Review: View from The Right: A Critical Anthology of Contemporary Ideas, Volume I

View from The Right: A Critical Anthology of Contemporary Ideas, Volume I: Heritage and Foundations
Alain de Benoist (Ed.), trans. Robert Lindgren
Arktos, 2017; orig. published, 1977, with an updated preface (2001) by de Benoist

After 40 years, and following translations into Italian and Portuguese (1981), German (1984), and Romanian (1998), we finally have an English translation of Alain de Benoist’s 650-page magnum opus. Vu de Droite: Anthologie critique des idées contemporaines was first published in 1977 when de Benoist’s GRECE (Research and Study Group for European Civilisation) think-tank was at the height of its influence. It took the French political and intellectual worlds by storm, receiving widespread attention in the mainstream press and winning the Grand Essay Prize from l’Académie française in June 1978.

It is little short of remarkable that we should have to wait four decades for an English translation of a text with such critical acclaim and intellectual pedigree. Credit for bringing about the English translation (published in three handsomely designed volumes and with an updated 2001 Preface) is due to Arktos Media, founded in part in 2010 with the goal of bringing the works of de Benoist to an anglophone readership. A final push to ensure translation of Vu de Droite was initiated in 2016, when seventy-three backers contributed a combined total of around $10,000 via to bring the project to completion. The dedication and generosity of all involved was not in vain. Although we eagerly await the imminent publication of Volumes Two and Three, the first volume (published in late 2017) is an invaluable work in its own right. Intellectually thorough yet written with admirable economy and agility, View from The Right Volume I: Heritage and Foundations is a useful tool, an invaluable point of reference, and a resounding call to action which has lost none of its relevance or vitality in the decades since its first printing.

The central purpose of View from The Right is to break the taboo on the assertion of right-wing ideas and to present clearly defined intellectual positions (or pathways to positions) on a wide range of subjects as they pertain to right-wing thought. In Volume I, these positions pertain to matters of European racial and cultural heritage, and the broader foundations of contemporary right-wing ideologies. The author describes (ix) his intention to “prepare a portrait of the intellectual and cultural landscape of the moment, to establish the state of affairs, to signal the tendencies, to open the pathways and provide benchmarks to aid (and incite) the task of thinking in a world that is already in the process of considerable change.” For the most part, this effort takes the structural form of powerful and succinct essay summaries of the state of current mainstream scholarship on a number of crucial and fascinating topics. These summaries are then supplemented with commentary from de Benoist and developed still further in his very generous footnotes. Translator Robert Lindgren also deftly assists the reader by occasionally including his own useful commentary on the text, along with a number of very helpful translations and updates of de Benoist’s scholarly citations.

An important question immediately presents itself: how does de Benoist define right-wing thought? De Benoist prefigures Jonathan Bowden in asserting unambiguously that right-wing ideas are fundamentally about inequality or, in de Benoist’s formulation (2):

I hereby define the right, by pure convention, as the consistent attitude to view the diversity of the world, and by consequence the relative inequalities that are necessarily the product of this, as a positive thing; and the progressive homogenisation of the world, extolled and effected by two thousand years of egalitarian ideology, as a negative thing.  I call of the right those doctrines that believe that the relative inequalities of existence include the relations of force of which historical becoming is the product — and which deem that history must continue — in short, that ‘life is life, that is to say a combat, for a nation as for a man’ (Charles de Gaulle).

De Benoist thus defines as his true enemy not ‘the left,’ ‘communism,’ or even ‘subversion,’ but ‘the egalitarian ideology.’ I recently saw it remarked on social media that the 2001 Preface to View from the Right, a magnificent anti-egalitarian polemic, was alone worth the purchase price. It’s difficult to disagree and, to my mind at least, the Preface, an immensely important essay in its own right, is one of the most concise, coherent, sophisticated, and forceful condemnations of modern egalitarianism ever published. The author remarks at the outset that in 1978 the right-wing stance of the book was no obstacle to getting reviews in the mainstream press. Today, “this tendency is brutally reversed. The rise of ‘uniform thought,’ exploited by those whose interests it could best serve, has done its work.” A zone of “ostracism and prohibition” has steadily exiled all but the most conformist of thinkers to the fringes of culture. Despite manufactured discourse within the mainstream, we witness there only the “complete obsolescence of the right-left split,” the only difference between the mainstream factions being the fixation of the ‘right’ with “the logic of profit,” and the fixation of the ‘left’ with “the progressive homogenisation of the world.” Both goals, quite obviously, feed effortlessly into the globalist project.

Egalitarianism, or the concept of mass equality, may be a key ideological prop of globalism, but it is ultimately, according to de Benoist (xii), intellectually bankrupt: “Articulated as a principle sufficient in itself, it is void of content, for equality and inequality only exist in a given context and through relation to factors that allow it to be situated in order to be appreciated concretely. The notions of equality and inequality are therefore always relative and, by definition, are never exempt from arbitrariness.” Faced with the growing dictatorship of the equality principle, de Benoit argues (xiv) that “it is better to realise that the equality of conditions is not highly possible, nor even strongly desirable. We believe less and less that all inequalities are of a social origin. Conversely, we can certainly see that too many financial inequalities are politically and socially unacceptable, without having to believe in the natural equality of individuals.” The idea of ‘economic equality’ is largely a propaganda ruse, in which the left instinctively rejects the concept of economic liberty (and the equality of opportunity it affords) in favor of equity: “the left, rather than aspiring towards equality itself, seeks the sustainable maximisation of minimum (maximin), that is to say, a compensation or a redistribution that allocates the most possible to those who possess the least.”

Political equality is also a chimera. Here de Benoist cites (xv) Carl Schmitt, who remarked:

The equality of everything ‘that has a human face’ is incapable of providing the foundation for a state, a state form, or a form of government. No distinctions can be derived [….] Nothing distinctive can be deduced in morality, religion, politics, or economics from the fact that all people are human [….] The idea of human equality does not furnish any legal, political, or economic criteria […] An equality that has no contents except for the equality common to all men will be an apolitical equality, because it lacks the corollary of a possible inequality. … An equality without the possibility of inequality, an equality that one has intrinsically and that one can never lose, is without value and indifferent.

Egalitarianism is portrayed, colourfully and accurately, in View from The Right as a kind of slow-growing but ever-expanding plague or tumour; dull, vacuous, suffocating, and malignant. In memorable prose de Benoist describes it (xvii) as “an ideology allergic to everything which is specific, which interprets all distinction as potentially devaluing, which holds differences as contingent, transitory, inessential, or secondary. Its driving force is the idea of Uniformity.” We are now reaching the zenith of this driving force. In the modern era, the drive to human homogeneity was “pushed to the maximum in totalitarian societies by a central power installing itself as the only source of possible legitimacy. In Western postmodern societies, the same result has been obtained by the commodification of the world. It is a gentler yet more effective process: the degree of homogeneity of current western societies largely exceeds that of the totalitarian societies of the past century.”

The reason why historically individualistic Western societies seem to be particularly vulnerable to such a homogenising ideology has confounded me, and presumably many others, for some time. I am intellectually and morally convinced that concerted efforts by a vast number of ethnically Jewish multicultural and ‘White guilt’ propagandists and activists have certainly played a key, though not exclusive, role. Theories of ‘pathological altruism’ have also been usefully put forth and debated. The author of View from The Right offers a provocative suggestion: “The ideology which aims the most at unification of the world is the very one that engenders the most division. Such is the strongest contradiction of the ideology of the Same. The universalist focus is necessarily linked to individualism, for it can only present humanity as fundamentally one by conceiving it as composed of individual units envisaged as abstractly as possible, that is to say, outside of any context or form of mediation.”

Globalisation and homogenisation, despite their pretensions to the creation of national or international communities, thus both engender and thrive upon individualism. This ‘individualism of the Same,’ is of course only a version of individualism — one stripped of liberty. In historical individualistic European societies, individual liberty was in many cases defined, expanded, or contained within certain communal structures (guilds, churches, etc.). In postmodernity, the majority of these communal structures have been abolished or neutered and replaced by a State which slowly takes freedoms from the individual in return for the putative protection of the individual’s ‘rights.’

In this reading then, the naturally individualistic European has been deceived into asserting a false and harmful individualism while the foundations of his true individualism are being eroded under his nose. “I am a free man within my community and my nation,” a statement full of meaning, has become “I am a free man within the world,” a mere empty slogan.

I could easily spend the rest of this review exploring more of the Preface, but it requires full reading to do it justice, and View from The Right is equally rich and provocative throughout. The book’s almost timeless quality is both a testament to the prescience of the author and an indictment of the reticence and sluggishness with which mainstream academia treats European racial history and anything even remotely tangential to right-wing thought. Alain de Benoist remarks (xxxi) at the close of his Preface “I have not changed a world of the text. … This book, which already speaks a lot about ‘cultural power’ and the necessary battle of ideas, remains essential for current events.”

Post-Charlottesville, in the face of overwhelming and renewed cultural oppression of our ideas, the book is probably more essential than ever. Admirably, it is founded on the rejection of historical guilt:

It has been said that the key words of the right’s vocabulary have been discredited by the various fascisms. Let us say instead that this discrediting has been cleverly created and maintained by factions experienced in the diffusion of debilitating and condemning myths. We must be clear about this. We are not in the presence here of an analysis, but of a propaganda. This propaganda consists in assimilating every doctrine that the right affirms, with some vigour, to ‘fascism,’ and as a corollary, to define as ‘democratic’ only those regimes that conceive liberty as some kind of statutory free pass for the revolutionary undertakings of the extreme left. (3)

Who are these factions “experienced in the diffusion of debilitating and condemning myths”? De Benoist leaves the question hanging, though it is interesting to say the least that he reaches immediately (4) for the example of the Jew Ernest Kahane, from the Union rationaliste, who affirmed that the oeuvre of Gobineau “borders on crime.” Whether this is a purposeful dog-whistle to those versed in the Jewish Question, or whether it is instead one of those common coincidences that inevitably emerge when one discusses anti-White activity, I was reminded of Douglas Murray’s The Strange Death of Europe. In that book, simply by engaging in the process of asking questions, Murray finds himself in a difficult position between anodyne condemnations of anti-Semitism and indirectly discussing Jewish influence. For example, in his attempt to discover the origins of the acceleration of multiculturalism in Britain, Murray’s first reference is to Barbara Roche, “a descendant of East End Jews,” as a chief architect of the multicultural state under Tony Blair. Roche, Murray reminds us, dismissed all her critics (diffusing debilitating and condemning myths) as “racists,” “criticised colleagues for being too white,” and “believed that immigration was only ever a good thing.” After ten years of her highly influential immigration reforms, Roche beamed to an interviewer: “I love the diversity of London. I just feel comfortable.”

Such factions, in which figures like Kahane and Roche are rampant, are assisted in making themselves more ‘comfortable’ by the inability of the right to articulate itself. In his Introduction, de Benoist uses the example (4) of a right terrified of being associated with fascism and “a left, and an extreme left, that can at any moment call itself socialist, communist, or Marxist, all the while affirming, of course, that their doctrines have nothing to do with Stalinism, nor indeed with any form of historically realised socialism.” De Benoist further uses the example of a televised debate:

Stage right, the ‘man of the right,’ usually a gentleman of a certain age, well dressed, well groomed, always smiling, full of good intentions, completely unconscious of the stakes of the discussion. And stage left, some young wolves of the extreme left, bearers of a worldview having its own consistency, refusing the least concession, versed in the art of dialectic, in the play of paradigm and syntagm, who tear their interlocutor to pieces. I think that current society is a reflection of these debates.

In View from The Right, de Benoist asks us to go on the intellectual offensive; to have a position on every new scientific and cultural development and to assert this position aggressively and unapologetically. Within human society, remarks the author, “nothing is neutral.” The left, well-versed in ‘Gramscianism’ and the Frankfurt School has not neglected this reality, and its fundamental starting point for the development of its own position on social and scientific developments has been radical critique or, in de Benoist’s phrasing (10), “the questioning of everything.” View from The Right offers pathways to counter such efforts by fleshing out our understanding of scholarship in key areas, performing an ideological critique of the left and identifying where the right may form its own ideological positions. What does the right have to say about child rearing? About evolutionary psychology and sociobiology, behavior genetics, historiography, sociology or microphysics? Where such positions have already been developed, de Benoist offers useful summaries and suggests further areas for exploration. Where there is a total lack of attention from the right, de Benoist opens these subjects up with admirable clarity and depth.

Volume I is divided into two sections. In the first, ‘Heritage,’ de Benoist offers scholarly semi-bibliographical essays on ‘The Roots of Civilisation,’ ‘The World of the Indo-Europeans,’ an examination of theories concerning the possible Nordic origins of the Atlantis myth, ‘Homer and the Homeric Epic,’ ‘Zoroaster,’ ‘The Etruscan Mystery,’ ‘Carthage Versus Rome,’ ‘Celtic Civilisation,’ ‘Roman Gaul,’ ‘Structures of Nordic Mythology,’ and ‘The Vikings in America.’ Of these essays, my personal favorites were those on ‘The World of the Indo-Europeans,’ ‘Celtic Civilisation,’ and ‘Roman Gaul.’ De Benoist’s portrayal of Indo-European studies as a somewhat scorned and starved discipline remains broadly valid forty years on. The founding in 1973 of the Journal of Indo-European Studies by Dr. Roger Pearson is celebrated at the end of de Benoist’s essay. The journal is still in print, though it is probably more marginal than ever, and Pearson of course became a victim of those ever-familiar “debilitating and condemning myths,” smeared scornfully now by a cultural status quo which defines him less as an academic than a “eugenics advocate and political organiser for the extreme right.” The field as a whole continues to languish under relentless suspicion, with one commentator stating that “it is difficult to locate a topic of historical debate over the past two centuries that has been more intellectually provocative, ideologically fraught, and politically laden than that of Indo-European origins and expansion.”

Reviewing the findings of Indo-European Studies one is left asking what precisely is so threatening about it. The answer probably lies in the potential of the field to contribute to a common European ethnic consciousness by affirming that the Indo-Europeans were themselves an ethnic phenomenon as revealed by recent population genetic research. The left likely sees ethnicization of the Indo-Europeans as promoting the development of perceptions of group interests based on such a consciousness — a group consciousness of a heroic past peopled by conquerors, explorers, and innovators.

De Benoist offers an admirable and still current overview of the most relevant ideas and developments in the field, my only advice being that anyone wishing to see an ideologically practical application of such ideas (in the form of a direct response to Marxist anthropology) should follow their reading of de Benoist by consulting Ricardo Duchesne’s excellent commentary on the Indo-Europeans in his The Uniqueness of Western Civilization.

The second half of Volume I is more broadly thematic, comprised less of small individual essays than of broad-ranging, interconnected critiques of leftist thinking and analyses of the various philosophical, scientific, biological, ethological, psychological, and pedagogical bases of right-wing thought. The three largest and most impressive essays concern philosophy, ethology, and psychology, though the scale of reading undertaken by the author in all fields under discussion is nothing short of remarkable. I found one anecdote from de Benoist’s critique of Marxist psychiatrists (what he terms ‘anti-psychiatrists’) so profound (and horrifying) that I had to share it here. The context is the Marxist fashion of denying the existence of mental illness:

In 1965, anti-psychiatrists in London set up an ‘experimental community center’ at Kingsley Hall. Patients and doctors lived together. On equal footing. ‘In this hospital,’ says Jean-Michel Palmier, ‘no constraint is imposed on the sick, there are no tranquilisers, we get up and eat when we want, we make love with who we want. There are no longer any sick people, but individuals who have sought refuge in this community because life has become impossible for them.’ But very quickly, difficulties magnified. One of the ‘boarders’ took up the habit of keeping her excrement and smearing it on the wall of her room, which adjoined the kitchen. ‘There were meetings,’ indicates one of the doctors of the center, ‘to decide whether or not that person had the right to do this, as well as to do whatever she wanted in her room. It was then found that the extent of the smell was greater than the extent of the room. She was asked to reduce the extent of the smear of her excrement.’ The ‘experiment’ ended in 1969. A hundred patients found themselves on the street.

Such instances are enough to leave one speechless. De Benoist urges the opposite response — to aggressively condemn the left and confidently articulate a view from the right. His book is an invaluable contribution to the cultivation of such a sensibility, and to the confident intellectual assertion of our worldview.

33 replies
  1. Alan Donelson
    Alan Donelson says:

    Do we have here dialectics within dialectics, layers of an onion exponentially thinner as one peels one’s way toward the 0 of Infinity Its SELF, territory forbidden to Western Science, explored by others not so constrained? Wayfarers like R.D. Laing (The Politics of Experience, Self and Others, the “family” as a petri dish of human insanity) proceeded undismayed, encumbered by bearing others’ heavy burden of “proof”.

    Dr. Joyce, you lost me here: “I found one anecdote from de Benoist’s critique of Marxist psychiatrists (what he terms ‘anti-psychiatrists’) so profound (and horrifying) that I had to share it here. The context is the Marxist fashion of denying the existence of mental illness….” Here, I contend, one ventures from the social and political (right vs. left), from the psychological and social (individual vs. collective), to realms where knowledge and appreciation of Mind in relation to Body and Soul appear essential.

    I advocate finding and adhering to a spiritual reality some seem to lack, to eschew, to deny. Dialectics of the kind reviewed by de Denoist can consign one forever (in this lifetime) to infinities caricatured in halls of mirrors, presented for entertainment, delusion, and perdition.

  2. Nick Dean
    Nick Dean says:

    I recall reading a critique of Hayek and libertarianism in general by ADB that was impressive, because it was common-sensical, so I can agree that he isn’t all bad.

    But the sum effect of a leftist anti-nationalist who somehow assents to being labelled by a different faction of leftist anti-nationalists as the new ideas man for the right and nationalists obviously won’t be positive for rightists and nationalists. I couldn’t care less about the rightists, but from a nationalist viewpoint, that’s worrying.

    Our rulers or even their puppets – Clinton, Blair and Obama, etc. are not ‘egalitarians’ – it is foolish or dishonest to say they are. And it’s just as foolish or dishonest to say ADB is a nationalist (or even a rightist, if that’s who Joyce means by us).


    And ‘Fascists’ are bashed here, predictably, in express service of keeping us marching right vs. left. Right vs. left did nothing in nearly three centuries to either preserve identity on the one hand or reduce social inequality on the other, it served only to divide Whites and only Whites against ourself. Fascism tho in just a coupla decades, well, for example


    Workers in the Third Reich enjoyed social and employment benefits far outstripping those in the allied countries whether ‘capitalist’ US and Britain or ‘communist’ Soviet Union or ‘socialist’ France: the money system was reformed and the private debt-money system replaced with a state issue of currency model – a massive transfer of wealth from bankers to ordinary Germans; foreign banks and enterprises were squeezed and German banks and businesses favoured protecting German jobs and businesses; foreign workers who depressed local wages and bid up local housing and other costs were encouraged to repatriate – improving the living standards of Germans; environmental regulations were put in place to ensure that irresponsible resource exploiters paid for the costs of their actions and that land, water and air resources that belonged to the whole nation were protected from pollution and private plunder; workers were guaranteed holidays and living wages for the first time; parents of young children received cash subsidies from the government to help with their extra expenses; educational opportunities and home ownership were extended and all Germans were guaranteed health care; family farms were defended against take-over by large agricultural combines, and so on.

    Like I said before, this combination of benefits – and they are enormously beneficial to ordinary people – does not obtain in any single country on the planet today. Far from being a special case of failure or criminality in regard to these issues, the Third Reich, in shifting policy in this direction and to this extent was a shining example of the kind of government most ordinary people would love to have serving them! It’s perverse in the extreme to single out the National Socialists [or Fascists generally] for special criticism over these issues where by any objective standard they were unusually humane and sympathetic to the needs of ordinary workers [and National identity]. /endquote

    • jimmie moglia
      jimmie moglia says:

      Bashing “Fascism” pays and, given the premise and praise of inequality, the bashing fulfills the objective.
      I confess not to have read the review entirely, given the premises. The point is not a call or penchant for socialism, whatever that means.
      Rather I am perplexed at the absurdity of what appears to be the content of the book, given the review and the times. When (in the US) 1% owns and controls 50% of the wealth, or thereabouts. I strongly believe that the ALT-RIGHT will not win converts, given these premises.
      Furthermore, “inequality” is a term so general as to lose its practical and sociological meaning, used in the context as I have understood it.
      In my view, the goal of the ALT-RIGHT should be to attract those large fringes of the masses (read electorate), who, by instinct or tradition equate RIGHT with a distorted, magnified and a-historical view of National Socialism and related systems. Rather than (at least I like to think so), a movement aimed at retaining the tradition of Western civilization, which includes a reasonable and practical empathy towards those who are not blessed by fortune.

      • Curmudgeon
        Curmudgeon says:

        Most people wouldn’t recognize a real “fascist” political objective if it jumped up and bit them in the arse.

  3. Tom Sunic
    Tom Sunic says:

    The whole AdB’s book “Vu de droite” ( 1977), now belatedly translated into English, is a vast survey of prominent anti-egalitarian authors; from Heraclitus to Heidegger. It also includes objective, albeit critical assessment of egalitarian theorists; from the period of Enlightenment to Marx. AdB makes a sharp distinction between the concept of “equality” ( e.g. within ancient European tribe or nation) ad that of “egalitarianism,” which most radically transpires in the ideology of Communism. In most of his still untranslated works, AdB is quite clear; it is useless to criticize egalitarian aberrations in Liberalism and Communism (today’s ersatz in “multicultural diversity”) unless one critically examines it primeval, Levantine, Mideast root causes: Christianity. Both Liberalism and Communism are essentially its modern, secular offshoot—however opposed or even hostile they may often act or appear to be toward it.

    • Leon Q. Haller
      Leon Q. Haller says:

      “Secular offshoot”? I think “bastard child” is more accurate. Christianity rightly understood is NOT egalitarian in the secular humanist (liberal) sense.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Sadly worthy of note, too, Mr. Haller, is that Dr. Sunic first writes of the need to critically examine “root causes”—note the plural—and immediately thereafter lists precisely one claimed cause: Christianity.

        Tom Sunic is far too intelligent a man to be called out here for any alleged failure to have an awareness or understanding of Christianity’s nature or history. Rather, I think that his animus to the Cross and Its followers—at the least a great many of them—is so deep that the close analysis he routinely subjects other historical occurrences and attitudes to is simply laid to one side in regard to them.

        Far from being unique to Dr. Sunic, this mind-set seems to me a foundational element of the European New Right. Nor is it hard to find among a sizable proportion of TOO commenters: perhaps as many as half, perhaps more.

        It is either my belief or my delusion—let the reader decide which—that the numbers of those who embrace this mind-set are as large as they undoubtedly are because of the frightening extent of Jew-wrought corruption of every aspect of life in the once free White and Christian West. In part because the rot has penetrated Christianity itself so deep, I see little hope for reconquest in the near hand, but I certainly wouldn’t object to being surprised. It would also be a nice surprise to see the occasional downtick in the number of whites who feel more murderous or vengeful toward their Christian brothers and sisters than toward their (((actual oppressors))) and the latter’s brutal Muslim and black disciples.

        • Karl Nemmersdorf
          Karl Nemmersdorf says:

          So well put, Pierre. I was going to place a shot across the bow of Mr. Sunic, but I’ll content myself with pointing out the stupendous misunderstanding that would inspire him to describe Communism as an “offshoot” of Christianity. Wow!

        • Nick Dean
          Nick Dean says:

          There is no suspect as plausible and worth considering as source for the anti-Christian animus of the European New Right as Jews, because no other entity had the motive and power to influence intellectuals, mislead them, publish them in the major media and make them celebrities, and encourage already controlled nationalist movements to look to them as guides.

          Sunic knows his Christianity as cause of decline theory is bogus, because he knows that Europeans were Christian when they experienced their greatest rise, MacDonald once shut him up here by simply pointing that out.

  4. Forever Guilty
    Forever Guilty says:

    “I am a free man within my community and my nation,” a statement full of meaning, has become “I am a free man within the world,” a mere empty slogan.

    Yes. The comparable analogue would be. Once upon the time there was nice multiappartment building. People happily lived here raised families, invited on weekends friends for a party, have a good times and lived their own ways of life.

    But there was a man, he was an owner of local pawn shop. His name was Nathan, or Jacob or something like that..

    And he said building residents: “its wrong, its racist and Its simply not cool, you should remove your disgusting racist doors and windows in your apartments ”

    So now burly bearded strangers in bathrobes came into people apartments. They beat up on the residents , raping their family members, getting into their fridges. Some strangers urinate in corners of the room, defecate on floors, copulate with their numerous wives in peoples bedrooms. . Also many of them walking mother-lodes of most exotic deceases

    In the holes, were windows were in the past harsh cold winds and rain and snow blowing into the apartments.

    Oh and because “new vibrant residents” need cash in hand, they grub any valuables in apartments and bringing it to local pawn shop owner Nathan, or Jacob or something like that..

    He calls it “free movement of goods and capital”, which is good for global economy..

  5. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    The implementation of central banking over a century ago, the move to unredeemable paper money, and now the tendency to discourage or impose limits to cash transations seem to fly in the face of claimed individual liberty. Mere denial to payment systems like PayPal are effective in stemming wrongthink. It’s not hard to imagine a darker future of dissidents suffering freezing/confiscation of bank accounts, credit cards.

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      It is not central banking, per se, that is the problem. Central banks have always existed as long as coinage has been around. The questions are: who controls the coinage? and, for what purpose?
      I have, for many years, observed that in an absolute monarchy or dictatorship, you know who is to be held accountable, and by extension, who is the enemy. In today’s “democracy” those same people are largely hidden from view, and we see only the puppets, not the puppet masters.
      I suggest that it is not so much a case of imagining a darker future as predicting it. We are already seeing people losing employment and being economically ruined for expressing “unpopular” (or is it truthful?) opinions.

      • Trenchant
        Trenchant says:

        Central banks haven’t always existed. Historically they are a recent innovation. Advocates of government spending should insist on taxation for revenue-raising, not the dishonest stealth tax of inflation, which hits the poor disproportionately hard.

        Debasing the coin, on the other hand, is as old as the coin, but was problematic. There had to be an element of gradualism to this wealth transfer; the physical properties couldn’t change too radically, lest people understood the devaluation. Paper money, to a large extent, obviated that risk.

        • Curmudgeon
          Curmudgeon says:

          Central banks were called Treasuries in ancient times. Although privately owned, by the King, their purpose was for the security of the realm, unlike the privately owned (((central banks))) to which, I believe, you refer. The (((Dutch))) banks became defacto a central bank cartel as the Dutch fought to free themselves from Spain.
          The Middle East wars have been, primarily, about government owned central banks. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Cuba and North Korea all share 2 things in common: they were/are targets; and government owned central banks.
          Canada has a government owned central bank, with all of the shares owned by the Minister of Finance. Canada had very little debt until Pierre Trudeau’s crowd, in essence, contracted the private banks to take over the Bank of Canada’s function, at interest of course. The Bank of North Dakota is similar to what the Bank of Canada was.
          Paul Craig Roberts has an interesting article on Russian being doomed.

          Iceland’s banking collapse started with the central bank being privatized in the 1990s by neo-liberals.

      • T. J.
        T. J. says:

        First central bank:

        The pioneer was the Sveriges Riksbank, set up as a tool of Swedish financial management in 1668. . .

    • Leon Q. Haller
      Leon Q. Haller says:

      Central banking is a form of socialism and egalitarianism, as the very non-racist, non-fascist Mises averred. But banking itself is a cornerstone of the modern world. We would be living in huts (or more likely, enslaved to other races) without it. What is needed is the elimination of central as well as fraudulent fraction-reserve banking, and a return to a free market in money.

      • jerry
        jerry says:

        Central banking is NOT a form of socialism or egalitarianism! In the communist manifesto a central bank is required. A usury based central bank, that Rothschild (real name Bauer) and other jewish owners control and own every single one of them. These jews are the international bankers and merchants and always have been. They are Mystery Babylon of Revelation 17. They have there Babylonian Talmud, our economic laws are derived from that same book and is called the Babylonian shetar.

  6. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    To wit, without the crowdfunding, the 10K for the translation might never have been raised. Thanks for the review.

  7. m___
    m___ says:

    On the review of View from The Right: A Critical Anthology of Contemporary Ideas, Volume I: Heritage and Foundations
    Alain de Benoist (Ed.), trans. Robert Lindgren
    Arktos, 2017; orig. published, 1977, with an updated preface (2001) by de Benoist

    The review touches the core of where social engineering by elite globalist power is taking us. In today’s terms consumerism is a surrogate expression of individualism, and secondly, the expression of not having the right to adhere to an in-group of choice(lately taking priority).

    There is a race to the bottom, dehumanizing the tool(products, brands) to dumb down and physically degenerate not only the bulk of humanity but also the middle classes(politicians, jurists, media, police and military officers, administrative layers, and on), and succeeding.

    A single pertinent factor that is hard hit: the expression of physical courage by the ingestion of digital porn, palm oil, and corn syrup on the individual level, and the homogenizing effect on any manifest group as such. Cocooning digitally, group identities based on nihilistic values(gender, arena sports, fashion, anything that detracts and exerts effort).

    Muslims(consumers of mass products of horrendous quality and happy), Christians and their ideology of inclusiveness, by having their affiliates focussing on consuming first and not pointing to any contradiction.

    The only way to see any meaninful expression of decisive focus on outcome, are the “hybrid”, “mongrel” elites, trying not to consume their own poison. And they are loosing.

    Loosing?, is there to be any uprising, revolution, anything chaotic that cannot be controlled? No, not of a human nature. The problem with the concept of “equality” lies in the myopy of not including toxicity, resource exhaustion, in short the limited providence of nature.

    When engineering for equality, the single provision of cheap consumer items is out of balance between providing gain and progress versus derivative negative effects on the environment, the life-bulb of the ones that count, the only ones allowed to forcefully choose their in-group, these same power elites. They will have to come up with something better to generationally transit their physical commodities, their position of dominance.

    It is now their task to come up with alternative and timely solutions, and from what can be seen, AI, biological genetics, anything requiring high cognitive capabilities, are not timely integrated into a worldview of value. The experiments of generating local conflicts as to “homogenize”, and “synchronize” any outlier groups, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Lybia, the focus on Muslims, Russia(infighting between power players) belong into Napoleonic times rather and testify of lack of focus.

    That should be expected, any reverse engineering of our power elites, not limited to the ones in sight, but the ones behind the scenes, are deceptive as to psychometric ability. As a group they impose, but since cognitive abilities do not scale to groups and group thinking their idividual mean is poor. Propaganda, using bigger tools of destruction, short term solution capacities, dominating a consenting middle class, intoxicating bulk humanity, rousing bulk humanity in-groups against one another to ultimately homogenize all into submission and dependence do scale far better. The strategy itself proves the lack of cognitive ability in charge of the planetary planning.

    To come to terms with the high-requirements -/- low-capabilities of our global and globalistically minded elites, the clue lies most certainly in the role of the attraction of a Ponzi Scheme, the acceleration in financial capitalism, and military capitalism, both to the rulers, to the blindly adhering median middle classes, and the bulk deplorables alike. Capital, the make believe of it, infused in everything, in the same concept of authority to all parties is stumping the needed the high cognitive capabilities for complex planet Earth ruling. Variables that are understood individually are evidently not integrated in a sustainable worldview.

  8. joe webb
    joe webb says:

    now in a mass age with a foundational ideology both in Europe and the US of Equality, which arguably meant political equality , not social equality, in the first place, has now become social in its emotional and intellectual context.

    The how of it we can see in history, particularly the last half-century, with Third World Revolt, Black Struggle here in the US, and so on.

    The Why? of it is not clear.

    Sheer complexity and high populations contribute. The disease of Equality has ridden the wave of racial mixing. The US is now about 38% non-white.
    The loss of Social Trust is widely commented upon, the perhaps best documentation of a few years ago is Robert Putnam’s study, Community and Diversity in the 21st Century wherein he found that the most racially integrated or “diverse” areas had the lowest measures of Social Trust.
    We see the Trump win as a measure of this failure of Social Trust.

    It seems that the more the left and liberals pursue Social Equality, the more perceptions of inequality and injustice grow This is complemented of course by conservatives getting pushed into more defensive positions. The result is polarization.

    Race Equality is the Moby-Dick of American and probably world society.
    The hysterical/fanatical pursuit of racial equality is leading to civil war.

    Why is this happening? 50 year ago the marxist economics argument made some sense. It no longer does so. 50 years ago, racial equality made a certain amount of sense given denials of civil/political rights to blacks and third world countries. It has turned out to be a total failure of both the economist thesis and the race equality thesis.

    Now, social justice folks have hit the Wall. There is zero rationality in their claims. Enter Moby-Dick. Moby Dick is Mother Nature/Evolution/Racial and general Inequality of people.

    Also in a growing secularization, religion-based love is fading away. What used to ameliorate, love, is on the wane. Rawness dawns, like Hobbes’ War of All Against All.

    Whites don’t trust their fellows, and ditto the same for Blacks, etc.
    The economy is making matters worse and worse with more inequality of incomes.

    If we did not have race conflict and its spoils system, things would be far more manageable. A white country would figure things out. Not now.

    Whites, or the biological reality of White superiority to blacks and browns makes us the White Whale, Moby Dick.
    Our profound creativity and accomplishment has provoked Envy and Bitterness among the lesser races. They try to kill Moby Dick, and to stay with the story, will be sunk like the Pequod , the whale ship. when we have been sufficiently provoked. Captain Ahab, in all his Old Testament hatred and obsession, is what the Blacks and coloreds have become. (Captain Ahab, let me introduce you to Billy Budd.)

    (Melville may have had a soft spot for the Indians massacred by Whites in reprisal for an Indian massacre of Whites earlier. However Melville was no Indian lover, nor his mentor Hawthorne.)

    The race angle is not necessarily all there is to it. Whites too. have not been immune to the infection of Equality Worship. Envy and Pride are a large part of our biological makeup, if left to themselves without instruction on how to contain them. Our Democratic Age releases the energies of many people, unable to restrain themselves, both in sex and in the pursuit of dominance and prestige. Lack of racial solidarity for the most part explains these pathologies. When one knows one is supported by strong arms left and right of you, you can fight. If not , you run away, betray, sellout, etc.

    We are in a time of the Perfect Storm, Shakespearean in fact, the Perfect Storm of Race Struggle , resource struggle, and a possible descent into civil war.

    At the personal level, it is envy. At the race level it is about territory and resources. Hatred is a biological fact. It is there for defense against Enemies.
    Right now, Whites are having trouble identifying the Enemy. Hence, our civil war will have a lot of Whites killing Whites because or Race Equality Ideology.
    (The Blacks have near 100% racial solidarity. If they were more numerous, the war would have already started).

    This ideology has long been analyzed. Altruism, Idealism in general, Fear/Stockholm syndrome, opportunism, greed….seem to be the main springs of such hatreds of one’s racial brothers and sisters. Idealism will be corrected by the White Whale, crashing into the Democratic Nations…the revenge of Nature.
    I see a lot of local liberals where I live in the liberal Bay Area, wising up fast.

    Joe Webb

    • Karen T
      Karen T says:

      Joe webb, this comment is one of the best I have read anywhere and has inspired me to reread Moby Dick.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Dear Karen,

        I respectfully suggest that if you act on your inspiration, you might soon discover that reading Joe Webb on Moby-Dick is at least as rewarding as and much less tedious and fatiguing than rereading Moby-Dick itself!

        As for the other Melville work Joe referred to, I’m not sure that I could again look with pleasure even upon Billy Budd, whatever its authentic merits. There, just as in Mann’s novella Death in Venice, the author axes the closet door of his homosexuality into shreds. My capacity for tolerating such revelations ran out of gas around 1990.

        Apropos which, I recall that fifty-plus years ago, college profs and literary authorities of dubious sexuality spoke of the narrator’s “aestheticism” in describing these books. Such fantasy, masked as Greco-Roman aesthetic revivalism, doesn’t prosper in the sunlight of lived experience. At least it shouldn’t.

        Finally, regarding the substance of Joe’s comment, if I read him aright, he is politely demurring from roughly 75 percent of Benoist’s assumptions and prescriptions. If so, he and I are, as we have often been heretofore, on the same page.

        • Karen T
          Karen T says:

          Pierre de Craon, your words remind me of my fathers admonition on seeing me reading Moby Dick …”don’t waste your time, it’s a lesson on futility.”

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            Well, Karen, I wouldn’t disagree with your father, of course, but I suspect that we have all, at one time or another, felt inclined to indulge futile impulses.

            What I am certain of is that what Samuel Johnson wrote of Paradise Lost is just as true of Moby-Dick: no man ever wished it longer.

        • joe webb
          joe webb says:

          Hi Pierre, a while back I was pretty critical of de Benoist, as well as other European writers in our camp. I do not recall how I registered my criticisms. However, Joyce does the yeoman work of presenting views that are important to many folks, and therefore serves the intellectual history of our time.

          Melville…still just a real good read as in a yarn, and then the book takes off mid-ships as I recall, apparently after Melville got his Shakespeare lessons down.

          I am going to read it in part for a reread but also to see if there is an article in the stuff I just served up.

          This White Guilt that Olson mentions in 1947… it fueled the Abolitionists and the Trancendentalists and way before the jewish wars on us….we were at war with ourselves.

          Also, the theme of Protestant obsession with the Old Testament…very important. I have stated often that the Puritans thought the amerindians were the lost tribes of Israel.. Strange but True department. That stuff is in Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter too…another amazing book that sticks in my brain

          Why the Jews have this zombie grip on us. Trump too.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            Dear Joe,

            Since the Puritans and, a fortiori, their still tougher-minded brethren, the Pilgrims—who, unlike Puritans but like Anabaptists and Unitarians and Mormons, weren’t even Christians—did not let their misguided theological ramblings interfere with their sense of entitlement, they seem never to have persuaded themselves that their Indian neighbors had a truly breathtaking capacity for savagery and the other unmistakable evils that our present-day (((Establishment masters))) tell us were doubtless the white man’s fault.

            That Hawthorne is still read is something that gives me a glimmer of hope for our people. Only a glimmer, though, because it’s a state of affairs that I don’t expect to endure much longer.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            NB: “that their Indian neighbors had a truly breathtaking capacity” should read “that their Indian neighbors didn’t have a truly breathtaking capacity”.

            Mea culpa.

  9. jerry
    jerry says:

    This egalitarianism is not really two thousand years old. It actually burst onto the scene with the French Revolution, liberty, equality and fraternity. The motto of the jewish jacobins and masonic lodges that massacred so many Christians and resulted in Napoleon granting jews equal citizenship in Europe was when it really came to the forefront. For the first time in European history jews were made equals as citizens and all previous restrictions on them were removed. As most of our readers should know that this ideology is directly from the Talmud since in reality it is communism and usury based capitalism resulting in the jews controlling everything. This notion of democracy, which is a failed political concept, is also perpetrated by these same devils.

    • joe webb
      joe webb says:

      wrong, more or less. The equality myth began with the Stoics about 300 BC.
      , Stoicism argued for universal love, which also implied equality, etc.

      Then, the Taborites, etc of the early Reformation got pretty high on Equality. This stuff during the Reformation, aided and abetted by jewish subversion, led to 1789. Arguably the Whole Democratic movement began every earlier with Greek and Roman democratizing …lettng just anybody into citizenship.

      It is arguably a human trait, at least amongst Whites. Also, it is part of the whole surplus altruism of whites as a whole, meaning not all of us, but the trait is there genetically. It does not exist in any other race.

      • jerry
        jerry says:

        Joe Webb: The universal love of the stoics was only a universal love of the various other white nations. They would have never dreamed of universal love for Nubians, Arabs, or any other race. Neither Greeks nor Romans would let just anyone be a citizen for many centuries, not even other white adamic peoples. Don’t confuse our modern view of the world as it is today with their very limited view of their world. We say the Greco-Roman world even today. Are we talking about the planet? Of course not. Democracy failed in Greece and after around 500 yrs the Roman republic succumbed to democracy and was destroyed by the Germanic tribes who are the scattered tribes of Israel. The idea of democracy goes all the way back to ancient Sumer. A good resource for ancient writings is “Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament.” Released in 1969 by Princeton University Press

        • joe webb
          joe webb says:

          you are correct somewhat with regard to the other races. But what about Asia Minor etc, with the Hellenization from Alexander and his generals who kept the thing going for a few hundred years (??). The must have been some miscegenation, etc and accommodation of the lessers, with these putative Greek cities in Persia, and so on.

  10. joe webb
    joe webb says:

    thanks Karen T.

    I confess that I got the idea to write that after reading a lit-crit piece on Melville, by Charles Olson, Call Me Ishmael, 1947. Moby Dick is one of a mere handful of novels that stick in my brain. I recommend it frequently.

    One interesting note from Olson (page 92 City Lights Books. 1947) is that Melville was a real moody guy, and went to The East about 1851 and came back even more depressed.

    “The sun and the darker races stirred up feelings Melville had for twelve years beaten back, even as he worked. In spite of his writing he had become wedded to a white guilt. The pressures had originated from his environment America and tightened inwards. The stifling forces had a traitorous agent to help them: the ethical and Northern Melville.”

    Melville often sounds like Walt Whitman, singing the praises of American Diversity. It looks like the ‘darker races’ were quite a shock.

    More needs to be brought out in this regard. I am going to re-read Moby Dick again.
    Joe Webb

  11. joe webb
    joe webb says:

    Here is a bit more from Charles Olson’s study , Call me Ishmael.

    Page 69…”Ahab {the Old Testament Tyrant, captain of the Pequod] is the FACT [given and posited], the Crew the IDEA. The Crew is where what America stands for got into Moby-Dick. They are what we imagine Democracy to be. They are Melville’s addition to tragedy as he took it from Shakespeare. [They, the crew, get far more from Melville than they ever got from Shakespeare.]. That is what a Declaration of Independence makes.”

    There follows a fair amount of text from Moby-Dick singing like Walt Whitman of the noble workingman in (de Toqueville’s ) America.

    There is an “unrobed” and”august” dignity…see it shining in the arm that wields a pick and drives a spike, that democratic dignity which, on all hands, radiates without end from God Himself. The great God absolute! The center and circumference of all democracy! HIs omnipresence, our divine equality!”

    I am not making this up.

    And more..(page 70 -71): “..perchance the most abased among them all, shall at times lift himself to the exalted mounts; if I shall touch that workman’s arm with some ethereal light; if I shall spread a rainbow over his disastrous set of sun; then against all mortal critics hear me out in it, thou just Spirit of Equality, which hast spread one royal mantle of humanity over all my kind!”

    Melville struggled with God and pretty much gave up, but here we are interested in the “Darker Races” of page 92 where it, again, per my first piece, has Melville ‘stirred up’ and beset by ‘White guilt’….’the ethical and Northern Melville’….wondered how God could have set the while thing up this way.

    Darwin came too late for Melville. Still his Old Testament Captain Ahab actually was Darwinian too, but mostly not a huge factor in the majority of White Men. Melville writes of mutiny at sea and its terrible consequences of Killing the Chief, or the Father. IF there had been a real working class prince among the crew, he would have harpooned Ahab

    The crews of the 800 or so whaling ships ca. 1850 were totally low-rent whites with very large assortments of all kinds of coloreds. Hence Melville’s love affair with some of the darkies. (no sex angle here). Melville’s Democracy was apparently shaken to its core with his trip to The East with its darkies. His Divine Equality punctured by actually extant Turks and ARabs and Jews…he went on to write much more pessimistic novels. American Innocence Lost…just as like what is happening now.

    Going back to the above IDEA of Equality, the whole De Tocquevillean view of American Democracy should be recalled as one wherein de Tocqueville only very tentatively held to a view of possible equality with blacks. He doubted. But there again, the powerful Myth had taken hold on him too, and why not…with Christ leading the way and Enlightenment thinking often lighting the candle of …enlightenment. Today we know better. Those who are brave enough to look.

    Joe Webb

Comments are closed.