Anti-White Buzzwords And Codewords

Article Types

Saturday, 20 September 2014

The European New Right and its Animus against Western Civilization: Part I

by Ricardo Duchesne
Part I | Part II

Archangel Michael slaying the dragon

My knowledge of the European New Right (ENR) is very scarce, no more than a few short articles and three books:
I found Faye's metapolitical dictionary substantively insightful and Dugin's dissection of liberalism penetrating. But Krebs' book finally clarified for me something about the ENR I had sensed but was not sure about: its belief that Western Civilization stands for the rise of multiracial societies in Europe.

Alexander Dugin

I noticed this animus against the West in Dugin's book. In the case of Dugin it was more his identification of American Neoconservatism, or Mainstream Liberalism, with Western Civilization as such, his rejection of Western rationalism, his condemnation of the idea of progress, his use of cultural Marxists and postmodernists (Franz Boas, Michel Foucault, Levi Strauss, Jean Baudrillard) to paint a picture of the West as the sickest, most destructive civilization in human history. Everything hateful about the world — consumerism, environmental despoliation, egalitarianism, plutocratic manipulation, erosion of ethnic and traditional differences — was explained by him as a direct product of the metaphysical orientation of the West.
In order to adequately understand the essence of liberalism, we must recognize that it is not accidental, that its appearance in the political and economic ideologies is based on fundamental processes, proceeding in all Western civilization. Liberalism is not only a part of that history, but its purest and most refined expression, its result.1
It is as if the West was from the beginning oriented towards our present-day pro-immigration regimen, driven by a rationalist logic dedicated to the reduction of cultural qualities to measurable quantities, by a will to a universal language for humanity based on mental constructs existing apriori in all humans, by an individualizing logic that seeks to free all concrete persons from any collective identities, and by a progressive view of history that ranks cultures in terms of how close they approximate the liberal-democratic aims of a West envisioned as the master culture led by a superior race. According to Dugin, the "very ideology of [Western] progress is racist in its structure."

But I thought that these were the prejudices of a Russian nationalist, a keen defender of Putin's foreign policies in the face of American Neocon wishes for control of former Soviet territories. But upon reading Pierre Krebs' book a few days ago, I am starting to realize that opposition to the West (and, by direct necessity, opposition to some of the major trends in the history of Europeans) is quite prominent among some members of the ENR. I feel confident in making this generalization about the ENR, having read, additionally, some articles by and about Alain de Benoist, noticing that he too holds the West responsible for the main maladies of our times: individualization, massification, desacralization, rationalization, and universalization. He traces the roots of these destructive trends to the Christian concept of equality and the Christian idea of progress, and then explains how these concepts were secularized in modern times. On the other hand, De Benoist has written too much for his ideas to be properly captured in a short article, so I can only claim here to be criticizing Krebs' Fighting for the Essence, originally published in 1997.

Pierre Krebs's Fighting for the Essence

I will engage with Krebs' ideas by citing passages from his books, and then offering my responses below. I view Krebs as an ideological friend with whom I have a major disagreement about the nature of the West. He offers an effective rhetorical critique of the relationship between the homogenization of humanity and the celebration of diversity through miscegenation.
The originality and the richness of the human heritages of this world are nourished by their differences and their deviations, which surprise and fascinate as soon as one passes from the culture of one people to another. These originalities can find protection, in turn, only in the homogeneous ethno-cultural space that is proper to them. The defenders of multiracialism are the primary destroyers, consciously or unconsciously, of this elementary right.2
But the claim that the West has been the destroyer of racial identities is very simplistic and evinces a truncated understanding of the history of the most enriching and complex civilization. Krebs distinguishes an "authentic" West that is Greek, Faustian and Indo-European from a "Judeo-Christian" West that came after. But he condemns the West in its entirety once it became "Judeo-Christian". And this argument is historically flawed, starting with the term "Judeo-Christian" which is a recent invention reflecting trends that cannot be teleologically attributed to the ancient past. "Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights," Hegel once wrote as he contemplated the history of Europe. Individualization, universalization, rationalization, and desacralization were inescapably connected to the rise of this civilization to world supremacy. They are part-expression of the tumultuous temperament and directional psyche of Europeans. You can't condemn these world-historical processes without condemning Europeans as a people. These processes were not, historically for the longest time, and, therefore, in and of themselves, anti-White.

Krebs writes:
In the first stage which corresponds to its political phase, the egalitarian lie first turned the democratic integrity of the state on its head by progressively emptying the Greek model of the ethno-cultural organic principles of the demos which it purely and simply replaced with the vagabond and cosmopolitan institution of the parliament.3
Krebs is saying that the Greek polis which evolved gradually from the seventh century BC onward, a radically new form of governance based on laws, offices, and direct participation by members of the polis or city-state, in contrast to a form of rule based on the personal powers of a despot and his entourage, was not only a civic political community based on laws equally binding on all members, but was consciously grouped according to a shared sense of ethnic identity. The representative parliaments that emerged later were merely based on the civic identity of the members of the state, their shared political rights and responsibilities, which anyone regardless of ethnic identity could lay a claim to as long as he was or became a political member of the respective state.

I have heard this claim expressed in New Right circles, how Christians with their idea that we all have equal souls in the eyes of God were responsible for our current obsession with harmonizing all races inside the West, or how Romans with the granting of citizenship during the third century AD to inhabitants in the Empire of any race, started a new trans-racial concept of citizenship. My view is the opposite: racially conscious political communities were created only after the Enlightenment. Europeans were the first people in history to develop a science of race. Humans are ethnocentric by nature in showing a preference for their own linguistic, tribal, and ancestral groups, but this is not the same as being racially aware and having the intellectual wherewithal to articulate a rational argument about the existence of different races. Racial awareness began during the sixteenth century as Europeans were coming into contact with peoples in the Americas, Africa, and Asia with very different bodily attributes and customs. It was during the Enlightenment, however, that Europeans began to develop a scientific theory of race.

The same philosophers who announced that human nature was uniform everywhere, and united mankind as a subject capable of enlightenment, argued "in text after text…in the works of Hume, Diderot, Montesquieu, Kant, and many lesser lights" that men "are not uniform but are divided up into sexes, races, national characters…and many other categories," so observes Aaron Garret in a book chapter titled "Human Nature" in The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-Century Philosophy (2006). Eighteenth century talk about "human nature" and the "unity of mankind" was less a political program for a universal civilization than a scientific program for the study of man in a way that was systematic in intent and universal in scope. Enlightenment thinkers were not calling for the unity of humanity, the sameness of races, other than for a "federation of the peoples of Europe". Garrett is stereotypically liberal and thus writes of "the eighteenth century's dubious contributions to the discussion of race", but what matters is that Enlightenment thinkers did engage in the scientific study of races in light of the evidence and the knowledge at the time. Most Enlightenment thinkers rejected polygenecism and asserted the fundamental (species) equality of humankind, but they also came to the conclusion that humanity was divided into different races with very different biological traits, behavioral dispositions and mental aptitudes.

One cannot speak of the suicide of Europeans in a racial way without the very "rationalism" Krebs condemns, which is presupposed in the scientific study of races. The Greeks were not yet rational in their understanding of races. Their concept of civic membership did presuppose membership of traditional kinship or tribal groupings, but it did not presuppose racial membership. The Greeks developed a Pan-Hellenic identity during the first century BC in the course of the Persian Wars (490-479 BC), but this was a cultural identity, easily fractured in the years ahead by the endemic wars between the city-states.

By contrast, in the nineteenth century, the age of full-blown individualization, universalization, and massification, the field of racial studies emerged, and it was in light of these studies that the United States, Australia, and Canada instituted in the twentieth century "white only" immigration policies. These policies were implemented in liberal democratic societies and accepted by the majority of citizens.

Dialogue between Krebs and RD

"[I]n the American-style 'carnival' multiculturalism, it is in fact the naturally aristocratic soul of Europe, its deeply individualist style, its essentially rebellious, Faustian and Promethean spirit that the globalist vulgate is in the process of attacking. Behind its multicultural alibi, Europe is invited to change its mentality — and so its skin — so that its lively identity may be silenced".4

Americans have been pushing multiculturalism and immigration in Europe for decades, and if the term "Western Civilization" is taken to mean that European nations should become as the US and Canada were in the 1960s, with multiple European ethnicities converging as members of one nation, then I am opposed to it. But the settler nations of America, Canada and Australia (and New Zealand) are European creations and altogether they should be viewed as members of a Pan-European world we can conveniently label "Western Civilization" as a way of identifying common traits and common historical experiences in and outside Europe in North America and Australia, in contrast to that of other civilizations.

My book Uniqueness of Western Civilization emphasizes the roots of this civilization in the aristocratic culture of Indo-Europeans and the Faustian personality of Europeans. But it seems to me Krebs is making a mistake in assuming that the Faustian soul of the West was gradually eroded with the adoption of what he calls "the monster of Judaeo-Christianity".5 As I briefly argued in a prior essay here, citing Spengler's words:
Christianity, too, became a thoroughly Faustian moral ethic. "It was not Christianity that transformed Faustian man, but Faustian man who transformed Christianity — and he not only made it a new religion but also gave it a new moral direction."
I will address in part II Krebs' erroneous understanding of Christianity. The point I like to make now is that the forces pushing for multiracialism inside the West are still imbued with a Faustian moral imperative, even as they seek to destroy this soul and are themselves already intermixed, in this late hour, with alien morals. The words cited above from Spengler come from Chapter X, "Soul-Image and Life-Feeling: Buddhism, Stoicism, Socialism". I may write an essay exclusively on this magnificent chapter in the future. In it, Spengler specifically addresses the "morale" of Faustian man in the last stage of the West when it is about to exhaust itself, but before writing about this stage in particular, he notes that, for the Faustian morale in general,
everything is direction, claim to power, will to affect the distant. Here Luther is completely at one with Nietzsche, Popes with Darwinians, Socialists with Jesuits; for one and all, the beginning of morale is a claim to general and permanent validity. It is a necessity of the Faustian soul that this should be so. He who thinks or teaches "otherwise" is sinful, a backslider, a foe, and he is fought down without mercy. You "shall", the State "shall", society "shall" — this form of morale is to us self-evident, it represents the only real meaning that we can attach to the word.6
On the surface, or perhaps in a way that requires disentanglement, the socialists of Spengler's day appeared to have rejected the Faustian aggressive will for overcoming all resistances when they spoke softly at conferences and at the ballot box about
the ideals of 'welfare', 'freedom', 'humanity', the doctrine of the 'greatest happiness of the greatest number'.
[i]t is a shallow judgment, and one incapable of inwardly understanding history, that cannot distinguish the literary chatter of popular social-moralists and humanity-apostles from the deep ethical instincts of the West-European Civilization.7
Krebs has an inverted understanding of the Faustian soul. He grasps the aggressive moral certainty of globalists against the heterogeneity of cultures and ethnicities, but attributes this drive to Judeo-Christianity, mainly on the basis of its monotheism and egalitarian impulses, while picturing the Faustian morality of Europeans as if it were inherently inclined toward a life without directionality, repetitive cycles, co-existence with other morals in the world, ecological harmony, and polytheism. Krebs misreads the Faustian will to power of the West; he wants Europeans to "return" to their pre-Christian pagan past. But the problem is, first, that our Indo-European ancestors were a uniquely expansionary and directional people exhibiting a glorious expansive drive since prehistoric times across the Old World, spreading their "Kurgan" lifestyle across Asia and Europe, leading eventually to a situation in which Indo-European languages are spoken today by almost 3 billion native speakers, the largest number of any language family. The problem is also that the immense creativity of the ancient Greeks, Romans, Catholics, Protestants, and Moderns I have written about in previous essays was driven by this Faustian energy — before and after Christianity.

We are facing an enemy — both the Neocon assimilationists and the Left multiculturalists — possessed by a Faustian morale (intermixed with alien demonic motifs) dedicated to the destruction of European ethnic identity "without mercy" and in complete conviction of its ideals. We should not be surprised by this. But just because the proponents of European ethnic dissolution are Faustian it does not follow that this is what the West was always (since the inception of Christianity) inclined to do. The Faustian soul has expressed itself in multiple, conflicting ways throughout history. Europeans have been the most bellicose people in human history. They almost self-destructed in two world wars. Many other alternative outlooks were defeated or unable to gather sufficient support. Now we have a huge conflict opening up. In the Western world "life means struggling, overcoming, winning through",8 and waging a successful political war against the prevailing Faustian ethic can only be accomplished with a Faustian ethnocentric morale.

Once the dangers have been perceived and the choices have been offered, we must then move to action, first refusing 'compromise, weakness, and indulgence towards everything which, being derived from the Judaeo-Christian root, has infected our blood and our intelligence'. Then secondly, return to our pagan Indo-European tradition without which 'there will be no liberation and no true restoration, and conversion to the true values of spirit, power, hierarchy, and empire will not be possible'.9

The words cited by Krebs are from Julius Evola. Krebs sees how we are facing an ideology with which there can be no compromises, and yet he speaks of a "return to our pagan Indo-European tradition" without considering that this tradition welcomes the struggle for existence, overcoming limitations, mastering nature. Evola has a mythological understanding of European history, a preference for traditional cultures combined with an immense dislike for Western modernity. He writes of the "order of things" in traditional cultures without realizing that Faustian man refuses to be bounded by orders other than those he has subjected to rational investigation. I learned much from Evola's Revolt Against the Modern World; it offers fascinating ideas about the "higher world" of ancient cultures, how rulers, institutions, and laws were seen as divine in origin and how this divinity ensured spiritual stability with a clear sense of the proper ranking of classes and human activities, higher spiritual functions versus lower materialistic functions, giving purpose and meaning to life, uplifting everyone in the direction of the higher "invisible reality" and conferring a sacred dignity to leadership roles, rituals, and beliefs. His understanding of the meaning of "tradition" surpasses that of any sociologist.

But Evola is not a practical thinker in tune with the actualities of Western history, what is possible today in the modern world. Just as Spengler called for German conservatives to liberate themselves from Romantic, unrealistic goals based on "dead" programs, the New Right needs to accept and adapt to the realities of international finance, genetic engineering, and robotics. It must not let go of the Faustian ethos:
the Faustian technics, which with the full passion of the third dimension and, to sure, from the earliest days of the Gothic era thrusts itself upon Nature in order to hold sway over her.10

...Judaeo-Christianity and its modern avatars, egalitarian democracy...and the mercantile ideologies of the Homo oeconomicus and all their variations. In fact, once the assumption that Europe and the West are synonymous, which was previously believed to be self-evident, has been turned on its head, the opposite idea becomes the rule: the West is then moved to the opposite pole as something absolutely alien, with the radical, exogenous character of a civilisation that must henceforth be perceived on the basis of the natural incompatibilities that separate it forever from the authentic European culture considered in all its aspects: ethnic, mental, and spiritual [...] Europe will be able to find itself, return to an obedience to its gods, purify the conscience of its being which has been adulterated for so long, and recreate in its liberated soul the vibrations of a forgotten transcendence and origin.11

Homo oeconomicus was a unique creation of Europeans, authentic to them. Europeans were the first to develop a science of economics and to discover the laws behind the production and distribution of wealth. The first to separate analytically "economic man" and thereby understand the activities of this man without confounding these activities with religious and political motivations, and, in doing so, to apprehend the reality that a nation's power is more efficiently sustained when a nation creates its own wealth through work rather that through conquest. This was another major step in redirecting the Faustian energies of European man into less destructive endeavors. This does not mean that one has to accept the principles of free market economics since there are other schools including the much neglected German school associated with the economics of Friedrich List's National System of Political Economy (1841), which accepted the wealth-creating nature of capitalism based on the economic history and economic reality of nations.

The West is not alien to Europe but a creation of Europe's incredible extension across the Atlantic in the modern era. Seeking a "return" to an "authentic" Europe of pagan gods, "transcendence and origin", is Utopian. This Europe is nowhere to be found in the classical Greece Krebs cherishes. The ancient Greeks reinterpreted or limited the sphere of influence of their gods as they became self-conscious as distinctive personalities in possession of a faculty they called "mind" (in contradistinction to other bodily attributes and psychological drives) capable of self-grounding its own principles and criteria for truthful statements. The first step in the origins of self-awareness, or awareness of awareness, thinking about thinking, rather than thinking in terms of prescribed norms and mandated religious ordinances, came with the uniquely Indo-European fight to the death for the sake of pure prestige by aristocratic peers in the state of nature. I write about this in Chapter Eight of Uniqueness.

The liberation of Europe has to be grounded in its peculiar history rather than in some static "origin" disconnected from what came after.

[1] Alexander Dugin, Fourth Political Theory: 140
[2] Pierre Krebs, Fighting for the Essence: Western Ethnosuicide or European Renaissance?: 89
[3] Ibid. 18
[4] Ibid. 24
[5] Ibid. 22
[6] Oswald Spengler, Decline of the West: 341
[7] Ibid. 351
[8] Ibid. 343
[9] Krebs: 29
[10] Cited in John Farrenkopf, Prophet of Decline: Spengler on World History and Politics, 2001: 72
[11] Krebs: 39

Part I | Part II


  1. A very eye-opening read, thank you Professor.

    "the forces pushing for multiracialism inside the West are still imbued with a Faustian moral imperative, even as they seek to destroy this soul and are themselves already intermixed, in this late hour, with alien morals."

    This is an excellent point; I never saw it this way, i.e., a alien morality combined with the Faustian spirit. Although I think Dr. MacDonald also views this problem in terms of morality, and who defines morality in our society, i.e., letting in mass immigrants as a moral imperative. The moral issue is a deep problem for us (Europeans).

    "waging a successful political war against the prevailing Faustian ethic can only be accomplished with a Faustian ethnocentric morale."

    In other words, framing an argument in moral terms is what is needed to advance our European interests. Am I on the right track?

    1. It is very important for Europeans to think that what they are doing is "right". They can't seem to act spontaneously according to their perceived ethnic interests; they have to find "reasons" for their actions in a way that no other ethnic group feels a need for. One can say that is a major weakness leading to our demise, but it seems inescapable, this need to *explain* why we are right, and look for reasons that have a categorical or universal meaning to them. I am not saying it is always this way, but it is clearly a strong inclination. My hope is that we can offer excellent reasons for our ethnic survival and demonstrate that the evidence, the history, and the ethics of the situation are on our side: what is universally right for Europeans.

      What happened in Rotherham, the way the establishment allowed the systematic rape of white girls to go on for years, and is still allowing it, demonstrates clearly that we are morally right.

  2. "By contrast, in the nineteenth century, the age of full-blown individualization, universalization, and massification, the field of racial studies emerged, and it was in light of these studies that the United States, Australia, and Canada instituted in the twentieth century "white only" immigration policies. These policies were implemented in liberal democratic societies and accepted by the majority of citizens. "

    Indeed. One could only imagine how much more further the Faustian spirit could have driven these countries if the botched anthropology of Franz Boas had not been allowed to flourish in our academic institutions, resulting in a mass mis-education of future generations. We would already have colonies on the Moon and probably even Mars.

    1. Colonies on other planets? Before anyone can transcend nature, they first have to live happily and successfully within it. And that is something we have not yet done. Always we are looking for some technological fix with no concern for nature at all. Pollute your planet? No problemo - run away to the moon! LOL!

      And that doesn't make me a neocon. It makes me a realistic person, one who can see that before anything else, we are biological creatures.

    2. "Before anyone can transcend nature, they first have to live happily and successfully within it."

      Since when is it a prerequisite be 'happy' before exploring outer space? Your statement doesn't even make sense. Did the USA wait for the world to be "oh-so-happy" before they launched the first man to the moon? So much for that idea...

      "Always we are looking for some technological fix with no concern for nature at all. Pollute your planet? No problemo - run away to the moon! "

      I never stated that, nor did I imply it; YOU said that. Do not 'put words into my mouth.' You obviously either glossed over what I posted or you missed the point that I was trying to make.

      "And that doesn't make me a neocon."

      Who ever said that you were a neocon?
      (or was that Freudian slip?)

    3. No Freudian slip! I should've said I was not some kind of pasty faced liberal, but then I realized that neoconism is the right wing of liberalism, so it's all the same disgusting ball of wax. I shouldn't have put that sentence in at all. Always someone there to keep me on my toes. are we better off for having sent a man to the moon? Inquiring minds want to know! I'd place the space program in the just-because-you-can-do-it-doesn't-mean-you-have-to category. Can't you see any flaws in our race at all? Are we that preternaturally wonderful, in all ways, all the time?

      Hope you're enjoying the last days of the American Empire!

  3. Indeed, going back to your traditions doesn't mean going back 100%. Not do-able in any case!

  4. I always enjoy reading your essays, Mr. Duchesne. Are you familiar with The Might of the West, by Lawrence Brown? I would be very interested in reading your thoughts on that book.

    1. I heard about it but have not read it; hope to read it. There is so much to know about Western Civ; everything you need to know is there and more; and yet there are now creating a "common" educational core that appeals to a diverse audience in which the history of the West will be nullified and reduced to trivialities that appeal to the least common denominator.

  5. The immigration restriction in the early 20th century was not about 'whites only' but centred upon preserving the founding Anglo-Saxon commonwealths by restricting southern and eastern European migration. These nations were not 'European' but Anglo-Saxon constructs.

    The concept of Judeo-Christianity, as it is used by Kaplan, gained precedence in the 1940s in an effort to battle antisemitism. Ditto Western Civ.They are constructs originated to undermine the effort to preserve the EGI of the founding. Anglo-Saxon people.

    Representative William N. Vaile of Colorado, one of the most prominent restrictionists:

    "Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the “Nordic” race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. … What we do claim is that the northern European, and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But that is the full statement of the case. They came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it. We are determined that they shall not. It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves. (Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922) "

  6. This certainly is a difficult question for European ethno-nationalists to untangle. It is very easy for me to sympathize with Krebs and De Benoist. Mr. Duchesne certainly makes a strong point when he says that breaking free of boundaries, and tearing down old orders is part of the Faustian spirit of Western (European) man. But I think it is only one direction of the Western Indo-European tradition. The argument of the New Right is quite convincing: even if this ever-expansionary and all-rationalizing complex that we here have come to call 'Western Civilization' is a product of European society, that does not mean it cannot be discarded if it comes to threaten the latter, its source. That is why De Benoist and his colleagues place so much importance on origins, the primordial cultural and racial source from which this complex arose, and has to be appreciated and protected in order for the latter to have any substance. This view is diametrically opposite to those of many traditional Western conservatives, such as the High Tories, with whom I've had many contacts, which more is obsessed with the more recent, outward trappings of European civilization (Christian hierarchy, monarchy), without really appreciating what brought them, and what sustains this civilization that they enjoy (hence the low focus on immigration, apart from Muslim immigration).

    Benoist and Evola advocate the return to a truly metaphysically conservative pre-modern way of life, which, while lacking the technological and humanistic glory of modernity, is less prone to devouring itself, as they consider the latter to be. This fits with the traditional view of history as being cyclical, with civilizations rising from the primordial chaos, growing, maturing, until they have outgrown their own environment, only to decline, collapse, and be reborn again. While the Faustian spirit of directionality is certainly an important part of Western tradition, the traditional view cannot simply be dismissed as 'un-Western', it has figured importantly in conservative philosophy since the time of the Greeks as a counter-current in Western thought. Undoubtedly, Evola and De Benoist are not formulating philosophies meant to form the basis of practical politics, but perhaps the case can be made that this supposed 'Faustian' spirit of expansion and destruction, which they have labelled as 'Western Civilization' may be the biggest danger to peace on the planet, and to our survival. After all, nearly every empire in history has ended with the founding nation itself being colonized, and yet no Western regime seems to have taken this lesson to heart. The Romans worshipped Alexander the Great, and then made all the same mistakes that he did.

    Perhaps we do not even have to chose one direction over the other. Ancient Indo-European society was divided into three complementary functions, through which, seemingly opposing forces could be reconciled towards the common good. Evola, in his extreme-individualist concern with the unspeakable and the mysterious, and his general aloofness towards common concerns, resembles the first function: that of the priest/sovereign. Krebs and Benoist are more concerned with nurturing a stable, and perennial tradition for the European peoples, and thus are akin to the third function: farmers, in that they are content with peace and harmony at home, and care little for what happens outside their society. Writers such as Prof. Duchesne, for example, are more militant in defending the interests of Europeans on the world stage, and thus resemble the second function: the warrior, whose role is to look outwards in search of victory for the tribe. All of these functions complemented each other, as none could exist without the others supporting it. I think that the ascendancy of the Western concept of the logos has made it increasingly difficult to look at things from a broader, more nuanced perspective.

    1. Very good comment. Spengler sees an underlying irrational vitalism driving the logocentric energies of the West. In this he is very different from Weber, who otherwise identified the uniqueness of the West with rationalization.

      Everyone explains the vitality of Europeans -- the rise of the West -- as if it were inherently about making a modern "civilization, about great books and works of art; and then a struggle for rights and peace; academics in particular have this illusion that they are at the center of what is great in human life, reading, writing and being civilized, rationalism, printing press, representative institutions, religious tolerance, rights of man. But it seemed to me that a civilization filled with such restlessness as the West, was likely originated by men full of barbarian energy, and the moment I read a bit about Indo-Europeans, it was obvious they were the missing link, completely left out by academics terrified of the word "Aryan" . Behind the Greek "miracle" was an aristocratic barbarian culture which I traced back to the prehistoric Indo-Europeans, the first horse riders, makers of chariots, a diet of dairy products.

      There is a self-destructive tendency in the West that cannot be conceptualized as logos, and yet this tendency is also the basis of the immense philosophical creativity of the West, of their logocentric will to penetrate beneath the surface of things and discover the laws of nature. I would not say that the concept of logos has made it difficult for Westerners to see other aspects of human existence; it depends on the elites in power, and which currents win out; the power that science gives is very attractive and this is the reason it seems to be about logos winning over other currents, but this logos is itself irrationally driven, in the West, and there are other currents from within the West that emphasize the darker, mysterious forces. But, again, if Spengler is correct, we are living through the last days of this Faustian culture.

      Decline of the West is obvious and not only in the face of mass immigration; it is evident in the very physiology of Europeans; current males are not the same as in the past; even if they "understand" that their lands are being occupied by forces that will destroy them, many will still not react, they have lost their basic survival instincts; it is not their ideas of human rights only, but their temperament is very low in aggressive in-group energies.

    2. The glory of the Westerner is to transform each and every new epoch, no matter how dark, into a new vision of aesthetic grandeur, into a radically, strange and different encounter with sublime beauty. This is as true today as ever. Where the spirit of epic abandons us, the spirit of tragedy may still be known. If we cannot be Übermenschen, we can still be Zarathustras.

      I model my own personality and desires on the figure of Ernst Jünger. I seek to appropriate the evil of my age as the necessary condition of my creativity in values.

  7. Silk in his 'Notes on the Judeo-Christian Tradition in America opines that the invocations of the Judeo-Christian tradition arose in the 1930s and 1940s as a counterpoise to 'fascist-travelers and anti-semites who appropriated Christianity as their identity.'

    Stephen Prothero in his 'American Jesus' argues that Jewish leaders were the originators and strongest defenders of Judeo-Christian traditions.

  8. his use of cultural Marxists and postmodernists (Franz Boas, Michel Foucault, Levi Strauss, Jean Baudrillard) to paint a picture of the West as the sickest, most destructive civilization in human history. Everything hateful about the world -- consumerism, environmental despoliation, egalitarianism, plutocratic manipulation, erosion of ethnic and traditional differences -- was explained by him as a direct product of the metaphysical orientation of the West.

    This goes back to Heidegger, who argued along these lines. Dugin cites Heidegger as one of his chief inspirations. The postmodernists were/are basically leftist spins on some of Hiedegger's ideas.

    Krebs's work as well, with its emphasis on authentic Being and Europe and criticism of Western Civilization seems Heideggerian.

  9. Your criticisms of the New Right here seem to be in line, in several respects, with those of Guillaume Faye in L'Archéofuturisme (In that book, he distances himself from the New Right). Particularly, your valorization of technological adaptability together with the Faustian ethos has a reflection in one of my favorite passages in Faye's book about the need to reconcile...

    "Evola et Marinetti. Le Docteur Faust et les Laboureurs" (from the Introduction)

    That also reminds me, I shall meet Dugin, among others, next month at the European Congress in Budapest. It would be interesting to ask them how they receive the ideas advanced in your book, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization.

    1. When I wrote Uniqueness I was still thinking of the West in culturalist terms, and avoided ethnicity. I sounded Neocon-like in some of the things I said about Western universalism.

  10. Another amazing read, thank you for continuing efforts to put thought provoking articles no your blog to educate and inform readers, such as myself.I have a few questions that I would like to ask.

    First, it seems that Spengler was heavily influenced by Schopenhauer ,for example, the noumena being the will to power. Is this a correct assumption on my behalf?

    Next, Evola strikes me as wishing for a society based upon Vedantic lines, however, true Vedanta does not support the notion of the cast system. Similarly, do you think this is a correct assumption.

    Third, the Faustian spirit striving to throw off all bounds, except those mediated through logical and scientific criteria, is this an emended supposition on my part?

    Finally, it seems that in an indirect or arguably direct way, Nietzsche's "over man" seems to be looming in the background, as it were. The only contradiction to my mind is, Nietzsche's doctrine of the eternal recurrence, which would put him in the camp of Evola. In short, yea or nay?

    Finally, what exactly is the solution to the problem posed i.e. mass migration, Fabian's and Cultural Marxism, all supported by wealthy elites. I can only think to return to the recent past, just prior to the rise of the corporation nation, federal reserve, etc. and rebuilding again; mind you with the added advantage of using modern technology stripped from oligarchical control. Any comments on this would be greatly appreciated - Cheers!!

    1. Spengler is known as a cultural pessimist and in this respect Schopenhauer is mentioned as an important early influence. Not sure about Evola, I only know the one book I cited.

      I would not say "throw off all bounds, except those mediated through logical and scientific criteria". The peculiar thing -- though it is not -- about Spengler is that he was a great admirer of science and technology but he is not a positivist or someone who believes in linear progress, even though this idea of progress is Faustian. Spengler was Faustian in his originality and daring opposition to the prevailing ideas of his day; his book Decline is an incredible work driven by a need to see the course of human history in a new way. The idea of progress is central to the West's identity but it happens to be the case that Europeans were also the ones who advance in a more developed way ideas about civilizational cycles, as Spengler did.

      I should clarify that Faustian is not the only way to define the West; if I had to choose one term this would be it, but there are others, such as Hegel's Phenomenology and Dialectic.

  11. Thank you for your reply to my comments, especially as regards Spengler not being a positivist or believing in linear progress. I find this blog and the articles on it very interesting, to say the least - Cheers!!

  12. I have gathered on this forum thread an arsenal of arguments (from a Rightist Christian viewpoint) against right-wing paganism, or anti-Christian Right. My intention is to show to arrogant New Right types that if they want to push Christians, we can push right back at them (intellectually):

    "I keep telling all uncritical Nietzsche fanboys that these things simply aren't that simple.

    Not only is serious religious faith absolutely necessary for the maintenance of any traditionalist right-wing system - organized religion is what gave birth to organized human societies in the first place - but the Leftist ideology on the other hand has clearly been (besides those components that have indeed been plagiarized from Christianity)influenced and inspired by various pagan notions.

    What were the "last words" of Greek philosophy? Hedonistic Epicureanism, relativistic Pyrrhonism, cosmopolitan Stoicism and escapistic Neoplatonism.

    The last word of Greek polis-politics? Populist, anti-aristocratic tyranny.

    The last word of Roman statesmanship? A universal empire with universalist ideology, run by bureaucrats selected on the meritocratic basis, that gave citizenship to all its free inhabitants without any discrimination between Europeans and Asians:

    And besides these "Apollonian" influences, there have also been less rational, "Dionysian" heathen contributions to the Leftist worldview.

    As I have described on this thread, festivals like Saturnalia and Bacchanalia breathed the mystical spirit of levelling, equality and "creative chaos".

    Ancient pagans widely believed that in prehistorical times, some kind of "Primitive Communism" has existed. Plutarch wrote about Numa Pompilius:

    Numa's muse, however, was gentle and humane, and he converted his people to peace and righteousness, and softened their violent and fiery tempers. And if we must ascribe to the administration of Lycurgus the treatment of the Helots,5 a most savage and lawless practice, we shall own that Numa was far more Hellenic as a lawgiver, since he gave acknowledged slaves a taste of the dignity of freedom, by making it the custom for them to feast in the company of their masters during the Saturnalia.1 For this too was one of the institutions of Numa, as we are told, who thereby admitted to the enjoyment of the yearly fruits of the earth those who had helped to produce them. Some, however, fancy that this custom was a reminder of the equality which characterized the famous Saturnian age, when there was neither slave nor master, but all were regarded as kinsmen and equals."


The opinions of our commenters do not necessarily represent the opinions of CEC or its contributors. Please follow the netiquette.

Our Facebook Our Twitter Our Gab Our Google + Our Youtube Our RSS feed