Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Category: Nationalism

Empire or Nationalism?

We have become used to living under pax Americana that our analysis of almost all situations presupposes its continued existence, ironically even when such analysis calls for a new world…

We have become used to living under pax Americana that our analysis of almost all situations presupposes its continued existence, ironically even when such analysis calls for a new world order. Take as an example the proponents of ethnonationalism, in its most universalistic form, they demand that all peoples who aspire to a state of their own should be given one. Ethnonationalists argue this will prevent conflict by removing internal divisions over race and even ethnicity, to as large of a degree as possible. Furthermore, neighbouring countries will have fewer reasons to enter into conflicts, with their respective countrymen all being contained within a single state. We will have our little Flanders, little Scotland, and little Catalonia peacefully trading for their natural resources, following a global non-aggression principle. In their view there is no need for a united European state. These little statelets will form a defensive alliance that some ethnonationalists believe will be strong enough to prevent invasions from extra-European powers. But, anyone examining the historical record should find this ideology suspect. The entente powers split apart their opponents into relatively close approximations of ethnostates, compared to what came before. The fact that the greatest war in history came after this does not seem to bide well with the petty nationalist vision, perhaps real ethnonationalism has never been tried. They would reiterate that Germany started WW2 as a response to the dismemberment of their country, they would not be completely wrong. But, petty nationalists have no solution for the multiple other causes of conflict between states: to create defensible borders, to secure resources, secure captive export markets, build foreign military bases that can be used to project power, and in general to enlarge their spheres of influence. They handwave these aspects of foreign policy away, in the European context, with rather utopian sentiments of our common European brotherhood felt by today’s European nationalists, as if the feelings of people outside the halls of power will stay the same if they enter them. According to them trade will proceed as it does now, with or without the American empire; to say otherwise is to admit to chinks in their petty nationalist armour. Empire is unnecessary, “look today you can buy bananas in Moscow all the way from Central America”; what they forget is that the American post-WW2 system makes most of this unprotected global trade possible. The world that the petty nationalist desires, in fact, requires the existence of the American Empire.

Before we start discussing the faults with petty nationalism, it is important to discuss the unprecedented effect the American Empire has had on global trade. The importance of American naval supremacy cannot be overestimated. Prior to 1945 most trade was conducted within an imperial trading block or with immediate neighbours. As ocean going trade required a large navy to convoy ships to their ports of call, this was the primary role of the Royal Navy throughout most of its history. Since European powers might be involved in conflicts with each other, trade outside of your sphere of influence was quite risky since these imports would cease during war. Trading overseas was even more risky. The American system forced states within their Atlanticist sphere to decolonize, replacing the imperial trading block, where colonial powers extracted primary resources from colonies and used them as captive export markets, with the system of global and relatively free trade. Colonies once restricted to trading with their overlord now could trade with any nation and importantly, they were now open to American corporations.

There was a pax Britannica preceding the American order and global trade under this order grew to a degree, but this growth pales in comparison to the huge increases in trade post-1945. The growth of globalization has been a manifestation of the politics of the American order, rather than an emergent trend resulting from economics and technological progress. The United States created their order as a way of securing alliances against the threat of the Soviet Union. The huge American market was opened to their European and East Asian allies, allowing those states to trade their way back to prosperity. The United States cracked open the colonial world allowing both the victors and defeated powers of WW2 access to any natural resources they required, without military expansion or colonial holdings. The United States navy, virtually unchallenged globally, was committed to the freedom of the navigation, preventing any disruption of global sea trade. Subsequently, the price of shipping decreased drastically allowing supply chains that once were dispersed throughout a single country now to be dispersed throughout the world creating the global economy we have today.

Pax Americana

After the fall of the USSR, the United States opened this global system to practically the entire world. This brought on the biggest artificial boom in history; states that have never been wealthy in their existence can now use trade to offset serious geographic weaknesses. This has allowed global populations in agriculturally poor states, such as those in Africa and the Middle East, to explode. China and to a lesser extent India have seen a massive growth in GDP. China has progressively climbed the value-added ladder, making their economy more and more advanced all in thanks to trade with the United States. But, the underlying reason the United States created this system was not to promote order and prosperity in the 3rd world but to contain and defeat the Soviet Union. American cold war policy sought to prevent the formation of a Eurasian hegemon, which would have controlled most of the world’s oil, resources, and population. The fall of the Soviet Union undermines the American order’s reason for its own existence and has become a serious conundrum to the global order, one that has been only exacerbated by President Trump. Namely this order was created primarily for political reasons not economic ones, the economic growth was only a by-product. The reality of the demise of the USSR has finally caught up with the United States, they are asking themselves the questions of why they should support trade deals designed to buy alliances. Deals that usually were at the expense of American industry for a war that is over, why should they underwrite the defence of the NATO? This trend of shirking away from their position as leaders of the global order is only being accelerated by the shale revolution, which has now made the United States a net exporter of oil. The United States has few economic incentives to continue the global order; those who argue the United States should pay for global stability seem to be losing the debate. In fact, the American economy is the least dependent on foreign trade amongst all the major powers; this is even more apparent when you consider the largest sources of American trade is to its neighbors: Mexico and Canada. Therefore, little by little, the American order will retreat to North America, and likely continue to support a few key partners such as Britain and Australia.

Eventually, some crisis will force a state’s hand to attack a rival’s shipping, perhaps to interdict oil shipments back home. If the United States doesn’t respond this will trigger a slow return to the old norm of naval power determining the reach of a countries merchant marine. As an aside, this could be triggered by an East-Asian tanker war over diminished gulf oil exports due to a direct Saudi Arabian-Iran military conflict disrupting production. The future order the petty nationalists require may cease to exist in the coming decade. The small states of Europe will find themselves in a very different world where your next shipment of oil is no longer guaranteed, and your exports could have no buyer. Let us then return to analyzing the claims of the petty nationalists in regard to the future of Europe.

The internal cohesion of Europe is waved aside as a non-issue since most of today’s nationalists are united by the common crisis that is affecting every European ethnicity. Is that the proper basis from which a European order can be created? Greg Johnson outlines the petty nationalist position on minimizing intra-European crisis:

As for white fratricide: the best way to defuse white ethnic conflicts is not to combat “petty” nationalism but to take it to its logical conclusion. If different ethnic groups yoked to the same system are growing restive, then they should be allowed to go their own ways. Through moving borders and moving peoples, homogeneous ethnostates can be created, in which each self-conscious people can speak its own language and practice its own customs free from outside interference. Such a process could be mediated by a European treaty organization, which could insure that the process is peaceful, orderly, humane, and as fair as possible to all parties. (Johnson, 2015)

Geopolitical decisions in the petty-nationalist world are decided by morale principles rather than by cold calculations. They do not seem to consider the effects of these various decisions on the relative standing of the state in question to its competitors. Taking Quebec as a test case for these beliefs, under the petty nationalist world order Quebec would have long ago separated from the Canadian state. The Canadian state would surely be weakened by the loss of the vast natural resources of Quebec, its industrial base, and control over the St. Lawrence seaway which connects the Canadian core, Ontario, with the wider world. The fact that Quebec separatism was indulged on two separate occasions with a popular vote, and close ones at that, is indicative of the power of the American system. Losing such a large piece of territory would deprive that state of manpower, industry, resources, and provide an opportunity for rival powers to take this new state into their sphere of influence. This would only be compounded in the example of Quebec, where suddenly Canada would be cut off from its best ports in the East and from its most important trade route, the St. Lawrence. In the era preceding pax Americana, a successful separatist movement would have jeopardized the continued existence of a state by weakening its ability to defend itself. If Quebec were to have separated in the 19th or 20th century, Canada would likely have been absorbed by the United States. Today Canada could survive such an event because we are subjects of the American Empire. Today access to global resources markets and very likely the passage of goods through Quebec would be guaranteed, the United States not desiring economic chaos in its biggest trading partner. It is of no coincidence that separatism in states under the aegis of the American Empire is no longer considered a treasonous activity, unless that separatism is opposed to the American order of course. As well, it makes sense how in states outside of the American orbit, separatist regions and movements are not tolerated; examples can be seen in the Russian Federation and mainland China. The survival of these states as independent geopolitical entities means they do not have the luxury of supporting liberal moralism when it comes to the supposed right of self-determination.

Quebec Separatist protest during the 1960 Quiet Revolution

The existence of global American power and the European Union gives the illusion that small European states can adequately function as independent entities. States with indefensible borders, tiny populations, little resources, and even without any access to the sea can thrive today. There is a common line of thinking that the horrors of the two world wars have made conflict between European nations unthinkable. But, this is not due to some fundamental pacifistic enlightenment spread after the destruction of WW1 and WW2, where we eschew violence and competition with our neighbours. It is because of the once bipolar and now unipolar nature of the current era, that we exist in an imperial paradigm. In his article “Grandiose Nationalism”, Greg Johnson lauds this as the vindication of ethnonationalism, as smaller states once subject to the Soviet Empire free themselves from tyranny:

Since the fall of the Soviet Empire, the tendency in Europe has been toward  ethnonationalism, either by the Czech and Slovak road of peaceful partition or Yugoslav road of war and ethnic cleansing. What is a more realistic path to peace: putting Yugoslavia back together, then Czechoslovakia back together, then unifying them both in a single state, with all the rest of Europe — or allowing peoples with long historical grudges to completely disentangle their affairs and lead their own lives? What is more likely to produce European amity: a shotgun wedding or an equitable divorce? (Johnson, 2015)

But, these new states have not become truly independent entities. They quickly joined both NATO and the European Union for access to protection and the American global trading network. The use of military force as a means of furthering foreign policy aims has become unthinkable outside of Africa and the Middle East. To even consider that European states may enter into conflicts in the future, especially in the Northern European core, seems ludicrous. Geopolitical analysis is seen as something rather funny. It’s almost provincial to be concerned about the control of resources when any input the state needs can be purchased from almost anywhere on the planet. Not only can they be purchased, but they will arrive and arrive on time. Add to these conditions the overwhelming military superiority of America, where any aggressive action that destabilizes its order is dealt with punitively, and you can begin to see where our naive thinking on geopolitics comes from.

This is why Czechoslovakia can be split in two and it has little knock-on effects for the prosperity of the two nations as a whole. The Czech state need not be concerned with access to import and export markets, or even its own security. It does not even have to negotiate trade deals with its neighbours thanks to the European Union. The benefits of Slovak industry, manpower, and resources were useful to pre-war Czechoslovakia, but today the ability to defend your borders against aggressive neighbors is unnecessary. The emergent nation states that petty-nationalists laud are products of the very system they, generally speaking, oppose. If you take away this American pre-eminence and their control of the sea, which underwrites the existence of global trade, we land in a very different world. The Utopian thinking of the petty nationalist will be fundamentally challenged by the realities that states previously had to contend with in the pre-1945 world.

There is also a general pacifism in the views of the petty nationalists. This passage by Greg Johnson displays the naivete on the topic of foreign policy that is present in the petty-nationalist sphere:

The threat of non-white blocs should not be exaggerated. France, the UK, or Russia alone are militarily strong enough to prevail against anything that Africa, India, or the Muslim world can throw at us — provided, of course, that whites are again morally strong enough to take their own side in a fight. A simple alliance of European states would be able to deter any Chinese aggression. Thus a defensive alliance between European states would be sufficient to preserve Europe from all outside forces, whether they be armed powers or stateless masses of refugees and immigrants. (Johnson, 2015)

What is most interesting about this passage is what is missing; everything is about deterrence and defensive alliances, but what about the projection of power? This is where the uni-polar world of the American Empire rubs off on us the most. It is here that there remains a large degree of liberalism in the dissident right. Europe needs only to defends its own borders; it does not to contend for the domination of Eurasia. But, that leaves Europe in a very tight spot. Europe is practically at the mercy of Russia to supply almost all of its oil and natural gas. If Europe is to be united together even in a simple defensive alliance this fact becomes very problematic. In a world where the United States has evacuated from Europe, Russia can use its near monopoly over much of Europe’s supply of oil to bring nations along its border back into its orbit. Europe as a loose alliance would practically be defenseless since its enemy controls such an important commodity, like Damocles sword handing over Europe’s head. If the tiny states of the petty-nationalist dream are to remain sovereign, they will have to at least form some alliance for the mutual extraction of resources, most importantly oil. This means they must project power into the Middle-East, North Africa, and/or West Africa to gain control over the distribution of oil, as well as protecting the convoy routes bringing it back to Europe. That fundamentally means engaging with China, Russia, Turkey, Iran, etc in a great power conflict. That brings us back to the flaws in petty-nationalist thinking, how can this assortment of sovereign states with uncoordinated militaries project power to compete with these powerful rivals?

The economies of scale required to maintain an adequate defense has been continuously increasing throughout history. Take for example the Dutch republic, which successfully defended itself against the much more powerful states of Spain and neighboring France throughout its early years. Denmark resisted various German states attempts at expansion northwards for centuries. Compare the success of these states in defending themselves a few centuries later against the Wehrmacht. What were once defensible and relatively powerful states were now defeated in a matter of days. As warfare has industrialized, larger industrial bases are required for the production of more advanced weaponry. The R&D can be spread across different states, think the Eurofighter, as we see in Europe; but still small states cannot adequately adopt the full range of technologies required for a fully functional offensive military. This goes out the window if cooperation amongst European states were to break down. Designing cutting edge military hardware has become so very expensive, especially in terms of new aircraft, the per unit cost would be unaffordable for most states if the research was done alone. To utilize the full strength of combined arms in the 21st century requires a nation on the scale of the United States, Russia, or China. The cost of employing progressively more advanced weaponry prohibits small states from having capable defensive and especially offensive forces precluding substantial support from outside sources.

Military band of the Chinese people’s Liberation Army in Jiujiang.

A European military would be able to project power outside of Europe, securing valuable resources the continent does not have. In a world with America as an absent superpower, the ability to trade globally will be determined by the strength of one’s navy and their ability to defend crucial seagoing trade routes. Major European powers such as England, France, and Germany could, after rearmament, still be able take control of West African oil reserves; but to compete with China or Russia, especially in the Middle East, will be far easier with most of Europe, especially the north, united. Furthermore, united they would be able to control far more resources and to regain control over lost territories. The vacuum created by America could allow the Chinese, Russians, or some other power to gain control over a large percentage of the Eurasian oil and strategic resources. This would force Europe to enter into a subservient relationship even without a military defeat, threatening the future prosperity of the continent. Or in another scenario where oil output dramatically decreases as various actors within the Middle East and Asia engage in conflicts prevented by American largess; for example, an Iran-Saudi war over Iraq or the Saudi Oil fields themselves.

Petty-nationalists claim that uniting much of Europe into a single state will create the intra-European conflicts that unity was meant to prevent. Deeply rooted ethnic animosities would bring this pan-European state down in its infancy. But, as of 2020 constant predictions about the imminent collapse of the European Union have not precipitated. The European Union remains a broadly popular institution across the continent. The European Union has moved to increase its power progressively over time without much resistance. At least in the present order, if the EU moved to centralize powers much further, I cannot foresee any conflicts arising from this, as long as France and Germany were cooperating. Like all states touched by the destructive effects of liberalism, the European Union has very major flaws; but these are matched and superseded by most of the member state’s national governments such as the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. The talking point describing the EU as the key instrument of some Kalergi plan is ludicrous as foreign immigration has clearly been spearheaded by the member states. As was mentioned previously, a Europe of sovereign states will be likely be dependent on foreign powers for its resources. Europe could be a location of proxy battles between extra-European great powers as they compete with each other for control of the Eurasian world island. A united Europe would be far less susceptible to interference by foreign states peeling off European nations into their spheres of influence.

Surely there will be conflict within a pan-European system and there will be a core population(s) which dominates the state. But, there has never existed these free and “sovereign” nations of petty nationalist dreams. Strong nations whether or not they are within a political union will come to exert large degrees of control over their weaker neighbours. In the case of pan-Europeanism, this relationship has been formalized allowing the greater integration of European militaries and economies into a global power more capable of projecting power. Poorer nations to the east and South will obviously have less of influence in the direction of such an empire compared to the wealthier Northern European states, but since the beginning of the industrial era this has clearly been the norm. The choice is not over a Europe of sovereign nation states proudly independent, but still respectful of each other, or Empire. It is between larger European nations, as they have always done, dominating the weaker states or an Empire that formalize this conflict inside its imperial system. Obviously, such a state will not be unitary but will be federal in nature; this could actually allow the partial autonomy of smaller nations like Catalonia that the petty- nationalists desire. The economy, military, science, and foreign policy would be controlled at the European wide level.

In fact, the European Union as an institution could be the fertile ground where Europe reforms itself as American power recedes. In this post-American scenario, no one state can partially monopolize the use of force to further its foreign policy objectives. In this world, the scope of useful state policies will decrease dramatically. The liberal dogmas concerning immigration and race will become impediments to national cohesiveness. The feminized society is not a society conducive to struggle. The attack on every western states core population will necessarily be stopped. The end of the prosperity and peace of the American era would likely act like Darwinism in the realm of politics. Due to the selection factors of the American order, states could follow liberalism to its ultimate logical conclusion. Prior to this order, decadent nations could not persist without reforming or falling to more virile external forces. The destructive effects of liberalism while still acting were at least held back by the necessity of national defense, that all changed in 1945 and radically accelerated after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

This Darwinism at the level of the state can be clearly viewed by comparing the early years of the Soviet Union with the Stalinist era. The Soviet Union attempted radical anti-hierarchical and feminist experiments during its inception. Many of the progressive policies of the Soviet Union were subsequently put on hold and reversed as the Soviet Union was threatened by outside powers, especially at the start of WW2. Stalin eliminated abortion as a means of increasing population growth during the great patriotic war. Many ideological leftist dogmas that threatened the state’s ability to make war were thrown aside while many of those previously associated with reaction were brought back. Russian nationalism and a subservient church were far more useful for the expansion and war making ability of the Soviet State than internationalism and radical experiments in family organization. This occurred out of necessity, either a state reforms and abandons degenerative policies or eventually it would be defeated by its rivals.

There is likely not much we can do prior to the challenging of American power by some exterior force. When that day comes the political sphere will open as some elites will search for useful ideas as to how to strengthen the ailing American state. We must be there with a coherent set of ideas that will be useful for the searching elite in the coming post-liberal era. The same will occur in Europe; there are already some stirrings in the water from President Macron about the need for a European army in a post NATO future. Macron has signaled a slight change in tack on the immigration question, perhaps it is a cynical ploy to steal attention from National Rally. Or it could be the beginnings of a European reorientation responding to the absenteeism of the American superpower. If our ideas are correct, the stop-gap benefit of mass immigration which is aimed at combating the very real problem of our aging demographics will quickly become a liability for various states survival in a more chaotic world. A distinctly possible scenario where the EU fractures as a response to the withdrawal of American support, and likely Russian interference, would lead to a far worse conflict than tensions between different constituent EU member states, which are constrained within the bureaucratic framework of the EU. Europe’s declining population is already requiring extra-European export markets for a growing percentage of industrial and luxury goods. Without the ability to sell these items abroad at competitive rates; Europe faces severe economic problems as a norm, especially combined with the ever-growing public spending associated with an aging population. This could lead more powerful states within the EU, out of economic necessity, to force neighbors into subservient relationships to create some market for their goods, acquire natural resources, and to use military technology created with the excess production. A state encompassing most of the Europe could apply these energies outside of Europe, particularly towards securing oil reserves and export markets in the Middle East and West Africa as well as containing an aggressive Russia, moving west in search of more defensible borders.

Ernst Junger, 1920

Now that we have questioned whether the world desired by universalist ethnonationalists is possible, let us ask the question, is it even desirable? If you could supply all of Europe with the resources it needs to function, ensure its defense, and prevent conflict: would it be good to carve Europe into many independent states? If your only goal was the survival of individual European ethnic groups and some sort of traditionalist cultural rejuvenation, then this position would be sufficient. Given the history of the European civilization, this does not seem to be a sufficiently lofty goal for the Faustian man. To be cocooned in our respective countries untroubled by the outer world but also not exerting our will to power upon it, is an unsatisfying future. The true universalistic ethnonationalist position resembles only a slightly altered version of Francis Fukuyama’s own prediction. A world of ethnostates, stable due to homogeneity, frozen in place due to a lack of conflict. If you followed the logic of the proponents of ethnonationalism you would find history over, completed. It is easy to choose interesting times over stability from the comfort of your own home. But, who on the right can look through history and wish there will be no more empires to rival Rome, no grand conquests, no new mythic battles like Trafalgar and Agincourt? To make sure the surely unpleasant and violent, but oftentimes heroic, side of human nature stays in the history books. We would create no men in our own times to rival Ernst Junger, a true aristocratic of the soul. We would be left with a civilization stuck in the Spenglerian “culture” phase; either reproducing the same styles of art, architecture, and music that has come before or following the rabbit hole of deconstructionism further into the abyss. Perhaps the advanced technics of such a civilization could stop external enemies from defeating it, even for centuries. Such nations would be like enclaves depicted in the film Zardoz, highly civilized but ultimately stagnant.

That is why we must support Empire over our continued obsessions with little nation states. Even if these states could survive and even thrive after the decline of the American Empire, it would only lead to our own spiritual deaths. Faustian man needs to finally embrace the Spenglerian “civilization” phase of our existence. To unite the different European peoples under one flag, giving us the power to step away from the precipice we are inching towards. Then to spread our flag to the different corners of the globe, to create an Empire worthy of those that came before. We must think on a grand scale, first to ensure our premier place on this planet, to protect its environmental viability, and to provide enough resources so we can look towards the stars. It might never be possible to economically mine distant asteroids or to create self-sufficient colonies on Mars. But, this to me seems like a much more inspiring future than to aspire to a return to the small states and the small scale thinking of a bygone era. We should strive for a future where the full range of human existence is possible, both comfort and security but also the self-actualization through combat, which Junger and others have described. Perhaps the dream of a united Europe is also not possible without American military support; that the European nations will fall into conflict as the demographic replacement leads to our civilizational eclipse. But, let us aim for a future that is grander and far more interesting with new cultures, new empires, and new horizons than mere existence, as prescribed by the petty nationalists.


REFERENCES

  1. Johnson, Greg. “Grandiose Nationalism”. Counter Currents. February 6, 2015. https://www.countercurrents.com/2015/02/grandiose-nationalism/.
No Comments on Empire or Nationalism?

Myth, Mental Illness, and Political Extremism

Editor’s Note: This is an excerpt from the forthcoming book “American Extremist: The Psychology of Political Extremism”.  An unfortunate consequence of the medicalization and naturalizing of the mind (and the body)…

Editor’s Note: This is an excerpt from the forthcoming book “American Extremist: The Psychology of Political Extremism”. 

An unfortunate consequence of the medicalization and naturalizing of the mind (and the body) has been to view cognitive dysfunctions and personality disorders almost exclusively in terms of biological causes.  In those situations where thinkers dare to look beyond the biological, the tendency to consider environmental and even political causes will emerge.  So too, will these theorists turn towards explanations that emphasize various technological and cultural innovations (the omnipresence of visual and auditory stimuli), narcissistic industries (the arts, including fashion, music, and cinema), and the demands that changing work environments have on psychomotility), share in contributing to the phenomenon of human psycho-social dysfunction.  To the credit of such thinkers, new disciplines have emerged in the last century to address these problems.  However, this too has proven insufficient.  This is not to say that theories of physical trauma, congenital disturbances of neurobiological processes, rapidly changing technological and environmental demands, and considerations relating to the individual’s political circumstance are not significant, but should we consider the explosion of mental health problems in industrialized and modernized societies – in particular over the last quarter century – as well as our failure to treat persistent psychiatric conditions, then we must admit that something is awry in our analysis.  Thomas Szasz wrote of the myth of mental illness in 1974, but in this work I would like to discuss myth and mental illness.

Medicalization of the Mind

The how of human behavior throughout most of our history has been relegated to the domain of religion, in particular through the use of myth and parable to convey truths about our nature, and as such, to provide archetypes or models which we can then internalize and embody in our actions.  Throughout our history these archetypes have provided the form for consciousness (we could also call that ‘personality’), and the use of myth and parable has served as a kind of moral and ethical education.  During that time, we regarded these societal tools with great care and as such they were not easily dismissed by past regimes; when new mythical systems were adopted, almost always for the purpose of political consolidation and expansion, the most successful societies either retained significant features of the existing system, and if pressed, wiped out any trace of their existence (including the people who held on to them).  What we see in our current situation is a covering, an overlaying, of the existing mythic and parabolic foundation upon which America was founded.  An analogue to this may be found in Christopher Caldwell’s recent book The Age of Entitlement, where he pointed out that America is presently divided between the founding constitutional document and its mid-twentieth century legal replacement (brought about by the civil rights movement); we are not only contending with dueling legal understandings, but dual and incompatible understandings of our own mythical, historical, and parabolic origins.

Stepping aside from the technical and historical implications of that statement and moving directly to its psychological consequences, we can say that perhaps to a greater extent than people are a product of their race, ethnicity, or geographical origin, they are the result of their mythological and parabolic inheritance.  If a people can be ripped from their inherited narratives, which are best understood as a true collective fiction or ideology, or merely have their narratives re-written in a way that is disempowering, then they necessarily become psychologically vulnerable to the slings and arrows of malevolent narratives and cognitive colonization.  New narratives emerge which provide a different set of ethical and moral codes, which, as we can plainly see, do not foster the development of agency, maturity, and eusocial intimacy.  Rather, they engender quite the opposite.

Moreover, such people become alienated from their own identities, the result of which is a kind of false consciousness and the development of an othered self-concept.  Natural instincts honed over generations of natural and sexual selection thus become problematized.  Conformity to a set of mythical and evolutionary behaviors, themselves finely tuned and highly adaptive are now indicators of repression, trauma, or worse, fascist tendencies.  Seen in this light, mental illness can be understood as the result of a conflict between a dysgenic mythos and the natural psychological tendencies which seek realization within an orderly mental framework.  While it is not ideal to describe the resulting psychological deficits using the language of mental illness (a concept so bound up in pseudo-medical and pseudo-scientific complications as to be unwieldy in helping us to achieve greater clarity), understood in its conventional sense it does give us a point of discursive origin – the dysfunction of human thought and action.  Operating from the insights afforded to us by narrative theory – stated simply, the idea that storytelling is an essential component of human cognition – we would be better served to work with a parabolic and mythological conception of psychological dis-ease.

In short, the subversion of religious, national, and ethnic mythos grants a tremendous capacity for political and social control.  Much of contemporary discourse is itself a fight over the rights to our foundational myths, so that they may be used to combat the social and political ills of our time – namely racism, anti-Semitism, fascism, inequality, misogyny, colonialism, imperialism, and homophobia (to name a few).  One such example of this contest for cultural supremacy may be found in the work of Donna Zuckerberg who wrote the book Not All Dead White Men, partly with the intention of de-fanging classic texts (such as those of the Stoics) who, in her view, served as a legitimating force that aided far-right misogyny.  In a 2018 interview with The Guardian, Zuckerberg was quoted as saying,

The ancient world was deeply misogynistic – it was a time when there was no word for rape, feminism did not exist and women’s actions were determined by male relatives.”

Other choice quotes from the same interview bemoaned the fact that white supremacists and racists:

“…long appropriated the history, literature and myth of the ancient world to their advantage. Borrowing the symbols of these cultures, as the Nazi party did in the 1940s, can be a powerful declaration that you are the inheritor of western culture and civilisation”; that these texts were being “distorted and stripped of context”;

And that furthermore,

“Classics are wrought with histories and narratives of oppression and exclusion.” 

While universities make progressive attempts to broaden the canon so students aren’t simply reading one dead white man after another,

“the manosphere rebel against this. They see themselves as the guardians of western civilisation and the defenders of its cultural legacy.”

One last statement, simply to punctuate the point,

“By quoting Marcus Aurelius – as Steve Bannon is known to often do – Red Pillers perpetuate the idea that they, white men, are the intellectual authority under threat from women and people of colour.”

We can find countless examples of this phenomenon, though I won’t go into quite as exhaustive an investigation here (but a few more will further illuminate the point I have already made).  In her 1976 work, The Laugh of the Medusa, Feminist theorist Helene Cixous reinterpreted the Perseus myth as an expression of male fragility and terror.  In her own words:

“Too bad for them if they fall apart upon discovering that women aren’t men, or that the mother doesn’t have [a penis].  But isn’t this fear convenient for them?  Wouldn’t the worst be, isn’t the worst, in truth, that women aren’t castrated, that they have only to stop listening to the Sirens (for the Sirens were men) for history to change its meaning?  You only have to look at the Medusa straight on to see her.  And she’s not deadly.  She’s beautiful and she’s laughing.  Men say that there are two unrepresentable things: death and the feminine sex.  That’s because they need femininity to be associated with death; it’s the jitters that gives them a hard-on! for themselves! They need to be afraid of us.  Look at the trembling Perseus moving backward toward us, clad in apotropes.  What lovely backs!  Not another minute to lose.  Let’s get out of here.”

A pioneering moment in what would later develop into the discipline of Queer Theology, Hugh William Montefiore wrote in 1967 of Jesus Christ’s obvious homosexuality.  In the paper titled Jesus, the Revelation of God, Montefiore wrote,

Men usually remain unmarried for three reasons: either because they cannot afford to marry or there are no girls to marry (neither of these factors need have deterred Jesus); or because it is inexpedient for them to marry in the light of their vocation (we have already ruled this out during the “hidden years” of Jesus’ life); or because they are homosexual in nature, in as much as women hold no special attraction for them. The homosexual explanation is one which we must not ignore.”

Bishop Hugh William Montefiore, author of “Jesus, the Revelation of God”.

Saint Sebastian, the early Christian saint and martyr who was killed during Diocletian’s persecution of Christians has since enjoyed a second life as a symbol for the pain of closeted homosexuals.  Richard A. Kaye wrote that

“Contemporary gay men have seen in Sebastian at once a stunning advertisement for homosexual desire (indeed, a homoerotic ideal), and a prototypical portrait of a tortured closet case.”

The 1619 Project, begun by New York Times reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones (and which recently was awarded the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary), is another such example of narrative-based political action heavily dependent on myth as a means for influencing thought and action.  The project argued, among other things, that the American Revolution was fought to preserve the institution of slavery on the freshly settled continent.  While I do not intend to rebut the arguments and reinterpretations presented in this paragraph, they do serve to underscore my position – myths make the people.  Ayn Rand was alleged to have remarked positively at the release of the 1977 television series, Roots, arguing that it was an important work which provided African-Americans with a sense of myth and history, having lost this connection as a result of the slave trade.  Clearly we can see what we may call mythic competition, as the story of the African slaves has been transported from a peripheral, though integral, part of American history to the front-and-center position it currently enjoys.

To quote Derrida from his lecture “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” (who in turn was quoting Levi-Strauss),

“The myth and the musical work thus appear as orchestra conductors whose listeners are the silent performers. If it be asked where the real focus of the work is to be found, it must be replied that its determination is impossible. Music and mythology bring man face to face with virtual objects whose shadow alone is actual…. Myths have no authors”.

And because myths have no authors, they can be seen as part of the commons – belonging to the public domain – and therefore subject to an unending sequence of reappropriations.  An unwillingness to secure a ‘rightful’ interpretation, or at least designating an interpretative or priestly class of sufficient loyalty, thus opens the populace up to powerful and unrelenting psychological manipulation.  Not all political power comes from the barrel of a gun; often we find the pen to be just as mighty as the pistol.

The appropriation of myth has powerful implications for the development of a secure identity. Mythical reevaluations are to large degree the unavoidable consequence of both cultural evolution and involution; the more a people migrate from their formative circumstances, the greater is the need for their myths and parables to be recontextualized so they may make sense of new challenges and circumstances.  There may be a political dimension to this process or it may reflect simple pragmatic necessities, sometimes both at once.  In our present situation it is difficult to deny the political motivations behind the repurposing of Western and American mythology.  Whether owing to the desire to suppress political opposition, or as the logical result of a democratization of the arts, whereby marginalized peoples seek to break the yoke of oppressive, supremacist, and phallogocentric narratives (itself a revolutionarily political act), we see in all instances a will to power seeking its own exertion and preservation.

Persecution and Suffering as foundational myth.

Persecution and suffering, being so central to the founding mythology of many Americans (be they English, African, Irish, Jewish, or otherwise) thus provides a wellspring of resentment, angst, and terror with which to be drawn from and marshaled for reasons of political efficiency.  By no means are these the only themes to be found in our myths, nonetheless they have proven the most enduring and politically expedient for the achievement of control and subjugation.  Consider the following realities of victimhood: The Jewish-American fears an inevitable persecution at the hands of his Gentile neighbor.  The African-American fears he will never free himself from the slavery of his Caucasian oppressor.  The European-American increasingly suffers under the weight of his own mythical tyranny, for increasingly his narrative is one of original sin, situating him as the sole agent of evil in the modern world.  Woman, too, anguishes at her inability to escape man’s cloying grasp.  And as the revolution of human rights continues its march into the adolescence our new century, homosexuals and transsexuals find themselves similarly – and in their view, most significantly – suffering victimhood for the mere crime of existing.  Resentment, that rich and eminently minable psychological resource, may be the prevailing feeling of our time; so long as this remains the case we will find ourselves helpless to improve our current circumstance and realize the ambitions of the last century.

Fellow Radix stalwart Dr. Edward Dutton would tell us that political extremism and its concomitant psychological maladaptations find their origins through the evolution of the spiteful mutant.  And this may be true to a very large degree.  But a mere bad roll of the genetic dice alone could not account for the unprecedented level of cultural and political turmoil that the United States is presently confronted with.  Amassing large swaths of human capital (be they spiteful mutants or otherwise) will aid the pursuit of political power, but as Gustave Le Bon showed us, they are not in and of themselves sufficient to achieve any purpose.  They must be guided, massaged, spellbound before they may become useful political golems.  Mental illness and political extremism go hand-in-hand; while evolutionary pressures integrally set the stage for psychological and political development, we must understand as well the role that myth – be it through religious, poetic, literary, cinematic, or musical transmission – plays in giving shape to the mind of man.

No Comments on Myth, Mental Illness, and Political Extremism

“Keep In Mind” by Xurious & Hiraeth

Recently Dissident Right musicians Xurious and Hireath have combined on a pair of excellent music tracks.  The first called “Keep in Mind” can be found below on Hiraeth’s channel. The…

Recently Dissident Right musicians Xurious and Hireath have combined on a pair of excellent music tracks.  The first called “Keep in Mind” can be found below on Hiraeth’s channel. The equally stirring “We’re Gonna Make It” can also be found there.

We hope this new power duet of nationalist music continues to collaborate.  Enjoy.

No Comments on “Keep In Mind” by Xurious & Hiraeth

You Are The Enemy

A Letter To A Young Conservative, Part I Bad Man On Campus It doesn’t make sense. It seems like there are dozens of left-wing activist groups on your campus. Well,…

A Letter To A Young Conservative, Part I


Bad Man On Campus

It doesn’t make sense. It seems like there are dozens of left-wing activist groups on your campus. Well, “activist” might be the wrong word. These fanatics seem less concerned with ideology than identity. Muslims, feminists, homosexuals, Blacks, “Chicanos”—every tribe has its own organization. And even though it might seem absurd, they are all united around one principle—they hate your guts.

You’ve seen supposed feminists working with Muslims to shut down free speech on campus. You’ve seen environmentalists protest against immigration restriction; even though one would assume more people, more cars, more construction, and more consumption can’t be good for the natural world. You’ve seen Black students, who receive preferential admissions and set-asides in student government and housing, bring entire campuses to a halt because of a supposed “hate crime” you know didn’t happen. Even the left-wing political groups on campus, from the Democrats to the Maoists, seem more concerned with screaming about supposed racial and sexual injustices than debating the finer points of Marxism.

Half these groups should not be working with the other half, and it seems like many of them are acting against their own interests. But you have a vague awareness that you are the target. In fact, these forces don’t seem to have anything in common except their shared enemy.

You pride yourself on your independence and sneer at the “collectivism” of racial identity. You could even present compelling evidence why free-market policies and limited government would be better for racial and sexual minorities than any “progressive” solution. But it doesn’t seem to do any good. No matter how vehemently you protest, no matter how many arguments you win, you are just another White person who needs to check his privilege.

Besides, for people supposedly dedicated to “fighting hate,” those opposed to you seem utterly driven by a dark fury you can’t even begin to understand.

Ask yourself—when was the last time you saw conservative college students shut down a speaker? Can you imagine right-wingers burning liberal student newspapers . . . demanding organizations be banned . . . or calling for the punishment or termination of dissenting students or professors? Can you think of any progressive student who had their dorm vandalized . . . was denounced by a professor in class . . . or personally targeted by defamatory fliers?

Such attacks are so common, it’s almost superfluous to provide examples. And they aren’t even “political” in a partisan sense. They are directed at any individual, no matter how benign or non-threatening, that can be associated with the “Dead White Male,” their system of oppression and capital accumulation known as “Western Civilization,” and anyone that might be associated with them.

These attacks are always done through a dishonest, passive-aggressive style that should be self-discrediting. As this letter is written, you have screaming, cursing mobs of non-White students demanding extreme concessions from campuses and bullying White students—all because they supposedly feel “unsafe.” And you keep silent because you know if you open your mouth, you’ll be attacked by the media, sanctioned by the school, and possibly physically attacked by your fellow students.

If you’re like most, you keep your head down. Unlike the leftists, you don’t receive course credit for political activism. If you are a bit more courageous, you might get involved in “conservative” campus politics, perhaps the College Republicans or some libertarian group. But don’t try talking about something like immigration or affirmative-action—don’t try to change anything fundamental on campus—if you know what’s good for you.

Without even realizing it, you are already acting like part of a conquered population; of a subject suffering under an occupation government. You know you are part of a despised, hated class. You know if you are too vocal, you will be attacked and labeled “racist,” sexist,” or “homophobe.” Your career prospects, your ability to provide for a wife and family—your very future—is at the mercy of whatever student or journalists decides to call you. And like a religious heretic of yesteryear, the accusation is often enough to damn you. Once the Scarlet R (“Racist!”) is pinned to your chest, once those Google results with your name are tainted, you are finished. Far better to be an actual criminal—for criminals get second chances—than to be associated with “hate.”


Resistance Is Futile?

In the end, you only have two choices. The first is to do nothing and hope it will be different when you graduate. That’s what most people do. Unfortunately, it doesn’t get better—it gets much worse. When you get a job, you can be instantly destroyed if someone catches you saying the wrong thing, reading the wrong website, liking the wrong Facebook status, etc. If you’re a male, even looking at a female co-worker the wrong way—or sometimes notlooking at her—will get you sent to the Human Resources director, if not summarily fired. Again, the accusation itself is usually enough.

In corporate America, you’ll find the same sorts of activists who use their “minority” status as a way to make a living in a big institution. Even the military has turned on conservatives, as your career will go nowhere unless you mouth the required platitudes. In the words of General George Casey: “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength.” He asserted this in 2009, in the wake of the Fort Hood massacre, in which a Muslim Army psychiatrist killed 13 people. The General continued: “And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.” You could get a perfect score on that PFT and have straight As, but I promise you will never make bird colonel unless you grit your teeth and tell your military superiors your gung-ho about overcoming the legacy of Jim Crow. Your Whiteness, despite your supposed “privilege,” simply means you’ll always have to work twice as hard to get that promotion. And if you reach the heights, you’ll always be a target.

There is an alternative to a life on your knees. That alternative is to fight back.

You may think you are doing that right now by working for a certain candidate, signing a petition, or attending something like CPAC. But it doesn’t seem to be getting anywhere. And even as the other side enjoys privileges and benefits you can only dream of, you are still told that you are the bad guy, that you are the oppressor. You don’t really care about race, yet you are haughtily informed that you are a “racist” who desperately needs to “get educated.” The double standard can drive you insane.

The problem is, as a conservative, you don’t understand what it is you are fighting.

You’re probably familiar with the saying, “You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you.” Well, politics is interested in you, whether you like it or not. And you are engaged in a political struggle—an existential one—whether you like it or not.

We like to imagine political struggles through the lens of recent history. Especially as conservatives, we have a certain nostalgia for the Cold War—hard men in horn-rimmed glasses facing down the Commies across the Iron Curtain in a global battle for the fate of humanity. But you are facing a different kind of enemy. As you probably sense on your college campus, the fault lines seem to be over race and culture, not economic production. This struggle is also ideological, but to think of it in terms of “capitalism vs. socialism” is to misunderstand it entirely.

What, after all, defines and unites all those crazy campus protesters who seem to hate you so much, who seem filled with such righteous fury, who are willing to use any methods to destroy you? Only that they are united in opposition to the people, traditions, identity, history, and institutions of the European world. This is what explains alliances that would otherwise seem absurd.

What any activist quickly learns about the Left is they don’t actually care about the things they say they do. No campus feminist really cares about the Islamic State sexually enslaving women in the Middle East, or, for that matter, Muslim migrants rape gangs in England. No Black activist complaining about “cultural appropriation” is going to give up his iPhone anytime soon or lose a moment’s sleep over slavery that’s still occurring in Africa. Cesar Chavez is now a Hispanic hero; but when he was a union organizer, he regarded illegal immigrants as nothing better than “scabs.” Today, leftists will conveniently forget about income inequality, cheap labor, and union busting if any one of those issues conflicts with the cause of bringing in more Third World immigration.


The New Trinity

At the heart of what we call the Left are three interconnected ideals: equality, universalism, and diversity. Such terms are often the equivalent of totems or charms. They are magic words, which convey meaning and importance without having fixed definitions or referents. They gain power from their ambiguity.

In mathematics, equality is the statement that two entities are the same. Politically speaking, it has come to mean that every person in a political community—or in the full-blown “globalist” variation, that every human being on Earth—should have the same rights of opportunity, outcomes, and legal and political expressions. In its more existential sense, equality means, in the words of Adolf Bastian, “the psychic unity of mankind.” In other words, “All Men Are Created Equal.”

Universalism’s origins are theological—the idea that all humans are worthy of achieving salvation. In modern times, it means that political and social norms should be the same no matter what the circumstances. On a more visceral level, universalism is the idea that it is somehow immoral to prefer one’s own family, culture, or nation to others. And let us be honest: the struggles between individuals, communities, and nations almost never results in equal outcomes and they are often zero-sum-games—that is, there are winners and losers.

Diversity is the notion of the multiplicity of different peoples flourishing together. And as opposed to equality and universalism, diversity is about difference. Indeed, difference itself should celebrated (or at least, some differences). Diversity.com, a human resource group for hire by universities and corporations, defines it as such: “diversity and inclusive practice includes gender, religious, race, age, disability, linguistic differences, socio-economic status and cultural background.” The list could go on . . . and there’s no doubt that in the coming years it will.

The ideal of Diversity makes various demands for “inclusion,” “safe spaces,” and the like—where no one identity group, or at least no White identity group, holds sway. According to Diversity.com, “Inclusive practice is known to be attitudes, approaches and strategies taken make sure that students are not excluded from the learning environment because their differences.” Of course, you know what diversity really means when you hear it— “not White” and “not you.”

These are the core ideals of the Left—sadly, they are effectively those of the so-called Right, which only rarely questions the Left on a philosophical level. These ideals are buried so deep in political discourse and activism that we rarely scrutinize them. But under scrutiny, can we really take them seriously? Are they compatible with human nature?

Everyone is not equal. People are different—and we differ both individually and between groups. “Diversity,” at least, gets that part right. Diversity is the newest member of the trinity and perhaps the trickiest; for it contradicts the other two. When an environmentalist says that he wants to maintain “biological diversity,” he is expressly not trying to make everything in the eco-system the same, nor would he attempt to treat each eco-system like the other. Diversity is, in this way, post-civil rights, post-mass immigration, post-empire, and post-colonialism—even post-American. In other words, it specifically comes after a global recognition of non-White cultures. It implies, in its way, an incompatibility and incommensurability; two things can’t be judged by the same standard. In other words, diversity implicitly recognizes identity . . . or at least some identities. We seem to never get a seat at the table.


Cultural Marxism

On a gut level, what we call progressivism today is really just organized resentment. There’s a crazed desire to tear down every remnant of the European past and traditional American identity. And most of all, this manifests itself as a primal hatred of the people who created the West—White people. Loyalty to some abstract idea of “humanity” seems to always manifest itself as hostility to one’s own people.

Where does this come from?

The late Andrew Breitbart popularized the term “Cultural Marxism.” Cultural Marxism emerged due to the failed predictions of orthodox Marxism, namely that “Revolution” would come in the industrialized world. It also came out of an increasing dissatisfaction with the Soviet Union. For the first few decades after the Bolshevik Revolution, the Western Left defended or apologized for the socialist experiment in Eastern Europe. Even the voice of the establishment, the New York Times, ran stories about “Uncle Joe’s” new progressive Russia at the height of the mass purges.[1] It was only when the Soviet Union, ironically, became less Marxist—when it became closer to a military or even fascist dictatorship than a social revolutionary force—that the Western Left turned on its erstwhile idol. It is revealing that those stern Communists you see staring out at you from those Soviet posters look closer to right-wing propaganda than what the SJW’s churn out today.

“If you have forgotten where the borders are, we will help you to land”; 1954
Photo: Public Domain

Marxism was originally based on the idea that a worldwide worker’s revolution was not just desirable but historically inevitable. Due to impoverishment and the growth of class consciousness, workers in the industrialized parts of the world—such as New York, Paris, and London—would increasingly identify themselves as members of a class. They would seize the means of production and inaugurate a new social order. When World War I began, many socialists thought their hour had arrived. This was the catastrophe that would begin a new world.

Instead, nationalism endured. Workers identified with their countries, not with their class. A Communist Revolution did take place but in a country that was relatively “behind” economically, not one of the industrial hothouses. This led many theorists to look for an explanation. One of the most influential writers who tried to explain the twists and turns of Communism was Antonio Gramsci. He developed the theory of “cultural hegemony.” At its heart is the idea that a society’s beliefs and values, often implicit or unconscious, were as an important part of the social order as economic production or political structures. Cultural norms— “traditional values,” as you might call them—give society a sense of legitimacy, order, and hierarchy. Put in Marxist terminology, ideology maintains the ruling class.

Others went further. Pat Buchanan famously identified “The Frankfurt School” (aka Critical Theory)—a group of interwar Marxist scholars in Germany—as providing much of the intellectual heft for the radical social changes that swept through Western societies since the 1960s. It’s not that these relatively obscure philosophers came up with a program that all progressives adhere to. Nor is this some kind of conspiracy. Critical theory and Cultural Marxism are ways for everything to be regarded as political, transforming the whole of human conduct into a battlefield. This is how normal, intelligent people can enter college with a vague belief in “equality” and within a few years be posting on their Tumblr accounts about how they are oppressed because there are separate restrooms for men and women. The idea of “social construct” should also be familiar. Traditions like the family, norms of good and evil, distinctions between man and woman, all are treated as “propaganda,” as lies to be deconstructed.

via MEME

But it goes beyond that. Critical Theory and its subsequent offshoots, including Critical Race Theory, the various “waves” of Feminism, Queer Studies, and all the rest, are simply the tactics. They are the how but not the why.


Why Do They Hate Us?

The why ultimately comes down to something more primal . . . a hatred of excellence, accomplishment, power, and beauty as such. If the ultimate value of the Left is egalitarianism, its ultimate enemy is hierarchy. The White world (and not just global capitalism) are held to be oppressive. We are hated not because of our “freedom,” but because our civilization itself is seen as a kind of insult to the rest of the world and as a horrible, oppressive burden on those Whites who want to be free of it.

Many non-Whites hate us because we are perceived as benefiting from a legacy of oppression, of inheriting “privilege.” It’s worth remembering that the West was not always the pinnacle of cultural development; indeed, we can point to times in history when Europe was a relative backwater. Parts of Europe, especially in the East, suffered under the tyranny of the Ottoman Turks. The Barbary Pirates were taking Europeans as slaves well after the birth of the United States.

But from the Age of Exploration onwards, it is largely White civilization that has essentially ruled the world—politically and economically but also in terms of setting norms, standards, and tastes. As John Derbyshire put it in an article explaining what he called “hesperophobia,” or hatred of the West:

They hate us because we humiliated them, showed up the gross inferiority of their culture. To them . . . we are the other, detested and feared in a way we can barely understand. Things got really bad in the 19th century. When European society achieved industrial lift-off, Europeans were suddenly buzzing all over the world like a swarm of bees. They encountered these other cultures, that had been vegetating in a quiet conviction of their own superiority for centuries (or in the case of the Chinese, millennia). When these encounters occurred, the encountered culture collapsed in a cloud of dust . . . [2]

They hate us from wounded ethnic pride. They hate us because of our cultural superiority, which is to say, at one remove, our political superiority. The actual arguments used to justify this resentment are surprisingly weak. The supposed moral burden resulting from civilizational success is unique to Whites.

No one, for example, is offended by the memory of military adventurers such as Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, or for that matter, the Islamic prophet Muhammed. We would laugh at reports of Arabs demanding reparations from Mongolia or Greece calling for reparations from Turkey. However, we are expected to take seriously Indian demands for reparations from Great Britain.

Slavery and colonialism are universals in history, at least until they were largely ended by the West. Yet today, this is used as the rationale for justifying collective punishment against Western societies, even against nations or peoples who never had slaves or empires. More to the point, Western empires are by historical standards relatively benign and even helpful.

But though this is true, we must recognize this as a weak excuse. Which brings us to the more important reason why Whites are hated as a group, even—or perhaps especially—by Whites themselves. Whites believe mistreatment should not be downplayed because it was relatively “less bad.” Instead, many Whites hold that the West has the unique role in setting an example. We want a civilization dedicated to human rights and universal moral aspirations. We are, therefore, willing to forego a civilizational or racial identity as a kind of penance, abolishing ourselves to create a greater good.

Many non-Whites, of course, are happy to go along with this; acquiring revenge for their past civilizational defeats and reaping rewards in the present, such as job preferences, set asides in academia and government, redistribution of wealth, and cultural recognition.

And it doesn’t sound that bad does it? It seems like a reasonable compromise. This is probably what you ultimately believe, albeit you want to keep “limited government,” free market capitalism, and the institutions of the West going while giving non-Whites some moderate handouts as a kind of consolation prize.

But it’s not going to work! And more importantly, this kind of thinking makes it impossible to build any kind of a free or even functioning society. Multiculturalism and White guilt create a motivation for every non-White, both inside and outside the West, to come up with new tales of victimization and demands for inclusion.

Conservatives often say race doesn’t matter so long as people “assimilate.” But the real question is, assimilate to what? Why should anyone assimilate to a culture that is defined as oppression? More importantly, if you receive rewards for not assimilating to the default culture, you would be crazy to assimilate. It would be in your rational self-interest not to assimilate.

As you’ve probably noticed, when a non-White person accomplishes something in terms of scholarship or career success, they are often accused of “acting White.” They are told they need to express solidarity with their ethnic “community,” lest they be guilty of a kind of treason. And we see non-Whites search for ethnic “authenticity,” usually expressed through acts of hostility against Whites and mainstream American society and culture.

We are all familiar with millionaire Black celebrities lecturing working class Whites on how oppressed they are. We see non-Whites who are the sons and daughters of immigrants acting with hatred and hostility towards their adopted country, rather than with gratitude. And we have many millions of people who may live in this country and have even achieved a standard of living undreamed of by their forebears, but who still regard themselves as groaning under tyrannical White oppression.

We shouldn’t forget that Colin Kaepernick, who made waves by kneeling before the national anthem during NFL preseason games, was not only half-White himself but raised in a middle-class, loving, and “privileged” adoptive White household. He at last found Black “authenticity” by renouncing White America.

When you see non-Whites achieving the American Dream, it makes you happy and you think it’s a sign the country is coming together. That is how we view our non-White fellow citizens. But when they succeed, most of them view it quite differently. They see success as a kind of triumph over you, even though you have been cheering on their success.

Thus, Blacks tell themselves “it takes a nation of millions to hold us back” and Latinos talk about the growing strength of “La Raza,” even though you’ve never wanted anything but success for all groups and all Americans, regardless of color.

Today, assimilation, at least for non-Whites, is an impossibility. Even if non-Whites achieve economic “success” at a level impossible in their own homelands, that is no guarantee they will identify with Western culture or institutions. Indeed, it is usually a guarantee they will rebel against it, as they seek to alleviate the guilt of being “inauthentic” with acts of cultural rebellion against White civilization. And now, thanks to official multiculturalism, there are economic motivations to actively resist assimilation.

Consider the Black Studies professor you have on campus—or Chicana Studies or whatever other “Studies” is in fashion this month. Does he (or more likely she) seem proud to be an American, despite a good job and what billions of people around the world would consider practically a utopian existence?

We’ve also created a kind of motivation for Whites to essentially de-assimilate from their own culture. If White civilization is defined as a long history of oppression, why would any European-American be proud of his or her heritage? Not surprisingly, we get increasingly comical attempts at self-delusion as spiritually dispossessed Whites look for a new identity.

We even see hilarious examples of White people claiming to be non-White. For example, Rachel Dolezal was a White girl of no accomplishments or career prospects. But then she tanned her skin, changed her hair, and started calling herself African-American. She even claimed she had been the victim of White supremacist groups who had been harassing her. Suddenly, she was able to secure lucrative positions at non-profits and universities. At what other time in history can you think of people renouncing their supposedly “privileged” position to secure membership in an “oppressed” group? If we think carefully about it, she single-handedly disproved Critical Race Theory.

But can you blame her, or anyone else? The clear economic incentive structure is in place. You, as a White person, are told your ancestors are basically scum. You are taught the creation of the United States by European settlers was evil, that every White person who existed before the civil rights movement was essentially a genocidal lunatic and that as a kind of racial Original Sin, you as a White person have internalized racism and prejudice unconsciously.

Why wouldn’t people want to throw off this burden of guilt? For that matter, why wouldn’t you specifically want to throw off this cursed ancestry? And the fact that you get economic, social and career benefits if you can pull off this transition doesn’t hurt.

What you end up with is a nation that actively despises its accomplishment—unless these can be couched as a victory over Western society itself. If a non-White person does something, it is a victory over the racist Whites who were trying to prevent it. If a White person does something, it is an exercise of privilege; with possible exceptions for women, homosexuals, or some other sub-minority group.

It makes even less sense than old-school communism. At least under communism, the theory was that capitalists were holding back production out of greed and an incentive to exploit labor. Communism enters to inaugurate a fair but also technologically advanced system. This generates a new breed of person, less grasping, but healthier and more productive. It didn’t work out that way and it never can, but you can at least see why people were infatuated with such a dream.

Under Critical Theory—especially when it comes to race and gender—success is not even possible. In Cultural Marxism, there is the “oppressed” and the “oppressor,” and new varieties of these categories are being created at all the time. The goalposts are constantly shifting. And if traditional Western society is characterized by “oppression,” the solution is to constantly promote forms of identity that can break down or “deconstruct” that society.

The overcoming of the past never ends. There is no point where we are all “equal” and everyone can just start acting normal. We simply fight each other forever. And for Whites, there is no end to repentance. “Whiteness” itself is the Original Sin. And unlike Christianity, “anti-racism” is creed for a church that offers no salvation.

Admit it, you’ve seen it happen on your own campus. Gay groups get criticized for being too heavily White. New “phobias” and pathologies are created seemingly every week. Normal behavior, such as love for your country or the desire to have a family and children, is pathologized as sick or oppressive. And whereas only a few years ago, the definition of being anti-racist was treating people equally regardless of race, now not talking about race constantly is the definition of racism.

What kind of culture is created by people behaving this way? Well, at a typical college campus, you know what happens. Think of your classes, and how real knowledge (at least in the liberal arts) is downplayed in favor of an endless hunt for new forms of “oppression.” Think of aesthetics, about how the radical leftist students on your campus actively promote ugliness and degeneracy to break down “social constructs.” Think of how the accomplishments of the past, as expressed in the statues and buildings on campus, must be torn down or renamed in honor of “activists” whose only accomplishment was to demand from others what they could not build for themselves.

For most of us, life is about accomplishment. Through power, will, and dedication we create meaning by building something that goes beyond ourselves. But to the modern Left, life is about tearing down everything which surrounds them. And this is done at the same time they insist upon the benefits and standard of living created by a civilization and a people they despise and could never hope to equal.

When we come right down to it, the modern left-wing college student enjoys a subsidized existence more pampered and decadent than anything enjoyed by a member of the tsar’s court. This is especially true of non-White students who receive set asides from government and academia. And yet they LARP as grizzled revolutionaries, at war with everything around them, even as the key institutions on campus and in government take their side and defend them.

Under Cultural Marxism, there’s no way Americans of all colors can unite as a people or a nation. Instead, on the modern college campus, there is only war. And as American society increasingly resembles one giant college campus, this endless conflict between will not cease.

The outcome is predictable. European-Americans will continue to be dispossessed, despised, demoralized, and, eventually, destroyed. Whatever ideas, abstractions, or institutions you value are going to be destroyed, too. You may not be aware of yourself as a White person but that does not matter. Your values will not survive your dispossession. Look at what is happening on your own college campus to test the truth of my words.

You may not like this message but that does not matter. The only question is what you are going to do about it. Fight or surrender, conquer or cuck. The choice is yours.

But if you choose to resist, how are you to do it?


References

  1. The Pulitzer Prizes, “Statement on Walter Duranty’s 1932 Prize,” https://www.pulitzer.org/news/statement-walter-duranty (accessed April 15, 2020). ↩︎
  2. John Derbyshire, “Hesperophobia,” National Review, September 13, 2001, https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/hesperophobia/ (accessed April 15, 2020). ↩︎
No Comments on You Are The Enemy

An Uncertain Idea of Europe

The historic “Brexit” vote marks, by my count, the first derailing of a major globalist project. For many years we were promised/threatened: “Jean-Marie Le Pen in the Second Round!,” “Financial Meltdown (Unless Some Elite Jews Save Us)!,” “Greece to Leave the Eurozone!,” “Nationalist to Win Austrian Presidency!” etc.

Now, finally, a Happening has happened!

Actually, Brexit is clearly the second Happening of this year, after Donald Trump’s successful hostile take-over of the Republican Party from the Goldman Sachs/Neocon mafia. For this alone, Trump’s name will resound throughout the ages.

Of course, neither Brexit nor Trump, in themselves, will save Great Britain or European-America. What is so exciting is rather the method: for the first time in living memory, power is being wrested from corrupt ethno-plutocratic nation-wrecking elites through semi-cryptic ethnic appeals to the White masses.

The historic “Brexit” vote marks, by my count, the first derailing of a major globalist project. For many years we were promised/threatened: “Jean-Marie Le Pen in the Second Round!,” “Financial Meltdown (Unless Some Elite Jews Save Us)!,” “Greece to Leave the Eurozone!,” “Nationalist to Win Austrian Presidency!” etc.

Now, finally, a Happening has happened!

Actually, Brexit is clearly the second Happening of this year, after Donald Trump’s successful hostile take-over of the Republican Party from the Goldman Sachs/Neocon mafia. For this alone, Trump’s name will resound throughout the ages.

Of course, neither Brexit nor Trump, in themselves, will save Great Britain or European-America. What is so exciting is rather the method: for the first time in living memory, power is being wrested from corrupt ethno-plutocratic nation-wrecking elites through semi-cryptic ethnic appeals to the White masses.

There is no telling what this will lead to, which is why the elites are so scared, but there is no doubt the chances of freedom and survival for European humanity increases everywhere.

Why now? Peak Diversity + The Internet, I guess.

Ethnocentrism is an emotion, always politically exploited, often by those hostile to our people, a weapon, rather than an end in itself. Some of the Brexiteers (for example, the eternal shill and selective Churchill-quoting1 Daniel Hannan) are already agitating for more immigration. They’re not interested so much in an actual Great British Nation as the “sovereignty” of a non-nation/administrative unit known as the “You-Kay.”

Ethnocentrism alone is blind. Emotion must be combined with reason. What is our reason? We believe in Darwin and evolutionary science. Man is, at bottom, a biological entity and, in particular, his potentialities are circumscribed by his genetic heritage. This must be recognized so life may continue its upward evolution, towards the stars, rather than back into the muck. Genetic similarity and quality are fundamental to forming a higher nation, rather than a Third World.

The liberal argues, simultaneously:

“Those Intelligent Design Christians are so dumb! Haha, everyone knows Darwinian evolution and genetics are real!”

“Oh my, anyone who suggests Darwinian science may have public policy implications should be hounded from polite society!”

These people are criminals: A lack of intellectual curiosity, combined with self-righteous incoherence and moral cowardice.

We refuse nihilism and preach a spiritual awakening in service of a great cause.

Given the quality of the official Brexiteers, it’s no surprise that Richard Spencer was not entirely enthused by the prospect of Faragistan. The nations are real. The nation-state—the harmony of ethnos and polis—is “the political masterpiece.” But, the fact of the matter is, our blood does not stop at mere linguistic or political boundaries. No individual nation-state can claim to be more important than the whole that is the greater European bio-culture, our magnificent family of nations.

The Identitarians have been guilty of small-mindedness, too. To paraphrase Roman Bernard: WE ARE NOT HOBBITS!

Thus, the online masses of disenchanted Anglo NEETs are rallied across the world to an epic Kulturweltkampf in the name of an awesome Sorelian myth—Empire Europa.

The universal European ethno-state! Whitemanistan!

The cultural foot soldiers of the Anglo-American Alt-Right are already being felt in the motherland: The French fachosphère is beginning to identify (((anti-Gentiles))) in the comment sections and even the Germans (what with all their “freedom & democracy” are liable to be shipped to Merkel’s gulags) are making videos about it.

But building an ethno-state is hard. Do we have precedents in our history? To an extent:

Sparta & the Delian League: Eternally glorious Sparta was a real ethno-state; the Athenian-led Delian League united Greek city-states in the common struggle against Persia. Small.

Frankish/Catholic Europe: Charles Martel halted the Arabs at Poitiers; Charlemagne founded a short-lived empire, but this established a common religion (Christianity) and elite language (Latin) for most Europeans, among much else, it was a basis for the unity of the Crusades. De facto racial boundaries with Arabs and Jews (limpieza de sangre). Accidental.

The American Republic: The Founding Fathers knew a nation could only be built from related stock of high quality (“free White men of good character”), Lincoln agreed (Monrovia, etc.), intensified in the 1920s through action of culture-warriors like Madison Grant and Lathrop Stoddard (eugenics, immigration restriction). Unsystematic, vulnerable to parasitism (and, with comfort, sentimentalism).

The Third Reich: The big tamale. Don’t say anything good about this. SYSTEMATICALLY & FOR FIRST TIME CONSCIOUSLY REORGANIZED CULTURE AND SOCIETY AROUND THE GENETIC WELL-BEING OF THE GERMAN PEOPLE. Eugenics. Baby boom. Jewry removed. Waffen-SS! A bit too systematic (i.e., German). (Muh northwest European gene pool.)

I don’t know enough about the Roman Empire. Unbelievably grand, stoic, manly. Impression: Glorious power, no purpose. Much like America. Unwise.

The European Union is dying. But we need some kind of European union, don’t we?

The European national cultures are a strange thing: each nation has its own state of discourse, its own norms of reference, and things get lost in translation. Ethnocentrism tears us apart.

But the cultural differences are increasingly superficial. Some ethno-genetic differences remain. We’re watching the same Anglo-American culture and producing the same Judeo-Americanized garbage. At most, we just dub it in French or German. So we get this hostile, foreign culture in our own tongue. A small consolation! (The French state is working hard to subsidize cinema so we can also watch Judeo-French garbage, but even the French can’t bear to watch it.) When I see a bunch of SUVs (not tourists), etc., parked outside a French church, I think: “The Americans have invaded.”

As Rammstein intoned: “We’re all living in Amerika!”

European nations are, increasingly, mere linguistic-statal artifacts. Sad to say, but true.

But this is a reality to grapple with: cultural struggle and political action will then, mostly, remain national. And that’s fine. When they’re not deporting Richard Spencer, Orbán & co. in Central Europe are doing a fine job. (Pray hope Putin is taking notes.)

The European Union was/is not a superstate in the making. It’s far gayer than that. Hitler/De Gaulle explained you don’t found an Empire by signing bits of paper. (But, America! I hear you say. No, the American Empire dates from Sherman’s torching of Atlanta, not 1776 and all that.)

Perhaps there should be an Empire. But how to build it? Napoleon and Hitler tried. Third time’s the charm, eh?

You can say: “We should have a European foreign policy!” But then you would need a European Army. And who would pay for that? Then you need European taxes, etc.

It’s a very messy business.

Today the great European nation is, still, America. The European Union is an epiphenomenon of the American phenomenon: The EU will still speak English after the Brits self-deport themselves. Anglo-Americanization will continue. The EU stems from globalist ideology, bourgeois borderless-ness, postwar effeteness, Last Manhood, Anglo-Americanization/American hegemony, not European Wille zur Macht.

Julien Rochedy asks: “How many divisions has the EU got?”

So proclaiming European brotherhood is one thing, building an Empire is another. But how many even proclaim our brotherhood? Dominique Venner was a bon Européen. Jean-Yves Le Gallou defines Frenchmen as “Europeans of French expression.” But most are not so wise, certainly not the official Brexiteers or the Front National. And too many, a Russian, a Frenchman, will identify with an empire or a language rather than the blood that made them possible and gave them their quality.

France should be declared a “European Republic,” you know, by and for European people. So should Germany, Argentina, Russia (if I may be so bold), Australia, at least one of the post-American splinter states, the future Boer city-state (contradiction?) in South Africa, etc.

Some Jews tearfully discuss the Alt Right. To paraphrase:

*“Judea for the Jews! Anything else is anti-Semitic.”

*“Oh yes! And oy vey, all this European nationalist sentiment on Twitter rising. Shut it down!”

“By the way, mental illness among the goyim is the only reason we ever got pogromed.”

Etc., etc., times infinity.

Television is a big part of the answer: Countries in which kids are watching English-language subtitled TV, e.g. Greece, Romania, Netherlands, Flanders, and Scandinavia, are full of “right-wing shitlords.” The Germans aren’t far off. (Frauke Petry in English. Oh my!) If you put this English-language TV systematically throughout the entire White world, you could probably have a Boreal Federation. (Which would be English-speaking, but who cares? We used to speak French, Latin, Greek, and could have spoken German.)

The Identitaires mostly get it.

Diaspora Blacks revel in Pan-Africanism. Even the Muslims have their Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arabs, their League. The Diaspora Jews have their goddam ethno-state (financed by your blood & treasure, filthy goyim).

Where’s the “Pan-European League”? Who are the undermen again?

We need, at minimum, a League: The United States, Canada, Carolingian Europe, the British Isles, Scandinavia, Mediterranean Europe, Visegrád, Dinarics, Orthodox Slavs, Aussies, Kiwis, etc. Don’t be shy! Even the Argies, maybe.

Then, the stars!

I have to admit when I see the average European goyim I do not think “MASTER RACE!” No, we are damaged, too much Bolshevism, and perhaps, dysgenics.

Europeans are a creative breed. No doubt about it. But the White race did not evolve in the current environment of mass transportation and softening comfort. Modernity is proving to be an extinction-level for event for our breed of humanity. We were not designed for close-up competition with more tribal peoples, not when our ethnocentric reflexes have been so overtaken by our maudlin niceness due to easy living and miseducation.

All of humanity is being “hamsterized,” by their ability: School, mom’s basement, (welfare) office, home, retirement. It doesn’t feel real. One is given money from the Government or (bureaucratic?) BS jobs. Then one trades this for food. Our non-existent life experiences are replaced with imaginary ones concocted by Hollywood & co. Total disconnect from reality. We are totally free to indulge in our pet fantasies, both inborn and injected. (See: Schopenhauer, Tocqueville, and Pierce.) The Matrix in other words.

The average honorless, faithless, feckless goyim, especially the pseudo-educated type, measures political morality and success by the yardstick: “To what extent is the straw in my cage kept consistently fresh?” (Provided by the cage/hamster-owner, of course.)

We are supposed to vote for Hillary Clinton. Plutocratic pseudo-egalitarianism. Rule by Marxist banksters [sic]. Funded by Spielberg, Soros, Abrams, & co. Voted in by Blacks, Mestizos, and feminists. How can anyone not see the discrepancy!?

Reality: It’s the Matrix, in the name of Star Trek.

Lies, lies, lies.

Our people are not evolved for this environment. Thus, we are going extinct, or rather, a culling is occurring. Only the best will survive. But even if only 10 percent of us survive, we will be better for it.

We’ll build the ethno-state in Antarctica if we have to. (Circa 2100: Climate change turned out not a hoax, America RIP, welcome to Eurafrica.)

Our people are currently showing their boundless creativity and idealism in service of an evil cause. Hence, a German woman invites a migrant into her home via the “Refugees Welcome” website, is promptly raped in her sleep. Hence the (male) [sic] Norwegian politician is raped by migrant and feels guilty when the savage is deported to Hackedvaginastan.

Oh yes, they were miseducated, but frankly, we don’t need these kind of people in our gene pool. We should be immune to it. Darwin Awards for all!

But you think we’re bad? Look at the Sub-Saharans, the Indios, the Indians (sorry), etc. The East Asians are impressive in their way, but a bit monolithic, no? I can understand why the Jews come to think they are the real Herrenvolk—but only by latching on to another’s civilization. They can’t even found a nation without massive subsidies from the American and German goyim, acquired through systematic bribery and blackmail by the ever-loyal Diaspora. They have no cohesion. Israelis are too busy scamming each other. (Someone predicted this.) (In my experience, the Sephardim can be as dense and slow-witted as any goyim. The Ashkenazim, to be sure, run rings around us, and they incidentally consider the Mizrahim little better than niggers. (I exaggerate not: The Mizrahim, inspired by American Blacks, founded the “Israeli Black Panthers” to fight the vicious racism of the Ashkenazim. “We wuz Schwartzes!”)

Now look again at our people: without us, “humanity” will surely consume this Earth like a swarm of locusts. (See: Haiti.) And the best of our people, they are something. Especially when they are inspired by the right Ideal. And they need a great Ideal to be truly roused. One as great as the deceit of Equality is evil.

A great man once said: “Europe is a racial entity.” And: “We must think in terms of centuries.” Don’t be modest now!



    Hannan conspicuously avoids discussing Churchill’s postwar immigration policy↩︎
No Comments on An Uncertain Idea of Europe

The Metapolitics of America

America and France are the twin “proposition nations” of the Western occident. (This sibling rivalry explains much about the popularity of France-bashing and _l’antiamericanisme_ in opposing countries.) Their “national” days are unique in the world in that they celebrate historical events that were cast, at their very inception, as liberal advancements for all humankind. 

The Fourth of July is the centerpiece of American nationalism and identity . . . even if few remember what exactly they are celebrating.

But even in their comical ignorance, Americans seem sure that there’s an ultimate meaning to the Fourth: Freedom! . . . from . . . uhh . . . the South . . . er . . . the Nazis? . . . or whatever.

America, it is assumed, achieved independence from some sort of big, bad traditionalist oppressor.

Many nation-states celebrate “independence days,” which usually mark important or unlikely military victories over invaders or imperial powers. As memory gets mixed with myth, these events are imagined as popular liberations. Mexico’s “Cinco de Mayo,” which might soon displace the Fourth in prominence in the United States, is emblematic in this respect.

But the Fourth of July—as well as France’s Bastille Day of July 14—are holidays of an entirely different character (whatever surface similarities they might share with others).

America and France are the twin “proposition nations” of the Western occident. (This sibling rivalry explains much about the popularity of France-bashing and l’antiamericanisme in opposing countries.) Their “national” days are unique in the world in that they celebrate historical events that were cast, at their very inceptions, as liberal advancements for all humankind.

Today, of course, every nation-state on earth—from Nigeria to North Korea—mouthes some sort of “human rights” mumbo-jumbo. But the U.S. and France are exceptional in that they emerged as direct ideological expressions of the Enlightenment, and occurred at a critical moment in its history. One hundred years after the death of Spinoza, the French and American Revolutions marked the point at which Enlightenment values left the realm of philosophy (and what could be called the 17th-century “radical fringe”) and entered the realm of state-making and geopolitics. Both Revolutions would, in turn, occur some 125 years before the Great War definitively ended the Old Order. Every state thereafter would be “American,” the vestiges of aristocracy and monarchy persisting only as tourist attractions.

“The Rights of Man” . . . “the pursuit of happiness” . . . “inalienable rights . . . endowed by our Creator” . . . The great slogans and myths of 1776 and 1789 have a quaint ring to them today. They hail from an older phase of the Left, and thus have become, as it were, “conservative.”

These platitudes function like dogma and form the unexamined basis of political action and speech. This is most obvious through a familiar political shorthand; in the words of Congressman Paul Ryan, America is “more than just a place . . . America is an idea.” (As geography is thrown out the window, so is race, people, culture, history, and more.) Ryan’s meme is reiterated across the spectrum—from a rock star’s urgings that Americans be “one” with the world, to the inaugural addresses of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. Much of political discourse in America involves politicians accusing rivals of not believing in the American dogma hard enough.

To be an American is to be committed to liberty, equality, and individual autonomy—perhaps even to have left one’s home and people in the name of such principles. America’s highest ideal is, in a way, an anti-ideal—that the state shall not express a people’s spirit and history, a source of wisdom or tradition, or a vision of something greater, more dominant and powerful than an individual. The character of America is imagined as an endless tabula rasa or Etch-a-Sketch; it gets written on, but always returns to zero.

The “Founding Fathers,” as they are know, are revered not so much as martial heroes but as the wise designers of the world’s greatest legal mechanism. There seems to be no parallel in other Occidental cultures to the reverence of the Supreme Court, as a set of nine Talmudic Judges who, depending on your persuasion, will either divine the Constitution’s One True Law or else view it as a living will.

Other countries might have negative national consciousnesses. Germans, for instance, have internalized de-Nazification. But Germans remain, despite it all, self-consciously German. Americans, on the contrary, are nothing . . . they’re always starting over . . . they like to tell themselves they have an unbounded future, but only at the cost of never having a past.

One can be an American and also be Roman Catholic . . . a Muslim . . . a Buddhist . . . or a trans-gendered performance artist. American society is, indeed, encouraged to fragment into as many pieces as possible. So long as no identity, ideal, or meaning predominates over others; so long as every identity ultimately wants the same.

Religion in America, particularly Protestant Christianity, has rarely opposed this anti-identity; at critical moments, it has reenforced it. There is a “storybook” history to the many fanatics, who, choosing to abandon their homes and cultures, sought to create a “new Israel” in the New World. What we call “tradition,” they called “corruption” and “poison.”

One could imagine an alternative reality in which American religious institutions had opposed the 1776 Revolution (or at least had been highly skeptical of it), urging loyalty to mother country and mother church. Instead, the 18th-century pulpit was a place of revolutionary fervor. Jefferson’s Independence Declaration had resonated with—and was, indeed, continuous with—a whole series of “compact” beginnings for Christian Americans, who in a spirit of Hebraic separatism, desired to break with Europe.

The Europeans had been Germans . . . Gauls . . . Russians . . . Lombards . . . Britons before they were Christians. In their national consciousnesses, they could remember conversion experiences. Americans, on the contrary, were Christians before they were Americans.

One could counter that the American dogma is all rhetorical—that the Founders, some of the wealthiest men on the continent at the time, sought to secure an aristocratic order, that American society has been informed by ethnic, political, and monetary agendas, etc.

But to understand America, one must understand its outcome—that there are certain impulses and implications that only become clear later on (ironically, when the entity has reached its end point). Today, the United States has achieved the most robust and most popular civic religion that explicitly denies its racial, historical, and civilizational identity. This spiritual negation is more devastating than the displacement of the founding stock through mass immigration.


Our perspective is of living in America, without being of it. As we escape America’s assumptions, we can look upon the entity objectively.

A century and a half ago, Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederate States of America, was faced with the prospect of the victory or annihilation of his nation and fledgling state in what is now referred to as the American Civil War.

In his greatest address, “The Cornerstone of the Confederacy,” he did not speak (mendaciously) about “states rights” or any kind of Constitutional legality. He instead cut to the heart of the social order he was opposing. He stressed that the Confederacy was based on the conclusion that Thomas Jefferson was wrong; the “cornerstone” of the new state was the “physical, philosophical, and moral truth” of human inequality.

Ours, too, should be a declaration of difference and distance—”We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created unequal.” In the wake of the old world, this will be our proposition.

This article was originally published on July 4, 2014.

No Comments on The Metapolitics of America

Fallen from the Sky

Novorossiya has suffered significantly in regards to the destruction of Malaysian Air Flight 17 over Eastern Ukraine.  It appears that in the sense of this tragedy being taken advantage of by the US-EU governing class, it is and will be done in order to justify the strangulation at birth of the new country of Новороссия (Novorossiya). 

 

Novorossiya has suffered significantly in regards to the destruction of Malaysian Air Flight 17 over Eastern Ukraine. It appears that in the sense of this tragedy being taken advantage of by the US-EU governing class, it is and will be done in order to justify the strangulation at birth of the new country of Новороссия (Novorossiya).

The driving force behind the formation of Novorossiya is that a substantial majority of the people in the southern and eastern part of Ukraine do not recognize the new government which came to power in Kiev as the result of the violent overthrow of the previously elected government. The approach of the new Kievian government is not to allow those who disagree with their coup to go their own way, but is instead based on military means to force the capitulation of those who disagree.

It should be recognized that the two sides in this conflict are quite unevenly matched. In particular, the Kievian government has access to much better military equipment and financial resources than the rebels do. Of particular relevance is that the Kievian government possesses complete air-superiority. Furthermore, military action is taking place in the form of assaults by the Kiev government on the homelands of the rebels. Rebel warplanes are not making bombing runs over the Ukrainian capital or Lviv. Their artillery is not surrounding and opening fire on cities and villages in the parts of the Ukraine that support the Kievian government. On the contrary, the rebels are defending their own cities and villages from the assaults of the Kiev and are not advancing into territory inhabited primarily by supporters of the current regime.

Occam’s razor would suggest that the cause of the downed airliner was due to the rebels, who in their attempts to protect their cities, villages, and military units from aerial bombardments, mistook the airliner for a Ukrainian warplane. That such mistakes are not infrequent during the course of military action is evident from even a cursory glance through history.

Currently heard from public figures in the US-EU are statements of the form “if the rebels did this or the Russians are involved through their provision of the antiaircraft system used, then the rebels and/or the Russians should have hell to pay.” That such opinions are based on an antipathy to the rebel/Russian side can be derived from such individuals’ reactions to similar events. Probably the most appropriate one is the shooting down of a Russian passenger airline (Siberia Airlines Flight 1812) in 2001 by the Ukrainian military with an antiaircraft rocket. The repercussions of this downing, which resulted in the deaths of 78 people, were limited to payments by the Ukrainian government to victims’ families and the sacking of a handful of officers and officials. There were no sanctions applied to Ukraine by other countries and no criminal proceedings begun. Assuming that the treatment of the Ukrainians in this matter was appropriate, a neutral observer would likely conclude that the rebels should be treated in a similar manner. Indeed the culpability of the Ukrainian military in shooting down Flight 1812 would appear to be greater, as it occurred during peacetime, as opposed to the rebels who are operating under conditions of daily bombardments of their cities and villages made possible by the complete air-superiority of the Kievian government. In this regard, an appropriate means of preventing such further accidents would be imposition of a no-fly zone over the Ukraine. Other means could involve the provision of more advanced antiaircraft systems, along with appropriate training for the rebels with the aim of avoiding further cases of mistaken identity. It should be reiterated that the reason the rebels are concerning themselves at all with antiaircraft systems is due to the (otherwise unimpeded) aerial bombardment of eastern Ukraine by the Kievian government.

US-EU public officials, more often than not, are heard giving statements to the effect that the means to achieve peace is to cut off all aid to the rebels. However, if peace (as opposed to peace obtained by destruction of Novorossiya by the Kievian government) is indeed the highest priority, then the party that must be pressured is the attacking side, i.e., the Kievian government. Of course, this is the quickest possible means of obtaining peace and will result in victory for Novorossiya, as its goals of independence will be achieved, and hence, would logically be advanced by those whose primary goal is independence for Novorossiya.

The suggestions and insinuations that the only way to bring peace would be for the Russian people and government to stop supplying any aid to the rebels indicate that the sources for such suggestions support the Kievian government. This follows from the near certainty that cessation of all support to the rebels and the cessation of any more chances for future support will result in victory by the Kievian government.

The fact of the matter is that Russian support of the rebels is quite minimal. The author’s first hand experience is that such support is provided primarily on the grass-roots level. In the city that the author lives in, various individuals have formed groups that collect food, medical supplies, clothing, uniforms, boots and other items send it to the eastern parts of the Ukraine. Volunteers have also set out to aid the rebels primarily in the form of joining the armed resistance to the Kievian government. Somewhat surprisingly, there is no support from the city or federal government in this matter in the form of advertising such aid collection centers and/or encouraging people to participate in such aid. At a minimum, the Russian government would be expected to provide humanitarian aid on an official level but this is not observed. The clear evidence that the rebels possess some heavy military equipment (tanks, artillery etc.) is often taken as evidence that such equipment is from Russia. However, it should be kept in mind that the conflict is a civil war—in the course of which significant numbers of the Ukrainian military have defected to the rebels. This issue was particularly acute at the start of the conflict where it was not infrequent that military units sent to suppress the rebels in a particular village/city instead raised the rebel flag and wholeheartedly joined the rebels. The Kievian government has responded to this issue by raising paramilitary formations, such as the National Guard, which are staffed by people loyal to the Kievian government who have joined with the specific purpose of suppressing the rebellion and hence, contain very few individuals from the eastern parts of the Ukraine. Other paramilitary units exist which are funded and controlled by various oligarchs.

Returning to the issue of the downed airline, a glance at the positioning and treatment of the issue in the US-EU media clearly shows usage of the tragedy as a weapon against the rebels. Headlines such as “Armed men restrict access to crash site” or “Standoff with militiamen at crash site” (BBC) are used. Aside from the fact that the crash occurred in a war-zone, the fact of the matter is that any such crash site is typically cordoned off and guarded by armed men in almost any country. In other statements “Local residents have been allowed to wander around the wreckage of the plane” (BBC), however, the lack of a guarded perimeter is used as evidence of deliberate carelessness of the local authorities. Considering the issue, and recognizing the fact that the crash area is in a very rural area subject to military engagements, none of the above necessarily indicates any malign intent on the part of the local authorities. Such issues would be found at a similar crash site in almost any country.

Of some interest is a report from the BBC in which a man guarding the crash scene, after being described as “squat and barrel-chested with poor teeth“ is reported to have stated: “You are only here because foreigners are dead.” For the people of eastern Ukraine, this man’s question has some relevance. In the course of the Kievian government’s military operations, hundreds of people have been killed by artillery and air-strikes carried out against cities and villages. For example, the day after Flight 17 was destroyed, it was reported that 20 civilians died in the course of artillery and/or aerial attacks on the city of Lugansk. These deaths and many others like them have not resulted in visits from OSCE observers and journalists from the US-EU. The fact that their deaths are not widely denounced or mentioned in the US-EU media contains within itself the implication that these deaths, as opposed to those of Malaysian Air Flight 17, are the somewhat unavoidable and deserved result of opposition to the Ukrainian government and its sponsors.

No Comments on Fallen from the Sky

The Persecution of Varg Vikernes

Black metal musician and European traditionalist Varg Vikernes is under attack again by the French government after they couldn’t tie him to terrorism charges last year.

Black metal musician and European traditionalist Varg Vikernes is under attack again by the French government after they couldn’t tie him to terrorism charges last year.

Instead of charging him with an actual crime, they’ve pulled out the hate speech card and are accusing him of inciting animosity towards minority groups.

In a sane society, these charges would be deemed ridiculous and laughed out of court. Unfortunately, we live in an insane world and Varg now has to fight prison time for merely stating his views. In another sign that the government is simply persecuting him for voicing dangerous opinions, his original court date in October had to be postponed after Vikernes’ lawyer only received the 1,000 page indictment right before the proceedings were set to begin.

If convicted, the man behind Burzum faces up to five years in jail and 45,000 euros in fines. Luckily his supporters have raised funds for his defense and his lawsuit against the French authorities for harassment.

The charges stem from alleged posts reportedly made by Vikernes that were deemed too offensive to Muslims and Jews and merit jail time and forced poverty. He was first arrested for terrorism charges last July after French police raided his residence and found legally acquired firearms. The charges had to be dropped due to the flimsy nature of the accusations.

The tribulations of Vikernes reveal how far authorities in Europe (and to a lesser extent in North America) will go to persecute people with Identitarian views. They see Vikernes, nationalists, and other traditionalists as a threat to their system and that is why they relentlessly pursue individuals with views similar to ours.

But in some ways being seen as a threat is better than being ignored. Varg is an incredibly popular artist relative to his past and views. He is seen as a musical innovator and a pioneer of a genre that has made in-roads to the mainstream. He is able to convey his views to an audience that would otherwise remain unexposed to them through his music.

This is why he is considered a threat and his presence in France remains a sorepoint for the reigning government.

Regardless of the outcome of his trial, Vikernes remains unbowed in his ideology and will continue to voice his concerns.

Here’s to him beating the charges and continuing to make worthy music.

No Comments on The Persecution of Varg Vikernes

Like The Roman: Remembering Dominique Venner One Year Later

On May 21st, 2013, Domininque Venner entered the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris and took his life in a statement of defiance towards the malignant spirit of his age–turning the final act of his existence into a call for all people with the blood of Europe flowing through their veins to arise from their stupor and reclaim their heritage.

On May 21st, 2013, Dominique Venner entered the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris and took his life in a statement of defiance towards the malignant spirit of his age–turning the final act of his existence into a call for all people with the blood of Europe to arise from their stupor and reclaim their heritage.

The anniversary of his voluntary death reminds us to keep his memory alive by continuing on with our duty to preserve the noble heritage of our people.

Here is some of Venner’s final words that summarize why he chose this action and the message he tried to impart to those who would witness it (courtesy of Counter-Currents):

While many men are slaves of their lives, my gesture embodies an ethic of will. I give myself over to death to awaken slumbering consciences. I rebel against fate. I protest against poisons of the soul and the desires of invasive individuals to destroy the anchors of our identity, including the family, the intimate basis of our multi-millennial civilization. While I defend the identity of all peoples in their homes, I also rebel against the crime of the replacement of our people.

The dominant discourse cannot leave behind its toxic ambiguities, and Europeans must bear the consequences. Lacking an identitarian religion to moor us, we share a common memory going back to Homer, a repository of all the values on which our future rebirth will be founded once we break with the metaphysics of the unlimited, the baleful source of all modern excesses.

No Comments on Like The Roman: Remembering Dominique Venner One Year Later

Dostoevsky And The State

As a great empire, Russia is an organism larger than the Russian people. However, the Russian people are the most important factor of the Russian Empire, and the basic features of the people’s spirit determine the character of its sovereignty to a significant degree. Therefore Dostoevsky’s thought on the attributes of Russia as a state are closely tied with the views he expounded on the Russian nation.

Originally published at Soul of The East

As the author of a notable work on Fyodor Dostoevsky, philosopher Nikolai Onufriyevich Lossky contributed an excellent analysis of Dostoevsky’s worldview. Here he examines Dostoevsky’s relation to the state in the context of Russian culture and Orthodox faith. While Dostoevsky highly valued the democratic ethos of the Russian people and wished to see their communal principles enacted more in political life, he was nonetheless a staunch monarchist and a critic of Enlightenment liberalism. Dostoevsky’s thoughts on foreign policy, meanwhile, might seem quite romantic to us, but they contain a powerful ideal: the image of a state in the service of God, the Church and the people. Translated by Mark Hackard.

As a great empire, Russia is an organism larger than the Russian people. However, the Russian people are the most important factor of the Russian Empire, and the basic features of the people’s spirit determine the character of its sovereignty to a significant degree. Therefore Dostoevsky’s thought on the attributes of Russia as a state are closely tied with the views he expounded on the Russian nation.

Dostoevsky was an opponent of limiting autocracy; he feared that the higher classes, the bourgeoisie and the educated would use political liberty to subordinate the simple folk to their interests and ideals. “Our constitution,” says Dostoevsky, “is mutual love of the Monarch toward the people and the people toward the Monarch.” (Letter to Maikov, No. 302) Civil liberties, freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom to print were loved and defended by Dostoevsky in every period of his life. He valued rural and city self-government highly and considered them correspondent to the spirit of the Russian people. Preparing the novel Demons in his notebooks and thinking over the image of Stavrogin (initially under the name of “the prince”), Dostoevsky wrote and doubtlessly expressed during this his own thought: “If there is reform, self-government, then elucidate it clearly and firmly, not hesitating, but believing the in strength of the nation… The German principle, administration, wants to lay its hands on the native Russian form, self-government.” One of the characters elucidates further, keeping in view the thoughts of the “prince”: “It was curious that he could so deeply understand the essence of Rus when he explained it and thereby enflamed Shatov.”

Finding in the Russian people a “genuine democratic attitude,” Dostoevsky, without doubt, would have welcomed the establishment of political democracy in the form of a democratic monarchy, if, he hoped, the lower classes of the people could have genuinely enjoyed political freedom in the spirit of their ideals. In the last year of his life, when discussions of calling aZemsky Sobor (Land Assembly) were circulating, he recommended to ask the “gray coats” about their needs and even spoke about the responsibility of ministers before the Zemsky Sobor.

The place of Russia in Europe and her foreign policy especially interested Dostoevsky. The notion that moral principles should guide only the behavior of private individuals, but not the state, roused him to indignation. Condemning the behavior of such diplomats as Metternich, Dostoevsky says: “A policy of honor and unselfishness is not only a higher, but also perhaps the most beneficial (it) policy for a great nation, precisely because it is great.” (Diary of a Writer, 1876, Jul.-Aug.) Russia namely comports herself as a great nation. “Russia,” says Dostoevsky, “was never able to produce its own Metternichs and Disraelis, but rather the entire time of its European life it has lived not for itself, but for others, precisely for interests common to all mankind.” Her unselfishness often resembles the chivalrous nature of Don Quixote:

In Europe they scream of ‘Russian invasions’ and ‘Russian treachery,’ yet only to frighten their masses when needed, for the shouters themselves hardly believe any of it, nor have they ever believed it. On the contrary, they are now bothered and scared that in Russia’s image there is something upright, something too unselfish, honest and disdainful of usurpation and bribery. They have a presentiment that it’s impossible to buy her off and she won’t be lured into a mercenary or violent matter by any political advantage.” (1877, Feb.)

There has recently appeared a brochure titled, “Principles of Russia’s European Policy in the 19th and 20th Centuries,” by Professor E.V. Spektorsky. Therein Prof. Spektorsky, making use of a multitude of facts, attests that Russia was guided predominantly by a policy of principles while Western states conducted a policy of interests. “The principles of Russia’s European policy were the salvation of the lost, loyalty to treaties and allies, and a peace of solidarity.”

One can object that Russia under autocracy conducted an unmercenary policy not by the will of the people, but by the orders of her rulers, such as Alexander I, Nicholas I and Alexander II. With many facts it can be proven that this is incorrect, and that that unselfish policy did correspond to the spirit of the Russian people themselves. And so after the flooding of St. Petersburg on 7 November 1824, among the people there were rumors that the disaster was retribution for the sin of not rendering help to co-religionist Greeks who had revolted against the Turkish yoke. The Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78, the goal of which was the defense of Orthodox Slavs, was supported by a widespread sympathetic movement of the popular masses.

Peter’s reforms, despite the dangers and temporary deviations toward the loss of cultural identity, were highly valued by Dostoevsky, as they freed Russia from “isolation”; their consequence was the “measureless expansion of view” and such an introduction to Europe, thanks to which we apprehended

our universal purpose, our personality and role in humanity, and we could not but recognize that this role and purpose did not resemble those of other peoples, for there every national personality lives only in themselves and for themselves, while we shall now begin, when the time has arrived, namely with becoming servants to all for universal conciliation.

Entering into European life, Russia attains the possibility of “active application of our treasure, our Orthodoxy, to the service of humanity.” (Diary of a Writer, 1876, June) The first step on this path should be the resolution of the Eastern and Slavic questions, which in Dostoevsky’s understanding are rather approximate with each other. As a matter of fact, the significance of the Straits for the economic life of Russia and the defense of the Black Sea Coast is known to Dostoevsky, but it does not interest him. “The Golden Horn and Constantinople – all of this will be ours,” writes Dostoevsky, “but not for invasions and not for violence.” To demand Constantinople from Europe, Russia, thinks Dostoevsky, has “a moral right,” “as the marshal of Orthodoxy, its patroness and protector.” (Diary of a Writer, 1876, June, Dec.; 1877, March)

Gaining hold of Constantinople and freeing the Bulgarians and Serbs from the Turkish yoke, Russia, hoped Dostoevsky, would set a beginning to the “unity of the Slavs” “in the service of humanity.” (1876, June) He knew that Western Europe would oppose Pan-Slavism with all its power, fearing Russia’s strengthening. Even in Russia herself, in an article by Professor T.N. Granovsky, Dostoevsky came across the idea that Russia’s attention to the fate of the Southern Slavs was conditioned not by idealist motives, but the aspiration to expansion. Fighting against Granovsky’s idea, Dostoevsky backhandedly admits that he had the academic in mind when he sketched out the image of a Russian liberal in the form of Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky, mocking while at the same time loving and respecting him. In consolation to people who feared Russia’s strengthening, Dostoevsky said that for Russia herself the matter of liberating the Slavs will be a source of “only troubles and pain.” (1876, Jul.-Aug.)

Dostoevsky foresaw that “as it never was before, there will be for Russia no greater haters, enviers, slanderers and even overt enemies than all these Slavic tribes only as soon as Russia liberates them and Europe agrees to recognize them as liberated.” This would happen “not by the supposedly low ungrateful character of the Slavs, not at all – they have their character in this respect as all do – but because such things in the world cannot happen otherwise.”

Unfailingly they will begin from inside themselves, if not speaking it aloud, and announce to themselves and convince themselves that they do not owe Russia the least bit of gratitude, but rather that they barely escaped from Russia’s lust for power by concluding a peace through the intervention of the European concert.

“They will grovel before the European states,” and will say that “they are educated peoples capable of the highest European culture, while Russia is a barbarous country, a gloomy northern colossus not even of pure Slavic blood, an oppressor and antagonist of European civilization.” “These small lands will eternally quarrel amongst each other, eternally envy and intrigue against one another.” (1877, November) Therefore, “without Russia’s enormous unifying center, Slavic harmony is not to be, and without Russia the Slavs couldn’t survive; the Slavs would wholly disappear from the face of the earth, whatever the Serbian intelligentsia or various European, civilized Czechs might dream.” (ibid, February)

Despite all these tragic prophecies, Dostoevsky loves the Slavs and considers it Russia’s duty to selflessly fight for their freedom. “In the current war,” he says, “having freed the Slavic tribes, we shall not acquire not one strip of land from them (as Austria is dreaming for herself), but rather, we will be overseeing their mutual harmony and defend their liberty and independence, even against all of Europe. (ibid, April) He hopes that the freed Slavs, perhaps after their age-old strife, will finally come to understand Russia’s unselfishness and form a federated state with her, in which every member would receive “as much political freedom as possible.” Dostoevsky dreams that “such a union could finally someday be joined by even non-Orthodox European Slavs.” (1876, June)

When speaking on an all-Slavic federation, Dostoevsky obviously has in mindN.Y. Danilevsky’s work Russia and Europe. Danilevsky set out to prove that the united Slavs would bring a new form of culture into the historical process and achieve a new cultural-historical type to take the place of the Romano-German cultural-historical type. However, the distinction between Dostoevsky and the ideas of Danilevsky is great. According to Danilevsky, cultural-historical types are so unique that they are almost incapable of influencing one another, and it is impossible to produce a unified and universal human culture. Dostoevsky, to the contrary, does not depart from the ground of Christian universalism:

We first declared to the world that not through the repression of the character of foreign nationalities do we want to attain our own success. On the contrary, we see it only in the freest and most independent development of all other nations and in brotherly unity with them, complementing one another, fostering in ourselves their organic particularities and extending, from us to them, our branches for cultivation, communing with them in soul and spirit, learning and teaching until that time when humanity, having been fulfilled with the relations of peoples unto universal unity, like a great and magnificent tree will give shade to the happy earth.

Lovely are Dostoevsky’s dreams of universal brotherhood of peoples and the peaceful development of culture. Speaking on Russia, he constantly underlines her unselfishness and her unwillingness to undertake predatory seizures of other lands. He had well-founded proof in Danilevsky’s book Russia and Europe that Russia, founding a massive empire, never killed off established national cultures. Unfortunately, however, it is impossible to close one’s eyes to the fact that Slavic and Russian messianism seduced Dostoevsky to the assertion that the capture of Constantinople by Russia would be morally justified. He omits from view that the protection of Orthodoxy and the defense of Russia’s economic and strategic interests could be achieved without taking Constantinople away from the Turks by way of a peace agreement with Turkey and other states.

We shall say in passing, by the way, a few words on Dostoevsky’s attitude toward war. Christianity, both in Orthodoxy and in Catholicism, considering war an evil, admits, however, that there are other even worse types of evil, and therefore permits war in the struggle with them – for example, for the salvation of a people perishing from the violence of a predatory conqueror. Dostoevsky also holds this opinion, though he is overly fascinated by the positive aspects of war. He says:

A long peace always breeds cruelty, cowardice and crude, flabby egoism and principally mental stagnation. During a long peace, only the exploiters of peoples grow fat.

Having accumulated enormous wealth, the exploiters engorge themselves and begin to seek out deviant pleasures; the division between the rich and the poor is amplified, and “faith in the brotherhood of man” is lost. From this condition of society arise wars with commercial ends, for example, over new markets; such wars “pervert and even ruin peoples.” Conversely, “war for a magnanimous objective, for the liberation of the oppressed, for an unmercenary and holy idea heals the soul, drives out shameful cowardice and idleness,” and strengthens with an “awareness of self-sacrifice,” a consciousness of duty fulfilled and the solidarity of all the nation. (1877, April, see also Letter No. 353)

A burning love for Russia did not stop Dostoevsky from seeing the shortcomings of her state and social structure. And so in Demons, he made a well-aimed satire of despotic ways of Governor Von Lembke, who, not listening to the workers’ representatives that came to complain about the fraud of their factory manager, took them for rioters and had several of them beaten. Also wonderfully expressed in the novel are the absurdity and illegality of the measures that the governor and his subordinate take in the fight against the revolutionaries. Any “administrative triumph” (in Stepan Trofimovich’s words) is revolting to Dostoevsky. Toward the end of his life, he wrote in his notebooks that our society was not conservative, as “everything was taken from it, right up to legitimate initiative.” “All the rights of the Russian are negative ones. Give him something positive and you will see that he’ll also be conservative.” “He’s not conservative because there’s nothing to conserve.”[i]

[i] Biography, Letters and Notes from the Notebooks of F. Dostoevsky, 1883. Pg. 357.

No Comments on Dostoevsky And The State

Type on the field below and hit Enter/Return to search