialist Germany during war times. I do not consider myself a "Nordicist", and this type of chauvinism is frowned upon by me. If you are white, act in a civil manner, and do not adopt the ways of foreign culture all while staying pure and true to your own race, you are an Aryan, and that is all that matters.

Now that we have discussed what a humanitarian is, and what I consider an Aryan, let's get to Misanthropy. Again, we will use Wikipedia for our reference of the definition of what Misanthropy is.

"Misanthropy is a hatred or distrust of the human race, or a disposition to dislike and mistrust other people. The word comes from the Greek words μίσος ("hatred") + άνθρωπος ("man, human being"). A misanthrope is a person who hates or distrusts mankind and in most cases his or her own humanity. Misanthropology is the scientific study of the origin, the behavior, and the physical, social, and cultural development of hatred in humans.

Misanthropy does not necessarily imply an inhumane, antisocial, or sociopathic attitude toward humanity.

While misanthropes express a general dislike for humanity on the whole, they generally have normal relationships with specific individuals. Misanthropy may be motivated by feelings of isolation or alienation. It may also resemble intellectual arrogance, where a person dislikes humanity because of a sense of mental superiority over other humans."

Damn, do I ever hate the human race. It makes me so sick, that I refuse to embrace almost all of what it has to offer. For the most part, the human race are like someone who is mentally retarded......by choice. They will accept anything said to them as fact, even if it is brainless trash like organized religions belief in a jewish god. As I pointed out, gentiles are non-jewish white people(not that jew are White or anything, although people assume they are based on looks: genetics are what count).

I ask you to ponder this: How can you believe in a god that is jewish, who has chosen the jews as "...a people above all other peoples of the earth", if you are not a jew? Christianity, or Christinsanity as I like to call it, is exactly that. The acceptance of a foreign god into our society has weakened our people. It teaches them to "turn the other cheek", "love your neighbor" and to forgive your fellow man no matter his sin. This mindset is what will destroy the White race, and in fact the whole world, if something is not done about it. My absolute hatred for this and other similar things in society, such as multiculturalism, capitalism and pollution/environmental damage are what make me misanthropic.

Since you now know what misanthropy, an Aryan and humanitarianism are, we can start to piece together what a Misanthropic Humanitaryan is. A humanitarian misanthrope is a term that describes someone that hates people and the world around him/her, yet always tries to better it. The Chinese philosopher Confucius is someone that is considered to be a humanitarian misanthrope. If you apply the word Aryan to that, it indicates that I'm referring specifically about the White Race. The White Race makes me sick, yet, I shall forever strive to better the world around me for my people. To me, this is exactly what describes a Misanthropic Humanitaryan, and I'm proud to be one.

Thanks for reading,
The Ontaryan