Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: AGAINST DEMOCRACY AND EQUALITY - The European New Right,Tomislav Sunic.

  1. #1

    AGAINST DEMOCRACY AND EQUALITY - The European New Right,Tomislav Sunic.


    P 25 - 29

    The European New Right / E N R, however has never lost sight of its main reference: Europe. Europe is conceived in its dual historical dimension, because the nations of Europe, apart from what separates them ( which is not negligible ), are heirs to a common cultural matrix, which is at least 5000 years old. Then there is also the geopolitical dimension. As we enter the era of ‘large spaces’ ( Grossraum ), as described by Carl Schmitt, those large groups of culture and civilizations will be factors of decision making within tomorrow’s globalised world. In order to think in terms of globalisation, at a time when nation-states are too large to meet the expectations of their citizens and too small to meet the global challenges of our time and are thus becoming less powerful with each passing day, requires first and foremost to think in terms of continents.

    The ENR has also been in favour of a federal Europe, because full-fledged federalism is the only way to reconcile the necessary unity of decision at the top with all due respect for the diversity and autonomy at the bottom of the pyramid. Undoubtedly, federalism follows the tradition of the Empire, rather than that of the nation state. Europe would indeed be meaningless if it were to be built on the false model of centralisation inherent to Jacobinism, from which France has suffered for a long period of time. Hence the need for the principle of subsidiarity mentioned above.

    The construction of Europe which we are witnessing today, is the very opposite of its principle. From the outset, this construct went against common sense. It gave priority to trade and economics instead of to politics and culture. It was built from the top – starting with the European Commission, which soon became omnipotent although devoid of any democratic legitimacy – instead of gradually trying to build itself from the bottom. It embarked on a hasty expansion into countries wishing to join the European Union solely in order to receive financial help and move closer to America and NATO, instead of having as its goal the in-depth strengthening of its political structures. Thus it has condemned itself in advance to powerlessness and paralysis. It has been built without the will of its peoples while trying to impose on them a draft of its own constitution, without even raising a question as to who constitutes the constituent power. Moreover, it has never been clear regarding the desired outcome of its own endeavours. Should one first construct a vast free trade area with unclear borders that would serve as a sidekick of America, or rather should it first lay the foundations of a genuine European power, with borders demarked by geopolitics and which would simultaneously serve as a new model of civilization and a pole for the better regulation of the globalisation process? These two projects are incompatible. If we were to adopt the first one, we will live tomorrow in a unipolar world subservient to Americian power. In contrast, in a multipolar world we can preserve the diversity of the World. This is the alternative most Europeans face: to be the architects of their own history or to become the subjects of the history of others.

    When Tomislav Sunic wrote his thesis on the ENR he could not predict the tragic events that would accompany the breakup of the former Yugoslavia and the subsequent wars which caused so much horrific bloodshed in his own country, as well as in neighbouring countries. I myself witnessed those events with a broken heart. I have had Croatian and Serbian friends for a long time, as well as Slovenian and Bosnian friends. For me that conflict meant the failure of Europe, and especially assign of its impoverishment. Each time European people fight each other, it is always to the benefit of political and ideological systems that yearn to see the disappearance of all peoples. Adding insult to injury, it was humiliating to see the US air bombardment of a European capital, Belgrade, for the first time since 1945.

    I know well the historical roots of all these disputes, which too often resulted in wars and massacres in Central and Eastern Europe. I know well the reasons on all sides. These disputes still feed on ethnic nationalism, religious intolerance and irredentism of all sorts. Not wishing to take sides – since I do not want to elevate myself to the position of supreme judge – I nevertheless believe that these disputes must be overcome. Man of these disputes hark back to times that are definitely over. Irredentism, in particular, makes no sense at the present time. Once upon time borders played a significant role: they guaranteed the continuation of collective identities. Today, boundaries no longer guarantee anything and do not stop or halt anything. Flows and fluxes of all kinds are the hall mark of our time, making borders obsolete. Serbs and Croats, Hungarians and Romanians, Ukrainians and Russians watch the same movies, listen to the same songs, consume the same information, use the same technology, and are subject to the same influences – and are in the same way subject to Americanisation. I know that past antagonisms are difficult to overcome. But my deepest belief is that the identity of a people will always be less threatened by the identity of another neighbouring people than by the ideology of sameness, i.e. by the homogenising juggernaut of globalisation, and by the global system for which any collective identity whatsoever is an obstacle that needs to be erased.

    Once the noose was loosened, countries that were once part of the Soviet and Communist glacis believed they had found in the West the paradise they so long had dreamed about. In reality the exchanged one system of coercion for yet another system of coercion, different but equally fearsome. One can argue, based on our experience, that global capitalism has proved much more effective than Communism in dissolving collective identities. It proved to be much more materialistic. In a few years it managed to impose on a global scale a model of Homo economicus, i.e. a creature whose main reason to exist in this world is reduced to the role of production and consumption. As shown by liberal anthropology, this being is selfish and dedicated purely to the quest for his own best interest. It would be frightening to see in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe only two categories of people: on the one hand Western liberals, and on the other, chauvinistic nationalists. There is also something fascinating in observing former apparatchiks making themselves virgins again by prostrating themselves in front of America – and with the same alacrity they once used when bending over for the Communist system. The countries in which they now live were yesterday satellites of Moscow. Today many of them seem to be too eager to become vassals of Washington. In either case Europe loses again.

    The ENR makes a great effort to identify its real enemy. The main enemy is, on the economic level, capitalism and the market society; on the philosophical level, individualism; on the political front, universalism; on the social front, the bourgeoisie; and on the geopolitical front, America. Why capitalism? Because, contrary to what capitalism to what Communism preached, capitalism is not only an economic system. It is first and foremost an anthropological system, based on values that colonise the symbolic imagination and radically transform it. It is a system that reduces everything of value to its values in the market, and to exchange value. It is a system that considers secondary, transient or non-existent everything that cannot be reduced to a number in terms of quantity, such as money. Finally, it is a dynamic system whose very structure forces it to engage in a frantic attempt to get ahead of itself. Karl Marx was not wrong when he wrote that capital considers any limitation as an obstacle. The capitalist system consists of the logic of ‘always more’ more trade, more markets, more goods, more profit – in the belief that ‘more’ means automatically better. It is the universal imposition of the axiom of interest, i.e. the idea that infinite material growth is possible in a finite world. It is domination through ‘enframing’ ( l’arraisonnement ) of the whole Earth –the Gestell as mentioned by Heidegger – by values of efficiency, performance and profitability. It means transforming the planet into a giant supermarket and a giant civilisation of commerce.

    Alain de Benoist
    , Paris, January, 2009.

    from the Book - Against Democracy and Equality, by Tomislav Sunic. 27 Nov 2018.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to jagdmesser For This Useful Post:

  3. #2

    Christianity is a slave religion

    Christianity is a slave religion ’the Bolshevism of Antiquity’, Nietzche & Alain de Benoist.

    Preface to First Edition

    P 37

    New Right spokesmen trace their bedevilling problems to explicit sources that come up repeatedly for criticism in their writings. Judaeo-Christianity is seen as the pons omnium asinorum: the foundation for a despiritualised world without the mystery that pagans once attached to Nature and the model for a universal order based on a deracinated mankind. New Rightists, as Sunic shows, draw heavily on Nietzche in depicting Christianity as a slave religion and, in the phrase of Nouvelle Êcole’s spirited editor Alain de Benoist, as ’the Bolshevism of Antiquity’.

    The New Right also attacks the French Revolution as an extension of the ideological intolerance aroused by the first Christian Church as a bearer of revolutionary universalism. The French revolutionaries continued the Christian practice of brutalising and killing in the name of the universal creed. The also trumped the Christians by adding to the early Church’s stress on spiritual equality and the more settling claim that mankind was to be politically as well as spiritually equal. In their claim to represent humanity, the revolutionaries repudiated existing legal and social arrangements, believing that all Europeans should be captive to their abstract idea of equality.

    It is this unique blend of ideas that Sunic captures in his comphrensive monograph. He is tireless in pointing out the creative electricism that marks the developing world view of the European New Right. While it clings to often-eccentric views about returning Europe to pre-Christian religion, it also turns to modern science and even ecology to fight the claims of Christian revelation and homogenising commercialism. Despite their dislike of Marxism for its appeal to Christian universalism and equality, New Rightists enthusiastically but selectively study the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. The ENR use Gramsci to arrive at their own critique of the cultural hegemony of ‘big business’ and of the social engineering working to subvert what remains of rooted societies at the present time.

    Paul Gottfried, Pennsylvania.

    Source: book AGAINST DEMOCRACY AND EQUALITY by Tomislav Sunic.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to jagdmesser For This Useful Post:

  5. #3

    The new right


    Morality in Europe today is herd animal morality … anyone who fathoms the calamity that lies concealed in the absurd guilelessness and blind confidence of ‘modern ideas’ and even more of the whole Christian-European morality – suffers from an anxiety that is past all comparison … The overall degeneration of man down to what today appears to be the socialist dolts and flatheads as their “man of the future” – as their ideal – this degeneration and diminution of man into the perfect herd animal ( or as they say, to the man of the “free society” ), this animalisation of man into the dwarf animal of equal rights and claims, is possible, there is no doubt of it. Anyone who has once thought through this possibility to the end knows one kind of nausea that other men don’t know – but perhaps also a new task!’

    Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil.

    ‘Modernity will not be transcended by returning to the past, but by means of certain premodern values in a decisively postmodern dimension. It is only at the price of such a radical restructuring that anomie and contemporary nihilism will be exorcised.’

    Alain de Benoist and Charles Champetier, Manifesto for a European Renaissance.


    The second part of this book lays down the New Right’s criticism of equality, liberal capitalism, ‘economism’, and socialism in a theoretical and analytical manner. For the New Right the difference between liberalism, socialism and communism is almost negligible, because all of these ideologies rest on the premises of universalism, egalitarianism, and the belief in economic progress. In my description of socialism and liberalism, an effort will be made to regroup a number of conservative authors who officially and ‘unofficially’ enter into the category of the conservative anti-egalitarian, anti-capitalist, and anti-Communist intellectual tradition, and who in addition, unanimously share the view that modern mass society equals totalitarianism.

    P 81 The Conservative Left or the Revolutionary Right?

    The social order of the morally and financially bankrupt European democracies ultimately drove a sizeable number of sensitive intellectuals into the arms of both socialism and fascism. As Sternhell remarks for the first time, the majority of European intellectuals began to seriously question the principles of human betterment as well as the belief in indefinite social progress. This ‘revolt against modernity’, as Julius Evola called it, and which, according to the New Right, represents the cornerstone of the modern crisis, became quasi-universal; it permeated all cultural elites, artists, filmmakers, musicians, painters and philosophers, only to take its final shape in the realm of politics. During that period, even the lines of ideological demarcation between the Right and the Left frequently overlapped. Sternhell writes that in France, for instance, one could observe a massive intellectual defection from the Left to the Right, ‘because fascism sometimes drew from the Left and from the Right, and sometimes in some countries more from the Left than from the right.’ In the 1920s and 1930s, all European fascist thinkers, beyond what might separate them on other issues, were in agreement that democratic parliamentary systems were detrimental to national revival and the spirit of national revival and the spirit of historical community. From Giovanni Gentile, the Italian philosopher who, following Aristotle, conceived of man as a ‘political animal’, through the Belgian Rexist José Streel, who affirmed that the ’ individual does not exist in a pure condition’, to José Antonio Primo de Rivera, who declared war on Rousseau, all of these conservative intellectuals attacked the foundations of the liberal, ‘mechanistic’ concept of society that conceives of society as a simple aggregate of individuals.

    The conservative intellectual revolution, also known as the ’organic revolution’, engulfed not only Germany but swept over all European countries, stretching its influence to remote parts of the world. As Mohler notes, the Conservative Revolutionaries comprised Dostoyevsky and both Aksakovs for Russia, Sorel and Barrè s for France, Unamuno for Spain, Pareto and Evola for Italy, and Lawrence and Chesterton for England. One could also include the names of Lothrop Stoddard, Madison Grant, Jack London, Francis Parker Yockey and Esra Pound. And all these young intellectuals shared the same idea of the ‘earth and the dead’, the principle of absolute subordination of individuals to the collective, and the negation of individual autonomy – the idea that represented the quintessence of organic society.

    Source the book AGAINST DEMOCRACY AND EQUALITY by Tomislav Sunic.

  6. #4


    Carl Schmitt and Politics as Destiny

    P 84

    The condition of the political process in modern parliamentary democracies is so pitiful because their internal development has reduced all political discourse to shallow formality. Different opinions are no longer debated; instead, social, financial, and economic pressure groups calculate their interests, and on the bases of these interests the make compromises and coalitions. A modern liberal politician resembles, according to Schmitt, a ‘manager’ or an ‘entertainer’ whose goal is not to persuade his opponent about the validity of his political programme, but primarily to obtain a political majority. Democracy, liberalism, freedom, and equality are a smokescreen, no more than clichés, designed to mask and perpetuate the moral and political bankruptcy of parliamentary systems. For Schmitt, liberal democracies are adept in deforming political semantics by simply renaming their imperial ambitions and territorial acquisitions with anodyne terms such as ‘contracts’, ‘colonies’, ‘protectorates’, and ‘mandates’. Different forms of political dependency are thus coming into being in which modern democratic systems rule a heterogeneous populace without, however, making them citizens of the world. For Schmitt this is a salient paradox of modern democracy, all the more so as modern democracy persistently boasts of its ‘universal’ and ‘egalitarian’ character. Schmitt writes:

    Even a democratic state, let us say the United States of America, is far from letting foreigners participate in its power structure or its wealth. Until now there has never been a democracy that did not recognise the concept ‘foreign’ and that could have realised the equality of all men.

    P 88

    The assumption that post-industrial society, with its developed ‘high-tech’ network, is more likely to guarantee peace is equally misleading, and to this Schmitt responds that ‘today technical inventions are the means of domination of the masses on a large scale. Radio belongs to a broadcasting monopoly; film, to the censor. The decision concerning freedom and slavery lies not in technology as such, which can be revolutionary or reactionary, can serve freedom or oppression, centralisation or decentralisation.

    Schmitt was among the first to analyse the concept of metropolitics, which he elegantly and with some derision terms ‘political romanticism’. To him, no matter whether one cherishes or deplores it, political romanticism is an indispensable motor for creating the legal frame-work of each society. Likewise a King can become a deified romantic figure, just as an anarchist conspirator, or the Caliph of Baghdad, can turn into objects of veneration. Through political romanticism, ideas and virtues, which may subsequently denounced as vices and crimes, acquire necessary legitimacy and political credibility. In each epoch, however, political romanticism manifests itself differently. Today one talks about Leftist sensibility, egalitarian brotherhood, and peace on earth; one introduces Leftist and liberal iconography and symbolism, glorifying and deifying the virtues of the prevalent Zeitgeist. Here is how Schmitt sees political romanticists:

    Instead of concepts and philosophical systems, their subjectivism leads them to a kind of lyrical rewriting of experiences, which can be combined with a certain organic passivity or, where the artistic gift is absent, to the ( above mentioned ) half lyrical, half- intellectual following of strange activities which accompany political events with glossy characteristics, sloganeering and opinions, emphases and counter arguments, innuendoes and synthetic comparisons; frequently excited and tumultuous, but always without its own decision, own responsibility, and own danger.

    Political romanticism, continues Schmitt, bears resemblance to ‘the lyrical grumbles and trembling of thoughts stemming from somebody else’s decisions and responsibilities …’ Yet, when push comes to shove, and where real political authority begins, ‘political romanticism comes to a stop’.

    Schmitt further observes that every political romanticist often demonstrates traits of anarchistic individualism and ‘self-awareness’ ( Selbstgefühl ) that is usually accompanied by excessive cravings for social messianism and fake philanthropy. Schmitt writes that a political romanticist ‘is easily seized by altruistic passions, compassions and sympathy, as well as snobbish presumptions’. Yet in real political life, he is unable to think beyond his own emotional subjectivity – which he alters, once another form of political romanticism comes into vogue.

    Source the Book - Against Democracy and Equality, by Tomislav Sunic, 29 Nov 2018.

    Democracy, liberalism, freedom, and equality are a smokescreen, no more than clichés, designed to mask and perpetuate the moral and political bankruptcy of parliamentary systems.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to jagdmesser For This Useful Post:

  8. #5
    Senior Member
    velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 8th, 2020 @ 03:10 AM
    Northern Germany
    Germany Germany
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Zodiac Sign
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Blut und Boden
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    652 Posts
    Why the West must end Democracy

    Democrazy (pun intended) never worked anywhere, and its modern incarnation is the worst of the worst ever.

    It's no coincidence that it came about within and from the French Revolution, in its wake Marx invented the "civil society", parallel to that the American Republic grew out of the Civil War, in Britain Adam Smith invented Liberalism, which did not fly in Britain or Europe, but in America all the stronger.

    The parliaments are merely a political manifestation of Lobbyism, dividing the people of a country along arbitrary, economic lines and flavours of (indeed, with an anarchic tendency) "individualistic tastes" and emotional affections rather than reason, let alone a real vision. It is 'divide et impera' on all levels of society, pitting everyone against everyone and everything, with all the rampant individualism, liberalisms and tenets of fantasy "values" in fact de-humanising man.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to velvet For This Useful Post:

  10. #6

    Oswald Spengler and History as Destiny

    Oswald Spengler and History as Destiny

    P 91

    Spengler wrote The Decline of the West against the background of the anticipated German victory in the First World War. However, when the war ended disastrously for Germany, his book only corroborated his overwhelming belief that Europe was headed for immediate decline. During Spengler’s lifetime the belief in linear human progress and faith in man’s innate perfectibility were both still subjects invested with religious fervour, although the aftermath of the war had brought in a sudden wave of scepticism. The mesmerising effects of new technology soon came to be understood not only as a sign of prosperity, but also as an ideal tool for man’s annihilation. Inadvertently, and without even knowing it, by attempting to interpret the entire history of Europe, Spengler best succeeded in depicting the history of his own era and his own troubled generation. He was among the first authors who tried to establish a pattern of cultural growth and cultural decay, and in doing so, he conceived of giving to his analysis a deterministic and a certain scientific value. As a result of his endeavours, he wrote ‘the morphology of history’ – as his work is often termed - although probably, his work deserves to be renamed a ‘biology’ of history. The term ‘biology’ indeed seems more appropriate considering Spengler’s inclination to view cultures as living and organic entities afflicted with diseases, plagues, or showing signs of health.

    Firstly Spengler rejects the abstract concept of ‘mankind’ or ‘humanity’. His entire vision of the human species is one of different and opposing peoples, each expressing its own growth and death. The concept of mankind writes Spengler, is either a ‘zoological expression', or an empty word. But conjure away the phantom, break the magic circle, and at once there emerges an astonishing wealth of actual forms – the Living with all its immense fullness, depth and movement – hitherto veiled by a catchword, a dry-as-dust scheme and a set of personal “ideals”.

    Spengler was not aware that the concept of ‘world history’ encompasses a impressive array of diverse and mighty cultures, each with its own form, own passion, and its own life and death. Thus he writes that ‘Cultures, peoples, languages, truths, gods, landscapes bloom and age as the oaks and the stone-pines, the blossoms, twigs and leaves – but there is no aging “Mankind”. All cultures grow in their own ’sublime futility’ ( erhabene Zwecklosigkeit ), and human will can never reverse this process.

    For Spengler, each culture passes through various cycles or different historical ‘seasons’. . . . .

    P 93

    As Spengler and his contemporary successors among the New Right see it, European culture has nowadays transformed itself into a civilisation that is being currently threatened by an advanced form of social, moral, and political decay. After the Industrial Revolution, Europe had passed the stage of culture, and is experiencing today, and in the most acute form, the winter of its life. New forms of political life have emerged in Europe, marked b the ideology of economism and the rule of plutocracy. All sectors of social life are being reduced to an immense economic transaction. And since nobody can ever be fully satisfied, and everybody earns for more, it is understandable that masses of people will seek a change in their existing communities. This craving for ‘change’will be translated into the incessant decline of the sense of public responsibility, followed by uprootedness and social anomie, which will inevitably and ultimately lead to Caesarism, or totalitarianism. Finally, before the ‘muscled regimes’ can come into full effect, democracies will be marred by moral and social convulsions, political scandals, and horrendous corruption on all levels of society. ‘Through money’ writes Spengler, ‘democracy becomes its own destroyer, after money has destroyed intellect.’ Furthermore, as Spengler observes, the transition from democracy into mobocracy will be facilitated when the tyranny of the few is replaced by the tyranny of the many:

    But the same things recur, and as a necessary result of the European-American liberalism –‘the despotism of freedom against tyranny’ as Robespierre put it. In lieu of stake and faggots, there is the great silence. The dictature of party leaders supports itself upon that of the Press. The competitors strive by means of money to detach readers – nay peoples – en masse from the hostile allegiance and to bring them under their own mind-training. And all that they learn in this mind-training, is what it is considered that they should know – a higher will puts together the picture of their world for them. There is no need now, as there was for Baroque princes, to impose military-service liability on the subject – one whips their souls with articles, telegrams and pictures ( Northcliffe! ) until they clamour for weapons and force their leaders into a conflict to which they willed to be forced.

    Hardly any palliative can be found against this predetermined process of social decay. Europe has grown old, unwilling to fight, and its political and cultural inventory has been depleted. Consequently it is obliged to cede its cultural supremacy to more primitive and barbaric nations and races that are less susceptible to pacifism and masochistic guilt. The end of Europe thus being sealed, a new culture, a new nation, and a new cycle of history begins. European man has lost his sense of historical relativism, yet he naïvely thinks that his ‘irrefutable truths’ and ‘eternal verities’ will forever remain valid and eternal for all people in the world. If a modern European desires to recognise the temporary nature of his historical position, continues Spengler, he must finally start thinking beyond his narrow ‘frog perspective’ ( Froschperspektive ), and develop different attitudes towards different political convictions and principles. . . . . .

    P 98

    These ideas constitute the fundamental part of the New Right’s concept of history. Yet, no matter how dismal and decadent modern society appears to be, no matter what the outcome of the struggle is, or how threaten Europe appears, the New Right insists that it is still worth dying for Europe as an honourable warrior. By quoting Alexander Zinoviev in the Preface to one of his books ( the ‘historical optimist counts on nothing and on nobody’ ), de Benoist basicall suggests that one must lay down one’s life for Europe as a fighter, although the battle already appears lost.

    Source the Book - Against Democracy and Equality, by Tomislav Sunic, 30 Nov 2018.

    velvet's vid "Why the West must end Democracy", previous post worth watching.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to jagdmesser For This Useful Post:

  12. #7

    Pareto and Political Pathology

    Vilfredo Pareto and Political Pathology

    P 101

    Pareto argues that political theories seldom become attractive on the grounds of their presumably empirical or scientific character – although of course, they all claim to be empirical and scientific – but primarily because they can exert an enormous sentimental force upon the masses. For example, in the latter days of the Roman Empire, it was an obscure religion from Galilee that, mobilised masses of gullible people, willing to die, willing to be tortured, and willing to torture others once their religion seized the reins of power. In the Age of Reason, the prevailing ‘religion’ among the educated people was rationalism and the belief in boundless human improvement. After that came the ‘self-evident’ ideology of liberalism and ‘scientific’ Marxism and the belief in human equality. According to Pareto, depending on each historical epoch, pathological complexes are likely to give birth to different ideological derivatives – although their irrational essence will always remain the same. Since people need to transcend reality and make frequent excursions into fantasy and the imaginary, it is natural that they resort to religious and ideological symbols, however aberrant these symbols may subsequently appear to them. In analysing this phenomenon, Pareto takes the example of the Marxist ‘true believers’, and notes that ‘(t)his is the current mental framework of some educated and intelligent Marxists in regard to the theory of value. From the logical point of view they are wrong; from the practical point of view and that of utility for their cause, they are probably right. Unfortunately, continues Pareto, these true believers who clamour for change know only what to destroy and how to destroy it, but are full of illusions as to what they have to replace it with, and if they could imagine it a large number among them would be struck with horror and amazement’.

    The pathological components of ideology are so powerful that they can completely obscure reason and the sense of reality, and in addition, they are not likely to disappear even when they take on a different ’cover’ in a seemingly more respectable myth or ‘self evident’ ideology. For Pareto, this is a disturbing historical process of which there is no end in sight:

    Essentially, social physiology and social pathology are still in their infancy. If we wish to compare them to the physiology and pathology of man, it is not to Hippocrates that we have to go, but far beyond him. Governments behave like an ignorant physician, randomly picking drugs in a pharmacy and administering them to a patient.

    So what remains of the much-vaunted liberal and socialist progress, asks Pareto? Almost nothing, given that history continues to be a perpetual and cosmic return, with victims and victors, heroes and henchmen alternating in their roles, bewailing and bemoaning their fate when they are in apposition of weakness, and abusing the weaker when they are in a position of strength. For Pareto, the only language people understand is that of force. And with his usual cynicism he adds, ‘there are some people who imagine they can disarm the enemy by complacent flattery. They are wrong. The world has always belonged to the stronger; and will belong to them for many years to come. Men only respect those who make themselves respected. Whoever becomes a lamb will find a wolf to eat him’.

    For Pareto nations, empires and states never die from foreign conquest but exclusively from suicide. When a nation, a class, a party, or a race becomes too degenerate or corrupted – which seems to be the predicament of every group – then another, more powerful party, class, nation, or race will surface and win over the masses, irrespective of the utility or validity of the new political theology or ideology:

    A sign which almost always accompanies the decadence of an aristocracy is the invasion of humanitarian sentiments and delicate ‘sob-stories’ that render it incapable of defending its position. We must not confuse violence and force. Violence usually accompanies weakness. We can observe individuals and classes, who, having lost the force to maintain themselves in power, become more and more odious by resorting to indiscriminate violence. A strong man strikes only when it is absolutely necessary – and then nothing stops him. Trajan was strong but not violent; Caligula was violent but not strong.

    The downtrodden and the weak will always appeal to the sense of justice of those who rule, but the moment they grab the reins of power they will become as oppressive as their former rulers. Moreover, if by chance some nation happens to display signs of excessive humanity, philanthropy, or equality, it is a certain symptom of terminal illness. Soon another political actor will appear with enough virility and force to convince the masses that life is equally possible under a different brand of ‘justice’.

    I realise that someone could answer to me that the Christians, too called for freedom when they were oppressed, but that as soon as they came to power, the in their turn oppressed the pagans. Today, the orthodox socialists, oppressed, call for freedom but, tomorrow, if they are in power, will they give it to us . . . ? Hope alone remains in Pandora’s box. We can only console ourselves with hypotheses since reality is so grim.

    Deluded by dreams of justice, equality, and freedom, what weapons do liberal democracies have today at their disposal against the ’downtrodden’ masses worldwide? The New Right observes that the sense of guilt among Europeans in regard to Africans, Asians, and other downtrodden populations has paralysed European decision-makers, leaving them and Europe defenceless against tomorrow’s conquerors. For had Africans or Asians been at the same technological levels as Europeans, what kind of destiny would they have reserved for Europeans? This is something Pareto speculates about:

    All people horrified by blood to the point of not knowing how to defend itself sooner or later will become the prey for some bellicose people. There is probably not a single foot of land on earth that has not been conquered by the sword, or where people occupying this land have not maintained themselves by force. If Negroes were stronger than Europeans, it would be Negroes dividing Europe and not Europeans dividing Africa. The alleged ‘right’ which the peoples have arrogated to themselves with the title ‘civilised’ to conquer other peoples whom they got accustomed to calling ‘uncivilised’ is absolutely ridiculous. Rather, this right is nothing but force. As long as Europeans remain stronger than Chinese, they will impose their will upon them, but if the Chinese become stronger than the Europeans, these roles will be reversed . . .

    Might always comes first, and those who assume that their passionate pleas for justice and brotherhood will be heeded by those were previously enslaved are gravely mistaken.
    New victors, in general, always teach their former rulers that signs of weakness result in proportionally increased punishment. To lack resolve in the hour of decision, to willingly surrender oneself to the anticipated generosity of new rulers, is a characteristic of degenerate individuals, and as Pareto writes, it is desirable for society that such individuals disappear as soon as possible. Should, however, the old elite be ousted and a new ‘humanitarian’ elite comes to power, the cherished ideas of justice and equality will appear as distant and unattainable as ever. Possibly argues Pareto, a new elite will be even worse and more oppressive than the former one, all the more as the new ‘world improvers’ ( Weltverbesserer ) - as Spengler called them – will not hesitate to make use of the most obscene verbal acrobatics to justify their oppression

    Source the Book - Against Democracy and Equality, by Tomislav Sunic, 01 Dec 2018.

  13. #8

    Part One: Introducing the New Right, VII The Pagan Right

    P 107

    This chapter examines the New Right’s criticism of Biblical monotheism and contrasts it with the description of religious polytheism such as it manifest itself in pre-Christian paganism. It limits itself to the cursory description of polytheism and paganism originating on the European continent. The Indian pantheon of gods and deities, as well as the manifestation of paganism in other non-European cultures, is not examined. The New Right’s criticism of monotheism is basically aimed at the Judaeo-Christian legacy in Europe and not against other monotheistic religions elsewhere in the world. The central figure is again the leader of the New Right, the philosopher Alain de Benoist. De Benoist’s arguments are strongly influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, and Louis Rougier; in short the conservative authors and philosophers who have played a decisive role in the philosophical formation of the New Right.

    . . . fears emerged that the New Right was trying to revive old European pagan worship and cults, which for many justifiably bore a resemblance of earlier National Socialist attempts to ‘dechristianise’ and ‘repaganise’ Germany. . . . . As long as the New Right limited itself to criticising liberalism, Communism and the modern mass society, it could count on definite conservative support. Once it began to target the political legacy of Judaism, Christianity and the existence of a single omnipotent god, however, even the most sympathetic followers found ample reason for scepticism and fear. The parallel between the New Right and the earlier National Socialist effort to remove the Judaeo-Christian heritage from Germany turned out to be so conspicuous that it could not be hidden.

    In European culture, polytheistic beliefs began to dwindle with the rise of Christianity. In centuries to come, it was to be expected that the European thought, whether in theology or, later on, in sociology, politics, history or psychology – in short, their entire perception of the world – would gradually come under the influence of Judaeo-Christian monotheistic beliefs. David Miller, in his book the New Polytheism, observes that the centuries-long impact of Judaeo-Christian monotheistism has considerably altered the European approach to all social sciences as well as its overall perception of the world. Following the consolidation of the Judaeo-Christian belief in Europe, the world came to be understood according to fixed concepts and categories governed by the logic of ‘either-or’, ‘true or false’, ‘good or evil’ – with seldom any shading between the two. Miller, nevertheless, doubts that Judaeo-Christian monotheistism can continue to be a valid approach in understanding the complex social reality of the contemporary world, a world that is replete with choices and intricate social differences that stubbornly refuse all simplistic categorisation.

    Like Nietzsche, de Benoist argues that Christianity has introduced an alien ‘anthropology’ into Europe that is today directly responsible for the spread of egalitarian mass society and the rise of totalitarianism. In his dialogue with Molnar (L’éclipse du sacré), de Benoist defines totalitarianism as a system which claims to possess a unique truth; a sstem that upholds the idea of an absolute good versus an absolute evil; and a system where the idea of the enemy is identified with its concept of evil – and who is therefore to be physically exterminated (cf. Deuteronomy 13). In short, observes de Benoist, Judaeo-Christian universalism set the stage for the rise of modern egalitarian aberrations, particularly in Communist systems:

    That there are totalitarian regimes ‘without God’ is quite obvious – the Soviet Union for example. These regimes, nonetheless, are the ‘inheritors’ of Christian thought in the sense in which Carl Schmitt demonstrated that the majority of modern political principles are secularised theological principles. They bring down to earth a structure of exclusion; the police of the soul yield their place to the police of the state; the ideological wars follow upon the religious wars.

    By cutting themselves off from Europe’s polytheistic roots and by accepting Christianity, Europeans gradually began to adhere to a vision of the world that emphasised the equality of souls and the importance of spreading God’s gospel to all peoples, regardless of creed, race or language ( Paul; Galatians 3:28). For his part de Benoist sees in Christian universalism a form of ‘Bolshevism of Antiquity’, and notes that in order to fully grasp the meaning of modern egalitarian doctrines, particularly Marxism, one must first trace their origins in Christianity:

    According to the classical doctrine of the development and degradation of cycles, the egalitarian theme has entered our culture from the stage of myth (equality before God), and proceeded to the stage of ideology (equality before people); after that it has passed to the stage of ‘scientific pretension’ (affirmation of the egalitarian fact). In short we have proceeded from Christianity to democracy, and after that to socialism and Marxism. The most serious approach that one can level against Christianity is that it has inaugurated this egalitarian cycle by introducing into European thought a revolutionary anthropology, with a universalist and totalitarian character.

    . . . . . For de Benoist, the belief in equality before one God paves the way for a one-dimensional world, with a one-dimensional history and a one-dimensional logic. Accordingly, each occurrence of Christian intolerance could be interpreted as a violent response against those who have departed from the belief in Christ. Hence we have the concept of Christian ‘false humility’ that Rougier mentions in his discussion about the Christian attitude towards Jews. Although almost identical in their worship of one god, the clash between Christians and Jews was bound to occur, because Christians could never quite reconcile themselves to the fact that the also worship the deity of those whom they abhor as a people who killed this same deity. Moreover, whereas Christianity is meant to be a universalist religion, proselytising in all corners of the world, Judaism is a strictly ethnic religion of the Jewish people. For de Benoist, Judaism, sanctions its own nationalism, in contrast to Christian nationalism, which is constantly belied by its own universalist logic. ‘Christian anti-Semitism’, suggests de Benoist, ‘can therefore be correctly described as a neurosis’.

    For the New Right, Judaeo-Christian monotheism has substantially altered the modern approach towards understanding history and politics. Judaeo-Christianity has assigned a specific goal to history, the end result of which is a gradual, but definite devaluation of all past events which did not display the sign of God’s theophany. According to the author of the New Right, the Judaeo-Christian rationalisation of the historical process precludes the reassessment of one’s own national past, and in addition, it significantly contributes to the ‘desertification’ of the entire world. Ernest Renan, a predecessor of the New Right, observed earlier that Judaism is oblivious to the notion of the sacred because the ’desert itself is monotheistic.’

    The Terror of History

    Contrary to the Judaeo-Christian dogma which asserts that historical time starts from one unique father, in European paganism there are no traces of a beginning of time; instead, historical time is a perpetual recommencement, the ‘eternal return’, emanating from multiple and different fathers. In pagan cosmogony, writes de Benoist, time is the reflection of a non-linear conception of history – a conception in which the past, the present, and the future are not perceived as moments irrevocably cut off from each other, or following each other along a single line. Instead remarks de Benoist, the past, the present and the future are perceived as dimensions of each actuality. In contrast, Judaeo-Christian monotheism excludes the possibility of historical return or ‘recommencement’; history has to unfold in a predetermined way by making its way towards a final goal.

    Undoubtedly, Judaeo-Christian dogma does admit that man may have a history but only insofar as history is bestowed with assigned goal, a certain goal and a specific goal. Should a man cling to his ancient concept of history that evokes the collective memory of either his tribe or his people, he runs the risk of provoking Yahweh’s anger. De Benoist notes that in place of a pagan organic solidarity or communal ties, the monotheism of the Bible attempts to create divisions. Yahweh forbids ’mixtures’ between the present and the past, between people and the divine, between Israel and the goyim.

    Now, directly commanded by the will of Yahweh, history functions as a series of theophanies or events, with each event becoming irrevocable and irreversible. As Pierre Chaunu, a well-known contemporary French historian, observes, the rejection of history is a temptation of those civilisations which emerged out of Judaeo-Christianity.

    These observations necessitate some comments. If one accepts the idea of the end of history, as both Christians and Marxists maintain, to what extent can the entire sufferings throughout history be explained? How is it possible, from liberal and Marxist points of view, to ‘redeem’ past oppressions, collective sufferings, deportations, and humiliations that have filled the pages of history? This is a fundamental problem which shall be discussed in more detail in the second part of the book. Suffice is to say that this enigma only underscores the difficulty regarding the concept of unresolved justice in egalitarian (both liberal and Marxist) society. If a truly egalitarian society becomes a reality, it will inevitably be a society of the ‘elect’ – of those who, as Eliade notes, managed to escape the ‘pressure of history’ by simply being born at the right place at the right time. Similar views are held by the conservative theologian Paul Tillich, who writes that such ‘equality’ would result in immense historical inequality, since it would do injustice to those who, in Arthur Koestler’s words, perished with a ‘shrug of eternity’. Eliade illustrates the futility of modern ideologies of ‘social improvement’, for instance, when he mentions how south-eastern Europe had to suffer for centuries simply because it happened to be in the path of Asiatic invaders and Ottoman conquerors. Eliade notes that due to the fortunes of geography and history, Eastern Europeans have never been charmed by modern historicism, and instead, in times of great political and social catastrophes, the subconsciously sought solace in the traditional ‘pagan’ justification of cyclical history.

    The New Right concludes that for a Christian it is Christianity that defines the value of a human being, for a jew it is Judaism that gauges someone’s ‘choseness’, and for Marxism it is not the quality of a man that defines his class, but rather the quality of the class that defines the man. One must become ‘elected’ by virtue of his affiliation to his religious belief or his class. Yahweh, similar to his future secular successors, is a jealous god, and in his capacity he is opposed to the presence of other gods and values. He is a ‘reductionist’ and whatever exists beyond his fold must be either punished or destroyed. Not surprisingly, throughout history, the monotheistic ‘true believers’ have been encouraged, in the name of ‘higher’ goals to punish those who had strayed away from Yahweh’s assigned path.

    In contrast, writes de Benoist, ‘(a) system that appears a limitless number of gods not only accepts the plurality of the forms of worship that address them, but also, and especially, the plurality of mores, social and political systems, conceptions of the world for which these gods are so many sublimated expressions’. It follows from this that pagans, or believers in polytheism, are considerably less inclined to intolerance. Their relative tolerance is primarily attributable to the acceptance of the notion of the ‘excluded third party’ (der ausgeschlossene Dritte) as well as the rejection of Judaeo-Christian dualism. In Judaeo-Christian belief, relative, different or contradictory truths cannot exist, since Judaeo-Christianity excludes everything that is not compatible with the division between the concept of good and evil. Eliade writes that the ‘intolerance and fanaticism characteristic of the prophets and missionaries of the three monotheistic religions have their model and justification in the example of Yahweh’. In contemporary secular systems, this means that the opposite, the undecided, those who have not taken sides, and those who refuse modern political eschatologies become the target of ostracism or persecution.

    Thus, for the New Right, the chaos of modern society has primarily been caused by Biblical monotheism. In the very beginning of its development in Europe, Judaeo-Christian monotheism set out to demystify and desacralise the pagan world by slowly supplanting ancient pagan beliefs with the reign of law. During this centuries-long process, Christianity has gradually removed all pagan vestiges that co-existed with it. For the authors of the New Right, the desacralisation and the Entzauberung of life and politics has nor resulted from Europeans’ chance departure from Christianity, but rather from the gradual disappearance of the pagan notion of the sacred. Never has Europe been so saturated with the Judaeo-Christian mentality than at the moment when the churches are virtually empty.

    In the following pages we shall see how the New Right deal with what Louis Dumont calls the ‘genesis and triump of modern egalitarian and economic ideologies’.We shall also examine wh according to the New Right, economism and egalitarianism constitute the main vectors of totalitarianism. Needless to say, for the New Right, all modern belief systems, including liberalism and Communism, represent progenies of Judaeo-Christianity.

    Source the Book - Against Democracy and Equality, by Tomislav Sunic. 03 Dec 2018.

  14. #9

    Part two the egalitarian mystique: The roots of the modern crisis

    ‘No matter how our future may look, either as an Arcadian dream of impeccable parliamentary democracy, or as a nightmare of totalitarian darkness – the future belongs to the police state.’ Friedrich Sieburg, Die Lust am Untergang

    ‘It suffices to amputate a people from its history and memory in order to open up the avenue of egalitarianism.’ Jean Cau, Discours de la decadence

    P 130

    For Maffesoli, Zinoviev, Polin, de Benoist, Dumont, and probably some other authors, true totalitarianism is not national, but international. True totalitarianism is not the oppression of the few over the many; it is the oppression of the many over the few. As Polin summarises, ‘Totalitarianism is the total terror of all against all at all moments’ (terreur totale de tous sur tous á tous les instants). Modern liberal and socialist countries have been able to realise this peculiar brand of terror.

    For the New Right, humanity is headed towards totalitarian chaos whose main aim is the incipient Judaeo-Christian belief in egalitarianism. This is finally the fundamental teaching of the European New Right regarding the genesis and the outcome of the egalitarian and democratic ideal.

    Liberal or Socialist Equality?

    The important thing, however, is that it (equality) should not be completed attained, but that it should be sincerely sought. What matters to the health of society is the objective towards which its face is set, and to suggest that it is immaterial in which direction it moves, because whatever the direction , the goal must always elude it, is not scientific but irrational. (Richard H Tawney, The Idea of Equality)

    The problem, of course, arises when the idea of equality becomes associated with the demand for economic equality, which in turn may bring about theories that depart significantly from the liberal legacy. From Babeuf to Marx, many socialist theorists have repudiated the often huge economic discrepancies in liberal society – a society that often prides itself on legal equality and the respect for human rights. The avowed goal of socialists, and particularly Marxist theorists, was the removal of those economic barriers and the creation of a society in which equal economic opportunity would also be translated into equal economic outcomes.

    . . . .

    For David Thomson, socialist equality is neither feasible nor desirable, since this would spell doom not only of capitalism, but also bring about the end of culture and civilisation. Nonetheless, Thomson realises that in contemporary liberal societies the craving for equality can become so pervasive that it can totally obscure the love of liberty.

    Many who would stoutly defend with their dying breath the rights of liberty and equality . . . (as would many English and American liberals) shrink back with horror from the notion of economic egalitarianism

    . . . . .

    The French Revolution is only the forerunner of a much greater, much more solemn, revolution which will be the last . . . Begone, hideous distinction of rich and poor, of masters and servants, of governing and governed . . . In the cry of equality, let the forces of justice and happiness organise themselves.

    It is needless to argue how much Babeuf’s proclamation influenced Marx and future Marxist leaders, but it is also interesting to note a strange millenarian resonance that echoes in Malby, Condorcet, Rousseau, Babeuf, and later on in Marx – a resonance that carries the same millenarian emotional appeal that Paul once addressed to the Galatians: “There is neither jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)

    One may agree with Thomson that the appetite for equality grows with the taste of it – and this is precisely where the New Right and some other conservative theorists see the greatest threat to liberty.

    Source the Book - Against Democracy and Equality, by Tomislav Sunic. 04 Dec 2018.

    Alain de Benoist puts himself forward as the progressive leader of the French New Right. He is very much a conformist and wants immigration to continue as it is.

    jews control the world’s beliefs and finance.

    In order to have common sense, there must be a common culture, a common blood and a common soul.

    Multiculturalism in any society is directly proportional to the Corruption at the top of a political system M ∝ C
    and inversely proportional to national Unity M ∝ 1/U.

    If you are white and your not obsessed over what is going on, then you are part of the problem.

    All government is implemented by FORCE. Government is our enemy.

    The people are officially the enemy of the State.

    "The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime." -Johann Kaspar Schmidt.

    Forget democracy it’s White peoples doom.

    "Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle.

  15. #10
    Senior Member
    Theunissen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    5 Days Ago @ 11:12 AM
    North Western Europe
    South Africa South Africa
    Transvaal Transvaal
    South Africa
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    243 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Why the West must end Democracy

    Democrazy (pun intended) never worked anywhere, and its modern incarnation is the worst of the worst ever.

    It's no coincidence that it came about within and from the French Revolution, in its wake Marx invented the "civil society", parallel to that the American Republic grew out of the Civil War, in Britain Adam Smith invented Liberalism, which did not fly in Britain or Europe, but in America all the stronger.

    The parliaments are merely a political manifestation of Lobbyism, dividing the people of a country along arbitrary, economic lines and flavours of (indeed, with an anarchic tendency) "individualistic tastes" and emotional affections rather than reason, let alone a real vision. It is 'divide et impera' on all levels of society, pitting everyone against everyone and everything, with all the rampant individualism, liberalisms and tenets of fantasy "values" in fact de-humanising man.
    One only needs to ask why successful companies aren't organized in a democratic fashion. In fact they are all hierarchical organizations with top down direction and specialized decision making through experts in the field.

    So there you have it, they have to dismiss democracy and equality in order to be efficient.

Similar Threads

    By jagdmesser in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, November 13th, 2018, 11:06 AM
  2. Soros & The Myth Of European Democracy: A Shocking Revelation
    By Nachtengel in forum Articles & Current Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, November 6th, 2017, 08:48 AM
  3. Tom Sunic and Far Right In Europe Hope Donald Trump Will Set Them Free
    By Huginn ok Muninn in forum Articles & Current Affairs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Tuesday, April 19th, 2016, 12:28 AM
  4. Dr. Tom Sunic: Critic of the Post-Modern Age
    By Aptrgangr in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Saturday, August 15th, 2009, 08:40 PM
  5. Classify Tomislav Nikolic
    By Red Skull in forum Anthropological Taxonomy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Saturday, December 9th, 2006, 03:27 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts