Arktos Journal – Arktos Fri, 12 Jun 2020 08:23:29 +0000 en-GB hourly 1 Dialectics for the Right – Part 2 Sun, 17 May 2020 13:31:49 +0000 5. An Undogmatic Dialectic View of History

Although there is no end of history in sight, but rather the end of the post-Cold-War Interregnum, one should not shy away from viewing history through the lens of dialectics, as many interesting insights are to be gained in this way.

In particular, the aspect of the negation of a negation deserves to be studied more. With every model comes the danger that one might attempt to force observations to fit the model; nevertheless it is worth looking at some developments of modernity under the ‘negation of a negation’ premise, or to put it more simply, how even the best and sometimes successful attempts can lead to very different results in the long-term, either by unwillingly paving the way for something else or by actively, yet unintentionally, producing its own negation.

The examples are endless. Each example below is primarily chosen to demonstrate the aspect of the negation of a negation, and not to prove that world history is an upwards tending curve.

5.1 The French Revolution1

As already mentioned, a very simple example can be found in the history of Liberalism itself, where the Absolutism of the French monarchy (thesis) found its negation in the liberal, bourgeois French Revolution (antithesis), which itself led to the rule of Napoleon, which was both Liberal and Absolutist (synthesis). By defunding France, partially to finance the land-owner revolution of the insurrectionist colonial low-tax Taliban2 and on the other side of the Atlantic, the French monarchy undermined itself monetarily and ideologically, thereby facilitating its own demise.

5.2 The German History in the 20th Century

Another showcase is found in the end of WWI, where the Western Allies, and here especially France, sought to weaken, democratize and humiliate Germany through the Treaty of Versailles,3 so that it would no longer be a threat. This attempt ended, supposedly successfully, in the unstable Weimar Republic (Thesis). This found its obvious negation in the Totalitarian system of National Socialism, which came close to dominating all of Europe and the World (Antithesis), leading in turn to a completely, and literally, ruined, defeated and occupied Germany, at the hands of both Liberal (Great Britain, France, US) and Communist (Soviet Union) powers.

Whereas today Germany is the most liberal, multicultural and highly economic nationalist nation in Europe (under the pretence of free trade, with a high trade surplus,4 at the cost of the rest of its European partners and on the back of its own working class through its possession of the greatest low-wage sector in the EU5), it is also politically the most dominant power on the continent (Synthesis) with a military that is in a pitiable state, and therefore a greater danger to its neighbours, than an armed one would be6 The new antithesis and then again the synthesis are already on their way, yet they are characteristically not definable yet. Will it be Muslim/Islamist, Anarcho-tyrannical or the product of some economic colony of a rising China? None can say.

However, just viewing the rise of National Socialism through the inner German lens leaves out the fact that much of its diplomatic and military success was due to the creation of the various small artificial Nation states between Germany and Soviet Russia.

While the newly created Weimar Republic7 was objectively weakened by inner turmoil and outer repression (the Treaty of Versailles, loss of territory, occupation of the Rhinelands, on-going military conflicts in the east, attempted coups d’etat etc.) it was relatively strengthened in comparison to the newly created states to its east. This was pointed out by none other than Winston Churchill and can be proven by the cascade in which the Eastern Eastern European countries,8 often the left-overs of Austria-Hungary, fell under German control.

One could argue that President Wilson’s ‘city on a hill’9 idealism with the goal of democratic self-determination of nations10 (Thesis) paved the way of the National Socialist expansion into Eastern Europe, succeeded by the Soviet one (Antithesis) as none of those newly formed states (German Austria, Chzechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, the Baltics) was itself resilient enough to withstand what was coming from east or west.

Furthermore the destruction of both empires Wilhelmian Germany and Austria-Hungary paved the way for a petty ethnic nationalism (Antithesis to Wilson’s ideals) with the fight over territorial belonging11 between peoples who before this had lived for hundreds of years together in relative peace, fights which brought nothing but pain to both the German peoples and their former non-Germanic co-subjects.

It is today, in the shadow of the post-WWI past, largely forgotten that the Germans and (e.g.) the Poles were decidedly closer in the state of Prussia (although often not equal in practice) than they are today. This can be proven by the fact that in those territories where votes were held, based on birthright, as to whether these regions should be long to Germany and the Prussian state (its important in retrospect to distinguish here from an Identitarian perspective) or to the newly formed Poland, the population that was born there and for economic reasons had migrated for instance into the Rhinelands, returned to the East of Prussia to cast their vote for Germany12, 13, independently of personal ethnic and religious heritage.

The same goes for other minorities that had long lived there, and proud loyal Prussians long before other German territories fell to the Hohenzollern dynasty like Protestant Masurs14 (ethnically and linguistically Slavic) or the Jewish population, allowing the emancipation, assimilation and rise of such formidable men like the businessman and Nationalist politician Walther Rathenau15 to the highest offices, despite the of course existing anti-Semitism. Due to his administrative efforts, Germany, historically short on resources and manpower in comparison to its enemies east and west, was able to maintain the war economy, until it reached the point of total exhaustion. Seeing the immanent complete breakdown of the German Reich in 1918, Rathenau later supported, though with gritted teeth, the treaty of Versailles to prevent worse from arising (e.g. the occupation of the Reich and its refracturing). After a highly anti-Semitic campaign, he was murdered in 1922.

Much of his administrative framework, meaning the incorporation and submission of private business into a centrally administrated economy while maintaining the profit motive in it, incentivised striving for efficiency, was later revived under Albert Speer in WWII, without of course paying tribute to Walther Rathenau. Despite Western Allied airborne bombing campaigns and military failure on land, German industrial output would reach its maximum in 1944,16 differently from during WWI, sadly, on account of the incorporation of forcefully recruited slave work and the exploitation of occupied lands.

However the split that occurred between the Germans and the Polish at the end of the first World War did not occur out of nothing, but had its roots in the nineteenth century as a tragic by-product of the Kulturkampf17 (the goal being the subjection of the Catholic Church under the German state and its breaking as a political force) between Protestant Otto von Bismark and the Catholic Church, which included measures like the prohibition of political preaching, state oversight of Catholic schools, introduction of civil marriage etc. Much of this was perceived in the Polish site as an attack on Polish identity, which is Catholic at its core, in the now more and more ethnically defined German Empire. As can be seen once again today, and also during the Cold War, the role of the Catholic Church for Polish culture cannot be underestimated; this Kulturkampf thus led to the increasing alienation of the Polish population.

In a way, the old Prussian (very imperial Roman) synthesis, with its ethos of service to state and monarch, its Prussian virtues18 like order, cleanliness and (often physically brutally enforced) discipline, and its religious and cultural tolerance were lost and slowly degenerated into a narrow-minded ethnic German Nationalism beginning with Wilhelm II and culminating later on.19

The closest thing today for better understanding of this old Roman/Prussian synthesis can be found in the French Foreign Legion.20

The wounds that were torn between the German-speaking ethnicities and their non-German co-subjects at the end of WWI have only superficially healed today, since they were deepened in WWII and its aftermath until late into the 1990s. However, they reopen easily, as when the Polish feel threatened in their sovereignty and are reminded of their historically bad treatment by Germany and Russia through things like Northstream II, a pipeline through the Baltic Sea from Kaliningrad to Germany without the participation or inclusion of Poland.21

While Germany and its Western Slavic neighbours could to some degree heal themselves, each one separated in their own states after the ethnic cleansing of the Germans from Poland, Chzechoslovakia and the Baltics, this was decidedly not the case for the Austrians and their former co-subjects, with the Slovenian22 minority in Austrian Carinthia and the Austrian minority in Southern Tyrole23 in Northern Italy, where both of these conflicts turned very violent more than once.

Especially noteworthy here is the negative example of Jörg Haider,24 who with some virtuosity played the flute of anti-Slavic, anti-Slovenian sentiment in return for cheap electoral gains by playing on the fear and trauma (SHS state occupation of Carenthia after WWI, Partisan action during WWII, abduction and killing of civilians after WWII by Tito’s partisans) of the German-speaking population, e.g. in the struggle over bilingual village and city name plates,25 rather than trying to reconcile both ethnicities.

On a personal note, the author is extremely afraid, with the call for the re-introduction of national border controls in the face of the migrant crisis of recent years and the on-going Corona crisis and with all the (varyingly) just critiques of the present-day EU, if not calls for its abandonment, that many of these superficially resolved conflicts (Catalonia, Southern Tyrol, Carinthia, Northern Ireland, Hungarian minority in Romania, Russian minority in the Baltic states etc.) will re-emerge and hurt both the people living there and Europe as a whole. Especially worrying are Northern Ireland and Brexit. It is to be hoped that the IRA, whatever splinter group, and the militant Loyalist militias won’t return. The Balkans are more than a warning written on the wall, considering the suffering and the crimes committed on all sides. Presently, the greatest danger is found in the ongoing conflict over Crimea and the Donbass region, where the conflict is costing lives; this conflict has implications which are as much of a local ethnic as of a geopolitical character, and it is far from being solved.26 To some degree and in the face of a new refugee crisis it feels like a Greek tragedy: whatever one does, one does wrong.

5.3 Liberalism and Islamism

Another more recent example is the history of Liberalism from the last years of the Cold War up to today. The post-WWII need for oil by the Western capitalist economic systems (thesis) is widely known and painfully felt whenever the oil price rises, with the prime example being the oil crisis of the 1970s.27

This oil was mostly bought from the Arab world, especially Saudi Arabia, which gave the governments of these regions practically unlimited funding and protection by the Western World, with the prime example being US military presence28 near the holy places of Islam in Saudi Arabia, something that is easily understandable as a humiliation for the average devout Muslim, not to speak of the other historical activities of Western Liberal Christian nations in the region, primarily France and Britain (the destruction of the Ottoman empire,29 the betrayal of the Arab rebels through the Sykes-Picot agreement,30 the foundation of the state of Israel,31 etc.).

The ruling dynasty of Saudi Arabia, which is publicly and in its political praxis adhering to the teachings of Wahabism,32 a radical string of Sunni Islam not dissimiliar to the seventeenth-century worldview of Puritanism, is using this money to fund its missionary activities to spread this form of Islamist teachings to Muslim countries33 and in the West and around the world where these teachings in part radicalize small parts of the (Western) Youth34 as well as some of their fellow migrant believers (anthithesis).

In some ways this is reminiscent of National Socialist Germany. A humiliated nation, culture etc. has according to Toynbee two alternatives: zelotry or adaptation. Germany after two lost World Wars decided to become totally Western after a failed bout of Zelotry with a Nationalist Biologism enriched by Wagnarian fantasies, namely National Socialism, and those parts of the Muslim world frustrated with Western domination choose a literal understanding of Islam and the Sharia outside of any historical context as the antithesis to Western Liberalism, instead of e.g. the joyful dancing of the Sufis.

But the United States of America even more explicitly fathered the demon of radical violent Islam with its financial and military support of the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan,35 with the prime example being a certain Osama bin Laden,36 trained and armed by the CIA. By flying weapons and radical Sunni Jihadists from around the world into Afghanistan, they managed to stop the expansion of Soviet Communism in Afghanistan and accelerated the downfall of the Soviet Union.

Yet by basically creating the Taliban and Al-Qaeda they obviously produced the clear negation of anything Liberal, a negation with Islamist characteristics (antithesis). The parallels to Germany at the end of WWI and its support of a certain Vladimir Lenin37 leap out at us, where the Russian October Revolution was a role model for various Communist uprisings,38 accelerating the fall of the Wilhelmian Germany, during the Great War.

Here the eternal words of Goethe’s wizard’s pupil come to mind: ‘the ghosts for which I called, I can’t get rid of them’.39

The same goes for the Neocon attempts to spread Western democracy (the Invasion of Iraq, the support of the Arab Spring, the bombing of Ghaddafi’s Lybia etc.), where whenever a more or less secular strongmen was toppled, the power vacuum after a period of chaos was or will be filled by Islamists e.g. the rise and fall of ISIS.

It could be argued that both Western liberalism (thesis), which or helped to strengthen if it did not father the threat of violent Islamism (antithesis), lead to the synthesis of the illiberal anti-terror measurements from Guantanamo,40 the drone programme,41 and the Patriot Act all the way up to the all-seeing NSA42 to respond to the terror threat, while supposedly maintaining freedom on the individual level (synthesis). The amount of already existing, or in the future to be implemented control by the combination of psychology and the already accumulating data are incomprehensible. The social credit system43 even now in China implemented is here, in warning and in blueprint. The calls for apps to track people and their contacts in the face of the Corona crisis, to monitor potential infections, is not more than the writing on the wall – and who seriously would believe that once introduced it would ever be abolished again? If all the traces people have already left on the Internet, from social media, GPS moving patterns, browser history, even credit card bills were used to automatically persecute any crime, from tax evasion to copyright infringement, how free would the Western peoples still truly feel?

5.5 Western (Neo-)Liberalism and China

Another case to which this model of the negation of a negation could be applied is the rise of the China, where the need of the Liberal consumerist West for cheap consumer goods and even cheaper labour, just as the need for Arab oil (thesis), fathered the present incomprehensible economic growth of China since the end of the Cold War, with the export of factories, jobs and technologies.

And while China superficially overtook parts of the Western Capitalist production system44 and thereby became the next economic superpower to surpass the US, it is now able to rule the world and take over the position that all the empires (British empire, French Empire,US and Soviet Union) occupied before it. The West has produced its own negation (antithesis).

To put it simply: Just as smartphones made China great again, so did Neoliberalism with Communism.

In a way, China today is the synthesis of its Sino-Communist, Maoist history (politically, thesis)45 and the Western capitalist system (antithesis). Also, if one goes back to Marxist theory, the Chinese approach is in a way closer to Marx himself, since it was his belief that communism has to be preceded by capitalism, which is necessary for industrialisation,46 whereas in the Soviet Union this step of dialectical evolution was left out, and one jumped directly from an agrarian fuedalist society to the Communist one.

If we are to measure the amount of geopolitical power the Chinese state has already accumulated, a simple comparison is more than telling.

While the Muslim world, and the Arab nations in particular together with Iran, seem eager to express their discontent with the state of Israel and its behaviour towards the Palestinian population at the UN with a regularity only matched by that of the Friday prayers or the Muezzin call,47 the Umma is rather silent on the treatment of their fellow believers, namely the Uygurs in China,48 which is decidedly worse, since these are actively interned and forcibly de-Islamised.

Despite all the daily injustices, the institutional discrimination and the illegal settlements in the West Bank, the religious freedom of the of the Muslim Palestinians is the least infringed upon, with the state of Israel even closing down access to the Wailing Wall for Jews and tourists to ensure a peaceful celebration of the Islamic sacrifice festival.49

Former member of the German soccer team Mesul Özil50 and close friend to President of Turkey Erdogan is not wrong in calling this out.

Again, the EU by comparison51 at least condemned the internment and and re-education with the goal of de-Islamisation of this national minority in concentration camps.

The author would argue that the will to self-revisionism and economic pragmatism, both lacking in the Soviet sphere of influence for decades, best shown by the military intervention against the tame reformatory attempts of the Prague Spring52 as well as its internal stagnation, gave the Communist order of China the chance to survive, whereas Gorbachev’s reformatory attempts were too small and too late. If they had succeeded a decade earlier is another question.

China has learned the lesson from its failed predecessors, as all of these empires, including the US, believed it would be able to rule the world militarily, and exhausted themselves in this process, last but not least financially (thesis). China, by contrast, is today conquering the world peacefully, through economics53 (antithesis). Sometimes the author wonders if the US and its NATO allies have really won the Cold War, or if they have not just been left over for three decades, like a boxer who wins by the shear grace of going down only a few seconds after his opponent has been counted out KO.

While the US is eager to repeat the Soviet mistake – which is to say, the combination of an over-bearing military-industrial complex54 combined with a failing and self-disproving economic theory, namely Neo-Liberalism55 – the Chinese only have to wait to fill the vacuum the US will leave after finally imploding. Right now, in the midst of the Coronavirus crisis, with the financial markets collapsing and unemployment rates rising, the greatest long-term threat is that Western companies and their technologies are sold to Chinese interests.

The best way for a man to be disproven is if he makes predictions; but still one wonders whether, where today sea carriers of Chinese manufactured consumer goods are resting and re-fueling in Chinese-funded harbours around the world,56, 57 perhaps tomorrow Chinese aircraft carriers might be floating. Or will the economic expansion be followed by a demographic one? The explosion of the Coronavirus in Northern Italy due to the relatively high number of Chinese workers returning there after celebrating the new year in China could be an early indicator.58

Was the outbreak any personal fault of a Chinese worker who wanted to see his relatives? No.

Is the caravan of death in Northern Italy59, 60 the consequence of the free flow of goods, people and services around the world without the firewalls of national and civilizational borders, combined with a defunded health care system due to the politics of financial austerity,61 a historically unstable political system since the WWII62 and a demographically over aged population?63 Yes.

With all the anti-(Neo-)Liberal sentiments however, at least the US is ‘the devil one knows’, and so its political periphery Europe shouldn’t cheer to much for its decline, but remind itself of the destiny of the Soviet Union and its periphery, where the failure of an ideology and the downfall of its empire had very real negative consequences from the personal to geopolitical level, since nobody knows what will follow next.

5.6 (Neo-)Liberalism Revoking Itself

Before criticizing Neoliberialism and demonstrating how it revokes both itself and the ideals it claims to be built upon, it is necessary to define it.

There is a tendency on both the Left and the Right to declare everything one does not like coming out of the capitalist way of organizing the economy ‘Neoliberal’. This is as un-intellectual as when from Liberal or Leftist sides (each having many shades of grey themselves) any Conservative or Right-wing position is automatically declared ‘Nazi’, ‘Fascist’ etc., or when from the Conservative/Right-wing side every cultural development one does not like is declared ‘Cultural-Marxist’ – leaving the author to wonder how many of those using this term on Twitter or in a Youtube commentary section, would be able to name three of the main protagonists of the Frankfurt School of thought,64 let alone how many had actually read them.

The same goes for the term ‘Liberal’: one is too often left in the dark as to which Liberalism is now meant in particular? That of Hume, Hobbes or Hayek?

Summarizing an ideology always means mutilating it, but nevertheless the (Neo-)Liberal tale65 is commonly presented as an amalgam formed out of the work of its main thinkers (von Mises,66 Hayek67 and Friedman68):

It starts from an individualist and anti-state position, which mainly claims that the involvement of the state in the economy is a threat to private individual freedom, as the state has a tendency to expand this involvement to buy votes or to satisfy the demands of the population – a development which ends in ‘socialism’ or dictatorship.

Therefore, the more Capitalism is unrestrained by governmental involvement, the more free the individual is. It is important to understand that this claim declares the market, understood as an organisational mechanism, not just empirically superior to any other way of organising the economy, as e.g. Adam Smith does in Classical Liberalism, but it also declares the market, meaning the unrestrained flow of goods, services, capital and people(s), a moral value in itself, whether it empirically works or not. This means in political praxis that lowering taxes is a moral goal in itself, as much as regulation in any form is per se a moral evil, as it puts elected governments automatically under the suspicion of being corrupt mechanisms of the state, intended to infringe on the individual property rights of the individual in the name of the masses.

To underpin this narrative, dialectics again comes to play. Neoliberalism sold itself as the greatest antithesis to both Communism and National Socialism alike.

By thinking one-dimensionally along the lines of the individual at the one end and the collective (meaning the state) on the other, it thereby managed to sell itself as ‘conservative’.

Polemically speaking, everyone demanding higher taxes, more oversight and regulation on the financial sector or a simple expansion of any social service or welfare program is basically a small Hitler or Stalin, or at least paving the way for one.

Within this logic, the state is reduced to the night watchman state, which means nothing else but that its only tasks are policing, the judicial system and the military. Every other aspect, every social service is to be shrunk and abolished in the long-term, from public education, infrastructure and health-care all the way up to worker’s safety laws.

All of these cutbacks, as painful as they may be, are justified on the one hand by the claim that people are thereby relieved from their serfdom to the state, and on the other hand that all of this will lead to a much higher level of prosperity. This prosperity is to be expected as individuals (must) put their resources to more efficient, more productive use, increasing the profit they make and re-investing it and repeating the whole process again, leading to an even higher level of prosperity. If these resources are put to inefficient use, this behaviour gets punished by the market, which leads to a more efficient use of resources in the long run. Within this logic, increasing profit is not just a possibility for the free individual. It is a moral obligation for the common good.

This ideology managed to hijack almost the entire political spectrum beginning with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s and later in the 2000s parts of the old Left (e.g. Tony Blair, Labour, with his Third Way, or Gerhard Schroeder, SPD, with Agenda 2010).

This development can best be seen in the programmatic development of the German classical liberal party FDP to a (Neo-)Liberal one. Up until the 1970s69 it promoted, among other things, the active prevention of monopolies, a property tax and an inheritance tax, less in the name of redistribution of wealth than to prevent too great an accumulation of wealth, which would imply the threat of the submission of the state to personal economic interests, thereby paving the road for also the subjection of the individual under the economic interests of these individuals.

This ideology is the purposeful disarmament of the state in terms of addressing internal problems, thereby abolishing not just its inner functionalities but also the classical liberal ideal of individual freedom itself in living reality. If the only tool one has left is a hammer (police and military), then every problem becomes a nail (imprisonment within the state, military interventionism abroad).

(Neo-)Liberalism is in a way thereby producing its own antithesis. It is no coincidence that the US has a prison population70, 71 relative to its total population comparable to level of North Korea,72 and to some degree comparable to that of the height of the Stalinist gulag system,73 admittedly with better judicial and nutritional conditions. To understand how the ‘land of the free and home of the brave’ turned into the home of the forcibly publicly housed it is worth comparing US economic policies after the Second World War in comparison to its judicial and internal security policies. It cannot escape notice how, parallel to Reaganomics,74 the drug war75 and other ‘tough on crime policies’76 were escalated, thereby expanding the US prison population, in a system which shows little rehabilitating success within the now often privately owned and administrated prisons,77 but not just there.

This should come to no surprise, since these companies are primarily driven by the profit motive or if state-run by the necessity to keep costs down for the tax payer, which means that they would undermine their own source of income by reducing the US prison population, whether by rehabilitating their inmates into productive tax-paying citizens (who might then not return to prison) or by introducing costly programs to achieve this goal.

Basically by accelerating the centrifugal forces of Capitalism (Reaganomics, NAFTA, free-trade agreements, deregulations of various kinds) and withdrawal on most fields (education, health care, investment in and maintenance of infrastructure) on the one hand (Thesis) and a tough-on-crime approach on the other, which is nothing other than the expansion of governmental power (which is utterly opposed when it comes to property rights), on the other, filling the void left on other fields, (Antithesis) one has created an illiberal Neo-Liberalism (Synthesis).

We can see the same pattern over and over again.

Consider, for instance, the opioid crisis,78 which was not produced by some evil Mexican drug cartels79 but by mainly legally acting pharma producers,80 who pushed a certain drug named in accord with the main ingredient Oxycodone81 (with its structure and its effects comparable to pure heroine) onto doctors and patients alike, turning doctors willingly or unknowingly into nothing but pushers.

Or take public advertisement.82 The US is the only Western country that allows the advertisement of prescription drugs on TV, thereby creating the demand for e.g. sleeping pills like Z-drugs, that are highly addictive and can cause an overdose by slowing the nervous system down to such83 an extent that one stops breathing.

All this was happening under the pretence of free speech and and free markets. One of the sales tactics was sending former strippers as pharma sales representatives to doctors’ offices – presumably for their high qualifications.84

There is clearly a place for strong opioid painkillers and other pharmaceuticals, and the author would be among the last to want any patient to live in pain, e.g. in the case of cancer or after a big surgery. But what was happening there had nothing to do with that, and many doctors, acting as pill mills and and pharma producers, knew this.

After they had gotten hooked, some of the addicts turned to illegal sources and methods to feed their habit, often now distributed by Mexican or Chinese drug cartels.85

What furthermore comes to play here is the failure of a dysfunctional state. The lack of oversight in terms of the US federal and state government, the lack of regulation to protect the individual patient trusting his doctor, and the lack of mental-healthcare facilities to address the issue of addiction – all measures of course costing taxpayer money – have contributed to a higher level of crime and imprisonment of poor and middle class US citizens across all racial and religious boundaries.

Are those individuals, be they addicted, criminal, imprisoned or all combined, today more free than they would have been under the Eisenhower or Kennedy Administration?

How the drug issue relates to the prison issue needs no further explanation, and how unstable economic conditions take their toll on mental health, rendering people still more vulnerable to addiction.

One can accuse the Old Marxism in its various forms as well as Neo-Marxism and the Frankfurt School of many things, but the 1980s with the triumph of Neoliberalism is not their crime. Here, the whole political spectrum from Centre to Right has some self-reflection to do as most of them, numerically speaking, have fallen into the Neoliberal trap.

The same logic arises over and over for the withdrawal of the state from essential fields, causing bigger problems and costs than its initial involvement.

Another example might be infrastructure. Which reasonably lead company would invest in Flint Michigan with its water crisis caused by its pipe system?86

But Neoliberalism even fails to uphold its most cherished idea, namely that of property rights and the non-involvement of the state in the economy itself, just like Marxism has over and over again failed to uphold its ideal of all people being equal.

From the financial crisis of 2007-2008 down to the present day Corona crisis, the government is the enemy until one needs a friend. Be it in the bailouts of the banks87 in 2007-2008 or the rescue packages now being stitched up,88 suddenly the ideology of non-involvement of the government in the economy go out the window, as soon as profit interests of big banks and big business are under threat, and the tax payer is asked to save the institutions to save himself from unemployment.

Neoliberalism in political praxis means nothing other than the privatisation of profits and the socialisation of losses. It means governmental inaction to start, and, once the situation produced by this inaction becomes unbearable, it becomes necessary to put exponentially more effort into preventing the worst.

Would the financial crisis of 2007-2008 have escalated that much if the sector hadn’t been deregulated for centuries?

One is left to wonder if the Corona crisis would have escalated, if the US healthcare system had not been defunded and privatised for centuries,89 if the Trump administration hadn’t cut funds to the CDC90, 91, or if in Austria the state government of Tyrol would have acted more decisively against the outbreak in Ischgl, from where it spread over all of Europe, instead of putting the interests of the local Tourism industry first?92 However, with all individual shortcomings by people in governmental positions, one cannot separate these people and their behaviour from the present-day ideology that has indoctrinated the political landscape for centuries.

That would be the same error as if someone were to claim that the nuclear disaster of Chernobyl93 had nothing to do with Communism and the Soviet state, its red-tapeism and secrecy.

The economic costs are now decidedly higher, caused by healthcare costs, public lockdowns and all other measures to flatten the curve of infection. Is there anything liberal about the forced closure of shops, public life and the curfews to prevent more infections? No.

Has it become necessary due to the initial inaction and the fear of negative economic effects? Yes.

It feels like a parody of what Ernst Jünger94 called ‘total mobilization’ in his Magnum Opus The Worker,95 for which he received praise from both ends of the Weimar political spectrum. But instead of a total mobilization, a total ‘Immobilization’ is presently taking place, where the most heroic thing that anyone can do is staying at home on the couch, watching one’s preferred streaming provider – with the exception of medical personnel, who often lack the basic supplies to protect themselves against the invisible, risking their own lives and some of them paying the ultimate price. They are the unsung heroes of the present day, just like the Liquidators of Chernobyl. The heroism of these health care works and other essential staff truly deserves more recognition, especially if one knows how the US truly treat their heroes,96 behind all the red-white-and-blue flag waving patriotism it is truly heartbreaking to see how many veterans fall through the cracks after returning home or even more how the 9/11 first responders had to go over and over with their hats in their hands to the US congress begging for financial support due their health care costs caused by the dust of the collapsed twin towers. One can only aspire to the ideal set by the late detective Luis Alvarez97 who visibly only days away from his own death by cancer testified to congress to hold the accountable for not prolonging the 9/11 victims fund, when it, medically speaking, didn’t concern him no more.

What can a simple nurse expect if the presently unknown longterm effects of Corona come to play in five, in ten years?

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

Maybe it is time to lay former actor and President Reagan to rest and to dig up the heritage of General and President Eisenhower, who understood that the truth lay neither with Marx nor Mises, neither with an all-controlling State nor the laissez faire of the last centuries, and also not just in between in form of the welfare state for individuals and subsidies for companies, but rather with a reasonable engagement with economic world and a holistic view of state and society.

If one looks at the US alone, where capitalism clearly had its best period after WWII up to the 1970s, one wonders if the combination of Capitalism with the following exemplary measures, rather than any kind of hands-off approach, created so prosperous a working and middle class, and thereby one indifferent to any ideological adventure:

  • A tightly regulated financial industry (e.g. Conference of Bretton Woods,98 Glass-Steagall Act,99 the gold standard100);
  • The GI Bill;101
  • A highly unionized industrial working force instead of union-busting policies;102
  • A tightly regulated immigration policy;103
  • A willingness to invest in civil infrastructure, e.g. the creation of US highway system;104
  • A willingness to invest in science and technology, e.g. the space programme and the moon landing;105
  • A well-funded education system worthy of the name with well-paid teachers;106
  • A marginal tax rate of ca. 90 % under Eisenhower,107 last but not least to balance the budget;
  • A relatively high minimum wage;108
  • A balanced federal budget.109

Some of these points would be clearly declared Left-wing in the present-day political spectrum, as much as others would be considered Right-wing. But do these attributes really matter ? Or do they not condition each other to be fruitful policies ?

The aforementioned policies are not to be misunderstood as a simple call for their reimplementation, since they cannot be understood out of their cultural, historical and technological context. They rather demonstrate that Capitalism was not at its height when it was freest, when the beast was unleashed, but rather when the government was still willing to act as one. They were chosen to demonstrate how a government, by acting from the get-go, can ensure freedom and prosperity instead of later on having to compensate for its inaction.


There is a certain bittersweet beauty in Dialectics: things will never stay as they are, but nothing one has achieved will do so, either. Everything will inadvertently produce its own negation. Maybe the challenge lies in the very question of how, and by whom, the challenge itself is met to shape the characteristics of each new age.

Who will it be, if not us?















































































































]]> 4
Dialectics for the Right – Part 1 Wed, 13 May 2020 19:50:34 +0000 1. Introduction

Since Marx1 used the Hegelian2 understanding of history as a foundation of his own works, the concept of Dialectics3 itself has been little appreciated by the Right. This has been a great loss, as with the Schmittian model of land and sea power4 or the Spenglerian organic approach to the life-cycle of civilisations5 alone one cannot arrive at a full conclusive understanding of history itself, as the Orthodox Marxists believed they had attained with their application of the concept of Dialectical and Historical Materialism,6 developed on the basis of Hegelian Dialectics by Marx himself. We are lacking a deeper understanding of history, one capable of concluding other attempts to understand history or to explain contradictions within other historicistic approaches.

The Whole is the Truth. Not just the right but also the wrong, both contradicting each other, form in their synthesis, the whole, the new truth.

To put it in natural scientific terms, one cannot get a full understanding of the universe through quantum theory, yet when one applies it in the form of spectral analysis one can gain very deep insights into the structure of matter when other theories of physics show their limits. Where quantum theory succeeds on the subatomic range and fails on the grand scale of astronomy and cosmology, Einsteinian relativity theories explain the universe on the grand scale and fails at the small. Rather than using Dialectics as an attempt to produce an all-explaining and all-predicting Determinism of history, it can be used rather as a methodology to dissect and to reflect upon.

But what is Dialectics?

2. Hegel and Dialectics

To read Hegel is challenge. To understand him is the challenge of a lifetime.

For this reason, the part of his philosophy called Dialectics can only be presented in the most mutilated way.

Totum est Verum:7, 8 The Whole is the Truth. This sentence is at the core of Hegelian Dialectics. Not just the right but also the wrong, both contradicting each other, form in their synthesis, the whole, the new truth – a deeper and higher insight, so to speak.

Two examples may be used to illustrate this.

  • 1. The state:9
    • a. Man is free to act in any way he pleases;
    • b. Every other man is also free to act as he pleases, especially at the expense of his fellow man;
    • c. Therefore one needs a controlling mechanism that reconciles both men – one that will pacify the situation by force if necessary. This is the institution of the state.
  • 2. The institution of marriage:10
    • a. Man [and women] are sexual beings by their nature;
    • b. Man should life abstemious;
    • c. Therefore the institution of marriage is to be introduced to tame the human nature and its consequences.

Admittedly the last example is not taken from Hegel, but rather from the apostle Paul.

To successfully apply this schema means to clearly understand one’s own thesis, to properly identify and understand the antithesis, and then to correctly dissolve the contradiction into a synthesis. To put this in more pop-culture terms, no Star Wars (Synthesis) without the Imperium (Thesis) and the Rebel Alliance (Antithesis).

3. A Dialectical Understanding of History

The Hegelian philosophy of history is based on the idea that every thesis produces an antithesis. Different historical periods compensate (negate) each other. Both will then lead to synthesis, which itself is a new thesis producing its antithesis.

Nationalism, just like Communism, is fruit of the fruit of Liberalism – whether or not one likes the fact.

This model has two consequences: first, history is an upwards-tending curve, where things that happened are responded to, can get lost, thrown away, accidentally forgotten or remembered, adapted and built upon; and secondly, everything that happens produces its own negation, meaning that each era might compensate the one before, while we can learn from them both.

This lead Marx11 to believe that ‘the history of all past societies is the history of class war’, and that each age, due to its inner contradiction, namely the exploitation of the lower classes by their upper classes, produces this class war, making the now lower classes into tomorrow’s the upper classes.

This might sound abstract, yet one must remember that Marx was living closer to the French Revolution12 (when the bourgeoisie overthrew the French Absolutist monarchy, abolishing feudalism) than we presently live to the First World War.13 That Marx, himself seeing the impoverished working classes newly created through the process of industrialisation, came to the conclusion that these people might turn against those owning the means of production , namely the bourgeoisie, is not too hard to follow.

Furthermore – and this is important for all that see themselves as Nationalist – it was Marx’s belief that the German Unification14 out of its various monarchies (Prussia, Saxony, Bavaria, Austria-Hungary etc.) and by the weakening if not the abolition of the monarchy and the simultaneous creation of a unified Germany based on a common heritage, was in itself a Liberal and Anti-Traditionalist cause, leading to his further belief that the National Bourgeoisie unification was just a step on the ladder to the world revolution. Therefore Marx’s best friend and financier Friedrich Engels15, 16 also fought on the Nationalist, a.k.a. Liberal-democratic side against the monarchic side in 1948-1949 after the failure to give Germany a constitution at the St. Paul’s church convent.

The same logic goes more or the less for the Italian Risorgimento,17 with the Papal state opposing the creation of the Italian state and only accepting its creation centuries later, after the deed had already been done.

It might be a painful insight, but Nationalism, just like Communism, is fruit of the fruit of Liberalism – whether or not one likes the fact.

Yet history didn’t play out the way Marx predicted, leaving us to wonder still where it might be going. That however doesn’t mean that nothing can be learned from the Marxist theoretical cannon.

The author feels nevertheless compelled to warn the reader not to tumble down the Marxist rabbit hole through the gateway drugs of dialectical logic and discontent with the modern capitalist status quo, which one might share with real Marxists.

Nowhere has this trap been better presented than by the late Ian Riachardson in the in the 1979 BBC Version of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.18 A kind of spoiler alert is in effect.

Clearly mankind has never had a deeper understanding of nature than it does at present. Yet if man, nations or mankind itself have improved is a question without answer. Whether history is an upwards curve (the dialectical point of view) or a downward curve (the Traditionalist point of view from Catholic Traditionalism to Evolian Traditionalism) might be a question of the parametres, and the gravitas attributed to them, which we apply to measuring the progress or decline of man.

The author does not wish to pass judgement here. Maybe the Christian belief that man has been fallen ever since the beginning is true – that he can only be elevated by a force greater than him. Maybe progress is an illusion, and it is neither a rise nor a decline, but an oscillating zero-sum game for the Faustian nature of Europe and the world. No moonlanding without the Second World War and the V2 program of Wernher von Braun.19 No nuclear energy without Hiroshima20 and Chernobyl21 and cancer caused by radiation – along with the nuclear radiation used to treat it. No antibiotics without the understanding of bacterial biology, bought at the price of potential biological warfare.

Maybe progress is an illusion, and it is neither a rise nor a decline, but an oscillating zero-sum game for the Faustian nature of Europe and the world.

From the present-day point of view, it can be stated that man didn’t improve overall in his creation of everyday new technologies. How future technologies will even accelerate the decaying present-day status quo can be seen on the Netflix show Black Mirror,22 where one first becomes intrigued by technology, then submits to it, betraying and in the end destroying oneself.

One wonders who in their cultural pessimism would have enjoyed this show more – Julius Evola with his Revolt Against the Modern World23 or Theodor W. Adorno with his Dialectics of the Enlightenment?24 When Marx writes about Alienation25 or when he describes the inner dysfunctionalities of Capitalism from his Dialectical and Historical Materialist point of view, culminating in his prediction of the class war, one cannot but be reminded of the term ‘Kali Yoga’, which Evola uses to diagnose and describe the present-day situation from his transcendent point of view. Is Marx’s belief in the worker’s paradise really that different from Evola’s coming golden age? Is Marcuse’s ‘one-dimensional man’26 not little more than a more clearly drawn version of Nietzsche’s last man?27

4. Marx, Hegel and Fukuyama

Interestingly, the concept of a Dialectical understanding of history was applied even after the fall of the Soviet Union, in the sense that this model would lead to an end of history. An example of this notion can be found in Francis Fukuyama,28 with his belief that in the end the whole world will end in a Liberal socio-economic order instead of a Communist one. This meant that instead of Liberal Capitalism preceding the Communist order (the old Marxist point of view), Communism was regarded as being just one step of mankind up the ladder to Liberal Capitalism as an end state of mankind. Both views have served as the justification for failed military interventionism, from the Soviet military endeavours29 up to the ongoing series of US lead military30 adventures. Afghanistan and the decade-long suffering of the Afghan peoples are here the prime example. A clear line can be drawn between the Neo-Con/Neo-Liberal worldview with its secular missioniarism and the US-lead military interventions in the Middle East, the Arab Spring, the instability giving rise to ISIS and other militant Islamist groups – all the way down to the European refugee crisis and Brexit. And to be fair, Fukuyama did revoke some of his earlier worldview in the present day.31

































]]> 2
Occasional Thoughts in a Crisis Wed, 22 Apr 2020 19:26:59 +0000 Caveat lector — In the unprecedented global crisis which has so swiftly seized us, and in the vast array of shifting interpretations which attend to practically every new change within it, I remain confident about one thing only: what a man proclaims about the present Coronavirus emergency more often than not can be regarded as his most personal confession of his own innermost worldview.

There is something gloriously naïve in the idea that the present crisis has dealt a blow, not to speak of a coup de grâce, to the globalist order.

There is an immediate, natural, and telling tendency for each individual to comprehend the Coronavirus, its origins, its severity, and the actions that have been taken consequent to it, in accord, not with the ‘facts’ (it may be that the ‘facts’ of no other widespread public emergency have ever been so devilishly elusive), but rather with his ‘personal equation’: his attitude and temperament intermixed with his view of things or with the ideology to which he most nearly cleaves. Thus the environmentalist is liable to see this outbreak as the result of global warming or deforestation, or the first shudder of a planet attempting to throw the chancre of humanity from its back; the technocrat, meanwhile, will consider it yet another example of the unpredictable hazard represented by unmastered ‘nature’ and the need to keep it under stern bond. The nationalist sees in this the clarion refutation of the globalist view; the globalist, the demonstration of the necessity of global policies capable of confronting global disasters. The socialist will claim that socialism is unambiguously the only thing that can save us from our straits, and the capitalist, that capitalism is. In America, the Never Trumpers see in this moment the latest and most blatant demonstration of Trump’s incapacity, dithering, and corrupt egoism, the MAGA types clear proof of Trump’s independence and sangfroid in a crisis, and the most loyal devotees of Trump evidence that Trump is at last bringing the financial overlords to their knees and preparing for a social revolution such as has never been known. And all of these various individuals, to a one, look upon those who take the contrary stance as though they were mad, the members of an alien race looking upon a different planet to our own.

So each man reads himself into this crisis and comes out the other side the more convinced of his opinions, and perhaps the less able to perceive events for what they are, or to apprise with any justice the views that lie on the other side of the widening divide. Indeed, a great many today seem to have been overcome with an acute form of that illness which has lately been creeping into all nooks and corners of society: the Postmodern hyperfragmentation of beliefs, knowledge, outlooks, communities, families, even personalities. It may be that some foreknowledge of this strange and predominately psychological illness can provide a degree of immunity to it, but for the time being it represents a veritable pandemic – much more diffuse certainly than the merely outward Coronavirus pandemic which is presently remodelling the most basic premises of our social, economic and political lives.

It is therefore probable that the following collection of thoughts on the present situation and its consequences will reveal nothing if not the views of its author, his own pet prejudices and presuppositions, which he, despite his better efforts, casts now upon an urgent and immensely intricate situation in an attempt, less at understanding, than at simplification and containment. For that reason I have hesitated long before publishing these sundry reflections at all, as I did not wish them to contribute to the noise. May they be taken for what they are worth.

On History and Globalism

The murderers of history — My first thought, when the Coronavirus crisis began to appear in its present emergency, was that now, at least, no one could any longer maintain the already preposterous claim that history has ended. It seems indeed that ‘History’, that hoary old meddler in human affairs, is very much alive and about his work, despite all rumours to the contrary; and all those who in prior times announced or intimated that the advent of modern and increasingly global democratic government in the world had brought his course to its terminus, must now allow the prematurity of their optimism.

My second thought was that the first was the speech of complacency in my soul, suggesting, as it does, that these events hold all of us human beings indiscriminately in thrall. Alas, it is not so. Those same shameless globalists who are the least obtusely dogmatic in their millennarian views, and at the same time most intent in seeing such a ‘paradise’ soon come to pass, have long since ceased to look for the automatic ‘end of history’: they have satisfied themselves rather with attempting to govern history, to guide history, to make history – to transform a recalcitrant and multifarious history into the final Single World Order they seek. Nay, let us put the matter still more strongly: perceiving that ‘History’ is alive and well, these men have set their minds to its murdering: they are to a one would-be historicides. And the rise of Coronavirus, far from inconveniencing them in this will, has indeed granted them new and subtler poisons.

I have warned the Dissident Right before of philocatastrophic thinking1 – this hope, almost a prayer, that some disaster will destroy our foes and bring men of our views to sudden apotheosis. The time is fresh for an emphatic restatement of this warning.

Cui bono? — There is something gloriously, but also dangerously, naïve in the idea that the present crisis has dealt a blow, not to speak of a coup de grâce, to the globalist order. Such a notion rests on a number of altogether gratuitous suppositions, to wit: 1.) the globalist elite could not have anticipated an event of this kind, and was unprepared for it; 2.) the globalist elite would never have desired a worldwide pandemic, certainly not a ‘soft’ pandemic with so measly a fatality rate, and has nothing to gain therefrom; 3.) the globalist elite has far more to profit from the relatively stable status quo ante than from the widespread economic turmoil which is presently emerging around us; and 4.) the people will no longer tolerate a globalist order which has been the direct or indirect cause of such total havoc to our economies and societies.

The first of these suppositions is demonstrably false: the globalist elite has been preparing for just such an event as this for years already, including in the very months immediately preceding the pandemic. The second two are dubious at best: the globalist elite has never yet, in all the past long century, failed to profit from acute nation-wide or global crises. Who among the Dissident Right can really believe that the initial response to the rise of this illness on the part of a George Soros or a Paul Singer or a Larry Fink, a Jeff Bezos or a Bill Gates, a Rockefeller or a Rothschild, was a grimace of shock, fear or alarm? Who really believes that the financeers, banksters and shadow banksters behind such ‘institutions’ as Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, Blackstone or The Vanguard Group (to pick out but a few representatives from a hellish host) are better served by economic stability than by economic collapse?2 We of the Dissident Right are far better prepared for events of this type and magnitude than are the average citizens of our countries; we have a kind of liberty of perspective lacking to the many, and have moreover enjoyed long training in this kind of ‘disaster thinking’ from many of the figures of our movement, as for instance Guillaume Faye, Fenek Solère, and Jason Reza Jorjani. But our level of preparation is nothing compared to theirs – on any level, that is, save the moral and the spiritual.

As for the final, ‘populist’ supposition above: The crisis we are presently facing is in many outward respects nothing new under the sun. Its scope is the one obvious novelty, for never before has a pandemic become so global, so quickly, and never before have nations entire, as opposed to cities or regions, been deadlocked into involuntary ‘quarantines’. The scope of this crisis, and of our response to it, is owed to globalism, even if the crisis itself is not. Supposing for a moment that the people broadly understood makes the correct inference here, and succeeds in understanding that we owe the severity of our plight to the appalling liberties hitherto allowed to the practices and agents of globalism – and it is already far from certain that the people will see this, given the sources from which they like to take their information, and the crude historical parallels standing between this and other outwardly similar ‘pandemics’ – even in this case, will the people be ready to relinquish the many boons it has been accustomed to receiving from the globalist order? Or will it not much sooner and much more readily submit to certain, shall we call them inconveniences (legally required face masks and gloves for certain individuals or certain areas, mandatory vaccines infused with helpful and harmless ‘biometric identification technologies’,3 ‘immunity passports’, various innocuous little ‘apps’ on our ‘smart phones’ which monitor our health and signal our condition to benevolent authorities or even to our peers, sterner social-media restrictions on ‘misinformation’ and ‘fake news’, closer regulation of the internet as a whole, increased ‘distance work’ and ‘distance education’, periodic lockdowns whenever a new ‘flareup’ is ‘detected’, limitations on mass meetings, augmented surveillance of our movements, transactions and relationships for our own good, etc. etc.) rather than surrendering all of its tinsel and toys?

Everything hinges on this last question; you can be sure that the globalists are banking on an affirmative answer to it. And so far, by most evidence, one cannot fault their calculations.

Dangerous precedents — ‘Sooner or later this pandemic will be over, and then —’

But hold a moment, friend: whence your logic? Does it not smack a bit too much of optimism and facility? What does it mean for this pandemic to be ‘over’? That no new Coronavirus or akin disease, not to speak of a recurrence of this very same virus, will arise next week, next month, next year, next decade? That is already questionable, given the low and easy standards we have so generously, not to say hysterically used to categorize this as a ‘global health threat’. But what is a hundred times worse, we have established in this pandemic the pattern of all future ones, of any severity whatsoever. We have already revealed to our leaders, both those of good will and those of bad, that when the moment of fear arrives (conveniently incited by the mass media and supported by paid ‘experts’, naturally), we will be prepared to bow unquestioningly to whatever protocols are established by whatever international acronym-agency, and to move firmly and faithfully in step, to do our part for the ‘common good’, no matter what is required of us, no matter how utterly disproportionate our sacrifice may be to the danger we face.

Anyone who believes that this remarkable docility on our part will not be the object of continuous attempts at rank abuse in coming years, certainly has an oddly rosy outlook regarding the men at the helm of our ships of state. We of the dissident Right, at least, have no excuse for such blindness.

Natura non facit saltus — We of the Dissident Right tend to think in terms of leaps and coups; the globalist elite, in terms of degrees and ‘evolution’. The history of the past hundred years has shown well enough which is the more powerful approach to producing social change.

That is why – that may be the only reason why – we are unlikely to see any kind of denouement to this long dark comedy of modernity in the near future. It is premature to expect the ‘final move’ in the protracted chess game the globalist elite have been playing against the ingenuity and innocence of Western peoples. The globalist elite has never yet been foolish enough to make an open bid for power, and will not do so now; it will rather use present events to ease us into any number of new habits and customs which are to us as venom, and to it as presupposition, just as it has always done in the wake of crises. Consider September 11, consider the housing crisis of last decade: these are the long-standing models which have proved successful, and there is no reason to expect the powers-that-be to veer from them any time soon. Nor is there any reason to suppose that, precisely to the degree our worst fears fail to materialize, we will have lost in the long-term.

A rule, then, which could serve us good stead: let us guard ever against being lulled into complacency when our enemies fail to appear armed with fireworks and fanfare, marching through the city streets. Because the attack is subtle, the watchmen doze, only to wake later to find that their towers suddenly stand on enemy territory. That is how the globalist elite have ever expanded their kingdoms, and that is how they will expand them again this time.

Dangerous exemplars — Those who lionize the totalitarian actions of China in recent months, and hold that example up as a useful foil against our tepid and timid Western response, badly miscalculate. One of the great consequences of the ‘liberal’ revolutions of the past centuries was the uncoupling of power from responsibility, rule from lifelong education in rule, leadership from inherited and class-mandated morality. This political crisis has reached a head in recent decades, to such an extent that the old formula of the dutiful and cultivated public statesman has been inverted into the ruthless and soulless shadow ruler. The great consequence thereof has been this: that the men who seek to govern our nations, often secretly and in half-anonymity, are seldom of a mettle to do so responsibly, or of a will to do so morally.

Then let those who hunger for a purifying authoritarianism beware the hands into which they so readily thrust power; for the fingers that grab for this gift are far from likely in our day to be attached to virtuous hearts.

Where ‘atheism’ is wanted — ‘Universal income’… ‘digital currency’… ‘global government’… ‘biometric identity technology’… control of ‘misinformation campaigns’… ‘universal surveillance’: is it any accident that these many darlings of the globalist elite’s vision have suddenly broken the surface of the present ferment in countless magazines, journals, op-eds, laws, speeches and decrees? That they suddenly appear in a variety of different guises sprinkled about in journalese and bureaucratese in the public discourse? What clearer sign could be wanted that this is not our catastrophe?

The view that this crisis has at last sounded the death-knell for globalism, as has been proclaimed by too many men of the Right (both conventional or true), represents nothing more than an understandable but altogether inexcusable expectation that a hero, a strong man, or an unexpected turn of events will rise amongst us to miraculously save us from our plight. In truth, the battle will not go easier for us from this moment on; it will grow infinitely the harder, as the invisible bureaucratic bonds that bind us grow tighter about our limbs and shoulders, strengthened by the irreproachable, or at least unassailable, pretext of ‘guarding the public health’. And those of us who embraced the coming of these changes, and held them to augur nothing but promise for the future, will soon discover that, in their unworthy hope, they have fallen prey, silently and secretly, to two of the most insidious suppositions of our time: first, the modern meliorism according to which there is a finally ineluctable tendency toward progress governing the course of history, so that everything will turn out for the better in the end; and second, the view that institutions or institutional protocols are more primary than the men who govern them.

If the men of the Dissident Right do not feel shame before succumbing to either of these illusions, I do not foresee much hope for us. We have rightly taken it as a point of fundamental superiority in our worldview that it seeks to resurrect and defend the old gods; but let us always maintain a firm and conscious atheism with respect at least to one so-called deity, the deus ex machina.

The law that governs us — It is in this ‘historical moment’ as it has always been with us: if we do not save ourselves, we will lose ourselves.

A false stave of support — The globalists have boundlessly more money than we do and infinitely more resources (including ‘human’ resources); they are far better prepared than we are for events of global bearing, having had both the leisure and the finances to work through the probable consequences of many such hypothetical events. It would be well for us to follow them more closely in their public conferences and presentations, and to learn from them where we may.4 We have seen in late days how even an emergency of comparatively mild stature might produce excuses for unprecedented advances against us and the liberties which we so blandly take for granted, and upon which we depend nonetheless.

There is nothing to wonder at in any of this, and it must reinforce us in at least this view: we must not rely on a global catastrophe to pave the way to the rebirth or regeneration of our societies. Such an event can at best provide opportunities for change, but these opportunities will be lost irretrievably if we are not already prepared to take advantage of them, long before they arise.

In summation — Friends, let us resist altogether the siren’s call of ‘global solutions’, no matter the guise in which they appear before us. Our strength is and must be the local, not even the national, and certainly not the global.

Opposition to globalism can never come on global terms. If we confront the globalist elite on their planetary stomping grounds, we meet them on their terrain, where they stand king of the hill; our defeat there is as much as guaranteed. But in hearth and home, in family and community, in small farm and small market, in heart and mind – there we stand as uncontested champions, which is why our enemies never attempt to defeat us here, but rather seek to eliminate or defame, to suppress or supplant these domains altogether. Present events give them unheard of pretext for moving forward in that awful work. The only question that matters any longer is whether it is already too late for us to regain our rightful rule over our rightful domain.

On Science and Morality

Where ‘fact’ blinds ‘value’ — Let us not rush to congratulate ourselves on our ‘scientific’ approach to this crisis – this reflexive, often indiscriminate and largely unreflective worldwide lockdown; these ceaseless ‘safety measures’ taken almost fretfully against ‘infection’; these waves of contradictory graphs and charts and studies and ‘expert opinions’; these many ‘models’, as useless as they are influential; this swamp of swirling numbers in the place of vital experience; this anticipation of the saviour in the form of some ‘vaccine’ – for more than anything else, all of this bespeaks in us the pith of the modern spirit, which has hungered from the first to ‘conquer Fortuna.’ We, too, long to conquer Fortuna; and when she stands before us so nakedly as she has lately done, it is a goad to this will in us. For make no mistake: whether this virus was engineered in a laboratory or produced spontaneously in the veins of some Asiatic bat – whether it escaped from the grip of some honest scientist or was planted by some malicious governmental agent or was the fruit of nature’s continual and often violent self-development – it comes before us individually in the guise of Lady Luck alone.

Let those who hunger for a purifying authoritarianism beware the hands into which they so readily thrust power.

Hence our will to control this thing, to get our fingers around it and to choke it out, to beat the accident from out of our lives by any means necessary. But it is the strange way of the world that when it is choked at one point the fortune in it seems to squeeze out from another. It matters not how dictatorial a lockdown we propose to contain this outbreak, for there will be consequences aplenty on the economic scale and the political scale, and they will likely dwarf the ills we seek to avoid thereby. Let us for once openly own to ourselves the truth of our plight: we have already lost control, and the appearances to the contrary are merely the trappings of a masquerade that we ourselves set over the face of a grinning reality to ignore its leer.

What is worse still: we had the chance, as many generations of men have had before us, to nobly confront the necessity of our mortality and the limits of our knowledge and power with dignity and manful serenity. Instead we opted in our shrill panic to default our human duty and to thrust our fates into the hands of ‘authorities’ – political authorities, scientific authorities, health authorities, take your pick from the rabble of them. (It is likely enough that one chooses the same men no matter which group one decides to trust.)5 Even if we have saved our lives thereby, we have fatally diminished ourselves in the saving.

Guilt in innocence, innocence in guilt — Tacit to the laws regulating movement and apparel (‘social distancing’, ‘voluntary’ quarantine, face masks, gloves, etc.) is the proposition that each healthy human being is potentially guilty as a carrier of disease, would be some way responsible if he became an unwilling link in the chain between the origins of this virus and one or another deaths to result from it. That is a remarkable moral calculation, and would lead to remarkable practical results. Are we to suppose the same, for instance, for the workaday influenza? For men die as well of that: have we all a little blood on our hands, for ever having caught a sniffle?

Let us seek some clarity here. Let us, in good ‘modern’ or ‘scientific’ manner, take an egregious example to shed light on the rule: a man who is conscious of being infected with the AIDS virus goes to the bed of a woman without informing her of his case, and without taking any precautions to defend her from his illness, as Foucault for instance was rumoured to have done. Is such a man not to be regarded as morally responsible for any illness, and finally any death, which results from his act? Similarly, we might charge a man with gross negligence and some moral complicity who, in the throes of some respiratory sickness, nonetheless put himself in contact with elderly or otherwise physiologically compromised persons, without doing anything to defend these weaker persons from a malaise which to him must be passing.

Well and good. But what of the man who, as a healthy human being, has become the unconscious ‘healthy carrier’ of a disease? To claim that such a one is guilty of any contagions to proceed from him, to claim that he ought to take automatic precautions to protect those around him, to claim that he must constantly and vigilantly defend other and weaker men from his own health – is this not identical to reproving him for his very strength? Is this not the democratic idiocy par excellence?

The new protocols surrounding health, far from rendering us healthier, have indeed imbued us all with a fundamental sense or suspicion of our own basic illness, transforming us into hypochondriacs, while rendering us morally culpable of a wholly potential and hypothetical illness; in so doing they have undermined the premise of any ‘natural aristocracy’, any ‘good conscience’, any free and clear view of the world or our situation in it.

Let us beware of falling prey, not so much to the Coronavirus, which will find us as it may, but rather to this infinitely more devious and deplorable illness, which is an illness of soul and not merely of body: the illness of ressentiment – or the folly of submitting to some imagined moral superiority in the bearers and purveyors of this ressentiment.

The new lens — We are encouraged in these days to regard one another, and we ourselves, as unclean, agents of infection, dirty, dangerous, endangering. What a view of man! And what can possibly redeem us to ourselves? No, not a god; rather a – vaccine!

Motive and consequence — ‘There is nothing inherently good about our so-called “civil liberties”; why should we then lament their passing?’

Methinks you are playing with fire. But even granting your premise, there is still something inherently bad about a man who will sell his outward freedom in order to placate his fear.

The necessity in choice — Supposing for a moment that the ‘numbers’ are precisely as proposed by various international ‘health’ organisations – truly a leap of faith, in the mind of this writer – well? Does a fatality rate of roughly 3.5% justify the full arrest of our societies and the destruction of what is, despite all its prior seeming, a frail global economy?

It is a callous thing, some will tell me, to lay human life on one side of the balance and human prospering on the other. But this is what the rulers of men have always been tasked to do in times of national crisis, there is no way around it. Defaulting in one way or another does not defuse the moral gravity of the choice, nor permits us to finally evade the consequences which will result from our decision.

Dishonour in honour — What we would not do to save a few thousand lives of our weakest citizens! That is a measure of our ‘humanity,’ and is not at all to be frowned at. May be it does us enormous honour, and precisely in the healthiest among us represents a kind of contemporary noblesse oblige. But underlying that sterling honour there is often enough a duskier metal, one which darkens at the withering touch of death and attempts to withdraw our attention, at any cost whatsoever, from the necessity of our own mortality. Then let us be bold enough to ask: how much of our ‘sacrifice’ was made, in the end, not for the good of those it might have saved, but rather from the mortal fear of an unknown menace, our complacent belief in the continued stability of ‘life as we know it’, our immediate and slavish obedience to the governmental or scientific authority of the moment? As is too often the case, our public virtues are easily underpinned with secret vices.

We had the chance to nobly confront the necessity of our mortality and the limits of our knowledge and power with dignity and manful serenity.

This substrate, which blessedly is not always present in our finer acts, nonetheless is far from rare in them, particularly in the present day. We are biophiles, we moderns, great lovers of life, life at all costs. — I leave it to those steeped in the teachings of the ancient philosophers to calculate the moral weight of this neologism.

Beware illusions — There is a part of the Dissident Right which wants to prove that this illness is far worse than the evidence presently suggests, because it craves catastrophe, the collapse of society as the one remaining possibility for our rebirth. There is another part of the Dissident Right which wants to prove the same thing, because a potentially devastating outbreak would more clearly justify an authoritarian response, empowering, it is somehow hoped, the right kind of leader.

I will not here adjudicate the motives guiding these attempts. It suffices to reckon out the ‘wishful thinking’ implicit to them both, to denounce and reject them: for the weaker party in any war cannot afford to live in delusions, not even very beautiful ones.

On Conspiracy and Duty

Behind false binaries — Of all the false binaries that circulate around the Coronavirus – and there are a great many, such as ‘lockdown versus opening’, ‘safety versus rashness’, ‘information versus misinformation’ – none is so prejudicial to conversation as the dichotomy between ‘reality’ and ‘conspiracy’. And none does more to favour, not certainly the truth and the seekers after truth, but to those men who are most concerned with concealing their nefarious ambitions or their despicable actions.

Losing one’s head before losing one’s heart – We should tender our ceaseless compliments to the so-called ‘conspiracy theorists’ among us – not because they are always right, but because they are always bold, even in times when every head has bowed to the rise of an unprecedented authoritarianism, meek as daisies before the scythe. There come rare moments when it is better to be courageously wrong. Best of all is it, of course, to lose neither one’s courage nor one’s head; but the prerequisite for such an attitude is not first of all reason, but first of all bravery.

The alibi of the ‘elite’ — ‘Why would the governments of the world, or the banksters, or the “global elites”, or whatever group you please, ever seek to destroy the world economy? What could they possibly gain from disintegrating the very ground upon which they stand?’

Ah, I fear you have not paid near keen enough attention to such crises as we have within living memory; nor do you have near clear enough a sense of the foundation upon which they truly stand.

But lay that aside, a simple calculus should suffice, not to demonstrate their guilt, but to dissolve their alibi. In the case of economic collapse, who will be in a position to profit? The average citizen, the small business owner, the grassroots movement, the honest and incorruptible journalist or intellectual working diligently in his study to expose the truth of present events? Or the men with millions of dollars of expendable income at their immediate disposal, with their hands in every pie, with their advanced and dedicated knowledge of complex economics, with their fearlessness in the face of mendacity and manipulation and their ruthless hearts? This much must at least be clear: these men have the least to fear, of anyone under the sun, from economic meltdown.

So much for alibi; now what of motive?

Barbed query — But of course, let us be reasonable; let us avoid ‘conspiracy thinking’ in our present emergency. For really, how could it possibly aid the powers-that-be to grant governments, on the basis of emergency decree alone, the right to enforce widespread house arrest, upon any perceived or fabricated need, over innocent civilians? Or to give our ‘social media’ and our ‘online marketplace’ the clear pretext for more strongly censoring ‘dangerous’ or ‘misleading’ speech? Or to lay at the feet of our ‘authorities’ every excuse they could possibly desire to embed us all more tightly in the network of digital tracking, registration, surveillance, by confounding their efforts here with the legitimate governmental responsibility of defending the public health?

Indeed, how could they, the global rulers, be served by the banning of mass protests, the limitation put on social discourse, the sense prevalent among the public now that a man, for his own preservation, must stay away from other men, must not speak to anyone in the dangerous privacy of organic, unrecorded and spontaneous conversations, must not be allowed too long to discuss, for instance, the vast and shocking changes occurring around us in the very fabric of the law? How could our governments possibly profit from a situation in which they are automatically and trustingly, not only permitted, but expected, to force swift passage of historical legislation radically altering the present balance of powers and the standing structure of our institutions? And as for this collapsing economy – what occasion could it possibly give to billionaires, with their universal ‘networks’, their eye for opportunity, their shameless abuse of every chance? — How, indeed, could any of this ever aid – the globalist elite?

The final sacrifice on the altar of Moloch — He who believes that the globalist elite love money over all things and so will do whatever they can to preserve the economic status quo is sorely mistaken; history itself refutes him. It is not money, but power that these creatures crave at bottom. And the greatest power can finally only be bought at the sacrifice of the global economy on the alter of a far darker deity.

Default position — There is little stronger ‘circumstantial’ evidence of the ‘conspiracy theorist’ view of these present events, than the rapidity, unanimity, and mercilessness with which the conglomerate of media and big tech has censored the same. It should be the standing protocol of the Dissident Right to favour, in moments of doubt or limited knowledge, the opposite course to that most emphatically urged by the globalist elites. This is not altogether reactionary thinking: our enemies have access to more money than we, and thus to a wider view of the factual state of affairs. They alone know their plans, they alone know how present events fit in line with them. And whatever else may be true of them, they desire with all their hearts the obliteration of the things that we most cherish.

Having said that, we speak here only of a ‘default position’; for in truth we of the Dissident Right should by rights seek to be independent of all modern influences, even ‘negative’ or reactionary ones. That independence is both our necessary and sufficient justification.

Then a final question, to close these ‘untimely’ reflections: Have we, in the present crisis, attained that loftier goal?


1See my Arktos Journal essay of October 2018, ‘Not Our Catastrophe’.

2As regards the preparation and, one is tempted to say, foreknowledge of the globalist elite, consider the by now infamous Event201, a Coronavirus pandemic simulation organized by none other than the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in October of last year, just weeks before the first cases of Coronavirus began to appear in China. The official ‘Highlights Reel’ from this event, with but few divergences, sounds eerily like a summation of the real Coronavirus pandemic of 2020. Even supposing that one does not put a more malevolent interpretation on this striking coincidence, at the very least it demonstrates that the events to which we have been witness were far from unpredictable. And Event201 is of course but a single instance of decades’ worth of conferences, simulations, debriefings, warnings from scientists and other experts, etc. etc. regarding the possibility of a pandemic like the present.

So far as the benefits which have accrued to at least some among the globalist elite, it does not seem to me that at least BlackRock and its CEO Larry Fink, considered by Forbes to fall in the top thirty of the world’s most powerful men, will suffer much from the present disaster.

3For information on this heinous idea, and Gate’s relationship to it, see ‘Bill Gates, MIT Develop New “Tattoo ID” to Check For Vaccinations’, 21st Century Wire, December 23, 2019. Accessed April 22, 2020.

4Event201, for instance, lays forth a great many scenarios, in a great many spheres, which it would be well for us to bear in mind and to prepare for. To name but a single instance: consider the possibility, openly discussed by the ‘participants’, of ‘limited internet shutdowns’ effected by governments in order to regulate the flow of ‘dis- and misinformation’.

5As but a single example, consider but the masterful and simultaneously absolutely ludicrous role that Bill Gates has played in recent days. His ominous grandfatherly wrinkles leer out of practically every screen, his importunous, officious words appear on the pages of every major newspaper and journal in all the world. This man – to all public knowledge, a mere entrepreneur in the field of personal computing – has suddenly appeared wearing the full raimant of some unexplained authority, touting himself (in his own words) as an ‘expert’ in vaccines, if not virology itself, and speaking freely, by his report, to heads of state – all the while being granted media time evidently on demand. He arises like a hero to save us from the devastation wrought by Coronavirus and to administer to us all (that is to say, the entire global population) a vaccine of his own production. His title of ‘philanthropist’ invites us to turn a blind eye to the monstrous conflict of interest involved in all of this. But supposing one wishes to listen to the scientists, rather than a Bill Gates: well, where shall we turn? The World Health Organization, whose largest donor (now that Trump has withdrawn public American moneys) is none other than the Gates Foundation? Or perhaps its most outspoken representatives, such as Dr. Michael Ryan, Executive Director of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergency Programme, who recently suggested the necessity of taking people from their homes – and who happens to be one of Gates’ old employees? Or perhaps to our governments, who are informed by the same no doubt totally disinterested WHO? An American is still better off: he might listen to the likes of Dr. Deborah Birx or Dr. Anthony Fauci, both of them colleagues or beneficiaries of Gates himself. If only we lived in the good old days, when all roads still led — to Rome!

]]> 2
Autobiographical Fragments Thu, 16 Apr 2020 15:32:37 +0000 My Years of Study: Marx, Freud and Co.

In retrospect, I do not regret the zigzag path I followed across that epoch. It gave me access to experiences which would later keep me from ossifying. At that time, I was defending myself against the position (quite right) that life is made of paradoxes. For some years, I tried to smother, to repress this perspicacious vision of the paradox of existence, which nonetheless slowly infiltrated my ideas, my feelings and my representations. I submitted to a soteriological and universalist doctrine that promised to liquidate all paradoxes and reveal the meaning of the All. This was an experience which at least kept me from constructing another soteriological doctrine, having freed myself from the first.

At that time, I was defending myself against the position (quite right) that life is made of paradoxes.

This experience began when I was sixteen or seventeen years old. I wanted to articulate my revolt against the petit-bourgeois environment in an “original,” that is to say “leftist,” way. This wasn’t so easy in the thirties. Switzerland was pursuing a “democracy of consensus” (or more precisely: a “democracy of cartels”). The time when troops fired on workers was past; it had been at least twenty years. The section of the population living in deprivation gradually decreased and dwindled to be limited to mountain peasants in distant Alpine valleys. Associations and cartels of employers and workers had decided to divide the cake peaceably. At the physiognomic level, battle-scars longer distinguished one camp from the other. In such a situation, radical Marxism dies of ridicule because every need of the working class is satisfied by the creation of a new association. Radical anarchism grinds to a halt in a country where everyone feels a certain malaise, no doubt, but where nobody is truly oppressed. No-one throws bombs at himself.

My Introduction to the World of Artists

Among the grotesque misadventures of my existence: the social situation which had made me flee Switzerland caught up with me in my new adoptive homeland, West Germany. Some German friends, mocking me, asked maliciously, “Do you think certain signs permit one to speak of the ‘Helvetisation’ of the Federal Republic?” I think that, whereas a little before the Second World War, only an intellectual left had a chance in my Swiss homeland, such a chance is now limited to a much reduced domain: the caste of intellectuals, of littérateurs, of artists, with their Maecenases drawn from society’s leisured classes. It was to precisely this caste that I wanted to introduce myself: it seemed to me to be a door open to the wide world. In 1938, I enrolled at the University of Basle. Major: history of art. Minors: Germanic philology and philosophy.

Just before matriculation, I had penetrated a new circle of personalities – that of the emigrants from the Third Reich, mainly composed of Jews. The well-established Jewish families of Basle were none too pleased by this new addition. Personally, I was passionate about these unassimilated Jews. They brought us a little reflection of the Roaring Twenties from Berlin, the air that Kafka breathed from Prague, a dash of the most fascinating décadence of recent history from Vienna. Along with the non-Jewish émigrés, they claimed to represent “the better Germany.”

But it was also Jewish émigrés who brought me the first philosophical and aesthetic elements to contradict my liberal opinions. In this regard, I’d contented myself with studying my very close compatriot Carl Spitteler, native of Baselbreit, the rural country around the city of Basle. Spitteler was an epic poet, the only Swiss to have received a Nobel Prize (discounting Hermann Hesse, who naturalised). But with the wave of émigrés in 1938, the poetic community founded by Stefan George, founded in Basle before 1933, was bolstered numerically, so that I came into contact with authors like Rudolf Borchardt, Alfred Mombert, Ludwig Derleth, and even Vladimir Jabotinsky, founding father of a kind of Jewish fascism.

I concentrated my interest primarily on the main course concocted by certain Swiss and foreign men of the left, avant-gardists and liberals, served up to the cultural left. This was an elaborate hodgepodge, sometimes quite perspicacious, of Marxism, psychoanalysis, abstract painting, atonal music, Bauhaus architecture, and Soviet films, the whole thing drenched in a saccharine sauce of liberal pathos. On this side of the front in the global civil war the best of the thirties was to be found, because we tried to revalidate a Marxism grown somewhat obsolete by injecting it with strong doses of psychoanalysis. Wilhelm Reich was only one theoretician among many to have this idea. It was great: bringing Marx, the magus of society, and Freud, the magus of the soul, onstage arm in arm. With this coupling, the gaze (growing somewhat myopic) that the left cast on the world was reinforced as if by a stereo effect. And at that time I thought I possessed, in Freudo-Marxism, a universal code to rationally decipher the world. The scientific sleight of hand that allowed this new soteriological doctrine to enter the scene made it at once irresistible. Which is why, three decades later, I felt I was seeing ghosts in the Federal Republic, when the soixante-huitards put on that old hat (though it’s true that they wore it in a Californian fashion, not à la mode zurichoise).

We Took Ourselves to Be Great Realists…

I also found in the soixante-huitards an elitist arrogance identical to that my avant-gardist friends displayed in 1938. We too had begun our quest by evoking “dialectic” and “repression”; we had coined a jargon for our little clique to distance ourselves from the “masses.” We “really” knew what lay hidden “behind” everything. A constructivist canvas by Piet Mondrian wasn’t merely composed of straight lines forming right angles, intersecting agreeably and rhythmically to delimit squares and rectangles of red, blue and yellow, all on a white ground (which might soothe an overstressed individual, much like a pretty rug). No, no – it wasn’t simply geometry: it “meant” something. What we saw wasn’t the essential, but what we associated with the image. We took ourselves to be great “realists”; but we were only “realists about universals” (and only, as the conditio humana wills it, according to our pretensions).

I thought I possessed, in Freudo-Marxism, a universal code to rationally decipher the world. The scientific sleight of hand that allowed this new soteriological doctrine to enter the scene made it irresistible.

Many of us thought we held in our hands the key to the universe’s enigmas. In reality, we compromised our vision of the world by using a filter of abstractions. So we became easy prey to those who would convince us that the real world will arrive one day, but in the future. Or we became the prey of other peddlers of illusions (less numerous but more dangerous) who would have us believe that the real world has been and gone, and is irrecoverably lost. There is hope when we begin to understand that one thereby misses out on one’s real, unique, specific and irreplaceable life.

When My First Convictions Were Undermined

When did I cease to be a student of the left? I know the day, at least, when I became aware that all that was absolutely false: 22 June 1941. Although my conviction that Freudo-Marxism was the key to the universe had already been shaken.

I wasn’t the type prepared to spend all my efforts realizing the dreams of universalism. In any case, one can only with difficulty evaluate what one receives by heritage before one’s birth. Personally, I was lucky from my birth. My parents enjoyed a happy marriage. My father was a discreet man; but he possessed a natural and uncontested authority. My mother, more enterprising, was his perfect complement in life. Order reigned in the family home; but it wasn’t boring. I wasn’t spoilt. My parents lacked the means. Little everyday miseries, physical or psychical, never gave rise to excitements or emotions out of the ordinary: we knew they were part of the lot of the living. Thus I inherited a state of spirit I wouldn’t classify as optimism, but rather “lust for life.”

The Frontist Movement in Switzerland

Once I had sprung myself from the corset of leftist ideology, it was this lust for life that became my main engine. But that wasn’t all. It certainly wasn’t the Swiss right of that epoch that constituted an auxiliary engine, anyhow. Insofar as there were any groups classifiable as “conservative” in Switzerland during my youth, and insofar as these groups hadn’t been watered down, they were of a “patrician” or Catholic kind. These two backgrounds were foreign to me. I came from the petite bourgeoisie; I never felt Christian and, on the day of my coming of age, I voluntarily left the Reformed Church in which I’d been educated. Maurassisme, present in Romandy, might have attracted me. But German Switzerland had always been isolated from Francophone Switzerland. In general it was more familiar with Paris or Provence. There was nothing in German Switzerland for a lad like me, trying to find his way to the right, except the “frontist” movement (that is, groups like the Neue Front, the Nationale Front, the Volksbund, etc.). This was one of many movements for renewal that sprang up across Europe because of economic crisis, and which contemporary political theorists classify as “fascistic.”

This was one of many movements for renewal that sprang up across Europe because of economic crisis, and which contemporary political theorists classify as “fascistic.”

In 1931, at the moment the “fronts” reached their prime, I was only eleven; otherwise I’d easily have let them carry me away. This movement of renewal could count, in the beginning, on the sympathy of many sections of the population. It had been initiated by bright young things from the established parties, who wanted to create something to absorb the general discontent and weariness of the population towards the conventional parties. However, the Swiss fronts very quickly created their own dynamic. One noticed stylistic similarities with the fascism which manifested itself throughout Europe; but from 1933 onwards, the tarnishing shadow of the Third Reich crept over the frontist movement. Those representatives of establishment associations who had involved themselves in these fronts were quick to distance themselves after 1933.

The intellectuals who were the Swiss counterparts of the German Conservative Revolution in Zurich or Berne remained longer in these political formations, and benefited from the approval of a bored jeunesse dorée. However, many victims of the executions of the Night of the Long Knives, on 30 June 1934 in Munich and Berlin, were representatives of the Conservative Revolution; shocked, the majority of these conservative-revolutionary Swiss intellectuals left public life and took refuge in their ivory towers. The only frontist seat in the Swiss Parliament was quickly lost. What remained of the fronts was marginalized by liberal society with all the means at its disposal. The more moderate leaders withdrew into their private lives. Some of the more radical leaders took refuge in the Third Reich, to escape the Swiss police and judiciary. A band without leaders was all that remained, whose numbers kept dwindling: little men obsessed by one idée fixe – that the Freemasons and the Jews (in that order) were responsible for all the Earth’s evils.

Major Leonhardt of the Volksbund

Such a perfunctory conspiracy theory wouldn’t do for a type like me, on the point of resolving the universe’s enigmas. However, one day I dared to enter the lion’s den. I attended a meeting of that most radical of frontist leaders, Maj. Leonhardt, leader of the Volksbund, a splinter from the Nationale Front. (As the army was still a sacrosanct institution at that time, this son of a naturalized German utilized his officer’s stripes as propaganda for the Volksbund.) This meeting must have taken place in 1939 at the latest, as I read in a doctoral thesis dedicated to the Volksbund that Leonhardt had immigrated to Germany in 1939, and that he was killed in 1945 in an Allied air-raid. His appearance corresponded to his nickname: “the Swiss Julius Streicher.” Indeed, his body was pyknic-looking, compact; he appeared to have no neck; he had the same pointed skull as Streicher, a skull that always seemed poised for attack. He also had comparable oratorical talent, as I’d soon notice to my cost.

After the Major’s disquisition – on Switzerland “soiled” by the Freemasons and the Jews – I dared to venture a remark. I don’t remember what I said that day. But I haven’t forgotten how Maj. Leonhardt immediately recognized that I was a student. He attacked me directly ad personam. (In the thesis to which I alluded earlier, I read that he had justified his and his flock’s break with the Nationale Front because the latter had fallen utterly under the thumb of the academics.) The Major began to respond coldly, then administered a litany of insults at a higher pitch; the successive insults seemed to enfold me like a vortex. Their approximate content? That the Swiss taxpayer supports the universities with his money, and what comes of it? Foreign academics, full of so much useless stuff they can’t even recognize the real enemies of the people! Leonhardt had warmed his public up nicely: some regarded me with a mocking air; others shot me hateful looks. As for me, I was heated as well: how could I respond to such an avalanche of insults? I’ve never known a situation like it, except around the end of the sixties and beginning of the seventies in the “discussions” which were held at that time in West-German universities.

Mobilised in the Swiss Army in 1940

If the fronts didn’t help in the least to coax me down from my little left-liberal throne, what was the force that made me descend? With the distance that age brings, I can well observe that my mobilisation in the ranks of the Swiss army in 1940 played its part. The Swiss “drill” of the time was still very harsh: my compatriots who served first in the Swiss army, then, later, in the German Waffen SS, considered the instruction in our country to be tougher than what prevailed in Himmler’s divisions. What with my state of spirit at that time, I donned my uniform with anti-militarist sentiments. I wasn’t a good soldier; and at the end of my conscript classes, my commandant asked if I wanted to become an officer-cadet (it was offered automatically to every student at that time). “No thanks!” said I; and I remained a plain old infantryman.

Still, to my great surprise, I found certain aspects of my service pleased me. I liked the assault-course with rucksack and rifle. I couldn’t heave myself over the bar; but I was a strong runner. For an anti-militarist student, these little pleasures might still be excused: it’s sport, after all. But certain things were more disquieting for a leftist pacifist: I found almost atavistic pleasures in a strictly military domain, particularly the drill. I couldn’t repress a profound satisfaction when my platoon, after days of exercises, made our rifles strike the ground without a “typewriter effect” (for civilians, this means when rifle-butts no longer fall to the ground with a disordered tAc-TaC-taC-Tac, but with one single metallic TAC on the slabs of the barracks courtyard). Fifteen days before, I’d still have mocked this “childishness.”

Going to the People

However, the most important experience of my military service came after recruit-training, when I entered active service, and was posted to the border-guard. I was dispatched in a company of Schützen (riflemen) made up of men able to bear arms, drawn from all corners of civilian life. In a highly specialized society, the intellectual finds it difficult to get to know the “common folk.” There are only two institutions where he might encounter them at any or every hour of the day: prison and military service. The two years of my military service along the frontier contributed more to my human development than the twice as many I’d already spent at university.

From this autobiographical perspective, I’ll content myself with a quotation which sums the thing up nicely. It comes from the work of a home-grown Swiss, Hans Albrech Moser (1882–1978); I’ve taken it from his volume of diaries Ich und der andere, published in Stuttgart in 1962. It goes: “The human is more readily to be found in the ordinary than in the exceptional man. That is why the ordinary man attracts me more. As for my spiritual needs, there will always be books.”

Discovering Spengler

Concerning books, I hasten to mention this: I continued to devour them, without a break; and, among them I read the great critics of liberalism most of all. These readings helped greatly to erode my taste for the imaginary and utopian. I’d already begun to read Nietzsche when I was a scout. During my two years on guard along the frontier, I moved onto the other great illiberals. The most original experience I had was reading Oswald Spengler. At the height of my leftist episode, I attempted to read The Decline of the West (to familiarize myself with the enemy, of course). But I never managed to climb the mountain of the first few pages: the text was absolutely incomprehensible to me. The work’s reputation remained mysterious to me, even from a diagnostic perspective. Towards the end of my period of incubation, which I’ve just sketched for you – this would be at the beginning of 1941 – the two enormous volumes fell once more into my hands. I opened the first volume at whatever page; and I began to read without stopping; and after a few days I’d entirely traversed the two tomes. Why didn’t I have the same experience on my first attempt? Something essential in me had changed; though I still had no idea.

]]> 3
Majorities, Farming, and the Environment Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:53:26 +0000 What is the Majority and What is the Minority?

Reality, the facts of everyday life and the news do their best to depress the caretaker, “guardian of life” and “environmentalist”. The concern about Creation and mankind’s drift towards destruction and extinction is a heavy burden to take upon one’s shoulders. It is also tiring to fight back again certain trends, and the temptation to give up is strong.

Yet, occasionally there is some glimmer of hope: a small improvement in a natural area, some successful attempt at preservation, a moderate decrease in emissions, a legislative step towards conservation, a new area being protected, some conference at Rio… We immediately try not to remind ourselves that in the meanwhile annihilation is marching on elsewhere; we do our best not to notice that in the end some of these “environmentalist” actions are only a sanctimonious masquerade and scam. Some real solace is provided by knowledge of the fact that there aren’t so few of us “environmentalists” out there after all. Environmentalist voices come from unexpected quarters: letters in newspapers, articles, chatter in the street, even random encounters with strangers. Besides, life is often mysterious: it might be the case that neither we “environmentalists” nor anyone else actually know what worldview, what outlook, is held by the majority of people and what by the minority.

I have lived in a farming community for the last fifty years and am increasingly terrified at how farmers surrender.

Is society being led in a direction that the majority does not actually approve of? How many actually wish for and support things like strenuous competition, efficiency, rationalisation and renovation? Like trying for the sake of trying, always rushing to invent new things and abandon the old? Like bartering for the sake of bartering, travelling back and forth to the far reaches of the Earth, the shipping of goods to and fro for its own sake? Or schooling, courses, adult schooling, re-education, always hurrying about as if one’s heels were on fire?

How many believe that human well-being, pleasure and happiness diminish the more we follow this path? And that even if this path were not to lead to ecocatastrophe and extinction, it would still be a gloomy and dreadful one?

It is often the case that after a municipal assembly or a similar event, when a bad decision has been taken, a member of the assembly will privately admit that he was personally against the decision, but voted in favour all the same because he knew it was the position held by the majority and did not wish to shatter the consensus, disturb the easy flow of things, and give rise to unnecessary confusion. Then the same matter is often brought up with another assembly member in private, and again the same words are heard. In the end, it may be that thirty councillors are individually making a decision that is the exact opposite of the one they all just voted for.

It is entirely possible that the “opinion of the majority”, “the general view” according to which decisions are taken — the opinion of town councils, the parliament and media — in fact only reflects the position of a small but powerful minority. This minority fosters rivalry between individuals, companies and societies in the name of performance, automatisation, production, consumption, exports, imports, the stock market, motorways and fast trains. This minority possesses the power and cogency of a shaman, the drive of a fanatic, the mysterious, irrational and persuasive strength of an idiot. Perhaps only a few people set the rules.

Formally, even Finland is a democracy: we all have the same right to vote and one’s word weighs as much as anyone else’s in decision-making. Election after election, the major parties, which are all the same — all going on about development, progress and money — receive a vast majority of votes, and are legitimised to form governments.

In the end, force of habit prevails. People would like to vote for small, alternative parties, “but it just isn’t worth it: they’ll get so few votes, they will never make an impact.” It is both shocking and absurd, for instance, that while most Finns would ultimately like to vote for the Green Party, they don’t. Is Finnish society a tragicomedy, where one doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry?

Life Protection, Utopias, and Agriculture

When the environmentalist enquires about possibilities for survival, his attention is inevitably drawn to the issue of farming. Mikko Hovila’s broad survey “Agriculture and the Environmentalist Movement”, featured in issue four of Elonkehä [The Biosphere], was a highly significant piece, not least because it offered an opportunity to clarify some rather miserable delusions.

I do not know how the dictionary defines the word utopia. Anyhow, Hovila uses it to indicate “a model differing from the dominating one” or — in more elaborate terms — “a model that differs from the one that happens to prevail at the time of observation”. This concept, I would argue, is both fruitless and misleading. The words utopia and utopian are useful when used to describe reveries that are only dreamt of: things impossible, deceptive, unrealistic or which lead to ruin. For a long time it has been clear that of all known societies and economies, the most genuinely utopian are those that have been adopted at present, as they are founded on the logical impossibility of continuous economic growth.

To begin from a tabula rasa, a clean slate, is an absolute must in order to develop any sort of programme.

When, in an article entitled “Utopian Politics are Dangerous”, Hovila describes the model societies suggested by Pentti Linkola and Eero Paloheimo as “unrealistic”, “dangerous utopias,” his line of reasoning makes no sense whatsoever. What could be more “dangerous” than the present unwavering and relentless descent into a mass grave: this society of economic growth and technology that every second is destroying the life around us? If nothing else, the programmes of Linkola, Paloheimo and Schumacher (who was also mentioned by Hovila) are examples of extreme realism, anti-idealism and anti-utopianism. Each in their own way, these programmes have specifically been devised to secure the survival of society, mankind and life: they are as far away from being “dangerous” as could possibly be.

What Hovila writes is often unbelievable: “The use of violent methods poses a concrete risk. The recent raids carried out by animal-rights extremists are an example of how ‘utopians’ may collaborate with dissenters.” In his expression of this matter Hovila even manages to lump together two completely opposite things: the subtle and altogether limited violence of animal rights activists on the one hand; the massive violence openly practiced by fur farmers and the vast, hidden violence perpetrated by economic growth on the other.

Hovila deftly writes: “These models present the same problem as all utopias: unless fully implemented, they will not be implemented at all. Without a connection to the present, these programmes are simply meaningless.” It is rather grotesque that Hovila’s words should be completely disproved by his own suggestions (in this case, in favour of greener farming). For neither have his own compromising suggestions been “realized to any degree”: the complete end of agriculture and absolute triumph of industrial farming are shaping market economy. Small adjustments toward a softer direction have not been accepted any more than radical environmentalist alternatives: integrated farming or IP [Integrated Production] plays no part whatsoever in the contemporary economy.

Hovila’s point about being “connected to the present” is significant. The worst mistake that anyone thinking about society can make is to envisage the prevailing system as the starting point: to begin from a tabula rasa, a clean slate, is an absolute must in order to develop any sort of programme. Human history across the world offers a wide range of societal models: the model that happens to be the prevailing one in our own society does not represent any intrinsically superior point of reference. Any binding to a given societal model paralyses the whole thinking process, as is shown by the conventionalities that Hovila — like many others — writes.

In voicing his disapproval of the Green movement because of its opposition to farming, Hovila actually echoes the feelings of many people, including myself, with regard to a past when family farming still meant “living off the land” and agriculture was a way of life. Yet, at the same time, Hovila fails to mention the disgusting aspects of Finnish farming which were also prevalent back then: the senseless love of machines, which soon led to over mechanisation, and the brutish treatment of forests. It is because of these reasons that environmentalists, whether from the countryside or city, are suspicious of farmers.

It is entirely possible that the “opinion of the majority”, “the general view” according to which decisions are taken, in fact only reflects the position of a small but powerful minority.

But what is the state of agriculture nowadays? How did the farmer mange to get snuffed out like that? I have lived in a farming community for the last fifty years and am increasingly terrified at how farmers surrender, apathetically yielding to what is dealt from above.

There are tens of thousands of farmers (dozens in my own circle of friends) who, as humbly as they slaughter cattle, are handing over their estates and houses, closing their business and retiring even if only middle-aged, to become forty or fifty year-old idlers. The saddest thing is that the reason why these farmers are leaving is that they are scared by all the talk about the decline of the farming business, even if the money they are making from milk, meat and grain is still enough to support them.

Then there are the tough guys of the agricultural world, mostly young men berserk about performance. They’ll invest, mechanise, increase, buy half of the village’s lands with no concern for the debts and charges they are incurring in trying to satisfy the EU wishes by acquiring tremendous numbers of cattle, pigs or chickens and hectares upon hectares of crops. These walking environmental catastrophes, with their agribusiness farming, do not deserve the slightest sympathy. What of course will never change is the fact that we will always derive our sustenance from agriculture. The truth, however, is hard to swallow.

]]> 1
Decamerone Redux: Reader’s Digest for a Postmodern Plague Season – Part 2 Tue, 07 Apr 2020 17:20:47 +0000 From Umvolkung to Entvolkung

(Demo-political Anamnesis)

Das Volk hat das Vertrauen der Regierun verscherzt.

Wäre es da nicht doch einfacher, die Regierung löste das Volk auf und wählte ein anderes?


‘The people have forfeited the trust of the government.

So would it not be easier for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?’

— Bertolt Brecht

Given the post-2015 urgency of addressing accelerating mass-immigration, New Right demo-political critiques of globalism have recently tended to focus on the specific issue of ethnic replacement rather than on the general issue of overall population management. One of the side-effects of Corona Crisis is a — most likely very temporary — attention shift, away from globalist-engineered mass-immigration and towards a broader view of globalist demo-politics.

One of the side-effects of Corona Crisis is a — most likely very temporary — attention shift, away from globalist-engineered mass-immigration and towards a broader view of globalist demo-politics.

One of the many advantages that New Right newsgathering has over its politically correct and dogma-bound MSM counterpart is its relative — because very necessary — openness to the ‘lunatic fringe’ and ‘conspiracy thinking’. Since the internet revolution of the early ’00s any New Right reader worth his salt will have had the (sometimes more than questionable) pleasure of becoming acquainted with many deliciously grotesque and hilarious thought experiments, ranging from the rather straightforward ‘reptilian take-over’ (undoubtedly reinforced by the authentically ‘alien’ behaviour of the globalist hostile elite) to the more subtle ‘transhumanist agenda’ (undoubtedly actively pursued by the ‘cosmetic surgery’ industry and ‘transgender’ lobby). The Corona Crisis has predictably triggered a surge in conspiracy theories that investigate suspicious coincidences as well as qui bono arguments, theories about the (accidental) release of bio-weapons, the targeted culling of populations and the convenient imposition of globalist totalitarianism. Such thought experiments have the advantage of broadening the New Right narrative and reinvigorating demo-political and eco-political foundational discourse. Thus, probably for a short moment only, the Corona Crisis is allowing the old question of overall population management to retake the centre stage. The smaller threat of globalist Umvolking (German, ‘population replacement’) is temporarily upstaged by the greater threat of globalist Entvolkung (German, ‘depopulation’). In fact, the threat of globalist Entvolkung should have had centre stage ever since the Fall of the Wall in 1989: it has been profoundly tangible ever since the globalist Machtergreifung that followed the dissolution of the Eastern Bloc.

First, in the ’90s, ‘Disaster Capitalism’-style neoliberalism brought back real hunger and real hardship to Eastern Europe and the ex-Soviet sphere, as it ‘privatised’ virtually all means of production, allowing foreign ‘vulture funds’ to pick up — and pick apart — native infrastructure, industry and land, leaving millions of older people permanently without employment and forcing millions of younger people to permanently relocate abroad. Grass grown-streets and ghost villages, of course neatly out of sight of the tourist masses, are found throughout most former Eastern Bloc countries, which collectively experienced a demographic collapse of unprecedented proportions. Of course, the Western press hardly paid attention to these things – the main attractions remained the fire sale-priced child prostitutes and post-order brides. Nobody has ever counted the preventable deaths of neglected elders and sick people in the understaffed and bankrupt state hospitals, the suicide rates among ruined shopkeepers and farmers and the desperate abortions requested by destitute young girls.

Then, in the ’00s, ‘New World Order’-style neoliberalism started to reinsert de facto pre-state socio-economic conditions into the West (here defined as Europe, minus Russia plus the overseas Anglosphere) with an all-out assault on the nation-state through various simultaneous ‘globalization’ programs. Nation-state borders were ‘erased’ through a combination of simultaneous ‘globalizations’: technological development (internet, mobile telephone), institutional reform (UN Global Compact 2000, International Criminal Court effective 2002, ECB with physical Euro currency 2002, Lisbon Treaty effective 2009). At the periphery of the West the same project was implemented through ‘Colour Revolutions’ (Yugoslavia 2000, Georgia 2003, Ukraine 2004). The demographic decline among the indigenous nations of the West may have been hidden by globalist-engineered Third World mass-migration, it was — and is — very real nevertheless.

Finally, in the ’10s, the most direct and cruel globalist Entfolkung strategy was imposed on the largely Muslim Middle East and North Africa: the globalist-engineered ‘Arab Spring’ brought revolution, terrorism and (civil) war to a region already suffering ecological depletion (severe overpopulation, water and food shortages, severe environmental degradation). The disintegration of stable state structures across large parts of Libya, Syria and Yemen, adding to the earlier disintegration of Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq, resulted in a combination of Middle Eastern and North African Entfolkung (war, hunger, ethnic cleansing, infrastructure destruction) and Western European Umfolkung (mass-immigration, artificially enforced inter-ethnic wealth transfers and systematically planned societal destabilization based on ‘humanist’ rhetoric).

Puisqu’un mort n’a de poids que si on l’a vu mort,

cent millions des cadavres semés à travers l’histoire

ne sont qu’une fumée dans l’imagination


‘Since a death carries no weight unless we see the death,

the hundred million corpses that litter the course of history

are nothing more than a whiff of smoke in our imagination’

— Albert Camus, La Peste

Now, the ’20s have begun with the ‘global pandemic’ that is putting the New World Order project of the globalist hostile elite on the knife’s edge. Depending on the specific nature and real severity of the virus, the Corona Crisis potential to bring about either the apocalyptic final victory of the globalist New World Order (the final eclipse of nation-state sovereignty through the ‘martial law’-style imposition of totalitarian transnational governance) or the utter ruin of globalist megalomania (the re-emergence of Neo-Eurasianist-style multipolarity and Ethno-Nationalist-style nation-state sovereignty, cf. the two preceding paragraphs).

Perhaps the greatest task of metapolitical re-education — and de-conditioning — that awaits the New Right in the wake of the Corona Crisis is the re-appropriation of authentic demo-politics. The only true antidote to globalist Umvolkung and Entfolkung is found in an utter rejection of the historical-materialist règne de la quantité1 in the demo-political arena. What matters is not the quantity of the people that survive the various incidents, crises and catastrophes of globalism — the category to which the Corona Crisis belongs in this regard remains yet to be determined. What matters is the quality of the surviving population: even if only a tiny fraction of the indigenous Western peoples survives, this fraction may yet carry the seed for a self-surpassing rebirth of Western civilization.2 This also means that the New Right is bound to reject the ultimate axiom of historical-materialism (which is the philosophical ‘red line’ connecting the modernist ideologies of liberalism, socialism and fascism), viz. growth à l’outrance, and its social Darwinist corollary, viz. natalism à l’outrance. At this point in history — with total world population nearing the critical eight billion threshold and with total European-descent population still at an absolute all-time high — quantitative population decline may turn out to be a necessary precondition for qualitative societal development. At this particular juncture, the natalist policies that are being promoted for the indigenous Western peoples in less discerning quarters of the Dissident Right — an impossible attempt at ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ in r-reproducing Africa and Asia at any rate — may very well turn out to be a fatal error.

As the compass of history swings back to True North, the ability to grow your own food, to build your own things and to fuel your own infrastructure are shifting back into focus.

The New Right would do well to remember that the highest human archetypes of Western civilization are found in its non-reproducing top layer: the eternal-bachelor scientist, the lone-wolf philosopher, the true-celibate priest, the young-dying warrior, the forever-errant knight, the last-of-the-line noble scion. In a certain way, Western civilization aims at one thing only: the re-production of these higher archetypes. In a certain way, all the work of generations of Western men, all the sacrifice of generations of Western women and all the children ever born from them, serve only one thing: to, very occasionally, bring forth these very rare higher archetypes. They are our most precious heritage because they can, by the greatness of their souls, again and again reproduce our civilization — even after all of its material expressions are utterly destroyed by whatever catastrophe fate may throw at it. The final demise of these archetypes — whether through peacetime decadence, pandemic depopulation or wartime genocide — would deprive Western civilization of its very purpose.

For however the fortune of war shall go,

may it not come to pass that much that was fair and wonderful shall pass forever out of earth?

— ‘Théoden’, The Two Towers

‘Never Waste a Good Crisis’

(Eco-political Anamnesis — MSM3)

This Corona Crisis presents us with a perfect opportunity to radically re-think the way in which we arrange our societies and public spaces. The moment has come to introduce healthy restrictions on mass tourism and to clean up our cities for the health and well-being of their inhabitants.

Between the many dystopian corona images that are drowning us on the big bad internet, one short video drew the attention of many: it showed a dolphin visiting Venice, swimming undisturbed through its channels, now quiet and clean because of the decline in tourism. Nearer to home, [in Amsterdam], the blessed effects of the collapse of tourism and mass consumption are also becoming noticeable. No streets crowded by drug-dazed Spaniards and drunk Easyjet Britons, no obese shoppers carrying bags full of disposable clothes produced by Bangladeshi child slaves back to their villages, no fast food restaurants full of bio-industrial torture meat — we may not be allowed to say it, but we can secretly enjoy the moment. High finance capitalists, real estate usurers and bio-industry lobbyists may not want to hear it, but, at long last, great city life is regaining some quality. …

If the virus has proven one thing, it is this: that the ‘there-is-no-alternative’ liberalism of low-budget mass tourism, fast fashion, open borders and public space chaos has had massively negative consequences. Low-quality globalisation and mass-migration have caused a poisonous climate where people and animals are forced to live in too close proximity in stone-and-asphalt jungles, in eternal transit in over-subsidized cars and planes — now we are paying the price. Ever since SARS experts had feared that planetary-scale predatory exploitation would cause some virus to jump from animal to human — now we are living through this scenario. …

This is the moment to introduce healthy restrictions on mass-tourism and to bring back some sanity into the lives of city-dwellers. This should be the end to political pandering to the spoilt lobbyists of the ‘low-cost carrier’ travel industry, to end the disneyfication of inner cities and to end the mad mass commutes in oversized cars and overfull trains. Let the space that is vacated by bankrupt 1-euro shops and fast food eateries be given to entrepreneurial collectives and small-scale start-ups. Let the experience of home-based work be extended through the abolishment of useless face-time in soulless office blocks. …Shops and eateries can be replaced by ateliers and workspace for individual creators and technicians. …Car commutes can be replaced by bike rides for people living near their workspaces. …Asphalt and stone can be replaced by water spaces and green parks. The time has come to clear our cities from the status-symbol cars and scooters of those who are too lazy to bike and walk. … This is the moment to take measures against the import of low-cost, non-durable, un-sustainable mass consumption goods that have been produced in Third World sweatshops. Restraint, civilization, silence, cleanliness and regularity — these are all dirty words for the real estate sharks, lease car show-offs and post-modern open border relativists who are running the Netherlands, but this pandemic is proving that without these things we will be killed off by our addiction to low-cost globalization.

‘Don’t Look Now’4

(Eco-political Anamnesis — RE: Greta Thunberg)

In the face of madness
I stood and I screamed:
‘You can’t have me!’
Crying, as I chased the poisoned shadow away
In its place, I planted a seed
And I watched it
As it blossomed

— Lupa G, ‘The Secret’

One of the least popular debate topics within the New Right, but causing rifts as deep as those caused by much more rewarding topics such as the Jewish, Islamic and Allosexual Questions,5 is the Climate Question. Despite the impeccably deep-green credentials of the New Right, which can be traced back all the way to Old Right Eco-Fascism (Richard Darré, Savitri Devi Mukherji)6 and early New Age Deep Ecology (Garrett Harding, Pentti Linkola)7, it is currently in danger of compromising its holistic-ecological root values by pandering to the ‘climate-denying’ electoral strategy of civic-nationalist and Alt Light populism. Given the catastrophic damage done to the Earth’s natural environment by decades of unrestrained Third World ‘demographic growth’ and unsustainable neoliberal ‘economic growth’ — now perversely combined in replacement-level Third World mass-immigration in the West — it is high time to purge the New Right from such unworthy weakness. Now, the Corona Crisis provides a perfect opportunity for a decisive reaffirmation of the New Right’s commitment to its holistic-ecological root values — a move that would have the welcome side-effect of breaking the current Liberal-Left near-monopoly on the ‘green vote’, an electoral ‘boom market’ given the growing ecological consciousness of younger Westerners. As shown by the previous paragraph, the old Deep Green link between ecology, demography and ethnicity is now starting to resurface even in the MSM — it is time for the New Right to dislodge the Liberal-Left from the ecological-moral high ground once and for all.

It is time for the New Right to dislodge the Liberal-Left from the ecological-moral high ground once and for all.

It is time for the New Right to face this challenge in the most direct manner. It can begin by facing up to the message of the iconic representative of contemporary environmental activism: Greta Thunberg. Irrespective of the non-ecology talking points and the non-ecology political agendas of those around her (family, associates, fellow-travellers) — even irrespective of those of Thunberg herself — it is necessary that the New Right should appropriate the one thing that she most authentically represents and even embodies: eco-consciousness. This challenge is complicated by the fact that the environmental-activist message of Thunberg, now seventeen years old, can be very easily dismissed as ‘deranged’ because she was diagnosed with a combination of so-called ‘mental diseases’: Asperger’s Syndrome, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder as well as Selective Mutism. It is often forgotten that all these diagnoses, increasingly frequent and rumoured ‘fashionable’ among Western younger generations, actually represent person-specific but collectively ‘unfashionable’ qualities that are partially genetically determined but now increasingly difficult to combine with what is called ‘normal life’ in the open-air madhouse called the Western world. Thus, ‘Asperger’s Syndrome’ is nothing else than a (genetically predisposed) combination of high intelligence, strong self-discipline and irrepressible honesty that would have been highly valued under any socio-economic dispensation other than the malicious hyper-democracy and all-levelling idiocracy now prevailing throughout most of the Western world. Similarly, ‘Obsessive-Compulsory Disorder’ is related to perfectionist standards and meticulous attention in personal behaviour — qualities that are virtually incompatible with the ‘greed is good’ and ‘me, myself and I’ mentality that follows the nihilist conditioning and collective narcissism of Western post-modernity. Finally, to seriously regard Thunberg’s third diagnosis, ‘Selective Mutism’, as a ‘disorder’ would require the wholesale dismissal of the highest quality segment of humanity — it would require the psychiatric treatment of humanity’s philosophers, monastics, warriors and nobles. Let us hear what Thunberg herself had to say about ‘Selective Mutism’: ‘That basically means I only speak when I think it’s necessary.’

So let us hear her out when she had to say on 23 September 2019 in New York, when she addressed the United Nations’ Climate Action Summit, and see if she did anything else but speak the most obvious kind of truth — the kind of truth that is so much in your face that you cannot see it anymore. About the winters that have disappeared, the glaciers that have molten, the rivers that have dried up, the forests that have been cut down, the coral reefs that have been bleached, the bees that have mysteriously vanished, the wild animals that have gone extinct. This is the truth that Thunberg, a girl of just sixteen at the time, was brave enough to stand up for and shout out at a very large audience of very big bad wolves. This is (most of) what she said:

This is all wrong. I shouldn’t be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you come to us young people for hope. How dare you!

You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!

For more than thirty years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you’re doing enough, when the politics and the solutions needed are still nowhere in sight. You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe. …

[Y]ou are still not mature enough to tell it like it is. You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you. We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not.

Children and fools always speak the truth.

— Mark Twain

‘De judicio Solis’8

(Numino-political Anamnesis — RE: Alexander Dugin9)

Judgment One: Over the last few decades we have awaited something fatal, something irreversible and decisive. Perhaps the corona virus epidemic will be that event. It is too early to draw exact conclusions, but some elements of geopolitics and ideology may have already passed the point of no return. The corona virus epidemic represents the end of globalization. Any truly opened society is laid bare to infection. Anyone who wants to tear down borders prepares the land for the decimation of its people. Only closure can save us — closure in all senses: closed borders, closed economies, closed markets.

It is time to remember the things that are truly precious to us, the things that are truly ours. These are the things that all these years you looked at but failed to see: that this is your home, your tribe, your nation, your land, your earth. Here we should recall the long-forgotten words of Holy Scripture: My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth (1 John 3:18).

Judgment Two: Liberalism has made the virus proliferate — in all senses. Liberalism is the true carrier of the virus — it is its apologist. The true ‘plague gods’ may turn out to be specific representatives of the globalist financial elite who have long recognized the ‘limits of growth’. The global elites and their local puppets may be counting on surviving with some vaccine or other, but something suggests that this may be where the catch lies. The virus may behave inadequately, and the processes that have now begun on the civilizational level, even on the level of individual — spontaneous, unpredictable — events, may disrupt even their most carefully thought-out plans. Whether or not it was created as a biological weapon in America, that ‘Citadel of Liberalism’, liberalism is the virus: it demolishes all that is different, particular, authentic, unique — all that makes us human. Liberalism kills.

It is time to eradicate this disease from the world root and branch, for once and all. This is the moment to turn away from the broad and easy road to perdition and take the narrow and steep road back to salvation.

Judgment Three: The measures of worldly success and prosperity are moving rapidly, they are radically shifting away from Modernist illusions such as ‘financial resources’ (America), ‘trade surpluses’ (China) and ‘humanitarian values’ (Western Europe). All these things that modern people have considered infinitely ‘sustainable’ and totally ‘reliable’ are pure illusions -the corona virus is showing that clearly and vividly. In fact, once the logic of what is happening now continues to develop a little further, we might see how the world ends — at least the world that we know and knew.

As the compass of history swings back to True North, the ability to grow your own food, to build your own things and to fuel your own infrastructure are shifting back into focus. It is time to move with the incoming tide, ride the last wave, let it carry us to the unknown shore and enter the firm land of the new world that lies beyond the drowning Atlantis of dying globalism.

Judgment Four: According to modern physicists, ‘bubbles of nothing’ may occasionally arise from a ‘false vacuum’, i.e. a vacuum which has not reached stability, but only seems to have reached it. If they arise, they may suck whole galaxies into nothing — these whirlpools spawned of unstable vacuums leave quite an impression. In the same way that the scientific elite reassures us that the chance of the appearance of such ‘bubbles of nothing’ is ridiculously small, the political elite reassures us that in the case of the corona virus ‘nothing bad is happening, everything is under control’. But it seems to me that it is not: the whole modern world is exactly such a ‘bubble of nothing’ which is growing rapidly, absorbing meaning and dissolving existence. Liberalism and globalism are its most vivid expressions.

It is time to exit the ‘bubble of nothing’, the existential void that is modernity: time to move beyond the ‘event horizon’ of modernist — historical-materialist, liberal-normativist, cultural-nihilist — conditioning.

‘La Peste’10

(Metapolitical Prognosis — Alexander Dugin11)

C’est au moment du malheur qu’on s’habitue à la vérité

‘It is at the moment of misfortune that we can get used to the truth’

— Albert Camus, La Peste

Is it possible to expect that having coped with the corona virus, mankind will draw the appropriate conclusions, curtail globalization, throw out liberal superstitions, halt migration and put an end to the obscene technical inventions which are immersing everyone deeper and deeper into endless labyrinths of matter? The answer is clearly no. Everyone will go back to their old ways in the blink of an eye, before the corpses are even buried. As soon as the markets come to life and the Dow Jones wakes up, everything will be back to normal. The naive one is he who thinks otherwise. But what does that mean? It means that even an epidemic of this scale will be turned into an unfortunate misunderstanding. No one will understand the meaning of the coming of the ‘plague gods’, no one will think about ‘bubbles of nothing’ and everything will repeat over and over again until it reaches the point of no return. If one pays close attention to the passage of time, it should be clear that we are currently crossing that point.

Mais vos victoires seront toujours provisoires, voilà tout.

Toujours, je le sais. Ce n’est pas une raison pour cesser de lutter.

Non, ce n’est pas une raison. Mais j’imagine alors ce que doit être cette peste :

Une interminable défaite


‘But all our victories will always be temporary, that is all.

Always, I know it. But that is no reason to give up fighting.

No, it is no reason. But then I imagine what this plague must be:

An endless defeat’

— Albert Camus, La Peste


(Apotrophaic Traditionalism)

Despite the disputed validity of Fichtean-Hegelian dialectic model (thesis-antithesis-synthesis) in pure philosophy, it remains valuable as a heuristic tool in the philosophically inspired culture sciences. Projected on European history, it sheds light on cyclical patterns of punctus contra punctum, patterns that are consistently followed by a sublime recapitulation. A Faustian element of self-surpassing resurrection becomes visible — not only in the Christian-ascetic half but also in the heathen-heroic half of the European Tradition. Thus, for the sake of those (few or many) of us whose eyes will soon be closed forever, this reader’s digest should end on two notes — to do justice to both halves.

The first note for those of us who still wish to carry the entire weight of our whole Tradition:

The Lord bless thee, and keep thee

The Lord make His face shine upon thee, and be gracious to thee

The Lord lift up His countenance upon thee, and give thee peace

— Numbers 6:24-6

The second for those of us who wish to stand beside the most worthy of our ancestors:

Imagine where you will be, and it will be so

If you find yourself alone, riding in green fields with the sun on your face

Do not be troubled, for you are in Elysium

— ‘Maximus’, Gladiator


1 Reference to the 1945 cosmological work Le règne de la quantité et les signes des temps (‘The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times’) by French Traditionalist René Guénon (1886-1951).

2 Cf. Alexander Wolfheze, Alba Rosa. Ten Traditionalist Essays about the Crisis in the Modern West (Arktos: London, 2018) 187ff.

3 Extracts from Constanteyn Roelofs, ‘Moge coronavirus het failliet van goedkope globalisering worden’ (‘May Corona Virus Cause the Bankruptcy of Low-cost Globalization’). Elsevier Weekblad, 18 March 2020 – translation, from Dutch, Alexander Wolfheze.

4 Reference to the 1973 cult thriller movie ‘Don’t Look Now’ by English director Nicholas Roeg (1928-2018).

5 For the author’s stance on these three issues, freely available online, cf. Alexander Wolfheze, ‘From JQ to IQ’. Arktos Journal, 6-7 February 2019, ‘A Note on the Islamic Question’. Counter-Currents, 8 July 2019 (plus follow up ‘Albus in Albis’. Amerika, 5 September 2019) and ‘Blue Is the Warmest Color’. Counter-Currents, 18 June 2019.

6 Savitri Devi Mukherji’s most directly ‘green-relevant’ work, The Impeachment of Man (first published 1959), is freely accessible online at The Savitri Devi Archive.

7 Pentti Linkola’s most recent work, Can Life Prevail? A Revolutionary Approach to the Environmental Crisis (2009), has been published by Arktos Media.

8 Reference to the 1350 Latin-language Black Death poem ‘On the Judgment of the Sun’ by Belgian astronomer Simon de Couvin (ca. 1325-67).

9 Freely inspired by, with paraphrases from, Alexander Dugin, ‘The Plague Gods: the Geopolitics of Epidemic and the Bubbles of Nothing’., 10 March 2020)

10 Reference to the 1947 plague novel ‘The Plague’ by French novelist Albert Camus (1913-60).

11 Freely inspired by, with paraphrases from, Alexander Dugin, ‘The Plague Gods: the Geopolitics of Epidemic and the Bubbles of Nothing’., 10 March 2020.

]]> 14
Decamerone Redux: Reader’s Digest for a Postmodern Plague Season – Part 1 Sat, 04 Apr 2020 18:07:33 +0000

Giro, girotondo!
Quant’è bello il mondo,
il mondo dei bambini,
con tanti fiorellini
La gallina canta, canta sola sola

Non vuole andare a scuola
Il lupo è dietro la porta,
La porta casca giù, il lupo non c’è più
A terra tutti giù

‘Turn, turn around!
How beautiful is the world,
the world of the children,
with many little flowers
The chicken sings, she sings all alone
She doesn’t want to walk to school
The wolf is behind the door
The door falls down, the wolf is no more
All fall down to earth’

— Anonymous nursery rhyme and singing game

‘The Mask of the Crowned Death’1

(Pandemo-political Anamnesis)

A year passes
And it’s like nothing’s changed
We’re all still here
Warm embraces, smiling faces
But only I know the secret:
Nothing is like it used to be

— Lupa J, ‘The Secret’

It has been a long time since one of humanity’s most ancient enemies, mass death-causing plague, was last seen in the West. Ever since the war- and starvation-exacerbated epidemics that concluded the First World and Russian Civil Wars, a full century ago now, the victorious progress of (medical) science and technology and the great shield of hyper-sanitized urbanity have allowed Western man to keep the old threat of mass disease at bay: after having moved out of nature, Western man seemed to have gained a decisive victory over nature. The unprecedented hubris of Western man’s Brave New World towards nature, the natural order and Earth itself is perhaps nowhere better illustrated than in the shift in his attitude towards the human part of nature: at the collective level — governance, law, ethics — he has turned away from reality-bound particularities, essences and identities and turned towards idea-bound universalities, constructs and illusions.

The true face of the globalist hostile elite is now visible in its handling of the latest globalist weapon of mass destruction: the ‘Covid-19’ Corona Virus pandemic.

Collectively, Western man has abandoned the nature- and earth-bound existential modalities of his ancestors. This abandonment resulted in the collective spiritual crisis (‘survival of the fittest’ materialism, ‘death of God’ nihilism) of unparalleled depth — in what René Guénon termed the ‘Crisis of the Modern World’.2 At its most superficial level, this crisis concept refers to the existential conditioning of total (psycho-social) alienation and permanent (socio-economic) insecurity that inevitably follows from the loss of the authentic experience of well-grounded identity (being-in-time-and-place). Any such authentic experience requires a well-calibrated admixture of home community (family, lineage, people — well expressed in the German word Gemeinschaft) and home place (hearth, sheltered locality, true homeland — well expressed in the German word Heimat). The experience of well-grounded being-in-time-and-place requires access to a specific genius loci in the physical world — such access is restricted by true birthright (e.g. long-standing property rights, family names and ancestral graves) and effective presence (e.g. birthplace, participation in the natural cycle, continuous land occupation). The more ‘modern’ man — and Western man undoubtedly represents mankind’s most modern part — moves away from this double natural-cultural rootedness of his ancestors, the more he removes himself from the various protecting walls that his ancestors built up over centuries. As the physical security that comes from cohesive (extended) family life, inherited property rights, substantial self-sufficiency and true communal (ethnic and national) identity fades, so do its psychological and spiritual equivalents.

At its core, the Crisis of the Modern World — most acutely experienced in the West as the most ‘modern’ part of the world — is a crisis of identity. It leaves the modern Western ‘liberated’ individual ‘free’ only in a negative sense: he is left with a formal but fictitious ‘freedom’ — from responsibilities in the present (where his ancestors felt bound to family, community and fatherland) and from obligations to the past (where his ancestors felt bound to heritage, culture and tradition). But his ‘freedom’ from these responsibilities and duties comes at a steep price: the forfeiture of old privileges and rights. As modern Westerners increasingly reject traditional gender roles and traditional marriage structures, they also increasingly forfeit the privileges of societal harmony and conjugal exclusivity — and the rights of true fatherhood and true motherhood. In doing so, they effectively exclude themselves — most quite unwittingly — from the timeless (continuous, multi-generational) spheres of home, family and community, spheres that are indispensable for the proper public functioning, let alone the private well-being, of the large majority of humans. As modern Westerners increasingly reject traditional ethnic allegiances and traditional national identities, they also increasingly forfeit the privileges of ethnicity-based solidarity (social security, public healthcare) and nation-state protection (law and order, border protection). In doing so, they also neglect and abandon the carefully tended gardens of their ancestors, who built these long-term infrastructures and institutions based upon (relatively) ethnically homogeneous societies and historically grown nation-states. Homogeneous societies and organic states for which, one may add, their ancestors made great sacrifices over long centuries: social security, public healthcare, law and order and protected borders were all paid for — the latter often at a steep price in blood, sweat and tears. The most extreme and preventable forms of poverty, hunger, sickness, domestic lawlessness and alien invasion were carefully eliminated from the Western garden by their ancestors’ great work. By the mid-twentieth Century, these scourges had been largely banished behind the garden walls of the West — the same border walls that modern Westerners have now been neglecting for over a generation. Now, after years of systemic neglect of the walls of the West — finally followed by deliberate ‘open borders’ betrayal of the same — the ancient spectres are returning with a vengeance.

The first of the ancient spectres to start creeping back into to the West was poverty: around forty years ago it come-back was facilitated by hippie-to-yuppie boomer nihilism, rationalized in the ‘pseudo-protestant ethics’ of Thatcher-Reagan-style neoliberalism. Starting in the early ’80s, neoliberalism brought back Victorian Era social Darwinism to Western Europe and the overseas Anglosphere, destroying native industries, workers’ rights and welfare states, condemning a whole generation of working-class people, and much of the rural and small-town population, to permanent economic stagnation, steady infrastructure decline and increasing cultural impoverishment. Structural large-scale unemployment, massive drugs addiction, rampant venereal disease and soaring suicide rates ravaged a whole generation of young people, inexorably bending downward the developmental curve of the West. In early 1986, two disasters marked the ‘point of no return’ on both sides of the Iron Curtain: in hindsight, the Challenger Disaster of 28 January and the Chernobyl Disaster of 26 April are key indicators of the decline of American and Russian superpower, marking the end to the great ‘the skies are the limit’ hopes for a techno-social breakout to utopia.

By then, the second of the ancient spectres had already started to creep back into the West as well: alien invasion recommenced as neo-liberalism (big business, high finance) and Cultural Marxism (academic pseudo-intelligentsia, polcor mainstream media) effectively aligned themselves in an all-out ‘globalist’ project under the aegis of ‘free markets’, ‘open borders’ and ‘global institutions’, a project that relied not only on de-industrializing ‘outsourcing’ from First to Third World but also on massive ‘migration’ in the opposite direction. The large-scale repatriation movements that followed the gradual elimination of Europe’s colonial empires, roughly between 1945 and 1980, and the (originally temporary) guest labour influx that was triggered by Europe’s boom-time labour shortages during the second half of that period, had already created a precedent for Third World mass immigration. Even during the deep economic crisis of the ’80s, Third World mass immigration was deliberately continued: the only real adjustment was in political rhetoric, with a switch from the promotion of ‘guest labour’ to that of ‘asylum rights’. In the post-Cold War New World Order of Gordon Gecko-style neoliberalism, this mass immigration accelerated, ensuring a permanent lowering of labour costs, a structural rising of real-estate prices, a permanent emasculation of the labour movement and a permanent shift in the electoral balance — of course in favour of the neoliberal regime. The spectre of the alien invasion of the West was initially only visible in marginal and localized phenomena — ‘white flight’ from decaying inner cities, ‘ethnically biased’ petty crime, ‘free rider’ welfare fraud — but it gradually expanded in intensity and size, finally escalating into full-blown emergency: industrial-scale ‘grooming gangs’ (the single 2013-revealed ‘Rotherham’ operation alone had over 1,500 victims according to ‘official figures’), systematic ‘Islamicist’ terror (the gruesome ‘slow slicing’ details of the 2015 ‘Bataclan’ bloodbath have been effectively censored) and open breaches in the borders (the 2015 ‘Migration Crisis’ saw over a million military-age ‘refugees’ from the Asia and Africa successfully re-trace the ancient Ottoman invasion route through the Balkans and into Central Europe).

The reappearance of the spectre of alien invasion from Asia and Africa was immediately followed by the reappearance of many threats that had been almost forgotten throughout the West: the threat of pickpocket gangs came to the shopping districts, the threat of highway robbery (gun-point car-jacking) came to the roads, the threat of gratuitous ‘gangster’ violence came to neighbourhoods and schools, the threat of re-emergent primitive diseases came to the hospitals, the threat of ethnically targeted rape came to the swimming pool, the threat of ‘lover boy’ grooming operations came to the schoolyard and the threat of fanatical anti-Western terrorism came to pervade the public sphere. Not only were these threats downplayed and covered up by liberal-normativist cartel politicians and system journalists: any attempt, on the part of dissident thinkers and politicians, to truly understand and effectively combat these ‘diversity’-related phenomena was systematically repressed through (‘algorithmic’) censorship, (‘hate speech’) persecution and (‘antifa’) intimidation. But the masking strategies of the globalist hostile elite — its rigged ‘democratic mandate’ based on cartel machinations, ‘immigrant’ votes and marketing ploy, its deceptive ‘political correctness’ based on virulently anti-rational, anti-male and anti-white identity politics — are increasingly failing to keep it from being recognized for what it truly is: a pirate clique of mercenaries and traitors bent on plundering Western resources and enslaving Western peoples. Its true aim is the replacement of Western cultures and the Western peoples by globalist counter-culture and deracinated diversity. The mask of the globalist hostile elite, and its gloves, are coming off — but in a way that few could anticipate.

The meltdown of globalization in the face of the Corona Crisis may hasten the end of liberal-normativism .

The true face of the globalist hostile elite is now visible in its handling of the latest globalist weapon of mass destruction, a weapon that is — so far — finding its most destructive demo-political application in Europe: the ‘Covid-19’ Corona Virus pandemic. Even without recourse to facile ‘conspiracy theories’ about deliberate biological warfare (which would be nothing new in world history: poisoned wells and poisoned arrows are attested even in Bronze Age cuneiform documents), and even without overdosed paranoia over the protracted non-action of Western Europe’s ‘leaders’ in response to the outbreak, it is easy to see how the arrival and spread of the Crowned Death have been facilitated by their globalism-as-usual policies — open borders above all. With very few exceptions, the ‘leaders’ of the West have not only — once again — utterly failed in their basic duties to protect and serve their peoples: they have also — once again — proven to be on the wrong side of history. Their failure to do what was, and is, humanly possible to protect those entrusted to their care in the face of life-and-death choices may very well cause a critical mass of public distrust and anger. As the line between criminal negligence and wilful destructiveness is becoming increasingly blurred, public trust in lawful authority may start to founder. Depending on the yet-to-be-determined depth and length of the present pandemic emergency, the absence of authentic higher authority — which is ultimately measured by effectively decisionist intervention in true crisis situations — may very well come to endanger law and order. Any significant failure in authority — either merely in perception or in actual effect — would at once reduce the new ‘diversified’ demo-political reality of the West to its lowest common denominators: narcocratic criminal networks, ethnicity-based social allegiances and neo-primitivist social atavism. As the West is coming face to face with the Crowned Death, it should be remembered that this particular ‘horseman’, pestilence, has three fellow-travellers that are never far off: war, hunger and hell. The West may come face to face with it and, by the grace of a Higher Power, escape this particular avenging angel and live to fight another day. But lessons should be learned and strategies should be devised to cope with the next emergency — the omen should not be ignored.

And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow;

and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer

— Revelation 6:2

Eurasianist Diagnostics

(Geopolitical Anamnesis — RE: Alexander Dugin3)

We can now begin the countdown to a multipolar world order — the coronavirus pandemic has buried globalization, open society and globalist capitalism. Enclaves of humanity have begun to take their isolated historical trajectories.

— Alexander Dugin, ‘Coronavirus Horizons of a Multipolar World’

* The burial of globalist mythology. The Corona Crisis has exposed the foundational fallacies of the globalist New World Order: open-border policy has accelerated the pandemic, transnational governance has utterly failed to respond to it, globalist high finance has crumbled under its impact, liberal-normativism has proven unable to match the effectiveness of the decisionist crisis management of Chinese- and Russian-style ‘illiberalism’.

* The melt-down of geopolitical unipolarity.4 The outbreak of the coronavirus epidemic is a decisive moment in the downfall of the unipolar New World Order of globalist post-modernity. The decline of geopolitical unipolarity and socio-economic globalization has been noticeable since the early 2000s: it has gradually increased with the accumulation of ‘counter-current’ events and developments such as America’s ‘9/11’, China’s rise to economic superpower status, Putin’s reassertion of Russian state sovereignty, the militant Islamicist attack on hyper-liberal secularism, the national-populist rebellions of ‘Brexit’ and ‘Trump’ and discursive bankruptcy of liberal-normativism in the face of the Neo-Eurasianist and New Right metapolitical challenges.

* The event horizon of liberal-normativist ideology.5 The meltdown of globalization in the face of the Corona Crisis may hasten the end of liberal-normativism: the spell of its global hegemony as humanity’s default ideology, as summed up in Fukuyama’s 1992 announcement of the ‘end of history’ and the rise of ‘last man’, is coming to an end. The end of liberal-normativism will spell the end of the various artificial constructs that are inextricably linked to it: the absolute rule of ‘global markets’, the totalitarian model of ‘parliamentary democracy’ and the one-size-fits-all straight-jacket of ‘human rights’. What lies beyond this ‘event horizon’ remains as yet unknown: it is impossible to foresee the final outline of the future world order. True geopolitical multipolarity has never existed, and if we look for some distant analogue of it, we should not turn to the Early Modern Westphalian world order, but rather to the pre-modern era preceding the Age of Discoveries: to the pre-modern world order of multiple, truly autonomous cultural circles that lacked a single binding system of ‘universal’ exchange mechanisms, ‘international’ laws and ‘humanist’ ethics.

At its core, the Crisis of the Modern World is a crisis of identity.

* The decisionist basis of the post-globalist world order.6 Much will depend on what will defeat the corona virus: those technical, legal and disciplinary measures that prove effective will become essential components of the political and socio-economic order of the future. Thus, the temporary alienation dictated by the direct threat of contagion from abroad and the necessary alienation from transnational systems of exchange and regulation will force states into a mode of self-reliance: their priorities will be health protection, food security, minimal economic autarky and maximal political manoeuvrability. Even if elements of liberal governance and capitalist exchange are preserved, they will have to be firmly embedded in frameworks of national control, such as foreign trade monopolies and state-regulation of capital flows. Nations that are historically distant from liberal-normativist ideas and habits, particularly those with affinity to land power rather than sea power, may well move towards optimal Lebensraum realignments in terms of geopolitical security and economic autarky.

* The challenge of multipolar security in post-globalist geopolitics. Direct security interests, economic autarky demands and structural cultural-historical affinities may replace globalist attempts at enforcing artificial ‘global security’, ‘global markets’ and ‘global governance’. To the extent that the borders of nation-states and cultural circles are well-matched, isolationist policies may prevail. Previews of isolationist alternatives to the unipolar-imperialist globalism of the receding unipolar epoch are already available in recent neo-nationalist phenomena such as Trump’s cautious disengagement from American interventionism and Israel’s rigorous policies of ethnic segregation and preventive deterrence. To the extent that the boundaries of nation-states, cultural circles and economically autarkic regions significantly diverge, drastic regional realignments may be necessary. Such regional realignments, driven by the simple ‘balance of power’ calculations, will allow a reassessment of older imperial ideas and traditional supra-national state constructs, such as the older supra-national structures that aggregated around natural power poles in Ottoman Turkey (Constantinople), Safavid Persia (Isfahan) and Moghul India (Delhi). A drastic redrawing of artificial borders may be necessary to facilitate neo-isolationist as well as regional realignment policies. To the extent that they cannot be covered by legitimate supra-national ‘neo-empire’ boundaries, ethnic, linguistic and religious boundaries may need to be reasserted above the many artificial (‘Versailles Peace’, ‘Berlin Conference’, ‘ex-Soviet’) borders that still hamper harmonious international relations across much of Eurasian and African landmass today.

One should not be deceived: the world coronavirus pandemic is a turning point in world history. Not only are stock indices and oil prices collapsing, the world order itself is also falling. … Human societies will soon become free-floating: no more dogmas, no more dollar-imperialism, no more free-market spells, no more Fed dictatorship or global stock exchanges, no more subservience to the world media elite. … It is obviously impossible to say what this will look like or what it will lead to. However, it is already clear that the old world order is becoming a thing of the past, and quite distinct contours of a new reality are emerging before us. What neither ideologies, nor wars, nor fierce economic battles, nor terror, nor religious movements have been able to do, has been accomplished by an invisible, yet deadly virus. It brought with it death, pain, horror, panic, sorrow — but also the future.

— Alexander Dugin, ‘Coronavirus Horizons of a Multipolar World’

Nationalist Diagnostics

(Ethno-political Anamnesis — RE: Greg Johnson7)

Even if the Globalvirus stops today, we are looking at a world in which [the argument for] ethno-nationalism is stronger and [the argument for] anti-ethno-nationalist forces of globalism, multiculturalism, democracy and liberalism is weaker. …

Global “free trade” is bad. … Because businessmen care only about profit, not about the common good of society, and because the [Western] political class no longer puts the [Western] peoples first. [It is more concerned with protecting the economy from ‘panic’ than protecting the Western peoples from the virus itself.] The vast majority of pharmaceuticals … are manufactured in China, a [free trade] rival, [allowing it to blackmail the West]. …

Globalism is bad. By globalism, I mean erasing national borders to ease the global movement of people and goods. It is possible to have national borders and international trade and travel, but nations need to regulate them for the common good of their peoples. … Immigration fraud, visa overstays, and other forms of bureaucratic incompetence or sabotage effectively abolish borders throughout most of the West.” …

* “Multiculturalismopen borders, diversity & anti-racism are bad. In times of plague, diversity and multiculturalism are dangerous burdens, for they decrease social trust and solidarity, which are necessary for disciplined and effective public health measures like quarantines, curfews, and testing.” “Obviously, openness is not an absolute good if it allows in a plague. Which means there is a good kind of xenophobia, namely the xenophobia that protects us against the plague. There is a good kind of racism, namely the racism that protects against the plague.”…

* Democracy is bad. Democracy encourages politicians to think only as far ahead as the next election. Since disasters happen only occasionally, every politician knows they are unlikely to happen on his watch. Since politicians — especially national leaders — have short terms of office, it makes no sense for them to use their political capital for events far into the future, especially events that may never happen. …

* Liberalism is bad. Liberalism unlocks politics from the common good — it is the politics of individualism, declaring that only the individual and his interests matter. … Liberalism slowly dissolves the social cohesion, public-spiritedness, and self-sacrifice of pre-liberal societies in the acid of individualism. … The more liberal a society is, the slower and more grudging the response. The more liberal a society, the more vulnerable it is to mass death in times of plague.

— Greg Johnson, ‘How Coronavirus Will Change the World’8

Johnson’s diagnostics of the current ‘Globalvirus’ crisis confirm a number of the New Right’s long-standing theses; these may now be assumed to have been proven true beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt. Now it is time to consider what will follow the utter ruin of globalism — what will follow the end of what has now been proven to be bad in globalism: global free trade, open borders, multiculturalism, diversity, anti-racism, democracy, liberalism. Some questions need to be considered in this regard. Is the New Right ready to step in — to replace the globalist hostile elite? Is it ready to move beyond the demolition phase — to move on and proceed to the (re)construction phase? Is it ready to rise to the occasion — to take hold of the fleeting moment of opportunity that may come when globalism simply collapses and vanishes from history? Is it ready to step in, walk through the vacated corridors of power into the long-deserted throne room? Is it ready to move in, if need be at a moment’s notice, to replace the wrong concepts, structures and people with the right concepts, structures and people? Or will it leave these opportunities and challenges to lesser and lower but faster and stronger competitors? If the Corona Crisis has something to teach the New Right it is this: that these questions need to be asked and addressed sooner rather than later — that they need to be asked and addressed now. Because it may come to pass that, after all hope has deserted us and all expectation has failed us, by the grace of a Higher Power, globalism expires by the force of totally unforeseen circumstances. That our mighty, seemingly unconquerable enemy suddenly drops dead right before us

dead, slain, after all man’s devices had failed,

by the humblest things that God, in His wisdom, has put upon this earth.

— Herbert George Wells, The War of the Worlds


1 Skewed reference to the 1842 plague-themed short story ‘The Mask of the Red Death’ by American novelist Edgar Allen Poe (1809-1849).

2 For the author’s cultural-historical application of this concept, cf. Alexander Wolfheze, The Sunset of Tradition and the Origins of the Great War (Cambridge Scholars: Newcastle upon Tyne, 2017).

3 Freely inspired by, with paraphrases from, Alexander Dugin, ‘Coronavirus and the Horizons of a Multipolar World: the Geopolitical Possibilities of Epidemic’., 17 March 2020.

4 For a sketch of the (Neo-)Eurasianist ‘multipolar’ alternative to globalist ‘unipolarity’, cf. Alexander Wolfheze, ‘Le Rouge et le Noir: An Introduction to Eurasianism’., 15 November 2018.

5 For a working definition and a historical summary of ‘liberal-normativism’, cf. Alexander Wolfheze, ‘From the Arsenal of Hephaestus’., 10 January 2019.

6 For a structural analysis of the opposition between modern normativism and traditional decisionism, cf. Alexander Wolfheze, ‘From the Arsenal of Hephaestus’., 10 January 2019.

7 Freely inspired by Greg Johnson, with paraphrases from, ‘How Coronavirus Will Change the World’., 18 March 2020.

8 The author has here altered Greg Johnson’s words by adding the qualifying phrase the argument for because even if the Corona Crisis leaves the arguments for ethno-nationalism and globalism, respectively, stronger and weaker, it is not by any argument that the power struggle between the two will be decided. The author deems it necessary to specifically draw the reader’s attention to one of the critical comments that Johnson’s article attracted:

[T]he problem with optimism is the same as [with] pessimism: it pre-commits you to a conclusion. In order to see how corona will change the world, we should look at what [MSM and social media] ‘influencers’ say: (*) airport testing, not closed borders; (*) testing: …[t]hey want everyone tracked; … a hint of authoritarianism; (*) nationalized healthcare; (*) remov[al] of the [crisis-discredited] Republican Party [and] Trump; (*) globalism… is inevitable: [the corona crisis] is not proof that globalism failed – it is proof that global governance is needed to handle ‘global threats’; (*) ‘virus borders’ can be [independent] of national borders, as done [with]in China: [t]he need for ‘virus borders’ does not imply nationalism, [but] could [be made to] happen [by] a one-world government (‘Sutter’, 19 March 2020).

It should be noted that ‘Sutter’s’ critical comments emphasizes some ‘dangers’ that are particularly American: from a European New Right perspective, authoritarian action, large-scale tracking and nationalized healthcare would be desirable rather than ‘dangerous’.

]]> 3
A Dangerous World Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:53:43 +0000 We live in a dangerous world, a world rendered even more dangerous by the incessant technological developments which, for the most part, bring their own share of unexpected consequences before which technology itself is often left powerless.

The ability of our immune system to resist microscopic pathogens has, paradoxically, been compromised by improved hygiene and the use of antibacterial soap and antibiotics.

The danger is all the greater when one is unable to identify it: our senses are ill-suited to detecting chemical contaminants and completely helpless when it comes to perceiving radioactivity or radiological contamination. As for the threat posed by microscopic pathogens, the ability of our immune system to resist them has, paradoxically, been compromised by improved hygiene and the use of antibacterial soap and antibiotics.

These dangers are exacerbated by other risks faced by our world, both present and future ones. The permanent safety of many of our industrial technologies — those that manage radioactivity, virulent organisms and toxic substances — is based on our assumption of perpetual social stability. In the case of long-lived radionuclides such as uranium or plutonium, the period of social stability necessary to ensure their safe storage and their isolation from the environment is expected to last for thousands of years. History, however, teaches us that human societies never last that long.

Whenever a civilisation crumbles, what naturally follows is a dark age during which the population collapses, knowledge and literacy become a rarity, urban centres are abandoned and the few survivors must discover means of subsistence at much more primitive levels, all by themselves and without resorting to advanced technologies.

When will this happen?

Well, between you and me, we already live in an age when nation-states vanish ever more rapidly, millions of refugees roam the planet, and the financial systems that enable the very existence of globalised industrialised civilisation are in such a pitiful state that central banks are forced to use such bizarre devices as negative interest rates coupled with the unlimited issuance of fiat money.

But nothing lasts forever, and one should thus not ignore the possibility that we — or our children — may experience periods of great uncertainty, confusion and chaos. Whatever happens, we all want to live happily and in good health and be filled with a sense of accomplishment, and we strive to provide the same for our children to enjoy. None of this, however, is possible without peace of mind, and knowing that the prospects for this well-being are ever uncertain, we are burdened with anxiety. Some of this anxiety is due to helplessness resulting from our conditioned obedience and an ignorance which we ourselves have actually desired: we have been taught to trust experts when it comes to our well-being and not to question them too much. But where will all these experts be once cities fall under the yoke of a people in revolt and become too dangerous to approach? To control our anxiety, we must learn to identify the risks and be prepared to face them.

The threats are many, but the greatest of them all is simply embodied by panic.

This book, CBRN: Surviving Chemical, Biological, Radiological & Nuclear Events, describes the risks which we are least able to apprehend using our common sense, powers of perception and instincts. They belong to the domain of experts and, without sophisticated know-how and specialised equipment, one finds oneself completely defenceless when facing them. Even if we truly wanted to be able to deal with them, we could not, most of the time, even detect their presence. Nevertheless, by reading the information contained in this book and considering the option of a modest investment in protective equipment and detection (an investment that can sometimes be beyond the means of a single family, but remains conceivable at the level of a small community), one can overcome one’s anxiety and regain the ability to lead a fulfilling life.

The threats are many, but the greatest of them all is simply embodied by panic. When people fall ill and none can determine the cause, society may well experience sudden collapse. And yet, panic could still be avoided should some well-informed people be able to explain to others what is happening and what they should and should not do.

You, too, can become one of these people. So, do not panic, and read CBRN!

Dmitry Orlov,1 Beaufort,

South Carolina, USA


1AN: Dmitry Orlov is a Russian engineer and writer and the author of books explaining how the collapse of our societies will impact our lives. His most famous books include Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Example and American Prospects, New Society Publishers, 2008; and The Five Stages of Collapse, Le Retour aux Sources editions, 2016.

]]> 0
How Critical Theorists Respond to Criticism: A Case Study on the Banality of Leftist Academe – Part 3 Tue, 24 Mar 2020 17:15:04 +0000 Cause & Effect

Woods jumps from Stormer to Patrick Buchanan in his concluding remarks, which necessitates the construction of more straw men. He turns his attention to a paper by this writer, published in a peer-reviewed journal (although Woods does not mention this fact).1 It is notable that while Woods does not cite the paper in his endnotes, he embeds a link in his article, which does not go to the complete paper, but to an extract on Questia. Has Woods read the paper, or just gleaned some key words from the Questia ‘article excerpt’?2 Likewise we are tempted to wonder whether Woods has read Patrick Buchanan’s book itself, since the reference embedded in his article is merely a link to a Wikipedia entry.3

Birth control and abortion are symptoms of an organic spiritual and cultural decline, and capitalism, materialism and hedonism are part of an economic process that occurs at the late epoch of a civilisation.

Woods leaps across the abyss of logic to allege conclusions counter to fact. He recognises that The Frankfurt School ‘denounced the conventional family unit as “fascistic,” and encouraged the youth of America to indulge their sexual impulses’, and from this claims that The Death of the West and Revolution from Above describe feminism as responsible for the plummeting birth rate of North America and Europe. ‘Bolton appears to agree with Buchanan’s assertion’.4

Woods has not understood that feminism, birth control and abortion are symptoms of an organic spiritual and cultural decline, and that capitalism, materialism and hedonism are part of an economic process that occurs at the late epoch of a civilisation. This historical morphology is intrinsic to the Right, as might be seen from at least the time of Giambattista Vico (1668-1744), but it is contrary to the progressive-Darwinian dogma of capitalism and the Left, which assume all such change to be ‘progress’. Buchanan quotes the historian Will Durant’s The Story of Civilisation, on the drastic and irreversible population decline in Greece and Rome, where abortion and infanticide became the norms. Buchanan refers to ‘an aging, dying Christian West’.5 Buchanan is clear enough: ‘As a growing population has long been a mark of healthy nations and rising civilizations, falling populations have been a sign of nations and civilizations in decline. If that holds true, Western civilization, power and wealth aside, is in a critical condition’.6 It was not conspiracies and cabals in Greece and Rome that caused these symptoms of decay, and neither Revolution from Above nor The Death of the West suggests they did. What both do suggest is that, to cite an interview by Buchanan, ‘Global capitalism and Marxism share a belief that it is far better to have women in the market place than in the home’.7 There is nothing controversial about this statement; it is a fact.

Turning to Bolton’s peer-reviewed paper ‘Cultural Marxism: Origins, Development, and Significance’,8 Woods claims that ‘Bolton further implies that the Frankfurt School devised the theoretical rationale for Gender and Sexuality Studies at The New School’. This is not the case, and earlier programmes during the Weimar era are considered. ‘Bolton imagines that these forms of research, inquiry, and critique benefit collectivist and oligarchical agendas’. Woods does not explain why there has long been a lavish patronage by the oligarchy on such ‘gender and sexuality studies’.

According to Woods, the ‘Cultural Marxism’ paper alleges, ‘The New School is a Soros-sponsored laboratory for testing new radical ideas before they are injected into mainstream culture, such as the “controversial” idea that sexuality is a “social construct.”’9 Again, the strategy is dramatizing and using a straw-man argument.

George Soros is a prominent funder of The New School. If Soros funds something, then it is to advance an agenda. Recently Soros announced at the World Economic Forum at Davos that he was advancing $1 billion to establish a ‘global university to fight authoritarian governments’.10 Again there will be another institution to churn out pseudo-scholarly studies on the ‘threat of the extreme Right’, and of ‘populism’,11 with as much objectivity as a research paper on tobacco funded by a tobacco company.

Conspiracy or Degeneracy?

The father of ‘Ethology’, Konrad Lorenz, pointed out fifty years ago that the rulers and policy-makers in the USA, China and the USSR were unanimous in their insistence on the conditionality of human behaviour. Lorenz described this behaviourist doctrine as ‘pseudodemocratic’, ‘inhuman’ and ‘satanic’, as it enables the ‘dehumanization’ and ‘manipulation’ of mankind. This is the crux of the matter, of what Woods et al. disparage as ‘conspiracy theory’. Lorenz explained:

It is equally important to the capitalist mass producer as to the Soviet functionary to condition people into uniform, unresisting subjects, not very different from those described by Aldous Huxley in his terrifying novel Brave New World.12

Lorenz warns that if a doctrine based on ‘a lie’ about human behaviour is universally accepted then the effects will be ‘disastrous’. This doctrine, Lorenz contends, is responsible for much of the ‘moral and cultural collapse that threatens the Western world’.13 Lorenz saw the methods used by ‘various “establishments”’ – whether capitalist or communist – to recondition people into their own preconceptions of the ideal, as ‘substantially the same throughout the world’. ‘We, ostensibly free, Western civilized people are no longer conscious of the extent to which we are being manipulated by the commercial decisions of the mass producers’.

While crafts disappear in the mass (global) consumer society, we are increasingly conditioned to consume according to the production requirements of mass manufacturers.

While crafts disappear in the mass (global) consumer society, we are increasingly conditioned to consume according to the production requirements of mass manufacturers, and are not aware of our manipulation.14 Science itself has been conditioned by what is fashionable. Environmental conditioning is the fashion within science, just as it is within politics. What social policies within the Western states are not still dominated by Behaviourism?

However, Lorenz states that fallacious science does not cause the West’s ‘cultural diseases’, but is the product of them.15 That is to say, the position of the social engineers is enabled by a pre-existing weakness in the social organism; if the organism had not succumbed to age and disease in the first instant, it would have had the stamina to resist and repel these social pathologies that are in fact able to enter it. While the likes of Woods disparage ‘conspiracy theories’ as ‘over-simplification of complex issues’, they fail to understand that ‘conspiracy theories’ do not necessarily indicate causes, but rather symptoms. The cultural diseases of the West are the cause of the dehumanising impact of modern science, and not the effect.16 As Lorenz states, it is the social sciences with their behaviourist assumptions that represent the ‘simplification’ of complex issues in seeking to override the instinctual and inherited for the sake of a preconceived ideology.

Woods is resorting to the ‘simplistic’ (as Lorenz referred to it) behaviourist ideology when he states that,

Both Buchanan and Bolton admonish women and queer people for failing to obey traditional social and sexual norms. Feminists are portrayed as too selfish to raise families; queer people are depicted as too irresponsible to become members of a respectable society. The contentious debates over the legalization of gay marriage and the transgender bathroom controversy illustrate that the radical right often targets and demonizes queer people. Buchanan, Bolton, and their fellow right-wing authors seem convinced that pernicious ‘Cultural Marxists’ at The New School and other college campuses brainwashed the American people into believing that queer people deserve equal rights. Although LGBTQ+ advocacy and activism are a crucial extension of the American Civil Rights movement, Bolton argues that the whole affair is a deliberate outcome of the collectivist oligarchy’s assault on Tradition.17

Woods constructs more straw men in a flurry of radical rhetoric more suitable for a soap box than an academic journal. There is no ‘admonishing’ of ‘women and queer people for failing to obey traditional social and sexual norms’; there is no argument ‘that the whole affair is a deliberate outcome of the collectivist oligarchy’s assault on Tradition’. There is a carefully documented consideration (‘overflowing with references’, as Woods concedes) as to why the oligarchy would promote and fund the destruction of traditional bonds, and why there is a convergence of aims in this arena.

Lorenz says the same when he states that Behaviourism, as the basis of much of the social sciences, serves the interests of mass manufacturers just as it did Communist states, with its belief that humanity can be reshaped according to ideological or commercial requirements. Did not Charles Merriam, the dean – as we might say – of U.S. social sciences, say precisely that? Did not Aldous Huxley observe the process in his Brave New World?

Woods concludes his article by evoking images of a Right-wing assault on ‘progressive’ politics: ‘Some people think that it is a waste of time to devote scholarly attention to these conspiracy theories. After all, conspiracy theorists often dismiss anyone who doubts their credibility, debunks their claims, or disagrees with their worldview’.18 Again, we see Woods projecting: what does he – and the entirety of the Left – do other than to ‘dismiss anyone who doubts their credibility, debunks their claims, or disagrees with their worldview’? In reality, because their anti-Right mania accords with that of the Establishment, the Left has the advantage of being onside with the mass media, state authorities, and well-funded think tanks that provide source material for smears by hack journalists.19

Identity Politics vs. Identitarianism

This Rightist conspiracy is a ‘larger metapolitical project to contest liberal values and promote right-wing identitarian politics’, writes Woods. Because Leftist ‘identity politics’ and Rightist identitarianism are antithetical, Woods upholds ‘identity politics’ while decrying identitarianism as fascist and racist.

This is something that the free-market liberals of pseudo-conservativism do not understand, because their origins, as Lasch found, are Whig-Liberal and not conservative. ‘Identity politics’ states that ‘identity’ is a social construct and can be changed by the individual at will. There is nothing organic about one’s ethnicity or even gender. When the individual is not subjected to the ‘primary ties’, as Critical Theory calls them, he can change – or be changed – by social engineering.

Contrary to this, one’s identity, according Rightist identitarianism, is fixed over long periods of time, is organic and is maintained and enriched with the help of tradition, religion, and myth. The Leftist conception of identity is one of fluidity; that of the Right one of permanence.

To Woods, the Right ‘preys on genuine economic precarity and cultural anxiety’. ‘For instance, he [Bolton] re-directs post-2008-financial-crisis contempt for Wall Street into an irrational fear of “progressive” politics. In the end, reactionary identitarianism is offered as the only way to resist dialectical capitalism’.20 Perhaps Woods has only read the redacted version of Revolution from Above that appears on the internet? So far from re-directing ‘post-2008-financial-crisis contempt for Wall Street’, Revolution from Above, at the first sentence of the concluding paragraph, states: ‘In general it can be stated that many of these problems are the direct result of the debt-finance, trade and economic system that is operated by the oligarchs’.21

Woods’ concluding sentences ring out like a zealous young Red Guard condemning ‘class enemies’ during the Cultural Revolution.

Woods must conclude with non sequiturs, stating that Revolution from Above claims, ‘Any academic critique of social and economic inequality is covert propaganda for the globalist oligarchy’. The Right was in the forefront of critiquing the social and economic inequality of capitalism, while it was Whig-liberalism that saw the inequities of industrialism and money as part of an evolutionary process; Marx similarly regarded the social inequities as a necessary part of the dialectical process, and condemned as ‘reactionists’ those who sought to halt and reverse the process.

During the mid-nineteenth century a conservative socialist movement arose among German ‘clergymen, nobles, guild masters, romantic thinkers and poets’, advocating ‘a modernized medieval order or a social monarchy’, based around a ‘reorganization of the Guild system’. 22 This movement ‘could not accept ideas and demands and economic practices which were based on individual freedom of judgment and of action – without regard to the Church, the State, and the community, and placed egoism and self-interest before subordination, commonality, and social solidarity.23 This Rightist call for a return to the organic community was anathema to Marx, and he condemned the movement as ‘feudal socialism’, and ‘reactionary socialism’.24

One seeks in vain for a fundamental critique of debt-finance from the Left. One looks to their father, Marx for guidance, only to find that Marx did not understand the significance of credit, circulation, and the means of exchange as the ‘dominant moment’ in capitalist production.25 Marx especially critiqued Proudhon and other French socialists for their belief that the exchange processes (credit) were distorted by the banks. Marx said that the means of circulating production was ‘mere semblance’.26 In his Fundamentals of Political Economy Criticism,27 Marx explains at length that ‘Production [is] directly identical with consumption’, ‘Consumption is also immediately production’, and that ‘exchange of activities and abilities which takes place within production itself belongs directly to production and essentially constitutes it’.28 As an analyst of the primary flaw in capitalist production and consumption, Marx is useless. One must look to the analysis of those such as C. H. Douglas, whose Social Credit theory is intrinsic to any genuine Right.29

Woods continues, ‘Bolton’s caricature of The New School is an attempt to devalue and discredit the humanities, the social sciences, and critical inquiry in general.’30 If the description of the New School and Critical Theory is a ‘caricature’ then that is because of the farcical character of doctrines that Lorenz described as falsehoods. ‘Bolton strives to persuade his readers that only anti-academic conspiracy theorists can be trusted to tell the truth about modern history and politics’.31 Projection. Woods implies that only Leftists ‘can be trusted to tell the truth about modern history and politics’. The dogmatism that controls academe results in the denigration and suppression of scholars such as the psychologist Richard Lynn, who had his emeritus status withdrawn by Ulster University in 2018; or sociologist Ricardo Duchesne of the University of New Brunswick, who took early retirement after being condemned by 100 faculty members for being a ‘white supremacist’, with Professor Gary Waite stating that criticism of multiculturalism ‘has no place in academia’.32 The manner by which opinions contrary to the Left have been suppressed in the social sciences reveals Woods’ protest of a scholarly high ground as nothing but cant.

Woods’ concluding sentences ring out like a zealous young Red Guard condemning ‘class enemies’ during the Cultural Revolution: ‘The fight against the radical right must take place not only in the streets, but also in universities like The New School’.33 According to Woods, this is a political fight of the Left against the Right. There is no room for a Socratic dialectic; just the imposition of dogma, totalitarian style.


1Bolton, ‘Cultural Marxism: Origins, Development, and Significance’, ‘Journal of Social, Political & Economic Studies (Washington D.C.), Vol. 43, No. 3 & 4, Fall & Winter 2018, pp. 272-284.

2Questia ‘article excerpt’.

3Death of the West’, Wikipedia.

4Woods, ‘A Secret Invasion’.

5Patrick Buchanan, op. cit., p. 48.

6Ibid., p. 11.

7Buchanan interview with Right Now!, No. 35, April-June 2002, cited in Revolution from Above, p. 160.

8Bolton, ‘Cultural Marxism: Origins, Development, and Significance’, op. cit.

9Woods, ‘A Secret Invasion’.

10Katherine Burton, ‘George Soros to Start $1 Billion Fund to Fight Nationalists, Climate Change’, Bloomberg Green, January 24, 2020.

11For how the globalist funded think tanks feed the news media for smearing the Right see: Bolton, ‘What’s Behind the Anti-Right Witch-Hunt’, Arktos Journal, July 10, 2019.

12Konrad Lorenz, Civilized Man’s Eight Deadly Sins, (Helen & Kurt Wolff, 1974), p. 87.

13Ibid., p. 88.

14Ibid., p. 89.

15Ibid., p. 98.

16Ibid., p. 98.

17Woods, ‘A Secret Invasion’.


19Bolton, ‘What’s Behind the Anti-Right Witch-Hunt?’, op. cit.

20Woods, ‘A Secret Invasion’.

21Bolton, Revolution from Above, p. 252.

22Max Beer, A General History of Socialism & Social Struggles, Vol. 2 (New York: Russell & Russell, 1957), p. 109.

23Max Beer, ibid., p. 88.

24Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto (1848), Chapter III, ‘Socialist & Communist Literature: 1. Reactionary Socialism’.

25Karl Marx, Economic Manuscripts 1857-58 , p. 36, cited by Gareth Stedman Jones, Karl Marx: Greatness and Illusion (Penguin Books, 2016), pp. 391-392.

26Marx, ibid., p. 186, cited by Jones, ibid.

28Karl Marx, ibid., (Section 2).

29For a history of banking reform in theory and practice see: Bolton, Opposing the Money Lenders: The Struggle Against Interest-Slavery (London: Black House Publishing, 2016); The Banking Swindle (2013).

30Woods, ‘A Secret Invasion’, op. cit.


33Woods, ‘A Secret Invasion’.

]]> 17
How Critical Theorists Respond to Criticism: A Case Study on the Banality of Leftist Academe – Part 2 Thu, 19 Mar 2020 17:54:47 +0000 ‘Social Control’ & ‘Social Engineering’

‘Social control’ and ‘social engineering’ have been of primary interest to social scientists and their oligarchic patrons. Charles Merriam was a proponent of social control and social engineering to direct human development and evolution. He envisioned a brave new world overseen by social scientists, who would override tradition in forming a new humanity. He redefined politics in terms of social science, ‘the new politics which is to emerge in the new world: that of the conscious control of human evolution’.1 Technology would create ‘international obligations’, and ‘the ancient idea of the state’ would be destroyed or modified.2 A ‘new world of science’ would allow ‘a new race of beings’ to ‘master nature’ on a universal scale. Merriam announced the dogmatic breach between the social and biological sciences, stating that ‘social training and the environment’ can transcend any superficial differences. If genetics contradicts this, then eugenics can eliminate undesirable traits,3 while psychoanalysis has a large role to play in ‘intelligent social control’,4 and in the future the understanding of biochemistry might enable the bio-engineering of individuals and populations (aided by social psychology).5 The study of chromosomes might allow for induced variations by conditioning; ‘this is the key to social training’.6 The study of child behaviour will enable the social scientist to determine the ‘political attitudes and interests of the later citizen’.7 Foreshadowing The Authoritarian Personality, Merriam suggested that one’s politics might be predicted by charting ‘traits, habits, responses, behavior’, and allow for the possibilities of being ‘controlled or modified’.8

The facts are that the oligarchic Foundations launched and promoted the social sciences under the auspices of Merriam, and others, whose doctrine was that of world-wide control through social engineering.

The world is one of ‘unceasing reorganization and readjustment’.9 This requires the elimination of all cultural heritages and customs that are a hindrance to the ‘new world’. The maintenance of institutions in the past and the present has ‘depended on a backward look, upon an assiduous cultivation of traditions and habits transmitted to each new generation by the old as the accumulated wisdom of the group. … Perhaps some magic was necessary to produce social and political cohesiveness, and prevent perpetual turmoil’. However, with the new social sciences it is possible to quickly ‘create customs’. It is possible to ‘materially modify the whole attitude of the group’ within about twenty years. If necessary ‘new values, interests and attitudes’ can be created ‘by the educational and social process’.10 God is rejected as being ‘magic’, displaced by the new faith in science.11

It might be discovered ‘what type of environment’ is required to produce a ‘specific type of man’.12 The new social science transcends time and place and universalises all in the name of ‘democracy’, a word used often by Merriam. A ‘calamity of the first order’ awaits should the new insights of science fall into the ‘hands of medievalists’, ‘with the tremendous possibilities in the way of thoroughgoing social and political control of individuals’. The urgent task is for ‘the social and political education of the next generation’, forming ‘a new majority with an entirely new political education, with new political values, attitudes, interests, capacities. We would re-create the world politically within some twenty years, were we minded and equipped to do so’.13 It is up to social science to determine what constitutes a good citizen in this new world.14 The new world will be one that goes beyond the League of Nations and results in the ‘interpenetration of national cultures’,15 or globalisation as it is now called, in a ‘new world’, ‘governed under a system of social and political control’,16 sustained by a ‘trained electorate’, a government of technocrats, and ‘the science of social control’,17 ‘co-ordinating class, races and groups of human beings’ across the world.18

The question Merriam asked of his fellow social scientists and financial patrons was ‘what use’ shall be made of this ‘complete control over the physical and psychical and social structure of the individual or the group…?’19

It does not matter whether any of this is called a ‘conspiracy’. The facts are that the oligarchic Foundations launched and promoted the social sciences under the auspices of Merriam, and others, whose doctrine was that of world-wide control through social engineering. That this doctrine accords with the policies and outlook of the Foundations that backed these academics, in particular the Carnegie Corporation and the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, can be readily ascertained by perusing their publicly available annual reports. There was and remains a convergence of aims and ideologies. The social sciences continue to receive the funding to promote these.

Origins of ‘Conspiracy Theory’?

Woods attempts to trace ‘conspiracy theory origins’ with which to link Revolution from Above, and the ‘attack on The New School’. His attempt is inept:

Bolton’s attack on The New School contributes to a tradition of American conspiracy theorizing that has endured since the mid-twentieth century. Specifically, his work builds on enduring right-wing myths about the Fabian Society and the Frankfurt School. In 1964, the author and preacher John A. Stormer wrote the conspiracist classic None Dare Call It Treason to warn American citizens that communists had infiltrated churches, the education system, the media, the labor movement, and the medical establishment. …

Building on Stormer’s allegations, Bolton explains that — in a classic twist of dialectical capitalism — Webb and Shaw secured generous funding from the Rothschild family to establish the London School of Economics in 1895. For the Fabian Society, universities functioned as ostensibly innocuous channels for transmitting collectivist propaganda. Following Webb and Shaw’s example, Dewey conspired to convert young American intellectuals to the pernicious doctrine of Fabian Socialism through The New School.20

The use of Stormer’s None Dare Call It Treason, one of only two cited works in Woods’ endnotes, is an odd choice. Again there is the strange use of adjectives – ‘conspired’, ‘pernicious’. Woods does not identify the ‘enduring right-wing myths about the Fabian Society and the Frankfurt School’. It is sufficient to call something a ‘right-wing myth’ in order to dismiss it. Woods alludes to Stormer having been a ‘preacher’ when he wrote None Dare Call It Treason. This is not correct. Stormer became prominent in the Baptist church and education after writing None Dare Call It Treason. However, calling Stormer a ‘preacher’ is enough to raise smirks among the Leftist intelligentsia – to evoke an image of a snake-handling holy roller speaking tongues at a little church in Appalachia.

Are we supposed to believe that the ‘lone-wolf’ actions of the likes of Breivik and Tarrant are motivated by the doctrines of Joseph de Maistre?

Of the many sources cited in Revolution from Above, and Woods concedes there are a plenitude, None Dare Call it Treason is not among them. Furthermore, while I had heard of Stormer’s book decades ago, it was not until reading Woods’ paper that I sought out this supposed source of my ideas. The thesis of Revolution from Above is not only different from Stormer’s, but in significant ways antithetical.

Stormer’s book is an example of the growing feeling during the Cold War that ‘communists’ had ‘infiltrated’ the tax exempt Foundations and were using the money in ways antithetical to the wishes of the oligarchs. The thesis of Revolution from Above, to the contrary, to quote the eminent liberal-internationalist historian Carroll Quigley, is that, ‘it must be recognized that the power of these energetic Left-wingers exercised was never their own power or communist power but ultimately the power of the international financial coterie’.21 Quigley studied this ‘international financial coterie’, and was in agreement with most of its aims, but objected mainly to its ‘secrecy’. His opinion that the Leftists in the tax exempt Foundations were subordinate to the oligarchs accords with the statements made by the Rockefeller Foundation, previously quoted. These matters had previously been examined by the Reece and Cox congressional committees investigating the tax exempt Foundations during 1952 to 1954. There had been a rising level of public opinion against the types of programmes the Foundations were funding. The research director for these Congressional committees, Norman Dodd, commented,

The broad study which called our attention to the activities of these organizations has revealed not only their support by Foundations but has disclosed a degree of cooperation between them which they have referred to as ‘an interlock’, thus indicating a concentration of influence and power. By this phrase they indicate they are bound by a common interest rather than a dependency upon a single source for capital funds. It is difficult to study their relationship without confirming this. Likewise, it is difficult to avoid the feeling that their common interest has led them to cooperate closely with one another and that this common interest lies in the planning and control of certain aspects of American life through a combination of the Federal Government and education.

This may explain why the Foundations have played such an active role in the promotion of the social sciences, why they have favored so strongly the employment of social scientists by the Federal Government and why they seem to have used their influence to transform education into an instrument for social change.22

Dodd saw the purpose of the social sciences being patronised by the Foundations as being that of ‘social control’ and ‘social engineering’.

For these reasons, it has been difficult for us to dismiss the suspicion that, latent in the minds of many of the social scientists has lain the belief that, given sufficient authority and enough funds, human behavior can be controlled and that this control can be exercised without risk to either ethical principles or spiritual values and that therefore, the solution to all social problems should be entrusted to them. In spite of this dispute within his own ranks, the social scientist is gradually becoming dignified by the title ‘Social Engineer’. This title implies that the objective view point of the pure scientist is about to become obsolete in favor of techniques of control. It also suggests that our traditional concept of freedom as the function of natural and constitutional law has already been abandoned by the ‘social engineer’ and brings to mind our native fear of controls, however well intended .23

It is these Congressional investigations, I suggest, that would make better candidates for the origins of modern ‘conspiracy theory’ – in the USA – than Stormer’s book. However, it is Woods who uses the word ‘conspiracy’, while Dodd used ‘common interest’; while the former is more convenient to Woods claims, the latter is closer to the thesis of Revolution from Above.

I have a fundamental disagreement with the American ‘patriot’ scene that sees the primary conflict being between ‘free enterprise and socialism’.24 I completely agree with the assessment of Christopher Lasch on the failure of the American Right at the time to espouse a genuine conservatism that saw free trade as subversive. To Stormer and Dobbs, the problem was the infiltration of the tax exempt foundations by Communists in the service of the USSR. The thesis of Revolution from Above is that the problem is capitalism. The centre of world revolution according to Stormer was Moscow. The thesis of Revolution from Above is that the centre of world revolution remains New York.

Cold War Agendas

We are told with a blurb from The New School that Woods is working on a book showing the origins of conspiracy theories about Cultural Marxism. The character of Woods’ scholarship in researching this book is indicated by Woods’ article on the subject appearing in Commune, a quarterly journal in the mould of the revolutionary rhetoric of the 1960s New Left.25 Here Woods claims to have traced the origins of conspiracy theories about Cultural Marxism to Lyndon LaRouche. Woods states that LaRouche (who had been a leader of the Maoist Progressive Labor Party, before founding the U.S. Labor Party) first wrote about Cultural Marxism in 1974.26 When writing the Commune article, perhaps Woods had not yet found Stormer’s None Dare Call it Treason, which had been published a decade earlier than those LaRouchean musings?

Woods, in weaving his own version of conspiracy theory, contends that opposition to Cultural Marxism is responsible for the mass shootings by Anders Behring Breivik in Norway in 1992, and by Brenton Tarrant in New Zealand in 2019, both of which are traceable to LaRouche. Woods explains:

Neither Breivik nor Tarrant obtained their irrational and erroneous opinions on Marxism from interwar Nazi propaganda. They absorbed these views from the long-established discourse on ‘Cultural Marxism’ within the American right, which has been perpetuated by figures such as the New Left apostate David Horowitz,27 conservative music critic Michael A. Walsh, and paleoconservative politician Pat Buchanan. Even if LaRouche’s EIR28 articles from the 1970s remain unread and unacknowledged, his specter haunts this discourse.

Using this same methodology, it can be stated that Woods and those at Commune are motivated by the spectres of the psychopathic Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Robespierre, and the massacre of the Vendee, and stand on the shoulders of 100,000,000 victims of Communism.29 Whenever there is a Wahhabi terrorist act committed in the West, liberals are the first to object to allegations of any relationship between Islam per se and terrorism. When it comes to the Right, however, are we supposed to believe that the ‘lone-wolf’ actions of the likes of Breivik and Tarrant are motivated by the doctrines of Joseph de Maistre, Anthony Ludovici, Pope Leo XIII, Thomas Carlyle, or Vicomte de Bonald?

The Critical Theorist must resort to reductionist banalities and clichés about ‘conspiracy theories’ being the ‘lifeblood of contemporary fascism’, thereby discarding any need to examine the historiography of the Right. References to Hitler are sufficient. Shall we then ignore the difference between Stalin and Trotsky – differences which are of extreme historical importance?

Far from criticism of Cultural Marxism deriving from Stormer, LaRouche or the ‘Right’, we need to look elsewhere.

The Moscow-aligned German Communists were probably first to understand the character of Critical Theory when they were confronted with the theories of the Freudian analyst Wilhelm Reich, which were gaining support among sections of the party, especially the youth. Attempting to replace class struggle with the struggle for an orgasm, Reich was expelled from the German Communist Party in 1932. That same year, Reich’s ‘sex-economics’ doctrine, after being endorsed by a Communist youth conference, was condemned by the Party leadership as relegating politics ‘down to the level of the gutter’. The Party announced in its periodical Roter Sport that Reich’s pamphlets were contrary to the Party’s aims for youth education. Reich was accused by the Party leadership of wanting to turn the party associations into ‘fornication organisations’. The party leaders said, ‘there were no orgasm disturbances among the proletariat, only among the bourgeoisie’. The party considered the doctrine as creating a generational conflict.30 In 1929 Reich had visited the USSR but noted that already there was a reversal of the early Bolshevik anti-family policies.31 Arriving in the USA he found its liberalism more to his liking, ‘while “socialist” Russia witnessed reactionary, anti-sexual developments’.32

When decades later, in 1968, the influence of Cultural Marxism had reached sufficient critical mass to spark New Left rioting from Chicago to Paris to Prague, so far was this from being a Soviet Russian plot, as even Charles de Gaulle opined, that Soviet commentators condemned Herbert Marcuse, whose name was being paraded through the streets along with Mao and Marx. Soviet journalist Yuri Zhukov33 wrote in Pravda of Marcuse’s ideas having infiltrated the youth to ‘sow confusion’ and divide them from the working class movement, whose vanguard was the Communist Party.34 Zhukov stated that Marcuse was being promoted by the Western press, ‘like a film star’. Marcuse was promulgating generational conflict instead of the fight against capitalism. He had repudiated the need for revolutionary organisation in favour of ‘spontaneous revolt’. Zhukov denounced Marcuse for contending that the proletariat has ceased to be revolutionary, and that the revolt must be assumed by others35 (the ‘identity politics’ of the present-day). Zhukov stated that ‘bourgeois ideologists’ ‘brought into play ultraleft anarchist ideas, often echoing those of Mao Tse-tung, in order to cause confusion and disorient ardent but politically inexperienced youths, divide them, and turn those who take the bait into a blind tool of provocations’.36 These various factions were ‘werewolves’ using the name of Marx to ‘decommunize Marxism’.37

Perhaps Zhukov had read John Stormer four years previously? But then, Zhukov had already excoriated Marcuse ten years earlier – six years prior to John Stormer’s book, and sixteen years prior to LaRouche.

Marcuse and other Critical Theorists had been employed by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), predecessor of the CIA during World War II, analysing the USSR and National Socialism.38 Marcuse’s Soviet Marxism: A Critical Analysis was published in 1958. 39 Soviet Marxism was partly based on research he had started in the OSS, and continued at the Russian studies institutes of Columbia and Harvard universities. The book was partly funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.40 Further books, One Dimensional Man, and Eros & Civilization were also funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. Marcuse continued in state employment until 1951 as head of the State Department’s Central European Bureau. Marcuse, so far from being part of a Soviet conspiracy against the ‘Free World’, was part of the Cold War apparatus against the USSR – a banner to which sundry Marxists like Hofstadter had flocked.

Zhukov had in 1958 condemned Marcuse’s attack on Soviet society as an effort by Western intellectuals to ‘split the progressive forces and set them against one another’.41

While Stalin, repudiating internationalism in favour of ‘national tasks’, had closed down the Comintern in 1943, having long considered it a nest of traitors,42 Washington and New York started another comintern in the aftermath of the world war, when the USSR had repudiated its wartime alliance and rejected globalist manoeuvres. The CIA established the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) during 1949-1950 with Foundation funding, particularly from Ford and Rockefeller. The purpose was to steer the intelligentsia and avant garde to social democracy and away from Soviet influence. The president of this Congress was the eminent socialist intellectual Sidney Hook, who had helped John Dewey set up the ‘Dewey Commission’ in 1938 to protest the Stalinist accusations against Trotsky. The CCF included an array of liberals, Fabians, social democrats, Mensheviks, Trotskyites; socialists disaffected by the turn of events in the USSR,43 as described in Marcuse’s Soviet Marxism, and Trotsky’s Revolution Betrayed.44 The CCF had been preceded by the American Committee for Cultural Freedom, founded by Dewey and Hook in 1939, in opposition to both Nazism and Stalinism.45 Dewey joined the CCF.46

Although the CCF had been outed as a CIA front and folded in 1979, and was replaced by the National Endowment for Democracy in 1983, with a similar neo-Trotskyite and social democratic background,47 the CCF offensive had been effective. In 1985 the CIA assessed the attitude of the New Left intelligentsia in France, stating that the prevalent anti-Soviet attitude ‘will make it difficult for anyone to mobilize significant opposition to U.S. policies’.48 The ‘confidential’ CIA report states that the Leftist intelligentsia started departing from the Communist Party and from Moscow alignment after the ‘traumatic events of May 1968’. The French Communist Party had repudiated the New Left revolt as bourgeois and anarchist. The French Leftist intelligentsia had rejected the USSR as authoritarian, like the Critical Theorists in Frankfurt and New York.49 In France the ‘structuralist’ anthropology of Foucault and Claude-Levi Strauss played a role, and the CIA report alludes to the profound influence of ‘structuralism’ on scholarship in France and elsewhere in Western Europe.50 The CIA report comments that anti-Americanism among the intelligentsia was not only out of vogue, but that ‘finding virtues in America – even identifying good things about U.S. Government policies – is looked upon as an indications of discerning judgment’.51 It is notable that at this time, 1968, Alain de Benoist and the Nouvelle Droite assumed the role of opposition to the Americanisation of Europe.


1Charles Merriam, New Aspects of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1931 [1925]), xvi.

2Charles Merriam, ibid., p. 5.

3Ibid., pp. 81-82.

4Ibid., p. 84.

5Ibid., p. 89.

6Ibid., p. 144.

7Ibid., p. 85.

8Ibid., p. 92.

9Ibid., p. 159.

10Ibid., p. 242.

11Ibid., p. 243.

12Ibid., p. 150.

13Ibid., p. 203.

14Ibid., p. 205.

15Ibid., p. 237.

16Ibid., p. 238.

17Ibid., p. 241.

18Ibid., p. 240.

19Ibid., p. 160.

20Woods, ‘A Secret Invasion’, op. cit.

21Carroll Quigley, Tragedy & Hope (New York: MacMillan, 1966), pp. 954-955, quoted in Bolton, Revolution from Above, p. 27.

23Norman Dodd, ibid.

24Zygmund Dobbs, The Great Deceit: Social Pseudo-Sciences (New York: Veritas Foundation, 1964), pp. 91-111.

26Andrew Woods, ‘The American Roots of a Right-Wing Conspiracy’, Commune, March 20, 2019;

27Horowitz, a libertarian, Islamophobic zealot for Israel, who regards Catholic social doctrine as communistic.

28EIR = Executive Intelligence Review, a periodical LaRouchean ‘conspiracist’ report.

29Stephan Courtois et al, The Black Book of Communism (Harvard University Press, 1999).

30Myron Sharaf, Fury on Earth: A biography of Wilhelm Reich (London: Andre Deutsch, 1983), pp. 169-170.

31Ibid., p. 142.

32Ibid., p. 318.

33Zhukov had been foreign affairs editor for Pravda, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Supreme Soviet, and recipient of the Lenin Prize, and the Order of the Red Banner.

34Yrui Zhukov, ‘Werewolves’, Pravda, May 30, 1968.




38Franz Neumann, Herbert Marcuse, and Otto Kirchheimer, Secret Reports on Nazi Germany: The Frankfurt School Contribution to the War Effort (Princeton University Press, 2013).

39Herbert Marcuse, Soviet Marxism: A Critical Analysis (New York Columbia University Press, 1969 [1958]).

40Herbert Marcuse, Soviet Marxism, op. cit., ‘Acknowledgments’.

41Yuri Zhukov, ‘Taking Marcuse To The Woodshed,” Atlas, XVI (Sept., 1958), pp. 3334.

42Bolton, Stalin: The Enduring Legacy (London: Black House Publishing, 2012), pp. 6-9.

43Bolton, Stalin: The Enduring Legacy, ibid., pp. 33-38; Revolution from Above, pp. 138-141. Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA & the World of Arts & Letters (New York: The New Press, 2000), passim.

44Leon Trotsky, Revolution Betrayed (New York: Pathfindrer, 1937).

46Saunders, Cultural Cold War, op. cit., p. 92.

47Bolton, Revolution from Above, pp. 218-221.

48‘France: Defection of the Leftist Intellectuals: A Research Paper’, Directorate of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, December 1985, v.

49Ibid., p. 5.

50Ibid., p. 6.

51Ibid., p. 11.

]]> 2