|
|
|
Alain de Benoist’s preface to the Croatian edition of Sunic’s “Against Democracy and Equality” Tomislav Sunic’s first book, Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right, has just been released in a Croatian language edition. It carries a lengthy preface by Alain de Benoist, which sets out the background and principle positions of the ENR. I reproduce it in English here, as translated by Tom.
The New Right: 40 Years After ... In 1990, as a current of thought under the name “European New Right” (ENR) had began to celebrate its twenty-first birthday, a Croatian friend of mine, Tomislav Sunic, published in English the first edition of his book on the New Right. This was originally the text of his doctoral dissertation, defended two years earlier at the University of California in Santa Barbara, (1). Having acquired a very good knowledge of French during his studies at the University of Zagreb, Sunic was keen to probe into the ENR very early on. Moreover, he also had the opportunity to read ENR works in the original French language. Unlike many other commentators who spoke of the ENR on the basis of hearsay and formed judgments from second hand sources, he demonstrated the ability to go right to the core of the issue. He demonstrated a sympathy for the ENR which plainly distinguished him from those commentators. It was also plain that his book’s interest derives from something more than sympathy. Its importance is due to its pioneer character. Certainly, in the late 1980s several books (but also a number of scholarly works) had already been published on the ENR. But they were almost all published in French. Tomislav Sunic’s book was one of the first to appear abroad (a privilege he shared with some Italian authors). Presenting the history and main ideas of the ENR to a public who had never heard of it before was not an easy task. Thanks to his informed mind, his sense of synthesis, but also his knowledge of the readers he addressed, there is no doubt that Sunic succeeded immediately in his endeavor. In hindsight, what I find most remarkable is that Tomislav Sunic’s book was written in English, especially given that the author resided at that time in a country - the United States - that he knew from the inside-out and which he viewed in a very critical manner (as evidenced by his latest book, Homo Americanus). When addressing the English-speaking audience, Tomislav Sunic faced difficulties that an Italian, Spanish or a German author would have never encountered. The first of these difficulties is due to the lack of interest shown generally in the Anglo-Saxon world in the debate of ideas. The English, and even more the Americans, pretend to be “pragmatic.” In philosophy, they adhere mostly to the school of empiricism and positivism, if not to a purely analytical philosophy. In their craving for “facts” they forget that facts cannot be dissociated from hermeneutics, i.e. from a given form of interpretation. The famous distinction made by David Hume between judgmental facts and value judgments (indicative and imperative, being and must-be) can only have relative value. As to the usage of a political theory, with few notable exceptions - especially in America - this attempt on their part often boils down to practical considerations that steer the projects of the ruling class. This explains why intellectuals over there are looked down upon, and why they have never held the role of moral arbiters, as is the case in other countries, notably France. The expression “New Right” presented another difficulty. There was already the English New Right and the American New Right. But such “New Rights,” far from being schools of thought related to the ENR, represented their very opposite. They combined religious fundamentalism and moral order with a mish-mash of Atlanticism and “Westernization”, and functioned in defense of capitalism and the ideology of free market. Such Anglo-American New Rights were in fact everything that the ENR has always been critical of— and this in a very radical manner. Sympathizers of these New Rights, who might otherwise have been intrigued by Tomislav Sunic’s book, were surely mightily disappointed. In general, and irrespective of all the misunderstandings that may have been caused by such a label (I will come back to that later), it must have been very arduous on the other side of the Atlantic to come across the equivalent of the ENR. What one dubs in America “the right” consists, in fact, of two main currents. One is mainstream, moderate, and middle-class, corresponding to “conservative” circles (which themselves are divided into numerous chapels and clans) and whose main characteristic is the eulogy of the economic system, i.e. capitalism, and which, to top it all, destroys everything that it stands for. On the other hand, there is another current, spearhead by a few radical individuals, and often embodied by small extremist groups describing themselves as “racialists” and whose ideology boils down to across-the board-nationalism spiced up with xenophobia. For its part, not only has the ENR never identified itself with any of its Anglo-Saxon New Right chapels or residues, but has consistently fought against their principles and their premises. One must add to this another ambiguity - the one related to the vocabulary. I will take one example only. In the realm of ideas the ENR has consistently targeted liberalism as one of its chief adversaries. The word “liberal” has a radically different meaning in Western Europe from that in the USA. On the other side of the Atlantic, a “liberal” is a man leaning to the center-left, and defending a form of social policy, and also being an advocate of a redistributive state. He is also easy-going in terms of social mores and tends to be a great proponent of the ideology of human rights. We call him in France a “progressive.’ By contrast, on this side of the Atlantic, a liberal is primarily a spokesman of individualism, a supporter of free trade, and opponent of the state (and also a supporter of America). If one asks a Frenchman to quote a name of some well known liberal politician the names of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher would immediately come to his mind. In other words, what we call “liberal” corresponds to a large extent to that what the Americans call a “conservative” – and, therefore, a foe of a “liberal”! This difference has historical origins: the Americans have retained the original meaning of the word “liberalism” which, when it first appeared as a doctrine in the eighteenth century, stood actually for a “leftist” current of thought, being the main heir to the philosophy of Enlightenment. In Europe, by contrast, the Liberals were gradually pushed to the rightist specter by incoming Socialist and Communist currents of thought, to the point that the Liberals, as of the late nineteenth century, began to identify themselves with the conservative bourgeoisie (sometimes called “Orleanistes” in France). We can see right away what kind of scorn could such a book be subject to in America, a book representing an anti-liberal current of thought” and provoking, in addition all kinds of “false cognates.” Finally, there is no doubt that criticism of the United States and of the Americanization of the world, which has resulted from gradual assertion of American hegemony, and which has been a standard topic of ENR discourse, could hardly seduce Americans who perceive their country not only to be the “Promised Land” and the incarnation of the best of all the worlds, but also, and precisely for that reason, as a role model that merits export worldwide. It is significant that very few texts by ENR authors have been translated into English although they have been translated into fifteen other languages. This seems to be an aspect of “old Europe” (or of this ‘rest of the world”) which will never be fully comprehended across the Atlantic - the only condition on which comprehension is available being its total Americanization. The ENR remains terra incognita for the vast majority of Americans (2).
The ENR has always denounced what I have named the ideology of Sameness, i.e. the universalistic ideology which, under its religious or profane veneer, aims at reducing the diversity of the world (i.e. the diversity of cultures, value systems, and rooted ways of living) to one uniform model. The implementation of the ideology of the Same leads to the reduction and eradication of differences. Being fundamentally ethnocentric and despite its universalistic claims, it has never stopped legitimizing all forms of imperialism. In the past, it was pursued by missionaries who wished to convert the entire planet to one God; later, in the same vein, by colonizers who, in the name of the “sense of history” and the cult of “progress”, wanted to impose their way of life on ‘Indigenous peoples’. As for democracy, whose main tenet is equal political rights, the ENR, which has never had any taste for despotism or dictatorship, and even less for totalitarianism, has always considered it, if not the best possible regime, at least the one that best meets the requirements of our times. But we must first understand its exact meaning. Democracy is the regime in which sovereignty resides in the people. But in order to be truly sovereign, the people must be able to express itself freely, and those whom it designates as its representatives must act in accordance with its wishes. That is why true democracy is participatory democracy, i.e. a democracy which allows people to exercise their sovereignty as often as possible and not just during the elections. In this sense, universal suffrage is only a technical means to assess the degree of the agreement or the consent between the government and the governed. As understood by the ancient Greeks, democracy, in the final analysis, is a system that allows all of its citizens to participate actively in public affairs. This means that liberty in democracy is defined as an opportunity to participate in activities that are deployed in the public sphere, and certainly not as liberty to become oblivious of the public sphere, or to withdraw oneself into the private sphere. A purely representative democracy is, at best, an imperfect democracy. Political power must be exercised at all levels, and not only at the top. This is only feasible by means of implementing the principle of subsidiarity, which means that the people make as many decisions as possible on issues of concern, and relegate to a higher level of decision-making only matters that concern larger communities. In an age when political representatives are more and more cut off from the people, and where power of the appointed and the co-opted prevails over those who were elected, and where a politician is stripped off his decision-making on behalf of some “governance” whose only goal is to mold the government of the people along the blueprints of business management or corporate managements, then the priority must be to resuscitate participatory democracy – a grass-roots democracy, a direct democracy, as well as to revive the active public sphere which alone is capable of upholding the social bond and guaranteeing the exercise of common values. Obviously, when his book came out in 1990 Tomislav Sunic was not able to take into account what has happened since that time. Over the last eighteen years, in light of the fact that numerous works have been published in the field of social critique, the objectives of the ENR have become more focused. However brief it could be, I do not intend to write a summary of it, given that this is the raison d’etre of Sunic’s present book. But I am glad that the annex of his book contains the full translation of the Manifeste pour une renaissance européenne, published 2000, which proposes an orientational synthesis for the dawn of the twenty-first century. To date, it has been translated into Spanish, Italian, English, German, Hungarian and Dutch. The reader can thus keep track of everything the ENR has written over the past two decades about social science, Europe, postmodernity, federalism, the contrast between the nation-state and the Empire, the critique of the ideology of labor, the Capitalists system, “governance”, the decline of the political, the crisis of democracy, the question of identity, environmental threats, criticism of “development”, new prospects opened by the theory of economic decline, and so on. Nonetheless, I’d like to focus on some important issues. To start with I’d like to mention the continuity of work undertaken and implemented by the ENR since 1968. The ENR is exactly forty years old today. The main journals that are part of our current of thought have shown their longevity: Nouvelle Ecole was launched in 1968, Elements in 1973 and Krisis in 1988. Even if duration and continuity are not sole qualities that one takes into account, one must agree however, that there are few schools of thought that have been active for a such an extended period of time. Therefore, the ENR is primarily a story. But it is also an itinerary. Over the last forty years, the ENR has published a considerable number of books and articles; it has organized countless conferences, symposia, meetings, summer schools, etc. In doing so, it has abandoned some tracks that it had wrongly judged promising at the beginning while continually exploring new ones, and thus remained faithful to its “encyclopedic” inspiration from the very beginning of its itinerary. I must also point out that, from the very beginning, the ENR has viewed itself as a school of thought and not as a political movement. This school of thought has by far exceeded its organizational structure as an association, which was first known in 1968 as le Groupement de recherche et d’études pour la civilisation européenne (GRECE), or in English, Research group for the studies of the European civilization. With its publications, the ENR has been engaged in a metapolitical work. What does metapolitics mean? Certainly not a different way of doing politics. The issue of metapolitics was born out of conscience with respect to the role of ideas in history and out of the conviction that some type of intellectual, cultural, doctrinal and ideological work is always a prerequisite for political action. This is something that activists who, to safeguard themselves from any in-depth reflection, constantly argue about “urgency”, or who simply prefer a reactive mode of action to a reflective mode, have great difficulty in understanding. To sum it up in a simple formula: the Enlightenment came to birth before the French Revolution, but the French Revolution would not have been possible without Enlightenment. Before any Lenin, there must always be some preceding Marx. This is what Antonio Gramsci very well understood when he addressed the issue of “organic” intellectuals. He stressed how the transformation of the political and socio-historical structures of a epoch requires that this epoch must already initiate within itself a vast transformation of values. The ENR was founded in the late 1960s by young people who, in their majority, had some experience as political activists and could therefore measure the shortcomings and limitations thereof. In an effort to lay the foundations for a political philosophy, and in order to develop a concept for a new world, they wanted somehow to start from scratch and were ready to give up illusions about any immediate political action. By that time, however, they had become aware of the simplistic and obsolete cleavage between left and right. They knew that each society is in need of both conserving and changing. They were ready to critically examine the tradition and identify its operating and living principle, while also tackling the major problems of their time from a truly revolutionary perspective. Undoubtedly, this explains their interest in, among other things, the “conservative revolution” in Weimar Germany. In general, they rejected false alternatives. They adhered to the logic of “the included-third.” They did not claim: “we are neither on the right nor on the left” - which means nothing. Rather, they decided to be both “on the right and on the left.” They wanted to make clear that they were determined to examine the ideas they viewed as the best, regardless of the labels that those ideas had acquired. As far as they were concerned, there were no “rightist ideas” vs. “leftist ideas,” but only false ideas vs. just ideas. Their convictions were justified by the historical evolution of recent decades. Having been born with modernity, the left-right divide is in the process of going into the past with modernity. This does not mean that in the past the labels ‘right’ and ‘left’ were devoid of meanings. But these meanings were equivocal, given that there have always existed not just the “ontological” right and left, but rather a large variety of different “rights” and “lefts”. The range was so large that there is no doubt that some of these lefts and some of these rights were closer to each other than they were when seen separately from other rights and other lefts. This also explains why certain issues like regionalism, ecology, federalism, the ideology of progress, and so on, have, in the course of time, drifted from the right to the left and from the left to the right. The ideology of progress, if one were to mention only one of these issues, has clearly moved into the “rightist” camp, to the point that it is the liberals now who have become its avid supporters, whereas a significant part of the “left” remains radically critical of it, as part of its fight against industrialism and its defense of the ecosystem. Notions such as right and left have become meaningless today. They only survive in the field of parliamentary politics, after becoming obsolete in the fields of ideas. Let me stress one important fact: all major events in recent decades, far from resurrecting the left-right cleavage, have, on the contrary, revealed new dividing lines, which only indicates the degree to which the political and ideological landscape has been completely reconfigured. For example, the two Gulf wars, the European construct, the Balkan conflicts, have split up the traditional left and the traditional right, thus confirming the anachronism of this dichotomy. The preceding lines will help us understand why I am reluctant to use the denomination “the New Right.” It should be recalled that at the beginning this expression was never used as a self-portrayal. In fact, this label was invented by the media in 1979 to depict a school of thought and an intellectual and cultural current, born eleven years earlier and which until then, had never attached this label to itself. However, in view of the fact that this expression had become so widespread, it had to be more or less adopted thereafter. But it was never without apprehensions and this for several reasons. The first is that this label is reductive in a twofold manner: it suggested that the ENR was essentially a political organization, which has never been the case, and it enclosed our school of thought into a denomination (the “Right”) against which our school of thought has always taken the field. The second reason is that it facilitated - and unjustifiably suggested - links to movements, in several countries, using this label themselves. I have already given the example of Anglo-Saxon New Rights. Other parallels, equally significant, could also be drawn. In Italy, our friends from the “Nuova Destra” have renounced this expression long ago. We did the same in France. I happen to define myself as a “man of right-left”, i.e. as an intellectual who simultaneously refers to the ideas of the left and the values of the right. What is equally important is the fact that the ENR has never claimed any predecessors. It has never claimed to be pursuing a road paved by others before. It has greatly benefited from numerous readings, but it has never attached itself exclusively to one single author, or a single current of thought. The eclecticism of its references has sometimes been criticized – wrongly in my opinion. Based on a hasty and fragmentary reading, some were quick to conclude that the ENR lacks coherence. The diversity of its approaches prompted many who observed the ENR, whether in a sympathetic or a hostile manner, to voice false ideas about the ENR. Quite to the contrary, the approach of the ENR has always been strictly consistent. But this approach cannot be understood unless one realizes that the leading figures of the ENR always utilize a dynamic perspective: their goal has never been to repeat slogans or utter preconceived ideas, or even dish out small and dogmatic catechisms set once and for all times. Instead, they have always striven to move forward, in order to open up new vistas of analysis and to put their ideas into action. It is precisely for this reason that the ideas of the ENR, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, are more apposite than ever before. Why? Because we have now entered a world different from the one that prevailed at the end of the Second World War. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, the disintegration of the Soviet system and the rise of globalization we are witnessing not only the end of the twentieth century, but the end of a great historical cycle of modernity. We have entered an era of postmodernity, which is characterized by flows and refluxes of communities and networks, i.e. an epoch of major civilizational and continental logic. Certainly, this mutation, which is still in process, is not over yet. We are in a period of transition, and like all periods of transition, it is especially rich in uncertainties, in new projects and new syntheses. One could characterize this epoch as Zwischenzeit, or an interregnum. In such an epoch it is, more than ever before, indispensable to be aware of the historical moment we live in. But we cannot analyze this historical moment and everything new it brings about (as harbingers of future developments) by referring to the images of the past and, especially, by using old references and obsolete conceptual tools. It is precisely because the ENR has never turned away from evolving and renewing its discourse that it can now provide the necessities for carrying out orderly critical thinking to matches the reality of our time. When Soviet communism collapsed, an American, Francis Fukuyama, ventured to predict the “end of history”. What he meant by that was that after the fall of communism, capitalism and liberal democracy had lost their major competitor, and that from now on all peoples on Earth were called to adopt, more or less in a long term manner, the “Western” or, short of that, the American model. This thesis was subsequently criticized by Samuel Huntington who assumed the role of a theoretician of “the clash of civilizations.” Both visions were wrong. Instead of the end of history we have, in recent years, been witnessing the return of history. How, indeed, can history ever come to a stop? Human history is always open to a plurality of possibilities, and such plurality can never be defined in advance and with certainty. History is unpredictable because the characteristic of human being - precisely because of its fundamentally historical nature - is always unpredictable. If history became predictable, it would no longer be human history. It would not be history at all. It is striking that none of the major events that have occurred in the world over the last decades have been predicted by specialists of futurology. Huntington, for his part, was right in his argument against Fukuyama’s day-dreaming, noting that humanity is not a unified whole. But his mistake was to believe that “civilizations” can become full-fledged actors in international politics, which has never been the case. Samuel Huntington’s thesis was obviously designed to legitimize Islamophobia, which is inherent to hegemonic views of the United States of America (which quickly found a “spare devil” in a caricature of Islam, badly needed after the disappearance of the Soviet “evil empire”). It is quite revealing that in order to perpetuate or consolidate the “Atlantic” mentality, Huntington does not hesitate to cut Europe in two, placing its Western part into the camp of America, while throwing its Eastern part over to Russia and the Orthodox world. The ENR, however, has never lost sight of its main reference: Europe. Europe is conceived in its dual historical and geopolitical dimension. First, in its historical dimension, because nations of Europe, apart from what separates them (which is not negligible), are heirs of a common cultural matrix at least 5000 years old . Then there is also a geopolitical dimension. As we enter the era of “large spaces,” mentioned by Carl Schmitt, those large groups of culture and civilizations will be tomorrow’s factors of decision-making within a globalized world. To address globalization at the time when nation-states are too large to meet the expectations of their citizens and too small to meet global challenges of our time, becoming every day less powerful, requires first and foremost to think in terms of continents. The ENR has also been in favor of a federal Europe, because the full-fledged federalism is the only way to reconcile the necessary unity of decision at the top with all due respect for 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 centralization inherent to Jacobinism, from which France has suffered for such a long period of time. Hence the need for the principle of subsidiarity which I mentioned above. The construction of Europe, which we are witnessing today, is the very opposite of that principle. From the outset, this construct went against common sense. It gave priority to trade and economy instead of 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 trying gradually to build itself from the bottom. It embarked upon a hasty enlargement to countries wishing to join the European Union solely in order to receive financial help and move closer to America and NATO, instead of having the goal of an 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 the constitution, without ever raising a question as to who constitutes the constituent power. Moreover, it has never been clear enough regarding the finality of its own endeavors. Should one first construct a vast free trade area with unclear borders that would serve as a side-kick for America, or rather should it first lay the foundations for the genuine European power, with borders demarcated by geopolitics and which could simultaneously serve as an original model of civilization and a pole for the better regulation of the globalization process? These two projects are incompatible. If we were to adopt the first one, or have as a goal the second, we will live tomorrow in a unipolar world, subjected to American power. By contrast, with multipolarity 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 Sunice wrote his thesis on the ENR he could not predict the tragic events that would accompany the break-up of former Yugoslavia, and war with their horrific bloodshed in his own country as well as in neighboring countries. I myself witnessed those events with a broken heart. For a very long time I have had Croat and Serb friends, as well as Slovenian and Bosnian friends - friends who are Christians and friends who are Muslims. For me that conflict meant a failure of Europe, and especially a sign of its impoverishment. Each time that European peoples fight each other it is to the benefit of political and ideological systems that yearn for the disappearance of all peoples. Adding insult to injury, it was humiliating to see the U.S. military air bombardment of a European capital, Belgrade, and this for the first time since 1945. I know about the historical roots of all these disputes, which too often resulted in wars and massacres in Central and Eastern Europe. I know well the positions of all sides. These disputes still feed upon ethnic nationalism, religious intolerance and irredentism of all sorts. Not wishing to stand with either side - since I do not wish to elevate myself to the title of a supreme judge - I nevertheless believe that these disputes must be overcome. Many hark back to times that are definitively over. Irredentism, in particular, makes no sense at the present time. Once upon a 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 hallmark of our time, making borders redundant. Serbs and Croats, Hungarians and Romanians, Ukrainians and Russians, watch the same movies, listen to the same songs, acquire the same information, use the same technology, and are subject to the same influences - and in a same way are similarly subject to Americanization. I know that past antagonisms are difficult to overcome. But my deepest belief is that the identity of a people will be always less threatened by the identity of another neighboring people than by the ideology of the Sameness, i.e. by the homogenizing juggernaut of globalization, by the global system for which any collective identity whatsoever is an obstacle that needs to be erased. Once the noose loosened, countries that were once part of the Soviet and Communist glacis believed to have found in the West the paradise they had so long dreamed of. In reality they exchanged one system of coercion for another system of coercion, different but both 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 only dedicated to the search of his 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 the Western liberals, on the other, chauvinistic nationalists. There is also a fascination in observing former apparatchiks reinventing themselves, as if possessed of a new virginity, so they can prostrate themselves in front of America. And this with the same alacrity they once used to bend over in front of the communist system. The countries in which they now live were yesterday’s satellites of Moscow. Today, they are only too eager to become vassals of Washington. In either case, it is, once again, Europe which is the loser. 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 communism preached, capitalism is not only an economic system. It is first and foremost an anthropological system, based on values that colonize the symbolic imagination and radically transform it. It is a system that reduces everything of value to the value of the market, and to exchange value. It is a system that considers secondary, transient or non-existent everything that cannot be reduced to calculation in the terms of quantity, i.e. money. Finally, it is a dynamic system whose very structure forces it to a frantic flight 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 market, more goods, more profit – in the belief that ‘more’ automatically means better. It imposes the “axiom” that infinite material growth is only possible in a finite world. It is l’arraisonnement of the whole Earth - the Gestell as mentioned by Heidegger - by the values of efficiency, performance and profitability. It means transforming the planet into a giant supermarket and a giant civilization of commerce. I first met Tomislav Sunic in Washington in June 1991, in the company of Paul Gottfried. At the end of March 1993 we participated together at a symposium organized by the Chicago magazine Telos, which was attended by the late Paul Piccone, Thomas Molnar, Gary Ulmen, Tom Fleming, Anthony Sullivan, and so on. Since then, we have been meeting frequently in Paris (in June 1993, in January 2002, in October 2003, in March 2006, etc), in Flanders and elsewhere. This book enables us to meet again, but this time in his homeland. I am very pleased with that. 1. Defended in 1988, this thesis was first published by Peter Lang (New York) in 1990, then reprinted by Noontide Press of Newport Beach (California) in 2004, with a preface by Paul Gottfried and a foreword by David J. Stennett. 2. Let us acknowledge the special issue of the magazine Telos (New York), New Right - New Left - New Paradigm?, 98-99, Autumn-Winter 1993, as well as the book by Michael O’Meara [Michael Torigian] New Culture, New Right. Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe, First Books, 2004 Bloomington. I would add that criticism of the United States by the ENR has never slipped into ‘americanophobia.’ Quite the contrary. The ENR has welcomed a number of writers and thinkers from the USA - few in number, perhaps, but not without importance. Let me also refer to the theorists of communitarianism, such as Michael Sandel, the Canadian Charles Taylor, the Englishman Alasdair McIntyre, and especially Christopher Lasch, a theorist of “populist socialism”, the name which calls to mind the great George Orwell whose ideas have also been popularized by Paul Piccone in his magazine, Telos. Comments:2
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:49 | #
Everyone see what I mean about Alain de Benoist? Check out what’s high-lit in blue. This man is NOT enlisted on our side in the war against the forced race-replacement of the European peoples. Not only that, he says the side he’s on has consistently fought against us in this struggle.
Very good but it’s disappointing he doesn’t include immigration and the Eurospherewide crisis of government-enforced race-replacement of whites along with the other “events of recent decades that have revealed new dividing lines, reconfiguring the political landscape.” But of course this is Alain de Benoist we’re talking about, and he assigns low priority to forced race-replacement in the overall scheme of things. (He must not understand biology — must be one of these people without an instinctive grasp of biology who think “everything human is cultural; nothing human is biological.”) Now, look at the following passage: what’s wrong with the following passage is de Benoist takes everything that’s happening in the world today, everything that’s going horribly wrong, at face-value as an inevitable evolution, the sort of the “force-of-nature” kind of change the race-replacers try to make us accept we can’t do anything about so we might as well not question it and, instead, deal with it. de Benoist seems, for example, to have no conception of the Jews, one would say. And no conception of crony capitalists like Bush. He thinks it’s all happening by itself. A small proportion of it is; the major portion isn’t but can be changed. He does not to see that, that there are interests out there pulling strings to make most of these things happen a certain way. It’s plain as day. He appears credulous, as if naïvely swallowing everything, the whole concocted story line, every bit of Jewish propaganda the Jewish mainstream media have spoonfed him, without seeing any of the glaring contractions that normally jolt a person out of his stupor and make him say, “Wait a minute, something’s not right here, this doesn’t make sense. I see patterns that shouldn’t be there. Something’s controlling this, it’s not happening by itself.” No, he’s buying it, buying the whole Jewish/communist/crony-capitalist shooting match. Here’s the passage (not the only one) where he’s astonishingly credulous:
Those interpretations which he got from newspapers, newsmagazines, talking heads on TV spouting from scripts handed to them and from teleprompters, and popular books written by collaborating journalists and left-wing professors — those boilerplate interpretations are all made up, all invented by the usual suspects to calm the easily-led so rebellions by white people don’t erupt in the streets. And as for Fukuyama, does he actually believe Fukuyama was a legitimate self-created phenomenon who actually generated his own “fame” through the “soundness” of his “ideas”?????? Fukuyama was a pure Jewish media creation exactly the way Gunnar Myrdal was, Susan Sontag, was, Gloria Steinem was, and hundreds of others were who constituted major portions of “the revolution” he so credulously talks about as if it has happened all by itself.
Again, he doesn’t see the Jews at work. French thinkers believe the Islamic threat is something that is hyped by the Americans as a replacement for the now-vanished Soviet-Russian threat. It’s not. The Islamic threat and Islamophobia are mainly the work of the Jewish-controlled mainstream media, for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with a supposed American need to “invent a bogey man to replace the now-defunct communist threat.” de Benoist needs to get out more.
The problem is Alain de Benoist turns out to be a second-rate thinker. 3
Posted by Armor on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:18 | # A good side of Alain de Benoist (from what I read in this article) is that he speaks simply and sincerely. He seems eager to put his point of view across. He isn’t just showing off.
Benoist could use a little more pragmatism. He should realize that real intellectuals play no role in France. Few French people have ever heard of him and the New Right. He doesn’t get many invitations from the media. I think the monopoly of the left over the mass media and cultural institutions is killing intellectual life, and there is no counterweight to their influence on government policy. In the past, French lowbrow intellectuals had an tendency to prefer wit over common sense. But I think today’s intellectual void has more to do with Jewish influence and left-wing tyranny than with the French temperament. Serious intellectuals are kept away from radio and television. Arte (a TV station) and Radio-France-Culture are supposed to provide intellectual debate, but are dominated by Jews. What you get from them is not rustic common sense.
Benoist is very optimistic. As a French intellectual, he still thinks he can have an influence, even though he is ostracized by the media, and even though most people are under constant brainwashing. What he does not realize is that he has been brainwashed himself ! This is not very encouraging for us… A de Benoist: “the rise of globalization we are witnessing” He thinks mass immigration is a meteorological phenomenon like rain ! F. Scrooby: ” Ahhh, so the problem isn’t race-replacement immigration but Americanization. Riiiiiiiiight. Typically French.” I remember 30 years ago there was still a lot of complaining about americanization (it is no longer the case). Even a rise in the divorce rate would be seen as proof of “americanization”, which is an ambiguous word (is it American influence, or is it simply a similar pattern). I thought the real problem was modernization, something partly inevitable. But there may have been the self-defeating notion that America was the way of the future, and resisting it was pointless, just as it is pointless to resist race-replacement today. In fact, there was no inevitability. Ireland and Spain did not allow divorce. At the time, what was not blamed on americanization was blamed on “progress”. People would keep saying: “It’s sad, but what can we do? that’s progress”. (For example, when fish and birds disappeared because of pollution). Government policies would rarely be criticized. 4
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:39 | # Take it easy, guys. Alain de Benoist is a product of complex influences and can’t be assessed by surface phenomena. There are many reasons for his views. The smothering, individualising, artificial and internationalist French state, which destroys the French ethnicity. “French people” formed by it is a monstrosity, even if one would count to it only the ethnic French. Race concept in Europe has no legs, at least on international state level (something similar to Eu), contrary to the United States. Pressures from ubiquitous French leftists and a little bit of aligning with them. Strange intellectual world of the French. Opposing global internationalist capitalism and it’s global capital, the United States, with his own arguments and with those taken from the French leftists that he sees to be right. The possibility of forming French ethnic local communities, which don’t bother anyone, but serves the French ethnicity well. De Benoist job is, among other things, to establish the intellectual framework for communities. Other people oppose immigration etc.. It would be useless for de Benoist to partake in all the political conversations. Etc. He provides many valuable intellectual resources to Europeans all over the world. If we would regard as intellectually useful only those views that are almost exactly like ours, we would lose many tools, many ideas, many methods, etc. I am impressed by the quality of the French pro ethnic and other intellectuals. I recommend reading their works. You sometimes have to filter the information in your mind. The following person was an ultra radical leftist, homosexual and sado-masochist (Died because of Aids). Those are part of the reason why he is one of the most popular intellectuals among the Western leftist academics, but he has also contributed a lot to political philosophy. Even Marxists oppose his views, because the practical realization of his views would result in the end of Marxism. Other books can be searched with his name. http://us.macmillan.com/author/michelfoucault P.s. Although there is merit in opposing some features of the United States, French intellctuals often do it too much. P.s. Fred, here in Europe muslim immigration is a large problem. It really is, whatever the Jews say or don’t say. 5
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:50 | # My two cents, At this point I don’t think what we need are more schools of thought or political movements (important as they may be).
Were that to happen, victory would literally be in our grasp. Within hours of such an event the political/social environment would be dramatically altered. It would shake the world! The very air itself would register the sea-change. The other side knows this which is why they go after any slightly well known White man who so much as hints at a pro-White attitude with all the fervor of the Spanish Inquisition. The other side is an extremely loose federation of peoples who don’t much like each other. Jews, blacks, hispanics, asians, arabs, muslims, hindus etc… will never band together in anything effective enough to hold an effective center. If true White leaders, as described above, were to emerge on, say, the first day of June, by June 30th the rebellion that has raged in this country for the past 60+ years will have been essentially put down. But we need those leaders to come forward….. 6
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 24 Mar 2009 02:00 | # Addition: Pro-European and other European intellectuals should not be seen as competing, but complementary. Many French intellectuals critisice Americans too much, but let it be said that the contribution of American pro-European intellectuals is crucial to all Europeans. To Narrator: I appreciate your view, but I diverge from it modestly: * Strong leader is thought to be an easy way out. No thoughts required, no changes in people lives, just follow and obey the leader reflexively. A little while ago I read about Finnish internet conversation, where a woman wanted that the state would tax 95% from her salary and then give her food, apartment, things, control her life, etc. One can ask how this pauper/ slave mentality differs from strong leader -mentality? * Strong leader is not an easy way. Supposing changes in the media and leadership, and supposing even more, unrealistically, that our problems would go away, the most of the deficiencies in us would not change. We would soon spoil everything again, and to add insult to injury, in the same way than before. Strong leader includes problems of corruption, high status/ distant utopian status/ alienated “elite” - loyalty to own people incompatibility, grandiose alien plans for people, dictatorial controlling and supervision of people, etc. * Possible good things strong leader does do not withstand changes and time. Often they die together with the strong leader. On the other hand corruption, decay of morality and loyalty, etc. bad things have mighty longevity under a strong leader and they easily survive the death of the strong leader. * Present wretched situation is so deeply and complexly entrenched in us that there is no one thing that can save us. French intellectuals often critisice Americans that they always look for simple one magic pill, which would cure all the problems. This they describe to be because of American stupidity; Americans can only understand simple one cause/ one solution to everything, when in reality reality is complex multicause, requiring multiple complex solutions. Is it necessary to give credibility to the most obnoxious French intellectuals, which I, by the way, have always thought are terribly wrong about Americans? 7
Posted by Armor on Tue, 24 Mar 2009 04:27 | #
We need at least a few highbrow books dealing with today’s race-replacement problem. Those books have probably already been written, but their authors need to be given more publicity through the Internet. For the moment, people are still reading old books written by Francis P. Yockey (1917–1960), Julius Evola (1898–1974), and even Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900). I’m sure they were intelligent and perceptive authors, and they were able to describe the beginning of our troubles. We may feel more at home with them than with today’s crazy, treacherous, state-paid, leftist, phony intellectuals. But they could not possibly have guessed that the Western world would turn so crazy! So, we need fresh analysis of what is going on today, and how we can turn things around. Benoist may have interesting things to say, but apparently not on the central question.
But they hold every institution, and the police.
Maybe thanks to the internet… If a tide reversal occurs and white people massively start opposing race-replacement, I wonder who will come first to our side: police chiefs? low level politicians? economists? farmers? doctors? technicians and engineers? Or maybe immigrants will riot one time too many in France or Britain, and the army will seize the pretext? I think the Soviet Union unraveled from the top down. In the West, the administration is more flexible and will resist. I expect the rebellion will come from the bottom. By the way, who can recommend a good book about the fall of communism in Eastern Europe? Maybe we can learn a few lessons from the experience of Eastern Europe. I think the western media have not given us a proper analysis of what happened there more than twenty years ago. 8
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 24 Mar 2009 05:56 | # Short addition: Wouldn’t it be better that we would be strong, enduring ethnicities and not have strong leaders? 9
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:47 | # By leaders I mean leaders plural. I’m not talking about a Napoleon but rather a group, in the Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Madison model. Obviously, I’m referencing this from an American point of view. Europe has more time than America does. Demographically speaking (and based on .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) over the coming two decades) Whites are irrelevant to the future of North America. That is if nothing changes soon. And I mean real soon. North America simply doesn’t have time for Schools of Thought to take effect, and as pretty much nobody reads books anymore (so much for a modern Thomas Paine), our options are limited. Over the next 60 months, give or take, Whites are in a now or never moment in their history in the new world. At this point, we can still reclaim our land, but that window of opportunity is rapidly closing. ... 10
Posted by Dasein on Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:04 | # Finn, I share your high regard for de Benoist but he’s got obvious blind spots, as Fred points out. I also don’t like that he is continually trying to distance himself from what he considers to be extreme or distasteful elements of the right. That is a neverending process, an arms race, and it reeks of opportunism and petty moralism. But no one is perfect. De Benoist’s great strength, which you’ve pointed out, is his appropriation of arguments from what was traditionally considered to be the left. It’s like judo, and as many here have noted, the liberals have been given the intellectual equivalent of a kick to the nuts while trying to put their pants on- they are silent or stuttering on message boards like CiF. Whites are the new niggers and whatever post-modernist theory can be used to expose the tyranny of the dominant system is a weapon for us. Armor, You’re 100% correct; we need high-brow works for those who will be the leaders in our movement. These potential elites are the main threat to the system. Hierarchical societies are destabilized by high-IQ men in positions of low social status. Affirmative action programs and fetishizing of non-Whiteness means that those people exist in ever-increasing numbers. Imperium is a great book, one of my favourites, but it is more an anthem than an analysis of our current predicament. Yockey and Evola were also deficient in basic biology. De Benoist doesn’t want to embrace it. What’s called for is a synthesis of sociobiology with post-modernist philosophy. Narrator, What was your estimate again for the current percentage of Whites in the US? I remember it being quite a bit lower than the official census figure (not sure who would believe that anyhow). 11
Posted by Gorothcair the Elf on Wed, 25 Mar 2009 02:17 | # Hello MR! I have been a Lurker here awhile and want to dive in! Anyhow I would just like to remind folks that de Benoists views have evolved over time. My own opinion is that he started to sort of go down the wrong path about 10 years ago. However alot of his work is very valuable. One needs to remember that he almost single-handedly started to re-intellectualize The Right with Grece at a time with The Right was pretty Stale with nothing but conspiracy theories about commies and what not. Also lets keep in mind that he is not the only representative of this school of thought! For example de Benoist was kicked out of Grece for being to ethnically particlarist (basicly claiming to only care for Normans and French) and the guys that took over Grece were Pan-Europeanists (sort of like Francis Parker Yockey and Jean Thiriart)
I honestly think this may be intentional! There is no doubt that public schools are more about achieving the Right Attitude then actual learning or even *gasp* Critical Thinking. Heck Alexander Solzenyetsins book 200 years still hasn’t been translated for us (properly anyhow) and he won a Nobel Prize!!!! 12
Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:31 | #
I’d guess Whites in America are around 53%, 54% of the population. Officially though we’re only around 65.8%. Here is an official US Census etimate from about a year and a half ago http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_&-CONTEXT=dt&-mt_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G2000_B03002&-redoLog=true&-geo_id=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en&-SubjectID=15233308 For one thing it places the US population at 301 million. But factoring in the more realistic number of illegals (and at the rate they are pouring in) there are about 340 million people currently residing in America. And they already have defacto amnesty as far as the government is concerned. Plus you have to realize that the US government defines “non-hispanic White” as people of European, North African and Middle-Eastern heritage. So on a good day there might be around 185 million Whites in the US. But we might also be only about 180 million. What’s worse, Whites in America are below replacement level births. And non-Whites, who non only reproduce like rabbits, are projected to keep pouring in at an accelerating rate. So our percentage will continue to quickly drop like a rock. That’s how fast it can happen. ... 13
Posted by a Finn on Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:46 | # Narrator; Ok, that is a little bit better, but I explain my position further. If I would have to choose only one thing that people remember from my writings, it is this: Finns have lived over ten thousand years in harsh conditions in Finland. This evolutionary history has thought us valuable survival principles. One of them is that if something is broke or faulty, it must be fixed immediately and vigorously. Armageddon just around the corner and the Death breathing to your neck? Well, fix it even faster. It is better to have coughing machine in Armageddon than no machine at all. It is better to have the non-functioning ready seeds of working machine in store in Armageddon, than no machine at all. Your ethnic kin will take the seeds and grow them to fruition. So whatever else you do, fix your faulty ethnicities as a first priority. Without improved ethnicities everything else is useless. Improving your ethnicities can be done in conjunction with other things; they are not mutually exclusive. ******** More Foucault books in concentrated form and cheaply. I recommend “Power” and “Ethics”: http://www.thenewpress.com/index.php?option=com_catalog&task=author&author_id=P37423 14
Posted by a Finn on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:01 | # Off-topic: How to have more White babies -series by John Young of European Americans United: http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=6148 http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=6369 15
Posted by rb on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:38 | # The only way to have more white babies in America is to hold your nose and hit up some trailer trash. I hope Mr Young addresses this in his lengthy dissertation. 16
Posted by a Finn on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:58 | # rb: “The only way to have more white babies in America is to hold your nose and hit up some trailer trash. I hope Mr Young addresses this in his lengthy dissertation.” - Display your deficiences, low level and lack of abilities elsewhere. 17
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:27 | #
OK, so those 185 million whites are America. The rest are someone else. We’re still us: America, those specific 185 million, is still one-hundred percent white. The border which used to run all around geographic America now, thanks to necessity brough about by the Jews, runs all around demographic America. But it hasn’t disappeared. That border still runs and it still defines America, and America is still one-hundred-percent white. It runs around each white person if need be, and separates him from the others. 18
Posted by rb on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 03:56 | # - Display your deficiences, low level and lack of abilities elsewhere. Ok, stolid forest-dwelling supermensch. Doesn’t change the facts though. Is a severe lack of shortage of suitable womanly types. Flies right over the head of whatever anyone here has to say about extinction and we-need-to-have-more-children. 19
Posted by a Finn on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 05:41 | # I wrote:“Ok, that is a little bit better, ...” - Sorry, I meant to write a lot better. I am ill today, so I am not at my best today. U.S. constitutional model with some modernizing is my favorite state model (I am not referring to the present “modernizations”). I wish I could say that it would be enough, but I can’t (see above). I would gladly replace Finnish constitution with U.S. constitution. 20
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:02 | #
Yes and no. Leaders will naturally emerge out of organizations and activity but the media will destroy them if they speak the truth and they won’t be much of a leader if they can’t speak the truth without being destroyed or marginalized. There’s no chance of a great war leader emerging until after the media wall starts to crumble so waiting for one is a mistake in my opinion. The multi-cult virus will destroy the host system because our economies cannot survive in the same way when a significant percentages of the white population is being replaced by much stupider (on average) invaders. The walls will start to crumble, possibly quite soon, definitely within 15-20 years. When it starts to crumble the power of the enemy media will weaken also and then leaders who emerge from the usual kinds of political activity will be able to survive. What we need is plain old fashioned political activity that provides resistance, spreads suppressed information and builds comradeship.
If it turns into open tribal warfare, which it inevitably will unless there’s a political solution first, then white people could win that war with odds of up to maybe 3:1 against, as long as that war involves technology and not just axes and knives. So as long as they have their guns Americans will have a chance even if they become a minority before everything collpases. The exception to that would be SE Asians but I think the other invaders will be as hostile to them as they are to white people (and personally I don’t have a problem with them anyway apart from numbers). Brains and brawn.
I think the same for Britain. 21
Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:37 | # a Finn, I agree with what you say. It’s always difficult for Americans to communicate their situation in terms Europeans can immediately understand. And vice versa, of course. Each side of the Atlantic has its own particular circumstances that are both helpful and harmful to a White movement. For instance (and just as an example) if you were not to count Russia with Europe, then Europe would be around 2 million square miles with a population of about 590 million people, of which about 6% are non-White. The United States is around 3.5 million square miles with a population of about 340 million people, of which about 47% are non-White. But, America has one advantage in that the Whites here speak one language and by and large have the same sub-cultural identity. So America is still the largest single White nation in the world with 180+ million Whites. Russia would be second with (apparently) around 127 million Whites, and Germany would be third with about 75 million Whites. But the size of the US is what has allowed immigration to sneak up on most Americans. It’s not like England where they were already wall-to-wall in numbers, so a sudden increase in foreigners would be immediately noticed. In the US you can get in your car and travel 3,000 miles in a straight line and still be in the same nation. . Kind of like having William Shakespeare, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton and Charles Martel all gathered together at the same time and fighting for the same cause. That’s why I think Americans were so deeply religious and patriotic and why the two overlapped so much. America’s founding really did seem miraculous (divinely ordained). When the Revolutionary War began there were only about two and a half million colonists here, and they were stretched out over 1,400 miles up and down the east coast. In front of them they faced an ocean ruled by the worlds mightiest empire. Behind them was an untamed and unexplored wilderness full of savages and God only knew what else. What hope did they have even with the assistance of the French Navy? It’s one thing to have brilliant men like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Add to their company inspiring orators and thinkers such as Benjamin Franklin, John and Samuel Adams and Alexander Hamilton (among others) and it seems downright amazing. That these men rallied their meager forces to victory, then composed the greatest constitution the world has ever known (which allowed for the most freedom and prosperity the world has ever known) solidified the marriage of religion and patriotism in America. And then on top of that to have Washington, who men would have made a king, resign his office as President and hand its power off to another, was beyond any series of events that had occurred prior in Western History. Unfortunately America’s freedom and prosperity were quickly exploited by a certain group of people who accompanied a wave of immigration starting in the 1880’s. With their power solidified post WW II they have quickly turned what once appeared to be the work of the hand of God into a monstrosity that looks like the handiwork of Satan himself. . I agree and that’s why I said that I believe if real leaders were to emerge tomorrow, in a months time the rebellion that has raged in America over the past 60+ years could be, for the most part, put down. Also, in terms of numbers, There is also Canada. There are about 19 million Whites up there which would bring the total of Whites in North America to around 200 million. And there are a few million White hispanics in America, but for the most part they seem to have gone native and actively associate themselves with “latino(mestizo) culture”, so their numbers are, sadly, irrelevant. ...
Again, I was speaking of a more practical, yet best case, scenario in which a GROUP of military and political men would step forward and re-assert the White -Western- Constitutional social construct that ruled here up until about 65 years ago. The media could jump up and down all they like, it wouldn’t matter. Overnight tens of millions of Whites would flock to the side of these leaders to restore the republic. The change in the political/social/cultural atmosphere would be so immediate and astounding that the left would be to stunned to react for at least a month or two. That’s not to say it wouldn’t be messy or that things would go smoothly. But we would at least be back in the drivers seat and able to not only sustain civilization here, but to once again progress it. For any White nation to truely survive and flourish, non-Whites need to be repatriated back to the various nations from which they came. 10% non-Whites and a nation can still carry on. But that’s a precarious position to begin with (as America has found out). Once you are beyond 10% non-White, Western nations begin to crumble. As I understand it, Britain is now about 10% to 12% non-White. So Britain is only just now beginning to get a taste of “diversity”. ... 22
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:22 | #
Ah I see what you mean. I don’t think the military option is viable in Europe while America is controlled by the multi-cult as it would just be Serbia all over again. That’s probably why I didn’t comprehend your point properly. I was thinking more in European terms where I think there’s still a reasonable chance of democratic change and if that failed then at least the nationalist parties would provide the kernel for the resistance after the eventual economic collapse. The American situation is both much better in some ways and much worse in others and it’s definitely harder to imagine the best route to success over there. I’d still say plain anti-immigration and pro-constitution type political activity is the best bet as passionate political conflict with the federal government overstepping it’s bounds could be the catalyst for this group of military and political types to form, and if not, then once again the links forged in that activity would be the basis for a resistance after the eventual economic collapse. 23
Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:50 | #
That’s certainly possible. Americans, though, have a slightly different endurance threshold than Europeans. Despite the rapid influx of third world immigrants over the past 15 years taking their jobs…..despite the off-shoring of pretty much every single major industry….despite the current theft of their money/savings by Wall Street and its political arm, despite the costs in both life and money of the ongoing wars, etc.. most Americans are still far from grabbing their pitch forks. Most Americans have the attitude of, “ehh, could be worse.” Americans are certainly growing increasingly perturbed and upset with what they see happening, but the idea of “taking to the streets” still seems a little thirdworld-like for most White Americans. When millions of illegal immigrant hispanics stormed through, and shut down, the streets of several major cities here a few years back, demanding special rights and burning the US flag, most White Americans just rolled their eyes and went back to what ever they were doing. Ironically that mentality was both frustrating to those of us who are concerned about the flood of thirdworlders into the nation, and to the radical organizers of those marches. They really expected to provoke some sort of “shock” and “outrage” from White Americans but were instead greeted with shrugged shoulders and a “mehh, what ever floats your boat”, type of reaction from most. In other words Whites didn’t take them to serious because they looked like a bunch of leftist nuts. White Americans are by and large very geo-centric in their worldview. Anything that doesn’t look or sound pragmatic, reasonable, and established (as in American) appears to be the “goofy” and “ridiculous” meanderings of crazed radicals or ignorant third-world primitives. Rural White Americans (still the majority of Whites) view participation in overt political activities (even if they’re mainstream parties like Republicans and Democrats) as embarrassing at best and cult-like at worst. Some will put a sign in their yard saying ‘vote for so and so’, but that’s about as overt as they’ll get. That’s a broad and sweeping description I know, but as I said, I think it applies to the majority of White Americans. But if White Americans see a pro-White movement that has credible individuals behind it (generals, governors, senators and the like) then they will move in their direction and support that movement. And that’s where that ‘pragmatic, sensible and all-American mentality’ can become a benefit as only radicals and crooks would stand in the way of restoring law and order, cleaning up the streets (read, bringing non-Whites under judicial heel), wiping out the gangs (read, non-Whites) and restoring decency (read, clean house on the media). ... 24
Posted by LBT on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:54 | # Gentlemen, many thanks for posting this. Very useful. TS certainly deserves a wider hearing. 25
Posted by ATBOTL on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:40 | # The majority of whites do not live in rural areas. Where did you get that idea? 26
Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:59 | #
I’m speaking about America. The top 10 Whitest states are 1. Vermont Pretty much every major city in the US is minority-majority. Seattle and Portland (each with a population over 500,000) would be two examples in the west of the opposite. Whites, at around 70%, still cling to majorities in them. But for the most part urban areas are predominantly non-White. The majority of Whites left the cities long ago in what was called “White Flight”. In most mid-size to major cities, such as New York, Miami, Chicago, Dallas, St. Louis, New Orleans, Detroit, Philadelphia, Cleveland, D.C., Atlanta, San Fransisco, Memphis, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Milwaukee,etc.. the percentage of Whites range from as much as 48% to as little as (factoring in the census’s watery definition of White) 15% or smaller. ... 27
Posted by Armor on Sun, 29 Mar 2009 00:38 | # Too much is wrong in that preface by Alain de Benoist. His books are unlikely to be much help if we have to keep constantly on our guard, adopting for ourselves what’s good in his analysis, but remaining wary of the rest, and feeling insulted a lot of the time. His books can even be an impediment, since defeatism is often contagious. I hope other “new right” authors, presented in Sunic’s book, are more lucid. It is especially annoying to see Alain de Benoist allude repeatedly to the stupidity of Americans. I agree it’s fun to criticize other nations, but it does not make him come out as a superior mind. What is worrying is that he was supposed to be a “far-right” intellectual. It seems that much of the French “far-right” now accepts the idea of its own racial extinction. For example, Le Pen’s National Front, since 2007, has been trying to cultivate a softer image, giving up the idea of mass repatriation. I think we need a grassroots movement that explicitly supports racial separation. If our principles are clearly stated, it will be harder to betray them. 28
Posted by Armor on Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:17 | # More efficient than Alain de Benoist, the French entertainer Dieudonné (the son of a white mother and a father from Cameroon) announced ten days ago that he would probably head an “anti-communitarianist and anti-zionist list” in the next EU elections (June 2009). Anti-communitarianism is a pet hobby of Jewish ideologues in France. It means denouncing any arrangement made by the administration to accomodate a particular community based on religion, language, race or ethnicity. French Jews are fond of reminding the French that Frenchness is based upon equality: a Zulu and a Breton are to be treated exactly the same as long as they have a French ID card. Consequently, languages other than French can not be officially recognized by the French Constitution (which is amended almost every 6 months). And also, French unity must be preserved. It means there must be no “corps intermédiaires” (=intermediate representative bodies) between citizens and THE State. After all, intermediate organizations can only be parasitic and defend special interests. In a true democracy like France, there is no room for lobbies! Centralism must be preserved to protect the citizens. What I described here has been the French State ideology since 1789. I used to think that some day the French would mellow and become more acceptant of democracy. But now it seems that Jewish activists have been trying to revive France’s old jacobin ideology, which has been mixed with the mass immigration and race-mixing ideology. The Jews themselves do not seem to need any official recognition by the state in order to be very influential and to colonize the media and other institutions. It is funny to see Dieudonné call himself anti-communitarianist because his target will obviously be the Jews themselves. I don’t know why Dieudonné is in conflict with the Jews. He does not share the opinions of racially conscious Europeans, but he is going to be a great ally nevertheless. By the way, he’s been using the same tool as us: he relies a lot on the internet. 29
Posted by Jeff on Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:46 | # These are smart guys who have been thinking about “stuff” for the past two decades. Do they have anything to show for it ? Intellectuals aren’t popular in the USA because we don’t (or at least didn’t !!!) have much time for talkers who have big ideas on how they can control our lives through fanciful government plans. If these guys have zero influence in Europe, where intellectuals are loved, then they are losers. From Sunic I get the feeling that because he wasn’t able to make it professionally in the USA, he is extremely bitter about all things American. If he can ever get a good job here, I bet his views will change. I get the mild feeling though that both are hoping for Islam to take root in Europe, because that is the only system that will break down racial and idealogical barriers and permit a new European Empire to take root. Allah Akbar—- the new cry for the European New Right ??? ps. The love affair with Islam may also simply be that they may get funding from rich muslims. Post a comment:
Next entry: Down Google’s Memory Hole: Usenet
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Armor on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 08:22 | #
Once you have read the whole preface, you take a sheet a paper, and you try to sum up, in 5 lines, what the French new right is about.