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.

Beyond Left & Right: The Third Way

In our fast moving world today, there is a new political orientation arising from the ashes of the failed politics of the left and right. An ideology that is standing above the rest in all ways. This new political preference is being called the radical middle, radical center, third way etc.

The radical center is not about re-hashing the failed policies of the capitalist right wing, nor the utterly senseless practices of equality that the left wing espouses. In other words, it is beyond the left and right taking core beliefs from both ends of the extreme political spectrum.

Most people do not consider themselves left wing or right wing, and in fact, a lot of people have no idea what the difference between the two are. A lot of these same people have noticed the same thing that I have: the left and the right just can't do the job.

What does the radical middle offer that the other political orientations do not? What can be gained by combining the practices of the left and right? I know, the two terms nearly contradict themselves, and people on the left and the right usually consider the center anything but radical. They would be very wrong.

Although the the third way may seem like a complicated mixture of the opposing ends of the political rope, it is actually very straight forward in it's philosophy. It enables the people to improve the status of their nations by connecting the real needs of the people. It offers realistic solutions to the larger problems that we face as citizens, as well as in the fields of government and business.

There are an infinite number of political and social ideologies unlocked by the human mind, and to throw ourselves into one category - either left or right - would not only be non-productive but also very regressive. Both the left and right have been proven as failed political ideologies over the last 100 years and there is no signs of either making a strong come back.

Communism, for an example, is no longer spreading like wildfire in Europe (and into the rest of the world) as a major political movement and has come to a halt in it's expansive conquest since the "Autumn of Nations" in 1989. The revolution against the secular Jewish Marxism began in Poland and started to spread into countries such as East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Bulgaria. Romania was the only country in the Eastern Block that was actually lucky enough to have had the opportunity to capture and execute their Communist Head Of State. On the triumphant day of December 26, 1991, the Soviet Union was officially destroyed, splitting up the Eurasian super state into fifteen separate parts. This was the end of the world's largest totalitarian - and most influential - Communist state. Now it is Asia's Red China that holds that position, which is followed by North Korea.

Like the much larger class struggle, the national revolutionary minded people that have expressed themselves as radical centrists must deal with the changed political climates of the current times. If we don't, our people will be forever doomed, trapped in the nets of the capitalist New World Order and their oil hungry master plan for world domination. They suck the Earth dry of it's natural resources like the vampires they are, and in the process steal away our basic rights and freedoms to ensure the success of their global Final Solution of total conquest.

The most radical elements of both the left and the right have adopted their own definitions of 'anti-capitalism'. While at first glance this seems good, there usually is no significant signs that these people are truly anti-capitalist or that they even know what the term means. In most cases they actually mean to refer to the anti-globalization and anti-corporation movements.

The goals of the new and growing third way is to integrate the very best practices of the far left win and far right wing to achieve a much higher standard of living than we currently have. We are not ashamed to admit that if someone from the far left has a good idea, we would use and promote that idea - if it were to benefit our people. Likewise, we have no negative issues with taking great ideas from the far right when it best suits our people.

The fast paced, forever changing and evolving world around us needs to understand that the a third way is emerging, and that it is a realistic alternative to the failed programs already in power, and it could totally change our world policies. There is a vast hunger in this world for a new kind of politics. Something fresh. Something realistic. The third way gives us a map for how we - the seed of the European people - can travel from the world of old-fashioned gridlock to the world of unique thinking and new possibilities. It gives us a map for total political transformation.

Our ideal society is not one that should stay in a catatonic state, founded in the age of our European ancestors and remaining static for all time. Rather, it is a flowing process of constantly moving forward to unrealised possibilities. We have have the very difficult task of educating our people and teaching them not to be uncritical of the past. The task of teaching them to formulate their own creative possibilities and to represent a moving of our race forward.

Thank you for reading,
The Ontaryan