Arktos Fri, 19 Jul 2019 15:38:52 +0000 en-GB hourly 1 Ethnic Apocalypse Fri, 19 Jul 2019 15:10:01 +0000 In the last book he completed before his death, the irrepressible and trenchant Guillaume Faye takes a bold and ruthlessly candid look at the increasingly volatile situation on the ground in Europe.

With the growing incidence of Islamist terrorism and inter-religious violence on European soil, alongside the first signs of native resistance to the demographic changes that have made this violence possible, Faye compellingly argues that Europe is poised for a terrible new civil war, threatening to break out along the many ethnic fault lines that have arisen, thanks to years of bad immigration policies and bad political will.

Using some of the most troubling developments in French politics, culture, and society as his arguments, Faye throws off the blinders of political correctness and confronts his listeners with the harsh reality of an unsettled and deeply divisive multicultural Europe. Ethnic Apocalypse is a wake-up call aimed at making Europeans aware of their increasingly dire situation — before it is too late.

]]> 0
A Handbook of Traditional Living Fri, 19 Jul 2019 14:49:35 +0000 A Handbook of Traditional Living consists of two texts originally published by the Italian cultural organization, Raido, translated here for the first time: “The World of Tradition” and “The Front of Tradition”. The first is a comprehensive summary of the principal ideas of Julius Evola. The esoteric history of the world, the nature of the Primordial Tradition, and the crisis of the modern world are discussed. The second, while also steeped in the Evolian worldview, presents a more practical guide for living as a traditionalist. Guidelines for life as an individual living in detachment from modernity, as well as for developing and being a member of an organization dedicated to the restoration of Tradition, are outlined.

This audiobook argues that ideology and strategy are not enough by themselves. The individual who desires a revolt against the modern world must first internalize and conduct all of one’s actions in accordance with the way of life of Tradition. Also included are methods for doing this. Whether the listener is an Evolian, a traditionalist, or is merely seeking a means for survival in a degraded age, this audiobook will be inspiring to them all.

]]> 0
The Enlightenment’s Ouroboros: Descartes as the Father of Ideology – Part 2 Fri, 19 Jul 2019 13:41:53 +0000 Meditations

It is often a matter of wonder to the men of the Right today how the Enlightenment was able in such a short period of time to upheave the world and to establish new forms in the place of the old – particularly as, looking back on the principal thinkers of the Enlightenment, one is sometimes surprised to find how little revolutionary they appeared to be, especially compared to those who followed. This has led some to seek the causes for the death of tradition in other sources, as for instance in the Industrial Revolution, the emergence of capitalism, the development of technology, etc. To the author of the present essay, all of these attempts are strictly parallel to our present medical habit of confounding symptoms for causes, even while the patient is expiring of his disease.

What characterizes modernity is first and foremost a revolution in philosophy, not in social or political order.

For these historical changes, revolutionary though each of them no doubt was, did not emerge in society as independent and unstoppable historical forces – contrary our retrospective moderns like Marx, who look back on history and see only the mechanical shifting of socio-economic gears. Other historical commentators, such as Isabel Paterson, have looked into the distant past and have noted that the very ‘historical developments’ which have so starkly marked our modern times, for good and ill, could have been imagined in prior eras and epochs; it is conceivable that something like them might have arisen among the Greeks or the Romans, since it would appear that these were in no way lacking the ingenuity. The question as to why they should have arisen in our time in and not in some prior time indicates that other causes must be sought.

As we have briefly seen in the first part of this essay, what characterizes modernity is first and foremost a revolution in philosophy, not in social or political order; this revolution in philosophy, and especially this revolution in the relation of philosophy with respect to religion on the one hand and the attitude of the great thinkers with respect to society on the other, opened the way for these further changes. We have already noted how the earliest moderns appear somewhat tame and even naive in comparison to the later moderns, which would seem to qualify this view. But in point of fact, it was not the Enlightenment thinkers who were ingenuous writers or thinkers, but we who are ingenuous readers. Until we lose our innocence in this matter and learn to view the early moderns with a wickeder eye – at once keener, more ruthless, and at the same time more judicious and honest – we will be swaddled forever in the illusions common to our day, and will, like the insect seeking to free itself of the spider’s web, but entangle ourselves the more completely, the more that we struggle to escape.

I enjoin us to subtlety. We have taken Descartes as the subject of this present essay for a variety of excellent reasons. To speak of but one of these, he provides an education in the methods and means by which the Enlightenment thinkers sneaked into the castle of tradition, slew its guards, tore its banners and set the edifice aflame. Descartes is a specially good teacher in this, for he was one of the few Modern philosophers enjoyed an appreciable reputation in his day, and who at the same time who never faced oppression or persecution at the hands of the authorities. He was not, like Hobbes, violently mistrusted in his day anathema to future writers; he was not, like Spinoza, excommunicated from practically every group to which he belonged. He never required rehabilitation, like Nietzsche, was never scandalous to polite company like Voltaire, was never forced to flee a nation on accusations of political sabotage as even the judicious Locke was once forced to do. The suspicions that rose around him – and there should have been far, far more – were tenuous and were restricted to isolated individuals of abnormal perspicacity and to two institutions; these lasted a very brief period and were quickly put down to the satisfaction of the authorities by a mere response from Descartes himself.1 He had the keenest sight for the thin line dividing the orthodox from the heterodox, and, while never passing over it, but blurred its edges sufficiently to make all subsequent discernment impossible.

To comprehend how he was able to do this, we will consider Descartes’ Method, which encompasses not only the famous Cartesian doubt (meant to replace Socratic ignorance), but also a style of writing which conceals as much as it reveals. Esoteric writing obviously did not arise with Descartes; esotericism is perhaps almost as old as writing itself, and has been characteristic of philosophers in all ages. Yet Descartes represents an important break in this tradition. Premodern esoteric writing was characterized by a secret teaching concealed beneath the layers of a publicly acceptable or beneficial exterior. Descartes, together with Machiavelli and to a lesser extent Hobbes, was the first man to write in a way which presents an apparently conventional exterior, itself designed to corrode the very conventionality it seems to second, while at the same time carrying a secret doctrine which will replace this conventionality once it has been disintegrated. We may liken modern esotericism to a shelled seed; the hard exterior protects its contents until such a time as it has decomposed, and only then does the plant itself make itself known.

The most famous, if not the most important, of Descartes’ philosophical works properly so called are surely his Discourse on Method (1637) and his Meditations on First Philosophy (1641). They are in a way twin productions, both of them divided into six parts and dedicated to discussion of the same subject, namely, Descartes’ method. The question naturally arises as to why he should have written two books, rather than only one.

The Discourse and Meditations are separated in their publications by a space of some four years, and it is possible that Descartes simply found it necessary to publish a more comprehensive or complete treatment of his method in the form of the Meditations; but prior to investigation of the two books, we cannot assume that this was his principal motivation. Indeed, upon reviewing these books, one finds the difference between them to reside far less in their substance than in their form; they are organized in two totally distinct ways, presented in two totally distinct ways, and finally aimed at two totally distinct audiences. Upon an immediate review, it would appear then that the purpose of these two books is not reducible to mere progress in Descartes’ new method, but has other motivations attending to it.

The Discourse, which is a public work and does not immediately specify the audience to whom it is directed, was published anonymously by Descartes; his reasons are not immediately evident, though in a private letter to the contemporary scholar Mersenne, who was also responsible for distributing his work, he states that he wishes the author to be ‘hidden behind the picture so as to hear what is said of it’. This is a curious statement; in the first place, because technically it is not true (Descartes, whether anonymous or not, will not be present at the private reading of his work, as opposed to a painter hidden behind a painting), and in the second case because it seems to change nothing at all whether those who respond to the Discourses target their words at Descartes or at an anonymous writer. This begs the question: in what way is Descartes ‘hidden’ behind his work?

The Discourse does not present the method, but speaks about it; both in the Discourse itself and in private correspondence with Mersenne, Descartes states that his intention is not to teach the Method.2 It is in some way then to be a propaedeutic to the method. In its original publication, it was published together with three other texts of a scientific nature, in which the method was apparently put to practical application. The Meditations, on the other hand, which is surely the most immediately accessible of all Descartes’ writings on his method and which today is probably the most famous of all his works, is written explicitly for the Theology Faculty of the Sorbenne in Paris, and was presented to that Faculty in his own name. He indicates in his introductory letter to the Faculty that his ‘motive’ is an ‘excellent’ one for writing to them, but intriguingly does not clarify what this motive might be.3 The Meditations appear, toward the fulfilment of this secret motive, to present in full the fruit of Descartes’ new Method: ‘[A]ll that I could accomplish in this matter is contained in this Treatise.’ Yet the scope of ‘this matter’ is perhaps not so clear; he is evidently referring to ‘veritable demonstrations’ of God and the soul. If this is so, then we may say that the Meditations, as opposed to the Discourses, is meant as a stand-alone work, and while the character of the works published with the Discourse is scientific, the character of the Meditations itself is evidently theological. Yet the Meditations is presented in a much more logical and rationalistic way than the Discourse.

This strange discrepancy in style, so evidently unfit to the two audiences and subjects of the works, to some degree explains the curious fact that the audience to whom the Meditations was proposed is very seldom taken into account in the consideration of this book; one forgets its intended readers, because it seems to have been written for the public generally. The Dean and Doctors of the Theology Faculty are taken to be accidental to, rather than fundamental to, Descartes’ reasoning, presentation or conclusions. The conventional idea runs as follows: Descartes a pious man, intended to prove theological matters through reason alone and via the use of his new method, and wrote a treatise to that effect; at the same time, he craved the support of one of the greatest theological institutions of his time, perhaps the greatest in all of France, to spread the word regarding his discoveries, and so he happened to send it on to them as well. Yet there are a few curiosities in the letter which lead us to question this conventional view.

We note but one of them – to wit, his statement toward the end of the letter to the Dean and Doctors: ‘And finally … there will be none who dares to doubt the existence of God and the real and true distinction between the human soul and the body. It is now for you in your singular wisdom to judge the importance of the establishment of such [a belief]’.4 One has but to scratch the surface of this statement before several troubling facets emerge. First of all, the belief that Descartes seems to be indicating would appear to be nothing more than the Christian belief in the existence of God and the soul; with what right, however, and with what possible meaning, could one hope for the ‘establishment’ of beliefs which had ruled in Europe since Constantine? To be sure, Descartes was living in a time of waning religiosity, and it might be to this that he refers; he might, as a pious man, be attempting to dispel the recent bout of secularism in his age. Yet one would expect him in such a case not to speak of establishment so much as renewal. This all the moreso insofar as he continually employs throughout this work to the building of a house as the metaphor for his methodological revolution in the sciences. In truth he is making a new foundation, a new establishment; the belief that he would establish is itself new. Yet, as we shall shortly see, Descartes vehemently denies the novelty of his findings.

Descartes at a blow confirms the faithless in their faithlessness, leads the sceptical away from belief, and defends himself against all charges to this effect.

We are perhaps given a hint as to how to interpret this ‘establishment’ by the curious fact that Descartes refers to a single belief, when he has evidently clearly indicated two; is he suggesting that one of these beliefs is already established or not worth the establishment, while the other is still in need of right establishing? The two beliefs he indicates are ‘the existence of God’ and ‘the real and true distinction of the human soul from the body’; logically, a reference to ‘this belief’ (cette créance) after two items would indicate the latter of them. The existence of God was surely well-established in Descartes’ day, despite the increase in deism and atheism; as indeed was the belief in the soul. But Descartes’ addition here of ‘real and true’ (réelle et véritable) indicates that the standing belief in the soul is somehow false and erroneous, in need of rectification. Somehow, his work is attempting to alter the understanding of the distinction between body and soul; and he requires the authority of the Theology Faculty of the Sorbenne for the establishment of this new belief.

Descartes famously opens his letter to the Dean and Doctors with a flattering display of piety:

[A]lthough it is absolutely true that we must believe there is a God, because we are so taught in the Holy Scriptures, and, on the other hand, that we must believe in the Holy Scriptures because they come from God (the reason of this is, that, faith being a gift of God, He who gives the grace to cause us to believe otherwise can likewise give it to cause us to believe that He exists), we nevertheless could not place this argument before infidels, who might accuse us of reasoning in a [C]ircle.5

This enigmatic statement is, to my eyes, the key to understanding the Meditations. A few notes on it, then.

First, while this is presented as a unitary argument, two causes are in fact adjoined for belief in God: the first, that one learns of his existence in the Holy Scriptures; the other, that God himself implants this faith in us. These two causes are not necessarily connected; what a man is taught (enseigné) and that which God gives (donne) might have nothing to do one with the other. There are in fact two foundations for faith suggested here. Descartes refers to the evident circularity of the argument, but he is clearly referring only to one of these points, and not to both. It is circular to claim that we must believe in God because the Scripture tells us to, and that we must believe the Scripture because God has provided it; it is not circular to claim that the belief in God is a gift of God. The latter is nearer the true teaching of the Church;6 the former is clearly a caricature of the same. The former includes a barbed critique of the very idea it purports to present, by indicating that if God can provide us with belief he can also provide us with non-belief, so that God himself, rather than the individual human, becomes the arbiter and party responsible for our faith or lack thereof; this theological virtue is not a virtue at all, but a matter standing beyond our power. As for the latter argument, it is difficult if not impossible to believe that Descartes would have submitted to such puerile reasoning. This admittedly circular logic is nothing but an open mockery of faith, hidden slyly behind an impenetrable veil of disingenuous piety. It is a brilliant rhetorical turn; no man, upon reading it, can accuse Descartes of impiety, for in so doing he opens himself to the accusation that he in fact perceives the absurdity of such reasoning and is thus himself suspiciously suspect of faith; at the same time, Descartes has indicated the hollowness of this kind of reasoning through a brutal reductio ad absurdam. He has at a blow confirmed the faithless in their faithlessness, led the sceptical away from belief, and defended himself against all charges to this effect.

Descartes means to recraft the entire terrain of Christian and thus European spirituality.

The centrality of this passage does not consist merely in its concealing a venomed barb beneath its murky surface; it lies rather in the question of the ‘Circle’, which word Descartes goes so far as to capitalize here. We will have much more to say on this, as well as the question of God’s implanting faith in the heart of man, which has certain other evident consequences for Descartes’ further arguments; but a few more words have first to be spent on Descartes’ presentation to the Sorbenne.

Following these false protestations of faith, Descartes continues by indicating his will to prove the existence of God and the soul. This proof is the ostensible reason for his writing to the Theology Faculty in the first place; he presents himself as a humble defensor dei. He must before anything defend the orthodoxy of his intention to prove what appears to be an article of faith alone; he does so with support of both Scripture and Papal decree, thus placing himself tacitly in the ranks of the ‘Christian philosophers’. He is very insistent that he is doing nothing new with any of this;7 he is merely walking in the worn tracks of men who came before. He claims that he is but selecting and presenting ‘the best of these reasons’ for believing in God and the soul, for ‘it is almost impossible to invent new ones’. Note well this ‘almost’.

He similarly claims that his ‘Method’ (word which he himself capitalizes) is not new; but here again, the reasons he adduces in support of this view are rather suggestive. He does not state that any man before him has discovered or employed this method; rather, his method is not new ‘since there is nothing more ancient than the truth’.8 The Method is a discovery, but a new discovery; the proofs that flow from it, meanwhile, are old. This of course begs the question of why he should apply his method to this matter at all, if it will but reproduce arguments that can exist without the method. Descartes indicates that his presentation will somehow permit these old proofs to have a new power: ‘it will henceforth be evident to everybody that they are veritable demonstrations’;9 his book is not worthwhile because it is original, but because it is a clear presentation of the best of past arguments. Yet he later states that ‘I … apprehend that [my demonstrations] cannot be understood by many, both because they are also a little lengthy and dependent the one on the other, and principally because they demand a mind wholly free of prejudices, and one which can easily be detached from the affairs of the senses.’10 He goes so far as to say that the demonstrations he makes use of ‘are equal to, or even surpass in certainty and evidence, the demonstrations of Geometry’,11 yet in the passage almost immediately following, he indicates why philosophical arguments, evidently even the most certain, do not persuade men with the same power as geometrical arguments, and for this reason he requires the authority of the Sorbenne:

That is why, whatever force there may be in my reasonings, seeing they belong to philosophy, I cannot hope that they will have much effect on the minds of men, unless you extend to them your protection.12

Despite his protestations to the contrary, Descartes’ idea does not stand on its own legs, or cannot persuade the many; the authority of the Sorbenne is necessary to produce its ‘establishment’. Descartes is not interested in presenting this idea merely to the small number of men who might understand it, but wishes for this idea to be disseminated by an authoritative body and promulgated to the public under that aegis. Why? Perhaps out of a pious desire to silence doubt and to promote the true faith. But this, in its turn, is self-defeating logic; for Descartes would be saying in effect that his ideas should be promoted because, while they are not new, they are of a novel power with respect to the old ideas; yet that power depends on the authority of the Sorbenne, which already grants its authority, and therefore like power, to the old ideas, which have evidently proved insufficient despite this authority. The argument is senseless.

We must press further. As we shall see, his second proof of God (there are two) is in fact nothing but a reprisal of Anselm’s ontological proof of God, which, as Descartes well knows, had been taken to task by generations upon generations of scholastics, including no lesser a figure than Aquinas himself. Yet Descartes himself, in his ‘Synopsis of the Six Following Meditations’, states that his second proof of God is a ‘new proof’,13 thus contradicting both his insistence to the Sorbenne that he is merely restating the best of old demonstrations, and his evident intellectual debt to Anselm. It would seem to make more sense to refer to his first proof of God, the proof from perfection, as being the ‘new’ proof. We are left with the riddle of how the second proof could in any way be considered ‘new’. The form of it is clearly old; it must then be the God that issues from that proof which is somehow new, which is permitted to be new on account of the first proof of God and more generally on account of the Method which produces it.

Let us, navigating this sea of manifest contradictions, recapitulate. Descartes has stated his intention to prove two matters: the distinction between soul and body, and the existence of God. As for the former, he will present the ‘real and true’ distinction, thus replacing or rectifying the false and erroneous distinction presently reigning; as for the latter, he will present a new proof of a new God. Descartes, this evidently humble and retiring man, who claims merely to be rehashing old arguments in clearer form, who claims to submit altogether to the authority of the Sorbenne in the critique of his work, who seems conflicted as to whether his work will be geometrically persuasive or whether it is in fact in fundamental need of the support of authority, is in fact trundling in his secret intentions under the auspices of merest modest repetition of prior and better men. He is in truth the purveyor of a project of astounding ambition and dizzying hubris: he means to recraft the entire terrain of Christian and thus European spirituality, altering the idea of the soul and recasting the image of God Himself. And he is doing so, as we shall subsequently argue, so as to provide the public foundation for radical new science built on a radical new Method.


1The institutions in question were the Universities of Utrecht and Leiden, particularly the first. See for instance the entry for Descartes’ ‘Theological Controversy’ in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

2See Discourse on Method and Meditations (Mineola, New York: Dover, 2003), translators Elizabeth S. Haldane and G. R. T. Ross, p. 5 and The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p. 109. All subsequent references, unless otherwise stated, are to the first of these publications.

3P. 55.

4P. 59. In the Haldane and Ross translation, ‘belief’ is in the plural, but the original French of the Meditations has the singular here. (The Latin refers to ‘these things’.) The French version could be rendered thus: ‘It is for you now to judge of the fruit which might be drawn from this belief, if it were well established.’ It is understandable that Haldane and Ross should have inserted the plural here, as it makes more sense even grammatically; but to traduce the specific choices of great authors, especially when these choices appear idiosyncratic, is to obscure their meaning.

5P. 55. The translators of the Dover edition have seen fit to suppress Descartes’ unwarranted and odd use of the capital C for ‘Circle’ in the original French, rather than to ask themselves what significance it might have. We hope in the present essay to indicate that this was not an accidental or arbitrary choice of Descartes’; this emphasis on ‘circle’ is in fact an essential part of his presentation.

6See for instance Fides et ratio, and in particular §9.

7Pp. 56–57.

8P. 57.

9P. 56.

10P. 57.

11P. 57.

12P. 58.

13P. 64. It is of course possible that he simply means this proof is ‘new’ in the sense of being a second proof, a proof that follows the first. Yet to state it once again: Descartes’ use of words is selected with exceeding care, and the fact that he employs a word here which plays so central a role in his introductory letter compels us to take it as intentional and meaningful.

]]> 0
Economics for the Right – Ideas for the New Economy Wed, 17 Jul 2019 14:59:04 +0000 1. Distributism as a Starting Point

After all this critique of theory and practice the question remains: what ought to be done?

The simple answers, from communism (socialization of the means of production) to capitalism (let the market sort it out), have failed or will do so, with well-known consequences. Other attempts (third-positionism, feudalism, corporatism) haven’t survived the course of history. Whether the non-existence of these systems in the present day is a final disproof or if a renewed attempt is due (as has been seen with various neo-Marxist governments) is left to the reader’s taste. If one opts for a reintroduction of historic political and economical systems, the theoretical work done before is huge in any case, and the author would be eager to read it.

The conclusion to be drawn from this is that there can be no simple answer: what is required is rather a constant struggle and re-evaluation of the success and failure of economic policy in practice.

Distributism can be reduced to the idea that property, especially the means of production, should not be owned by a few (capitalism) nor by one entity, usually the state (socialism /communism) but by many.

That is to say, a common European or pan-Western (TTIP) market, left to the forces of domestic capital interests, will not solve anything; nor will a regionalisation of all economy. The Aristotelian middle (the return to national economies) is also not an effective answer.

For this reason the author would like to reintroduce the idea of Distributism (with its noteworthy exponents like G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, as well as Catholic social teachings) adapted to present day challenges, toward preserving the economic well-being of Europe, as well as that of its peoples and cultures.

Distributism can be reduced to the idea that property, especially the means of production, should not be owned by a few (capitalism) nor by one entity, usually the state (socialism /communism) but by many. This is not to be mistaken with Syndicalism, as it doesn’t aim to make many people into shareholders of a small number of institutions, but rather desires to make a large(r) number of people into owners of their own means of production. This was best summarized by the agrarian, Distributist slogan ‘Three acres and a cow’. This sort of conception from almost a hundred years ago is not to be seen as an instruction manual but as a point of departure. This is combined with the idea of subsidiary: namely, that the smallest entity best equipped to the solution of problems and challenges is to be put up to the respective task.

Some of the goals such an economic idea strives for are:

  • A re-personalisation of work as a result of a higher number of smaller owner-led businesses;
  • A reduction of the political influence of capital (this, by making certain it does not concentrate in the hands of a few; it probably wouldn’t have been possible to push all the cultural changes of the post-Cold -War era from both coasts on the US Fly-over country, if the latter had been economically stronger);
  • A reduction of monopolies and oligopols;
  • A re-regionalisation of production and consumption; and
  • A higher level of medical and technological developments due to a higher number of competitors.

It should be clear that these ideas cannot be implemented by one act of re-distribution of property, which could not be carried out even through the use of unabashed physical force. If one strives for change, the challenge is to reform step by step. In the following, ideas and measures are proposed which are to be seen as points of discussion and not as dogmas, because the author would like nothing less than to be the starting point for new historic failures like the aforementioned political and economic systems. Furthermore it is the author’s firm belief that all attempts at a Distributionist economic policy have to be intertwined with national and pan-European measures to prevent a further drifting apart of the European nations and regions, as every crack is a possible entry-point for foreign interests to take advantage of it.

2. Ideas for the New Economy

2.1 Heroic Payback and Re-nationalisation of the Accumulated Financial Debt

Every attempt to reform the economy will fail as long as every Western economy, on both sides of the Atlantic, is chained by its debt. This can be seen clearly each time the US citizens have to live through a governmental shutdown. Other examples are the economies of Greece and Italy, where every change in economic policy has to be permitted by external political entities (the EU, the IMF etc.).

The existing financial debt has to be analyzed; there are actually many different debts. There is a huge difference in these debts with respect to their creditors, interest rates, and payback deadlines. For a national government it is far easier to bail out its own national financial institutions and its citizens than it would be for e.g. the United States to default on the debt it owes to China, as the reaction of foreign governments can range from economic tensions to real military interventions.

The first goal has to be a restructuring of all debt to domestic domains. This can only be done by concentrating the debt from the community level to the level of the nation-state in one institution, e.g. the EU. No nation-state, not to speak of the regions of any nation-state, has the size or the power to negotiate on this level.

Then, financially profitable payback to the creditor has to take place. As much of the debt as possible has to be paid back to avoid the further accumulation of debt and compound interest. That has to be funded by all European citizens, whether willingly or unwillingly. Especially those individuals and institutions who have benefited for centuries from the financial markets should be held responsible here. A sort of unsocial flat tax like that in the Cyprus banking crisis is the worst thing that could be implemented.

In the end, the European Union should owe as much of its present debt (which is owed presently to foreign interests) to its own citizens as is possible, with a low interest rate and with a long running time. A recentralisation in private financial institutions has to be avoided, as it would mean a return to the same political dependency on those institutions we have seen expanding since the banking crisis of 2007/2008.

2.2 Restructuring of the Banking System

The next point of action is the restructuring of the financial and the banking system. The financial industry has to be returned to its normal function: namely, to redirect unused capital into productive capital. Regulations in the spirit of the laws of the era from the 1950s to the 1970s have to be put back in place. It is clear that these rules must be adapted to globalization and to the technical changes. Long-term investment has to be preferred over investment into financial products, themselves the subject of taxation.

The present pyramid, where smaller businesses and their employees have to carry an increasing percentage of the tax burden, has to be inverted.

A first step in this direction could be the re-introduction of the Glass-Steagall Act with its separation of commercial and investment banking.

Also, the obligation of every banking institution to hold bank financial reserves has to be newly regulated. That would mean that with increasing size and with increasingly risky investments, reserves for loss of investments have to be disproportionately increased. Never again should it be necessary to bail out banks with public money.

Finally, the structure of ownership has to be redesigned, which is to say diversified, as much as possible, with possible local limits. A model for this could be cooperative banking of the Raiffeisen banks.

2.3 Size and Taxation of Businesses

It is well known that the tax burden is reduced the larger is the business. The author avoids specific examples here for judicious reasons and begs the reader’s indulgence.

This is a self-feeding circle of course. Since with big money comes great political power, not just through illegal corruption and campaign donations but also through the threat of moving businesses and thus withdrawing the tax revenue which follows from them, companies can easily bribe local political interests.

This sort of pyramid, where smaller businesses and their employees have to carry an increasing percentage of the tax burden, has to be inverted.

For this reason the author proposes a complete restructuring of taxation for business entities on the basis of three variables: the number of employees, annual sales and the structure of ownership.

It is necessary to keep in mind that with automation, many people will loose their jobs, and not all will be able to adapt to this challenge, so the necessity to support those companies that have hired a high number of employees in relation to their annual revenue is more than obvious.

Furthermore, as with increasing revenue the possibilities of investment increase, the danger of market domination and monopolies arises. This has to be combatted by a tax system which strives to create incentives to found new businesses capable of surviving without getting crushed by the big players. (Especially in IT and other new technologies, Europe is way behind the United States; the European infrastructure would break completely down if IT security updates for all Operating Systems were boycotted for a month by the US.) With a higher number of businesses, adaptability to new challenges and the development of new technologies improve as a result of more competition between an increased number of market participants.

The third point is the structure of ownership. Businesses that are owned and managed by private individuals or families (for generations) tend to take better care of their employees due to personal relationships and due to long-term planning, as the personelle and the family’s destiny both depend on the business. These small or private businesses therefore should obviously be preferred to impersonal structures of ownership.

2.4 A Re-localisation of Low-Tech Consumer Goods

In comparison with the era before WWI, genuine European culture lies with the common people rather than the (economic) elites.

That has not only been demonstrated by the online backlash to the comments of the French President Macron, in which he demanded that Notre Dame should be rebuilt in the image of multicultural France, but also in the lesser-known decision of the inhabitants of Frankfurt am Main to rebuild parts of their city in the image of pre-WWII-bombed Frankfurt am Main – a goal that was branded as historical revisionism by some architects and city officials.

But this general sense of culture and (regional) historical identity is under attack, not just by American(-styled) pop-culture and modern architecture, but also by consumerism as a whole. It is said that every tenth European was fathered in a bed of a certain Swedish furniture chain. Other examples in terms of food from fast food to cuisine, from clothes to farming can be seen everyday.

Europe, with its lack of resources, is daily on the brink of an energy crisis comparable to that of the Oil Crisis in the 1970s.

The loss of cultural identity that goes along with this consumerism is insidious and unseen to many. Short-term commodities and their appeal to the lowest human instincts (fast food with its high concentration of fat and carbohydrates being the best example) are killing European culture like an undiagnosed tumour.

Alain de Benoist once said that ‘It is better to bleed to death under a helmet of the red army than to die from heart attack caused by McDonalds.’ The author would like to add that he is also little inspired by industrially produced Russian-styled vodka or the cancerous herbicides used in industrial farming.

Therefore in the face of automation and increasing environmental problems, in the struggle to preserve culture, certain kinds of business (craftsmanship, organic farming, local cuisine, etc.) should attain the possibility of receiving protection (from industrial and foreign productions) in their nation states or even within their regions by means of strict trade regulations and a restructuring of EU and national subsidies aimed at protecting existing and newly founded businesses in craftsmanship, cuisine and of owner-led (organic) farming.

There is no reason why handmade furniture, clothing and other consumer goods that carry local culture as a result of being locally produced and sold, and which therefore appeal to local tastes, should not be protected from industrial, which is to say from soulless industrially produced, consumer goods. It is important to reintroduce here the insight that everything has not only a price but also a value. Through a more personal relationship between consumers and producers, a higher level of quality and sustainability of these consumer goods is to be expected.

The positive influence that a reintroduction of craftsmanship could bring about for the environment and for the long-term sustainability of consumer goods needs no further explanation.

2.5 Energy

While the rebirth of craftsmanship will in part save some energy with its return to manual production, it is clear that this will in no way solve the impending energy crisis. The need for fossil fuels will globally rise as China, India and also parts of Africa strive to achieve an opulent lifestyle identical to that enjoyed by the Western middle classes over the last centuries.

That the battle for these resources does not occur peacefully can be seen every day in Africa and the Middle East. Europe and the USA are no longer able nor willing to involve themselves in any of these conflicts, nor should they. One dystopian scenario involves the struggle over Iranian oil with the Western nations and Sunni-Arab interests on one side, and Iran, Russia and China on the other. How such a conflict would end is easily predictable. The same logic that goes here for fossil fuels can be applied as well to the materials used for nuclear energy or rare metals as well.

To solve this problem, it is however not helpful to put all one’s hope in new technologies like nuclear fusion. To strive solely for solutions which end this problem in a ‘deus ex machina’ fashion is more than irresponsible. Also, to hope for the insight of the general public into the necessity of a reduction of a consumer-based lifestyle to the size necessary is rather unlikely, despite present-day eco-activism, as seen in the ‘Friday for Future’ demonstrations.

Therefore the only solution left to us is investment in green technologies and renewable energies (solar, wind, bio-gas, water).

Right now all of them lack public acceptance; they are also not profitable enough to find major investments or backers. In Bavaria, a regulation has just been passed that prohibits the building of new wind turbines closer than two kilometres to the nearest village, due to noise complaints. This regulation now limits the territory on which these wind turbines can be built to 0.5 % of the space of the Bavarian state.

Every attempt to push through new attempts to change the structure of energy production will fail if they do not gather the support of large parts of the population.

Europe, with its lack of resources, is daily on the brink of an energy crisis comparable to that of the Oil Crisis in the 1970s; this comes as a result of its being dependent on the delivery of resources from regions that are either unstable (the Middle East and Africa) or which have their own agenda and are willing to use energy as a leverage (the Russian Federation).

Adding to this problem is a huge inconsistency in foreign energy policy between the various nations; disagreement here only accelerates the problem (e.g. NORDSTREAM II and the question how to deal with countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran).

This problem cannot be solved independently by every region or nation state if they want to keep their level of energy production as well as stability in delivery. The solution has to be pan-European; it has to come on the geographical level of the European Union and its political periphery (Norway, Switzerland, the Balkans etc.).

The challenge is to marry this effort and this level of planning with the Distributionist idea, so as not to develop a solution which is imposed on the people without their acceptance and (economic) participation.

The goal to be achieved, beyond the fulfilment of present-day energy needs, is ecologically produced, decentrally produced, and decentrally owned and operated energy production. A balance between central planning (from Norwegian dams, North Sea tidal power plants, to Spanish solar cells – as well as the grid linking all of it) and local interests and sensitivities has to be found.

A starting point could be a plan for a Green New Deal, in part inspired by the former Greek finance minister Yannis Varoufakis, combined with Distributist elements. It could look something like this:

  • A central technical plan especially for the power grid to deliver energy from one end of Europe to the other;
  • A fund, based on taxation of old energy sources and the financial markets, toward the sum of 100 billion euro per year to provide for the development of energy production;
  • The possibility of receiving funding for green energy projects with preference for economically weak regions or with potentially high-yield energy production;
  • Preferential funding for small projects (owner-managed) and mixed-owned projects (ownership by residents living close to the projects or in the same region);
  • A limited possibility for company and private interests to invest (enough to make a profit, not enough to hijack management);
  • Tight control of funding down to the lowest level, so as to preserve trust and transnational acceptance (e.g. the ‘four-eyed’ principle of the Roman Republic: one local manager for every foreign controller); and
  • Direct monetary benefit from energy production as well as the amount of energy passing through the region for local residents to keep and increase acceptance (e.g. the individual permanent payout of the Alaska Permanent Fund).

2.6 Technological Race to Catch Up

As has already been mentioned, Europe is far behind technologically. And while there is at least some awareness of its lagging behind in relation to the US and China, the positive developments in other parts of the world are utterly lost on the Europeans. From South Korea to Africa, a positive trend in usage and the development of new technologies can be documented everyday, whereas Europe seems still to be stuck in its belief that it is still the centre of global science and technological progress. This sort of self-satiation has to be paid for daily.

From electronic consumer goods produced in China to lack of any control on private and governmental data in IT, as seen in the NSA scandal, the monetary, not to speak of geopolitical cost can hardly be overestimated. There is no European Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Google or Huawei. Whatever one might think of these specific companies, their products, services and connections with their national governments, it has to be acknowledged that no European company has developed equally competitive products or enjoyed them same level of success on a global level. What will happen to Europe if, following the US and China, even India with its high-level demographics and emphasis on good education rises to a new level in development of technology and surpasses Europe? This is a question that is presently coming dangerously close to an answer.

Even if one despises technology as a whole from an environmental or Traditionalist perspective, it is still better to ruined as a European by European technology than to be dominated by foreign technology.

The challenge is not to slow down or prevent the technological rise of non-European parts of the globe. It is not possible to effect this through trade measurements (as Trump has demonstrated), nor is it a goal to strive for, as the technological and economical growth of the parts of the world is the best long-term prospect for defusing the demographic bombs these places presently present to the Western World.

The challenge is rather to catch up to the present-day global technological leaders and to surpass them. Even if one despises technology as a whole from an environmental or Traditionalist perspective, it is the author’s deep conviction that it is still better to ruined as a European by European technology than to be dominated by foreign technology. It is one thing to stay true to one’s own beliefs and ideals as long as one has to carry the consequences alone; the question here is about the consequences for others, and for the people(s) one feels the closest too. Vae victis tends to be the last of the fallen warrior’s worries. Especially in military technology, standstill and hesitation in pursuing new technologies is equivalent to treason. If the flame of European culture is extinguished by its people being even more subjected through foreign, technologically supreme interests, than its culture will not recover. The example of the diverse pagan cults is a historic example of precisely such a process – although the author admits that this subjection was not due to technological inferiority alone. Once the chain of initiation and heritage – a chain that is already more a thread than a chain – is cut, it will not be reforged, or else it will be transformed into something unrecognizable.

Another reason for the author’s support of technological development is a strategical one. The support of technology seems to be one of the last ideas that are shared across the political spectrum. So far no iPhone burning or any other attempt of neo-Ludditism has taken place in Europe, neither from the left from the right, nor even by any religious zealots. A new front in the present struggle with the Zeitgeist is unlikely to lead to any success on a larger scale. Even the most total techno-sceptic will not deny himself the privilege of an MRI or of high-tech surgery if needed. The question is rather which trends and technologies should be embraced and which should be slowed down.

Europe does not have the same founding culture that is present in the US in the private sector. But what Europe does have is a well-functioning educational system in the materialist, one could also say productive sciences (MINT, medicine etc.).

This strength can be utilized. Once again writing from a German perspective, it can be seen that with a rising number of German-studies students, an adequate number of new Goethes, Schillers and Brechts has not yet been produced. In comparison, the technological and monetary benefit of those students in the productive sciences is quite measurable. The author is not to be mistaken here; he doesn’t hold the Humanities in low regard per se, nor does he wish for their abolishment. He rather believes in quality over quantity and is therefore rather unsatisfied with the kind of thought that is taught in universities today, as well as the intellectuals who are produced by these institutions. If someone like Armin Mohler or his informal successor Karlheinz Weißmann enjoyed the same appreciation and resources as Jürgen Habermas, the situation would clearly be different in the Humanities, at least in Germany.

Therefore the number of those studying the Humanities should be reduced, not just by a re-adjustement of study positions, but by a completely new scholarship and student loan system. What the author proposes is a scholarship system that does not merely grant expense-free access to education itself, but which pays for all living expenses of study years, including those of having a family.

While this is not to be regarded as a hand-out, the payback should not to be linked to financial criteria either. Instead, it would be interesting to see a catalogue of criteria whereby the fulfilment of politically defined standards can help to reduce the burden of student loan debt. Such standards could be the foundation of new companies, especially in one’s own homeland or in economically weak regions, could provide incentives to migrate to unattractive regions and work there (especially parts of the European countryside are always in need of good medical professionals), could increase the number of children born in matrimony, and could direct the preference of certain fields of occupation e.g. military, space, energy and IT over consumer goods or entertainment etc.

That these criteria have to be adapted from a continental level to the regional is self-evident.

It is the author’s hope that a combination of a new founding culture within the framework of high politics could help to reduce the immense challenges Europe is facing right now in its technological struggle.

3. Conclusion

Bill Clinton famously said, ‘It’s the economy, stupid’, and he wasn’t wrong. As long as true conservatives, as well as people to the right of them, are unable or unwilling to provide new ideas for the fulfilment of the economic needs of those they seek to govern, they will either repeat the errors of the past or be driven by ideas that do not coincide with their values, and which bring them therefore to lose on every other field. The challenge for new economic ideas and theories as a result of this is as urgent as the need for new political theories; both are inseparably intertwined, for one cannot exist without the other. To start the quest for both is the goal of the day. Let us not make the mistake of thinking that it is below us.

]]> 1
Economics for the Right – The Present-day State of Economic Politics Tue, 16 Jul 2019 14:23:03 +0000 In all fairness, it has to be stated that no country in Western Europe, nor on the other side of the Atlantic, has ever been governed totally by neo-liberalism; rather, they have been guided since Thatcher and Reagan by one-sided Keynesian economics with increasing deregulation for special interests. What the Hippies did for sex, drugs and rock and roll, namely increasing its societal acceptance, Reagan and Thatcher did for short-sighted economic greed; both groups, formally opposed to each other, pushed for an individualist egocentric mindset.

What the Hippies did for sex, drugs and rock and roll, namely increasing its societal acceptance, Reagan and Thatcher did for short-sighted economic greed.

This theory of John Maynard Keynes,1 who viewed the economy mainly through the lens of spending, basically aims to level the economic cycle by spending and decreasing taxes in times of crisis (thereby increasing economic growth rates) and cutting costs, raising taxes, and paying back debt in boom times (thereby decreasing economic growth rates). However the second part of this theory gets lost in all Western democracies, as no politician has the will (nor, given the need to be re-elected, can afford to have the will) to play an unpopular role by saving money and decreasing economic growth during years of economic growth.

It would have quite been helpful if all the self-proclaimed evangelical Republicans in the US as well as the Christian Conservatives in Western Europe had read the biblical story of the seven years of plenty and the hard years in Egypt, instead of increasing the debt through unnecessary tax cuts for high-income households. Republican criticism of the deficit under Obama rang rather false, as the Republicans never seem to waste a thought on spending when it comes to special interests or the military – even when the military leadership itself is highly critical of these decisions and points to a larger variety of challenges for US security, such as the educational deficits of new recruits2 or their obesity.3

Bannonist economic nationalist policies likewise propose no alternative, as they are basically the ideology of ‘neo-liberalism in one country’.4 Apart from their emphasis on the trade deficit with China, there is nothing to take from them. President Trump’s chaos brings a kind of magic through his permanent threat of tariffs against foreign nations, thereby creating an atmosphere of distrust in foreign investments and increasing investment in the USA, can hardly be described as a long-term strategy.

All the regulatory cutbacks of the Obama era,5 especially in the financial sector and the environment, naturally bring short-term economic growth, as they might reduce cost or open up new possibilities of spending, investment and hiring.

But there is always a cost which is seldom paid by those who bring it about, whether it be poisoned water through fracking (the videos showing people lighting their tap water on fire are well known)6 or new financial bubbles emerging as the financial sector shakes off the minimal oversight that once existed.

Furthermore, the nostalgia for the post-WWII period up to the 1970s (‘Make America Great Again’) can never be fulfilled by deregulation of the financial markets, which make it far more profitable to invest in the capital market rather than really investing in any intellectual and physical means of production. It must be recalled that from WWII up until the oil crisis of the 1970s, there was no economic crisis in the Western hemisphere.7 This was not because this was the golden age of unregulated capitalism, but because the financial institutions were more or less limited to their core function of redirecting unused capital to private people (usually so that they could become property owners) or to businesses to reinvest this capital into new means of production.

Also, the damage done to Third-World countries by luring the well-educated people out of them and into the US cannot be underestimated, as these people (from medical doctors to engineers to IT specialists) are highly needed to build up their own countries.8

It has to be stated that all the anti-establishment/anti-swamp talk of the Trump campaign was nothing but a trick to attack sensible regulations in the name of special interests. The number of former Goldman Sachs employees present in the Trump administration and the actions that they have taken are more than telling.9

Noam Chomsky is right when he states that the cultural coalition that put Trump into Office (Christian Conservatives, Critics of the Migrant Policy, Second Amendment enthusiasts etc.) are nothing but useful idiots who have probably voted against their own economic interest.10 If that analysis would have been any different under a Clinton administration can be doubted. The remigration number for illegal migrations would probably still be the same (in comparison to the Obama administration).11

The amalgam in Western democracies that has emerged in self-proclaimed conservative parties, from the Republican Party to the Tories up to the CDU (Merkel’s party in Germany), since WWII – namely, the supposedly inseparable and supposedly anti-leftist amalgamation between traditional(ist) conservative values together with a free-market capitalist individualist mindset – is nothing but a lie.

One need not even go so far as to look at the migration policies of these parties once they attain power. Already the introduction for gay marriage and the lack of any substantial, let alone successful, resistance to the devaluation of the most important cornerstone of Western civilization is in and of itself more than telling.

There are higher values that give people meaning and protection, as for instance the nation(-state), the Christian faith, the church, the family, the Army, the people itself, the common good, the community etc. Our leaders, including those of the putative right, have neglected the insight that every higher value, every value that transcends the material, gets eroded or abolished as soon as one replaces it with the market and the faith in the market, within which every problem somehow fixes itself through the mechanism of supply and demand.

Our leaders, including those of the putative right, have neglected the insight that every higher value gets eroded or abolished as soon as one replaces it with the market and the faith in the market.

In fact, the author wonders if the various Christian conservatives have ever read those parts of the Evangelium which are not concerned with the human means and utilities of reproduction.12 As for their actions, or more precisely inaction, one notes above all an undervaluation, not to say ignorance, of the stories of the money lenders or the Sermon on the Mount.

There is no natural connection between conservative and patriotic values and laissez-faire capital interests. The German SPD (Social Democratic Party) is the best example for this, as they have always striven to improve the working and middle classes’ living conditions (until the Schroeder Government and its neo-liberal reforms, the so-called Agenda 2010) through a patriotic-style politics, as the following examples show:

  • Friedrich Ebert’s attempt to save the monarchy at the end of WWI to prevent the civil war in the aftermath of WWI;13
  • The corporation of the SPD with the old military elites and the Freikorps after WWI in their struggle against the communists;14
  • Kurt Schumacher15 (one of the leaders of the SPD after WWI, the greatest twentieth-century German patriot, in the author’s opinion), who lost one arm in WWI and one leg as a result of his imprisonment in a KZ, and who sought to save Germany as a whole instead of seeing its division into West and East. His intense anti-communist attitude dating back to the Weimar Republic has to be mentioned;
  • Willy Brandt, who fought the Nazis during WWII, who campaigned under the slogan ‘Germans – we can be proud of our country (again)’ in 1972, and who became chancellor of Western Germany;16
  • The end of the Recruitment Agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and Turkey in 1973 as a result of the oil crisis, when chancellor Brandt said that ‘we have to think of our people first’.17

The aforementioned points are not to be seen as unequivocal praise of this party; they are rather provided to show that free-market capitalism and a patriotic mindset do not have to be necessarily linked. Honourable mention goes also to two others: first, the German Social Democrat Thilo Sarrazin, with his 2010 magnum opus Germany abolishes Itself,18 which was the most successful work in patriotic metapolitics in the German-speaking parts of Europe since the end of WWII; second, the new social democracy in Denmark,19 which manages to bind together an economically left-leaning policy with a restrictive common-sense migrant policy.

Nevertheless the productiveness of capitalist economic systems and their superiority to central state planning has been proven in the victory of the US and its allies in the Cold War, as the US with its high-level armaments was able to outreach the Soviet Republic’s economic capabilities, until the latter finally could not keep the pace and finally collapsed. This superiority in production, innovation, life expectancy and adaptability cannot be discarded, but has to be seen in the context of the industrial capitalism of the twentieth century and the government policies surrounding it.

How Communism would have developed if its infrastructure west of the Urals had not been ruined in WWII is a question without an answer. The geographical disadvantages of living in a country that is frozen half of the year also have to be accounted for. The Soviet achievements in the conquest of outer space prove that such a system does not necessarily have to be inferior in any respect to Western capitalism; the International Space Station is still provided with Soviet Soyuz rockets to the present day.

That capitalism degenerated and lost any sense of (self-)restrain after the end of the Cold War is self-evident, and its unwillingness to stop and self-evaluate will be its own demise. There will be written on the tombstone of the West, ‘Too much was not enough’.

It is to be feared that in such a system the guilds would fight against each other even as political parties do today, but probably in an even more brutal way, as they basically represent economic interests in action.

It is the author’s firm belief that the self-fetishization of the capitalist system is the result of the victory of the Western World in the Cold War. This lack of self-awareness, self-questioning and will to self-improvement was not shaken even by the financial crisis of 2007/2008 or the rise of China; one cannot help but think of the decadence of the late Western Roman Empire, and its belief that things would always go on as they had before.

It has already been stated that the global financial system together with the globalisation of goods and services, with all its players and actors, has as much in common with the capitalism of the Cold-War era as with the feudal system.20 At the same time one cannot ignore the positive traits of the totalitarian systems of the twentieth century as well as of present day China. The author does not know the specifics of other European countries, but living in a German-speaking part of Europe, he is certain that no metre of Autobahn could be built today, as this project would get stuck in the courts or be held up for years by demonstrations and citizen initiatives trying to stop its construction. The examples of this ‘not in my backyard’ mentality in Germany are quite telling: from Stuttgart 21 to electric wind mills to airports (especially in Berlin), and beyond. The author wonders if there is any compromise in sight, an Aristotelian ‘golden mean’, so to speak, between the brutal force of the aforementioned totalitarian political systems and the costly consideration of individual local interests (and sometimes of pure decadence) in present-day Germany and other Western countries.

To conclude this review of economic systems, the attempts at corporatism have to be mentioned. That there is no present-day functioning corporate system should not stop anyone who is seeking a new economic theory from taking a critical look at this model. Corporatism tries to show a way that is neither capitalist (individual economic interest) nor communist (economic collectivism), but it attempts rather to organize the different traits and parts of the economy into political and solidaric unities (e.g. guilds) that strive for a common good, thereby eliminating class struggle.

It is to be feared that in such a system the guilds would fight against each other even as political parties do today, but probably in an even more brutal way, as they basically represent economic interests in action.

Moreover, any system that tries to organize present-day economic structures into political entities would merely cement present-day structures of ownership and suppress any sort of new arising technologies and industries. One could of course argue that further technological development is something that will lead to further degeneracy and browsing through social media who could argue against it. But even if Europe stopped developing these new technologies, they will come from other parts of the world to it. And while the Zulus had at least an honourable death facing a British 16-pounder gun, the submission of Europe will be worse, as this it will be largely invisible (e.g. through IT) or irreversible (genetic manipulation of seeds, animals and humans). From genetic engineering to transhumanism, little self-restrain is to be expected from non-Europeans. Europe has at least shown some scepticism and self-restrain when it comes to genetic manipulation or the question of private data in comparison to the US. If Europe wants to keep some influence on future developments and curb the greatest excesses, it has to be technologically ahead, not behind. It has to ride the tiger of technology before others jump on it and chase Europe down.

But returning to corporatism, the author feels obliged to share some negative example of implicit corporatism that can be seen in the German car industry, with its ménage à trois of corporations, state and national governments, and unionized workers. The fetishisation of the car in German culture, comparable to that of firearms in the US, also plays a role in this.

There is no supreme power within this arrangement, but everybody is interested in and working for the preservement of the status quo:

  • The long-term and usually unionized workers (who are quite well paid) as a voting block for the centre-left and centre-right parties, and as demostrators for their political goals;
  • The companies themselves, which are highly subsidized (the worst example being the ‘Abwrackprämie’)21 and which are protected from any real persecution by the law, as seen in the lack of judicial persecution for their misdeeds in the fume-test scandal;22 and
  • The politicians, who receive votes and are able to praise themselves for high employment numbers, and who can spend the raised tax revenue.

Moreover, the downsides to this scheme are often invisible:

  • Explotation of short-term employees and workers employed by subcontractors;
  • The exploitation of the subcontractors themselves (from companies delivering parts to supposedly self-sufficient car salesmen);
  • Technological stagnation (e.g. the inability to provide electric cars comparable to those produced by TESLA);
  • Corporate stagnation (no newly established car companies in Germany or Europe as a whole);
  • The paralyzation of new talents, which would otherwise establish new companies themselves or would help to prop up new industries (e.g. there are no real IT champions in Germany comparable to those of the US).


4This is an ironic allusion to the Stalinist concept of ‘Socialism in on country’.

12Again an allusion to Marxist terminology, namely that of the Meme of seizing the ‘means of production’.

]]> 0
Economics for the Right – The Impending Crisis Mon, 15 Jul 2019 16:02:30 +0000 Introduction

While browsing through the various literature of the Right the author could not escape the conclusion that one topic is utterly missing: that of economics.

With noteworthy exceptions, there is in the present day no genuine self-sufficient conservative or right-wing economic theory.

With noteworthy exceptions,1 there is in the present day no genuine self-sufficient conservative or right-wing economic theory, let alone a school of thought deserving the name.

The lack of (meta-)political work in this specific field has of course very real implications in the realm of politics, where non-leftist political participants either revert to the neo-liberal school of economics (conservatism) or to social populist promises (right-wing populism), both of which often lead to failure or an increase in already existing problems.

The author has found no sufficient answer to the question of why there has been no sufficient work in this field, except perhaps for the idea that most people still believe in Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history”2 in one way of another – that is to say, they believe in the total victory of capitalism combined with Western-styled democracy, with contrary examples, like the People’s Republic of China, The Russian Federation, or Venezuela, still coming to the end goal and having to be pushed there for the their own sake, or that of humanity.

Another explanation could be that people who consider themselves to be of the Right feel that material questions, as well as solutions to the same, might be beneath them in comparison to immaterial intellectual challenges.

Furthermore there has been no real development, as many intellectuals get stuck in nostalgia for various past failed ideologies and times (feudalism, communism, national socialism, corporatism, the 50s-70s in Western Europe and the US etc.), which is a pity to say the least, as all these ideologies did not survive the continual test, known as history, of challenge and response.

The Right will lose as long as its unwilling to develop new visions and new alternatives to the left or to liberalism – visions and alternatives that are ahead of the times instead of behind them.

The goal cannot be to preserve the external forms but to serve the idea and to develop ways of how to do so (in a better way). The challenge is to form an idea for post-post-modernity that on the one hand takes into account all that has happened intellectually, politically, technologically etc., and on the other hand offers a solution or even an utopia to overcome it as well as to inspire people to strive towards it, something that is the great strength of Marxism to the present day.

The author on his part is rather frustrated with a (conservative) Right that has managed to achieve nothing other than to slow down its opponents for a few years, or which sometimes even pushes through changes that the post-WWII liberal-left do not dare to attempt. Historic positive role models of conservative statesmen, who did not give in to their opponents and who, by utilizing parts of modernity to combat the same in the German-speaking world, can be found in the Prussian Reform Movement3 (Freiherr von Stein and Karl August von Hardenberg), and in the persons of Otto von Bismarck4 or Klemens von Metternich.5 It is the author’s hope, but not his belief, that reformers will arise from above, as he fears that any revolution from outside existing institutions will tend to be violent and will tend to take care of the revolutionaries in a rather bloody way after the revolution’s success, as has occurred in almost every revolution from the French in 1789 to Communist in China.

Also, any sincere critic of capitalism from the Right far too often gets derailed by the anti-Semitic talk of certain individuals, which is supposedly grounded in the (mis-)deeds of certain individuals of Jewish heritage (e.g. George Soros); such talk not only disqualifies these critiques in the eyes eyes of the public, but also neglects the development of capitalism from the Middle Ages to the present day, as well as the real ideas underpinning it (it is especially worth mentioning here the Calvinist-Puritan6 “tradition”). The reduction of economics to ethno-religious questions, and the discontent with the same, are in fact a diversion that hinders any real view of solutions for the present state of affairs.

The Impending Crisis

The impact of the success and failure of economic policies cannot be underestimated. No political system of the twentieth century or of today can sustain itself in the long run if it is not willing to use immense force against its own citizens or to divert the public’s anger when they oppose politics on account of their discontent with their own economic situation.

The (euro-)crisis of the year 2008 is nothing but a short foreshadowing of what’s to come.

The prime example of this is of course the rise and fall of communism in Russia,7 where the catastrophe of the First World War led to its rise, and where its inability to adapt to the challenges of the Cold War and lack of inner reforms led to its fall.8 Interestingly enough, the Chinese have learned from the Soviet Union by utilizing certain traits of Western Capitalism (ironically on the back of its working class and the environment) and thereby surviving politically.9

Also, looking back on the migrant crisis of 2015 and the years after, one wonders if the situation would have escalated to the same degree if the Greek economy had not been in shambles as a result of the failure of its political class, which cheated the country into the Eurozone with the help of US financial institutions10 and continued to accumulate debt even as it was forced by the EU via Germany11 to introduce neo-liberal reforms and cut-backs, which even increased the crisis as well as unemployment,12 and led to people actually dying, as they could no longer afford healthcare13 – a situation many US citizens are far too familiar with.14 Greece had no other chance to uphold public order, other than letting the migrant caravans from Turkey pass through.

The narrative that the good hard-working Germans had to pay out the lazy Greeks is utterly false, as all the money went directly or indirectly to the banks to which Greece owed this money (often German and French financial institutions).

The (euro-)crisis of the year 2008, which never ended for southern Europe and which continues to the present day, is nothing but a short foreshadowing of what’s to come.

Since there was almost no reform of the financial markets, the crisis in Europe as well as in the US was “solved” by basically printing money – that is to say, by bailouts and by central banks lending money to banks with irresponsibly low interest rates from its central banks, and therefore just producing the next bubble waiting to burst.

The critical moment, when all the financial institutions were on their knees and begging to be saved by the tax payers was missed, and the tables turned again when, in consequence of the bailouts, the nations of Europe had accumulated too much debt, putting the very banks and financial institution which caused the whole situation into power once more; for the governments were dependent on their willingness to lend them money (yet again). This is seen most clearly in the phenomenon of the political leadership of the EU running from one meeting to another, chased by the markets like a fox hunted by British horsemen.15

The missed chance of a Khodokovsyfication16 (the Reconquista of political power by the state over the economic special interests of individuals, effected through the judiciary) of Western economics will haunt the entirety of the West for the next centuries. The geopolitical rise of the Russian Federation can be almost almost entirely reduced to its re-assertion of control over its natural resources, against private interests. What opportunities the West lost by not following the same road are too painful too imagine.

The same circle is just waiting to repeat itself; only this time it will be worse, as there is far less room for bailouts. This time, the implosion of the whole financial market is to be expected.

This is no cause to celebrate – not only because this crisis will once more hit those who least deserve it, whether it be the Greek hotelier, the German engineer or the US home owner, but also because it will be easy for US, Chinese, Indian and Russian interests to buy infrastructure, corporations and technology within Europe and the United States, which will give them more political influence, and in the worst case will turn Europe into an economic colony for them. The first signs of this can already been seen in the involvement of Chinese interests in the EU.17 Just like the deficits that led to the fall of the Soviet Union, the EU will crash as a result of a mixture of ideology, administrative structure, demography and an unwillingness to reform – not because of dark forces undermining it from without.

Even if this impending financial crisis proves manageable, it will be accelerated by three other factors: automation, the rising need for and price of energy, and environmental problems.

It must be stated again that in all these fields (finance and debt, automation and loss of jobs, price and need of energy) no genuinely reasonable answers are today heard from conservatives, or from people who consider themselves Right-wing, let alone from any school of thought with any influence. Therefore the author would like to use this essay to provide an impulse to others to start the search and the discussion for a new economic theory. Suggestions and especially criticism are more than welcome. It is necessary to develop new ideas for every level of political power, from local communities to geopolitics; what most matters is that these ideas are genuine and would provide a genuine improvement on the status quo, since otherwise any attempt to gain political power would be rendered unnecessary and a waste of energy.

The Goals for a New Economic Theory

While present-day economic talk basically dwells on the topics of growth (GDP), debt, inflation, foreign trade and the employment rate, a new economic theory has to take a holistic approach to all questions of the economy.

The geopolitical rise of the Russian Federation can be almost almost entirely reduced to its re-assertion of control over its natural resources, against private interests.

For this reason the author would like to add the following goals with corresponding metrics (wherever possible, as not everything can easily be reduced to numbers):

  • Environmentalism (emissions of greenhouse gasses, quality of drinking water, space occupied by forests, square kilometres used for organic farming);
  • Long-term sustainability and growth instead of short-term profit (capital invested in production instead of financial products, personally vs. impersonally owned means of production, half-time of usage of consumer products);
  • The psychological, physical and economic well-being of individuals as well as of families (life expectancy, drug use, prescription of antidepressants, suicide rates, divorce rates);
  • The preservation and further development of European cultures;
  • Low-level, yet beneficial, inter-European migration;
  • A modern and functioning infrastructure owned by public entities;
  • Self-sustaining birth rates;
  • An economically as well as geographically diversified asset distribution (income per household in each European region, but also the income and property distribution along class lines in those regions);
  • Higher goals than mere materialism;
  • The resilience and adaptability of the economy and the societies to internal and external challenges.


]]> 4
What’s Behind the Anti-Right Witch-Hunt? – Part 2 Fri, 12 Jul 2019 12:30:14 +0000 Institute for Strategic Dialogue

A primary question to be asked is the whence of the media’s information on the Identitarian ‘Far Right’? It is the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD). Here we reach ‘conspiracy theory’, although Dr Richard B. Spence, senior historian at Idaho State University, an altogether brighter chap than most academics, draws a distinction between ‘conspiracy theory and conspiracy fact’.1 Indeed, following the ‘Far Right’ and ‘white supremacist’ websites, according to the ISD, ‘conspiracy theory’ websites were most responsible for spreading Mr Sellner’s so-called ‘lies’ on the U.N. migration compact. It is not plausible, we are assured, that conspiracies among oligarchs exist, in contrast to an ‘international Austro-Nazi conspiracy’, which is so pervasive, well-placed and funded as to be determining the policies of major political parties and governments.

Mr Gower cites the ISD as his source on the ‘Far Right’:

An investigation by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, which monitors extremism online, found: ‘Far-right and right-wing populist influencers … began spreading large-scale distorted interpretations and misinformation about the UN migration pact’.2

Who is going to investigate the character of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue? According to Mr Gower it is some type of definitive authority ‘monitoring’ ‘extremism online’, and almost sounds official, like a branch of Interpol or whatnot. The ISD has embarked on an international smear campaign against Generation Identity and Mr Sellner. It is pertinent to ask whether this has been undertaken precisely because Mr Sellner and GI have upset the proverbial applecart in regard to the U.N. Migration Compact – a cause that happens to be a part of the ISD agenda?

Among the major smears against GI and Mr Sellner, the Freidrich-Ebert-Stiftung features an interview with Jakob Guhl, ‘Project Associate at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), where he mainly works with the Online Civil Courage Initiative, a project that aims to improve and promote civil society reactions to hate speech and extremism on the Internet’. Guhl claims in regard to the U.N. Migration Compact that,

While the agreement was barely talked about on social media until mid-September, far-right and right-wing populist influencers ‘discovered’ the issue in mid-September and began spreading large-scale distorted interpretations and disinformation about the UN migration pact. … [A]nd far-right representatives such Martin Sellner played a big role in shaping the discussion about the migration pact online. His ‘Stop Migration Pact’ petition was the most shared URL link in our dataset until the end of October.3

Guhl complains that there was insufficient information about the Compact, until the ‘far Right’ discovered it. That the U.N. was negligent in providing information on the Compact is surely an indictment on that body, not on the ‘far Right’, which sought to address the information void. Indeed, it was the ‘far Right’ that seems to have helped publicise the very scant information that the U.N. did provide, enabling others to make an informed judgement based on the presentation of both sides, which clearly the U.N. and its allies were unwilling to do.

‘The Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) is the oldest political foundation in Germany with a rich tradition in social democracy dating back to its foundation in 1925. The foundation owes its formation and its mission to the political legacy of its namesake Friedrich Ebert, the first democratically elected German President’.4 There is nothing new about a Leftist outfit taking its party-line from a plutocratic think tank such as the ISD. Indeed, in good Social Democratic fashion, the Ebert Foundation promotes NATO, trans-Atlantic free trade, and generally how to keep Germany subservient to the USA.

A report at Politico covers similar ground.5 A report in the New Zealand Herald states that ‘European investigators are digging deeper into possible links between far-right ideologues and the suspected Christchurch mosque gunman, who sent at least two donations to an anti-Muslim group with branches around Europe. … “One of the dangers of this ideology is that it creates an imminent threat from the outside: a coming war if we don’t do anything about it,” said Austrian right-wing extremism researcher Julia Ebner, with the London-based Institute for Strategic Dialogue. “A violent escalation is part of their ideology.”’6 What nonsensical scare-mongering, posing as ‘expertise’. As GI shows in a detailed response to media smears and Establishment repression, there is no violent intent.7 As the Tarrant episode shows, violence can only serve the globalists.

A report in The Washington Post includes the widespread theme that there were ‘extensive’ links between Mr. Sellner and Tarrant, citing Jacob Davey, ‘the author of a forthcoming Institute for Strategic Dialogue paper on the subject’;8 meaning, there were three brief emails in regard to Trarrant’s little donation. Post columnist Anne Applebaum, introducing a Judaeo-centric dimension added:

The obsession with the Jewish financier George Soros, a feature of far-right propaganda everywhere from Hungary to Alabama, is linked to this set of ideas. And when President Trump or Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini talk about immigrant ‘invasions’, they are nodding and winking to Identitarianism, too.9

An ‘anti-Semitic’ conspiracy theory can never be too far away for such commentators: reductio ad Judaeum. But since Ms. Applebaum has mentioned Soros, let us take a look behind the ISD; if we find Soros lurking there, are we supposed to overlook the fact lest it indicates an ‘obsession’?

The ‘partners and funders’ of the ISD are high-powered globalist corporations.10 They include: Facebook, Google, Twitter, Jigsaw, M & C Saatchi, Microsoft, Love Frankie, Asia Foundation, Carnegie Corporation NY, Eranda Rothschild Foundation (the famous banking dynasty), Gen Next, Open Society Foundations (yes, Soros), Robert Bosch Foundation, Vodafone Foundation.

Love Frankie is a Saatchie-sponsored ‘social change’ project in Asia. Among those who ‘Love Frankie’ are the U.S. State Department, USAID, World Bank Group, Facebook, Google, sundry U.N. agencies, et al.11

Other partners of the ISD include the U.S. State Department, International Republican Institute, Brookings Institution, Chatham House, the London School of Economics ‘Arena’ project that targets anti-globalists; Royal United Services Institute , etc.

The ISD is a globalist institution founded to smear and hence agitate for the suppression of opposition to globalisation. The character of its sponsors makes this clear enough. They exist to target anti-globalisation as ‘fascistic’. That is their terminology:

We believe it is the task of every generation to challenge such divisive, fascistic movements and to invest in the ongoing edification of open, democratic, and free civic culture, without which there can be no lasting protection of the rights of others, no cohesion and no lasting peace.12

Of its programmes it states that ISD had ‘advised 40 governments’, reached 120 ‘strong cities network members’, indoctrinated with their globalism 80,000 youth in ‘education programmes’, presided over seventy-five reports and policy briefings, and ‘trained over 32,000 activists’. 13 ‘Activists’ is usually a euphemism for psychotics of the Antifa variety. Is this what ISD is referring to?

Based on our far-right analysis and research we briefed and advised a range of national and regional policy makers, ministries and security and intelligence agencies on the latest trends in online and offline extremism. Our research and analysis featured across major international and national news outlets and informs our engagement with tech firms and civil society.14

This is where the governments and media are getting their smear briefings from – and it should be noted, ‘security and intelligence agencies’, which might explain the nonsensical character of the police witch-hunt for elusive ‘far Rightists’ in New Zealand, and the half-witted questions police pose.

Among ISD ‘partners’ we find sundry organisations that have been involved in ‘regime change’ and ‘colour revolutions’, on behalf of the U.S. Government and/or international plutocracy. The International Republican Institute was established to promote the USA’s version of democracy and culture-pathology worldwide. Its aim is U.S. global hegemony. IRI funders include USAID, The Bush Institute, Freedom House, National Democratic Institute, Solidarity Center of the AFL-CIO, Australian, Canadian and British governments, and many others.15 IRI overtly states that it influences the formation and policies of political parties around the world.16 It encourages ‘civil society organizations’;17 that is, it establishes subversive organisations in states marked by the USA for ‘regime change’ of the type that were expelled from Russia and Hungary. It uses ‘the digital revolution’18 that has been a major factor in facilitating ‘colour revolutions’ across the world. While IRI boasts of its global interference in the internal affairs of states, they have the audacity to moralise via their ‘Beacon Project’ (founded to suppress alternative views over the internet), that, ‘IRI is launching a new program aimed at countering the increasing threat of Russian soft power and propaganda’.19 What is the IRI other than an agency to purvey the ‘soft power and propaganda’ of the USA?

Other ISD’s sponsor, Gen Next, Facebook, and Google, were among the founders of, a globalist project aiming to use digital technology to foment ‘regime change’ in states targeted by globalists and/or the USA. Its original name was Alliance of Youth Movements. Corporate sponsors of have included Howcast, Edelman, Music TV, Meetup, Pepsi, CBS News, Mobile Accord, You Tube, MSN/NBC, National Geographic, Omicom Group, Access 360 Media. Public Partnerships are Columbia Law School and the U.S. State Department. Representatives at the organisation’s summits have included those from the Rand Corporation, World Bank, National Democratic Institute, YouTube, Freedom House, et al. was particularly active in the ‘Arab Spring’, where a string of regimes were toppled in quick succession.20

ISD initiated its own youth focused, digital project similar to, YouthCAN (Youth Civil Activism Network).21


The ISD is part of a large, world-wide network of NGOs, so-called ‘civil society’ that promotes globalisation in the interests of plutocracy. The part the ISD plays in this process is to help suppress dissent against globalisation in the name of combatting ‘racism’, ‘xenophobia’ and ‘fascism’. Open borders and so-called ‘inclusive economies’ are primary aims of globalisation. Those who dissent from this process must be eliminated by being demonised and delegitimised, and smeared as a prelude to the actual banning of dissidents with the use of terms such as ‘hate speech’, ‘and ‘counter-terrorism’. This is the function of the ISD.

There are multitudes of useful idiots in politics, academia and media who will play their part whether through a banal idealism or plain opportunism. While the globalists and their allies discount as ‘conspiracy theorists’ those who object that globalism means plutocratic exploitation and the reducing of humanity to a nebulous globule of economic units, they proffer their own theory of an ‘international Austro-Nazi conspiracy’. They have used the Tarrant atrocity to cynically justify a witch-hunt against dissidents. Is the term ‘witch-hunt’ an exaggeration for what is taking place? Consider this:

Firearm licence applicants are being checked for shaven heads, Nazi symbolism and camouflage clothes after the March 15 terror attack. Stuff has learnt police issued a new directive informing vetting staff to be wary of the ‘extreme right’, which includes white supremacy and far right ideology. Signifiers of the extreme right include tattoos, Celtic or Norse symbolism, books on the Third Reich, confederate flags, and reference to Norway mass-shooter Anders Breivik.22

A New Zealand branch of the Norse folk-religion Asatru had been grossly vilified because Tarrant had painted a rune on his firearm. That was enough for the media. In a small victory, the Asatru group successfully filed a complaint with the Media Council.23 The Otago Daily Times carried a feature portraying the South Island Independence Movement as part of this ‘Far Right’ ‘racist extremism’. Opposition to the Government’s fringe antics is enough to get one black-listed.24 Such was the widespread disdain for this trash journalism that the newspaper’s online public feedback forum was quickly suppressed.

The aims of the liberals, communists and plutocrats have always proceeded behind high sounding slogans such as ‘liberty, equality, fraternity,’ ‘peace, land, bread’, and more lately ‘human rights’, ‘equality’ and ‘anti-racism’. The result has been guillotines, firing squads, kool aid, and concentration camps; the Reign of Terror, the Red Terror, and Jonestown – perpetrated on the altar of Equality. Since the media, police, academics and politicians claim there is an ideological link between the ‘Right’, ‘white supremacy’, Nazism, fascism and xenophobia, then might we say on the same basis that Mr Gower and his ilk are the ideological children of Jim Jones and Robespierre, and that Prime Minister Ardern and her ‘Labour’ Government are the ideological children of Pol Pot?

Had such actions of police, state and media towards the elusive New Zealand ‘Far Right’, ‘white supremacists’, critics of the U.N., gun-owners, and admirers of Donald Trump, been taken against the ‘Far Left’ there would have been a reaction of outrage with cries of ‘McCarthyism’ and, yes, ‘witch-hunt’. Indeed, the only ‘terrorist’ training subjected to police and court proceedings to have taken place in New Zealand concerned psychotic anarchists training with Maoris with firearms and explosives in the mountains of the Ureweras. There was an outcry that the police had interfered with such civil liberties.25

In the present situation, however, things are totally different. The twelve-year-old girl, surrounded by armed police on a farm while she was shovelling horse dung with a pitch-folk, is unlikely to receive an apology from them, or an outpouring of sympathy from liberaldom.26 Likewise with the family of the Russian army veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder, who killed himself thanks to police antics.27 God knows how many others have been harassed by armed halfwits in police uniform, intruding on households to ask idiotic questions for hours, on the basis of the ‘governmental advice’ provided by ISD ‘experts’ (sic) in the search for elusive ‘Far Right extremists’ with links to an ‘international Austro-Nazi conspiracy’.


1Richard B. Spence, Wall Street & the Russian Revolution 1905-1925 (Trine Day, 2017), 3.

3Too Little, Too Late’, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 7 February 2019.

4Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, ‘About Us’.

5How the U.N. Migration Pact got Trolled’, Politico, 1 March 2019.

8Anne Applebaum, ‘How Europe’s “Identitarians” Are Mainstreaming Racism’, Washington Post, 17 May 2019.

9Anne Applebaum, ibid.

14ISD, ‘Far-Right’.

15IRI, Funders.

20See: K. R. Bolton, Revolution from Above, (Arktos Media Ltd., 2011), 235-240.

21ISD, YouthCAN.

24Daisy Hudson, ‘Racist Concerns Over SI Independence Site’, Otago Daily Times, 6 July, 2019.

]]> 0
What’s Behind the Anti-Right Witch-Hunt? – Part 1 Wed, 10 Jul 2019 12:26:50 +0000

A witch-hunt is an attempt to find and punish a particular group of people who are being blamed for something, often simply because of their opinions and not because they have actually done anything wrong.

Collins English Dictionary

Since it was discovered that Christchurch mosque shooter Tarrant gave a small donation to Martin Sellner of Generation Identity in Austria over a year ago, followed consequently by a couple of e-mails exchanged in acknowledgement, a witch-hunt has been launched against the ‘Far Right’ in a cynical use of the Muslim deaths.

In particular Martin Sellner has been targeted because of his articulate and professional manner. It is claimed that Sellner is of such influence that his (GI’s) campaign against the United Nations Compact on Migration was responsible for several states not signing the compact as the result of what is called ‘fake news’ and ‘lies’ about the compact being ‘binding’.

Mr Gower and other journalists, and their experts, have failed to come up with anything that justifies the hysteria that they and the Government have tried to generate

In New Zealand a journalist, Patrick Gower, has become fixated with Sellner. Gower, if remembered at all, will be so probably because of the fool he made of himself in his ‘interview’ with Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux,1 when they arrived for a speaking engagement that was cancelled due to extreme Left threats.

While the media remains mute on the long history of violence from the Left against the Right, Mr Gower et al., with the assistance of supposed ‘experts’ such as sociologist Dr Paul Spoonley, have sought to show that New Zealand has long been ‘terrorised’ by the Right which, despite the media’s and police’s endeavours, remains elusive. The only examples given during the course of a TV series promising to expose a long-running campaign of violence by the ‘Right’, were the psychotic antics of a gang called the Fourth Reich, which supposedly ‘terrorised’ Nelson and the West Coast of the South Island. According to an ‘expert’, the Fourth Reich, ‘were responsible for the murders of young Māori man Hemi Hutley, gay man James ‘Janis’ Bamborough, Korean tourist Jae Hyeon Kim and Christchurch woman Vanessa Pickering’.2

Mr Gower’s ‘experts’ failed to mention that the Fourth Reich gang was comprised of those of Chinese, Maori, and Pacific island descent. Whether there was a token White in the membership is unknown. Nonetheless, with a name like Fourth Reich, it must have been motivated by Rightist ideology, like the Maori street gangs that have taken to wearing the swastika. According to Mr Gower and his experts, there is some type of historical and ideological continuity between the Fourth Reich, Tarrant, local critics of the U.N. compact on migration, and Sellner. Mr Gower and other journalists, and their experts, have failed to come up with anything that justifies the hysteria that they and the Government have tried to generate amidst gun confiscations, demands for ‘hate speech’ laws, the sacking of a Dominion Movement member from his job, and a police ‘black list’ that was leaked first to the media and then to a psycho-Left ‘anti-racist’ grouplet, which has the endorsement of Mr Gower for publicly targeting dissidents.

Since Mr Gower’s fiasco in attempting to take on Southern and Molyneux he seems to have been trying to redeem himself. A TV ‘Newshub’ series called Because It Matters,3 fronted by Mr Gower, has been trying to show that Mr Sellner’s influence is ‘pervasive’ (sic) in New Zealand politics, and that it is ‘Identitarian’ ideology largely emanating from Mr Sellner that prompted the Tarrant shootings. The only ‘dangerous white supremacist’ that Mr Gower and his crew have been able to uncover is Mr Phil Arps, jailed for having shared Trarrant’s video footage. He has been shown to have been present at an anti-U.N. rally in Christchurch, where he called out that New Zealand First Party leader and deputy prime minister, Winston Peters, should be executed for ‘treason’.4

The only other examples of supposed ‘pervasive terrorism’ were several typically childish internet threats against Green Member of Parliament Golriz Ghahraman, over her demand for the introduction of ‘hate speech’ laws. Her support for ‘identity politics’ is based on uniting non-whites against ‘white privilege’.5 The threats allowed Ms. Ghahraman to posture for a few days and receive a police escort, since her life was supposedly at stake.6 Ms Ghahraman was also conspicuous for her participation in an aggressive effort to stop the New Zealand National Front’s annual (and only) activity in October 2017, at its ‘Flag day’ rally, which was blocked by an alliance of anarchists and communists with Ms. Ghahraman to the fore.7 Aggressive confrontation is acceptable to her, unless there is a reaction. Now it is Mr. Peter’s turn to act the drama queen for a few moments of publicity aboard the anti-Right bandwagon.

So when Mr Gower’s attempt to redeem himself after the Southern/Molynexu fiasco with a TV series on ‘white supremacist’ terrorism in New Zealand also flopped, generating mostly mirth and derision from viewers, he tried with a third attempt, this time to show how European ‘Identitarianism’, and particularly Mr. Sellner, have become ‘pervasive’ (sic) in New Zealand. Mr Sellner and the long arm of the Austro-Nazi international conspiracy have reached the halls of power, the proof being the rejection by the National Party of the United Nations migration compact. Mr Peters, who has made his political career out of demanding immigration restrictions and hyping a supposed ‘Muslim threat’, now that he and his colleagues are partnered with the lunatic Left Labour Government, called on National Opposition leader Simon Bridges to resign because of his supposedly being influenced by the ‘Austrian neo-Nazis’ (sic).8

Identitarianism and U.N. Global Compact

According to Messrs Peters and Gower, Mr Sellner launched a worldwide campaign against the U.N. Migration Compact which, through ‘lies’ about it being ‘binding’ on signatory states, succeeded in dissuading some states from signing. Notably absent in this scenario is any mention of Israel refusing to sign, on the very basis that it would undermine their sovereignty.9 Is it because it would be difficult to portray Israel as being influenced by ‘Austrian Neo-Nazis’ rather than simply following its own historic path of Judaeo-centricity, which might be construed as ‘Jewish Nazism’? Indeed, while the Liberals, Leftists and their oligarchic string-pullers squawk about ‘Austrian neo-Nazis’, the actual source of Islamophobia – influential and well-funded pro-Israel neocon think tanks – have remained unmentioned amidst the hysteria. The pro-Israel attitudes of certain of the supposed ‘Far Right’ in New Zealand also remain unmentioned. 10

The Right uses the term the ‘Great Replacement’, the U.N. ‘Replacement Migration’. Is that, or is it not, precisely the aim of the U.N. migration compact? If not, how not? If so, how has Mr Sellner, et al., ‘lied’?

My own knowledge of the U.N. Migration Compact was sparked by frequent comments made by radio talkback host Bruce Russell, a news commentator altogether more thoughtful than the obsessive Mr Gower, et al. Even then, it took me some weeks to look into whether Mr Russell’s warnings about the compact were accurate, and I had heard nothing of any resistance to it from any ‘Far Right’ in New Zealand. I read and analysed the Compact, and wrote an article about it for Arktos Journal.11 I am still unaware of the details of Mr Sellner’s campaign against it, and I have not been able to find any extensive analysis on it from any supposedly Right-wing organisation in New Zealand. My opinions on the Compact in the Arktos Journal article are entirely my own research, and if one reads the document for oneself, it is indeed far-ranging and intrusive, as I believe I show in that article. But Messrs Gower, Peters and sundry media allege that the Compact was derailed by a well-oiled campaign by Mr Sellner and the Austrian ‘Nazis’, whose ‘lies’ have fooled even governments. As I state in the Arktos Journal article:

That the Migration Compact is based around other U.N. ‘covenants’ that have become ‘international law’, with U.N. sanctions against those states deemed offenders, is indicated within the Compact ‘preamble’ itself. As with other U.N. declarations and covenants, much of the Migration Compact outlines the monitoring of compliance of signatory states. Sections entitled ‘follow-up’ and ‘implementation’ are devoted to this, with the International Organization for Migration as the U.N. policing agency.12

The ‘Great Replacement’ & ‘Replacement Migration’

There has been much histrionics on the Rightist, Identitarian campaigns against the ‘Great Replacement’. Again, because the phrase was used by Tarrant, the term has reached a notoriety implying genocide. The Rightist claim that Europeans are being replaced in their own homelands by alien migrants and refugees is lambasted as a ‘lie’, and in the words of the ever-dubious Wikipedia, as a ‘nationalist right wing conspiracy theory’. Again, Mr Sellner is blamed for spreading the theory across the world.13

Yet from at least 2001 the United Nations started referring to ‘Replacement Migration’. The theory laid the foundation for the U.N. Migration Compact. The U.N. document Replacement Migration, Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations? statistically examines the demographic trends of ‘developed’ states, USA, Europe, E.U., Russia, Japan, and Korea. The issue is that of ageing population due to low fertility and the increasing duration of life expectancy. Hence, a looming economic crisis with the demographic imbalance. The solution is to replenish the labour market with migrants, by population transfers from the developing to the developed states. The preamble to the document states:

United Nations projections indicate that over the next 50 years, the populations of virtually all countries of Europe as well as Japan will face population decline and population ageing. The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require comprehensive reassessments of many established policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration.

Focusing on these two striking and critical population trends, the report considers replacement migration for eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to offset population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.14

The Right uses the term the ‘Great Replacement’, the U.N. ‘Replacement Migration’; either way, the references are to the ‘replacement’ mainly of European indigenes by drawing on the burgeoning ‘third world’ population. Is that, or is it not, precisely the aim of the U.N. migration compact? If not, how not? If so, how has Mr Sellner, et al., ‘lied’ and ‘misrepresented’ the issue? The U.N. document concludes:

Finally, the new challenges being brought about by declining and ageing populations will require objective, thorough and comprehensive reassessments of many established economic, social and political policies and programmes. Such reassessments will need to incorporate a long-term perspective. Critical issues to be addressed in those reassessments would include (a) appropriate ages for retirement; (b) levels, types and nature of retirement and health-care benefits for the elderly; (c) labour-force participation; (d) assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers needed to support retirement and healthcare benefits for the increasing elderly population; and (e) policies and programmes relating to international migration, in particular replacement migration, and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants. In this context, it should be noted that immigrants to one country are emigrants from another country. As such, international migration must be seen as part of the larger globalization process taking place throughout the world, influencing the economic, political and cultural character of both sending and receiving countries. While orderly international migration can provide countries of origin with remittances and facilitate the transfer of skills and technology, it also may entail the loss of needed human resources. Similarly, international migration can provide countries of destination with needed human resources and talent, but may also give rise to social tensions. Effective international migration policies must therefore take into account the impact on both the host society and countries of origin.15

The concluding sentences refer to:

  1. The integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants.
  2. International migration … as part of the larger globalization process taking place throughout the world, influencing the economic, political and cultural character of both sending and receiving countries.
  3. International migration [that] may give rise to social tensions.

These are all factors posed by the Right, yet raised first in 2001 by the U.N. The problems of ‘orderly international migration’ discussed in the 2001 document are all addressed in the U.N. migration compact. Where are Mr Sellner et al. ‘lying’ in these matters?

The U.N. document refers to problems that have supposedly hitherto been unknown to history. Nonsense. It is more a matter that the U.N. ‘experts’, NGOs, Leftists, academics, journalists, and their oligarchic string-pullers do not know history. They do not have a sense of the historical. They see only ‘human progress’ like a tapeworm creeping along towards some utopian ‘end of history’. Rather, the demographic crisis in the West has been seen in prior civilisations, and the desperate answer was the same: to fill the population void with migrants. It is in this that we might discern the end of civilisations, not their embarking on a bright new future.

Polynius (born ca. 200BC) said of the Greeks:

In our time all Greece was visited by a dearth of children and generally a decay of population … and a failure of productiveness results. … For this evil grew upon us rapidly, and without attracting attention, by our men becoming perverted to passion of show and money and the pleasures of an idle life, and accordingly, not marrying at all, or, if they did marry, refusing to rear the children that were born, or at most one or two of a great number, for the sake of leaving them all well off or bringing them up in extravagant luxury.

The Greek elite become effete, and indeed were regarded as being ‘feminised’ by the influences of an already decadent Persian civilisation. The answer of Alexander was to expand the empire and integrate Persian corruption – ‘cultural enrichment’ and ‘diversity’, as it is now called – with the aim of forming a new world order.16 Of Rome, Augustus recognised the demographic catastrophe caused by the corruption of traditional Roman virtues, asking, ‘How can the commonwealth be preserved if we neither marry nor produce children?’ He referred to the city being given up to foreigners, and to liberating slaves, ‘chiefly for the purpose of making out of them as many citizens as possible.’17 Tacitus remarked that despite state efforts, ‘childlessness prevailed’. 18 At the beginning of the second century Pliny the Younger wrote that his was ‘an age when even one child is thought a burden preventing the rewards of childlessness’. Hierocles remarked that most people seemed to regard siring children as interfering with their lifestyles. Prostitution became so widespread it became a substitute for marriage. Homosexuality and bi-sexuality had become common,19 as had abortion. Many women became infertile. Birth control methods were widely used.20 The cities were ‘populated by strangers’.21 How modern all this sounds. Of Western civilisation Spengler wrote that ‘the destiny of being the last of the line is no longer felt as doom’.22

There are causes for this demographic crisis that are not in the interests of the globalists to raise. They include the social pathologies that they have spent decades promoting and financing, such as feminism, abortion, birth control, hedonism, and now a mania for a ‘sliding scale of gender’. This ‘progress’ has been seen before in the decaying epochs of prior civilisations millennia ago. Much of this was supposed to create a global ‘inclusive economy’, as the corporations and NGOs call it. For decades the globalists have sought to fully integrate women into the work force by ‘liberation’ from the ‘burden’ of motherhood. Now there is a demographic crisis, and the globalist answer is ‘replacement migration’, as per Rome and Greece.


1Full interview: Lauren Southern & Stefan Molyneux’, Newshub, 3 August, 2018.

2Patrick Gower, ‘Revealed: How White Supremacists Terrorised New Zealand for Decades’, Newshub, 19 May, 2019.

5Gloriz Ghahraman, ‘Who Looks Like a ‘Kiwi’?; Who Sounds Like a ‘Kiwi’?’, in The Big Questions (Penguin Books, 2018).

7National Front members chased away from Parliament’, Stuff, 28 October, 2017. (They were not ‘chased away’; they were simply mobbed by numbers.)

9‘ Netanyahu: Israel Won’t Sign Global Migration Pact, Must Protect Its Borders’, The Times of Israel, 20 November, 2018.

10K. R. Bolton, ‘Islamophobia: The Trojan Horse Amidst the Right’, Arktos Journal.

11K. R. Bolton, ‘United Nations Global Migration Compact: Origins & Aims’, Arktos Journal, 7 January 2019.


14Replacement Migration, Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations? (Population Division Department of Economic and Social Affairs United Nations Secretariat, 2001).

15Conclusions & Implications’, emphasis added.

16K. R. Bolton, The Decline & Fall of Civilisations (London: Black House, 2017), 198–199.

17Casius Dio, Dio’s Rome (Kessinger, 2004), Book IV, 86; cited in Bolton, ibid., 205.

18Tacitus, Annals of Imperial Rome, iii, 25; in Bolton, ibid.

19Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History (Princeton University Press, 1996), 117.

20Stark, ibid., 118–121. See Bolton, op. cit., 208-209.

21Stark, ibid., 156.

22Oswald Spengler, The Decline of The West (London: Allen & Unwin, 1971), Vol. II, 103–104.

]]> 5
Ethnic Apocalypse Tue, 09 Jul 2019 08:43:54 +0000 The Coming European Civil War

In the last book he completed before his death, the irrepressible and trenchant Guillaume Faye takes a bold and ruthlessly candid look at the increasingly volatile situation on the ground in Europe.

With the growing incidence of Islamicist terrorism and inter-religious violence on European soil, alongside the first signs of native resistance to the demographic changes which have made this violence possible, Faye compellingly argues that Europe is poised for a terrible new civil war, threatening to break out along the many ethnic faultlines which have arisen thanks to years of bad immigration policies and bad political will.

Using some of the most troubling developments in French politics, culture and society as his arguments, Faye throws off the blinders of political correctness and confronts his readers with the harsh reality of an unsettled and deeply divisive multicultural Europe. Ethnic Apocalypse is a wake-up call aimed at making Europeans aware of their increasingly dire situation — before it is too late.

]]> 0
Ethnic Apocalypse Tue, 09 Jul 2019 08:42:44 +0000 The Coming European Civil War

In the last book he completed before his death, the irrepressible and trenchant Guillaume Faye takes a bold and ruthlessly candid look at the increasingly volatile situation on the ground in Europe.

With the growing incidence of Islamicist terrorism and inter-religious violence on European soil, alongside the first signs of native resistance to the demographic changes which have made this violence possible, Faye compellingly argues that Europe is poised for a terrible new civil war, threatening to break out along the many ethnic faultlines which have arisen thanks to years of bad immigration policies and bad political will.

Using some of the most troubling developments in French politics, culture and society as his arguments, Faye throws off the blinders of political correctness and confronts his readers with the harsh reality of an unsettled and deeply divisive multicultural Europe. Ethnic Apocalypse is a wake-up call aimed at making Europeans aware of their increasingly dire situation — before it is too late.

]]> 0