The Revolution of the Stupid

History, said Ortega, is amusing, unlike Nature, which, mere repetition of itself, is boring. But historical amusement also includes tragedy. At this moment, apart from the fact that everything is degenerating to begin again, according to the law of anakyklosis described by Polybius, and the games with which the capricious goddess Fortuna entertains Clio, what is amusing now are the idiotic simplifiers, who remind us of the schreckliche Simplifikateure (horrible simplifiers)—Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.—whom Jacob Burckhardt saw coming and who “enlived” the 20th century. The new simplifiers, whose destructiveness does not even have any collective purpose, except rhetorically, are legion. They are people who were born stupid, attained the state of stupidity, or stupidity was thrust upon them. As Paul Tabori’s (1908-1974) tell us in his book, The Natural History of Stupidity [published in 1959 as The Natural Science of Stupidity, and then in 1993 as, The Natural History of Stupidity]: “Stupidity is Man’s deadliest weapon, his most devastating epidemic, his costliest luxury.”

Stupidity is also an important historical factor, sometimes the decisive one. But, like boredom and weariness, it has scarcely been studied as a cliopolitical category—perhaps because, as Napoleon is said to have said, surely thinking of his adversaries and enemies, “in politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” The revolution inspired by stupidity has distorted Karl Popper’s dream of an open society. To begin with, after the implosion of the USSR, stupidity confirmed the possibility of the end of history, naively diagnosed by Francis Fukuyama as the triumph of liberal democracy. In reality, it was what is generically called “social democracy,” disguised as liberalism in which reigns the “market of desire” of the “libertarian liberalism” of May 1968, denounced by the Marxist Michel Clouscard. The result is that many people today share the feeling that ill fare the lands of the West. It is already a cliché that the future of a demoralized Europe, given over to carpe diem, is dark and gloomy rather than disturbing. It is enough to bring to mind the moral and spiritual desertification and the plummeting birth rate, instigated by stupid governments, which will marginalize Europe from history.

[See Guillermo Mas Arellano, “Destruir la civilización: tres pensadores franceses” (“Destroying Civilization: Three French Thinkers”). In the press, it is becoming common to find allusions and articles about the stupidity or nonsense of politicians].

The stupid are narcissistic to a greater or lesser degree, and politics attracts narcissists like a honeycomb of rich honey attracts flies. But not enough attention is paid to their influence on politics and, therefore, on history. Karl Marx wrote in The Eighteenth Brumaire and Louis Bonaparte: “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language.” In other words, men make history without knowing what they are doing. The result depends on circumstances, on the protagonists and, fifty percent according to Machiavelli, seventy-five percent according to Frederick the Great, on chance. To say that one is on the right side or with the correct course of history is, then, stupidity (from stupidus, “dazed”), a concept that reduces the DRAE [Dictionary of the Royal Academy of the Spanish Language] to “remarkable clumsiness in understanding things.”

The present time is much more revolutionary than that of the Great French and Soviet Revolutions with the decisive interlude of the revolution of the intellectuals of 1848.

[Olavo de Carvalho: “the really decisive power is, in the long run, that of a priestly or intellectual order.” Once the intellectuals—Auguste Comte’s savants—became the ruling class, they began to spread more or less utopian ideas—beliefs, which ended up becoming ideas—beliefs that dissolved the European tradition of politics and led to totalitarianism: secularism, atheism, radical individualism, Freemasonry, nationalism, statism, interventionism, collectivism, socialism, communism, anarchism, racism, nihilism, etc.].

The present time is so abnormal that it has become normal to speak of the beginning of the reign of the Antichrist—the earthly Jerusalem—of the Apocalypse, of the Great Tribulation, or simply of the end of the world. Contributing recently to the spread of these prognoses are the real or supposed pandemic-business of the coronavirus and the scientistic myth of climate change in which even the singular Jesuit Pope Francis believes, “fascinated,” says Chantal Delsol, “by ecologist religion and post-Christian humanitarianism.”

Douglas Murray begins his widely read book, The Madness of Crowds [the Spanish translation of which bears the subtitle, How identity politics drove the world to madness]., with the phrase “we are going through a great crowd derangement.” Some brief annotations, comments and examples on the nature and importance of stupidity may be worthwhile, simply to draw attention to this possible cliopolitical category, which helps to understand, for example, that of misgovernment, both of which are nowadays practically normalized.

Polybius (200-118 B.C.) judiciously warned against attributing to divine intervention, events whose causes can be discovered to explain their origin and end. It is, therefore, pertinent to relate the existing confusion with the fact that societies that consider themselves “liberal” democratic are beginning to be, or are already, ochlocratic plutocracies, spiritually governed by Stupidita, a little known but very active ancient divinity, to whom Jean Paul Richter (1763-1825) dedicated a valuable essay-homage

[The god of stupidity and insanity in Greece was Κοαλεμος (Coalemos in Latin), of whom little data is known and whose etymology is disputed].

Hans Blumenberg pointed out the craving for novelty as a distinctive feature of Modernity and according to Jacques Barzun, “the new is always the best” is its guiding principle. Parodying Schopenhauer, Nietzsche’s mentor, ex novo lux: the critique of customs, usages, the historical past, religious, moral, aesthetic and political traditions by the subjectivist metaphysics of modern rationalism (Heidegger), and the slogan of the French Jacobins who legally proclaimed “1789” the “Year Zero” of the new history of man freed from all the past—prepared the reign of Stupidity. “The vulgar progressivism that considers everything past as essential barbarism” (Ortega).

The cult of their own identity is a defining feature of the narcissism of the stupid. The admirers of themselves (the greatest vice of all is the vice of oneself, said C. S. Lewis—the “identity” politics of fashionable multiculturalism—”all the brains in the world are powerless against whatever stupidity is in fashion” [La Fontaine, 1621-1695])—confuse differences with “diversity.” Combined with the collectivization of idiocy—which makes the most idiotic idiots feel intelligent—it may be the best explanation of what has been called the suicide of Western civilization by auto-narcissism. What Oliver Cromwell said could be applied to progressive politicians—the majority: “A man never goes so far as when he does not know whither he is going.” But, if Richter is to be believed, the triumph of Stupidity could be “the long-sought universal remedy against all maladies”—a search intensified by intellectuals won over by the ideological mode of thought that has been competing with traditional religion since the Great Revolution.

Stupidity is highly contagious. Boileau used to say: “an imbecile always finds another imbecile who admires him.” Hence the mass of optimists—”optimism is the opium of the people” (Milan Kundera)—are prone to think that universal stupidity is the normal state of humanity, and the pessimists, better informed people, maintain that human stupidity is a mathematical constant.

Flaubert, author of the unfinished novel Bouvard and Pécuchet, concerned about the presence of stupid people everywhere, concluded, in the manner of Carl Schmitt, that “stupidity is the enemy“—a fact often overlooked by historians, without realizing that history is also, in a way, Koalemos’ fight against common sense. Which, fortunately, as Unamuno warned, was already the least common of senses in his time.

[Flaubert captured early on the essence of political correctness: they are “imbeciles, he said, those who do not think as you do”].

At present, everyone is intently media-watching, whether with censorship, self-censorship or even without censorship, which reveals, in their eagerness to appear transgressive, that Koalemos vincit. That is to say, they corroborate, in the words of Quevedo, that “all those who seem stupid, are stupid; and, moreover, so are half of those who do not seem so”—as it should be in advanced democracy, of which so much is said without knowing what it actually consists of.

The general cause is, as Lucien Jerphagnon recalled in his important book, La… sottise? Vingt-huit siècles qu’on en parle (Stupidity…? Twenty-eight centuries of talking about it), and the one pointed out by St. Augustine—stupidity is a consequence of Adam’s sin, and since man is a sinner, the stupid are the majority. This raises the dilemma of whether stupidity is democratic or that democracy itself is stupid. But given the truth that democracy is the realm of opinion, it can be inferred, for example, that it is the messianic export, urbi et orbi, from North America of the democracy prophesied by John Dewey as the religion of progress—the greatest revolution of all times, since it entails the universal reign of Koalemos, a reign in which the normal, common sense, is condemned, and what was once considered abnormal is innovative and transgressive and is thus praised as correct.

[“If stupidity did not look so much like progress, talent, hope, or improvement, no one would want to be stupid,” said Robert Musil, in “Über die Dummheit,” “On Stupidity” (1937)].

Those who are not on the right side of history, fortunately less and less, protest because the persecution of the sane, the normal, the usual is enforced, and the abnormal imposed, without understanding that it is what, finally, Koalemos gratias, should be normal.

The greatest danger of stupidity consists in politicis, in that it is not incompatible with being “cunning.” For “the probability that a given person is stupid,” judiciously writes Carlo M. Cipolla, “is independent of any other characteristic of the same person.” The stupid can be intelligent and “there are stupid men who possess vast knowledge,” said Tabori. A very serious problem, if Jean-Baptiste Molière was right, for whom “people are never so close to stupidity as when they think they are wise.” In this case, as “every form of intelligence has its form of stupidity” (Robert Musil), if the intelligent person thinks he is wise, he tends to detach himself from the reality in which he lives and to live in unreality. For example, inventing an ideology or ascribing to one, generally, if possible, democratic, as the socialist one claims to be, since every ideology has a utopian objective. This is what Julien Benda called “the treason of the intellectuals,” the modern clerics, who exchange the religious faith of the priests for faith in the uncertain. Today they usually officiate as organic intellectual priests dedicated to fostering collective stupidity.

[Charles de Gaulle said: “You can be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupid things they can think of, as well as some that are beyond imagination.” This is the case of President Biden and his cohort of cretinous leftists. The Mathematical Association of America has declared mathematics to be racist].

The stupid, said Jerphagnon, completing Flaubert’s observation, are those who ignore their own condition and consider stupid those who say or do something that does not please them, “so they are a very large family.” He recalls Plato’s confession to Simonides in the Protagoras, St. Augustine’s acknowledgment that the absolute majority of men—and women—are imbeciles, fools and idiots, and Descartes’ assertion that “we rarely have occasion to deal with completely reasonable people.” In short, “throughout history there have been people, and not exactly insignificant ones, who have denounced stupidity; it is possible to smell it everywhere and it floats in the atmosphere of all times,” with which Jerphagnon concluded his interesting inquiry.

It is necessary to distinguish, however, the normal stupidity of ordinary life, in which we all do stupid things, from the much more serious stupidity of the elites as such. The first, generally harmless, is like the sauce of life. It is a literary and theatrical theme—comedy as a specific genre—elevated to the rank of art by the cinema with Chaplin, Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel (“the Fat and the Skinny”), the Marx Brothers, Jerry Lewis, etc. The second, that of the ruling classes, is on the other hand very dangerous; especially when it affects like a plague the strata of politicians and intellectuals. Then it is revolutionary—it operates as a highly contagious and destructive disease, capable of annihilating peoples suffering from stupid governments, especially if they are trapped in the forma mentis of ideology, which justifies and empowers the will-to-power of the stupid, tendentially narcissistic. Ideology is a partial truth that is presented politically as universal (Antonio García-Trevijano), with the utopian pretension of definitively reconciling with itself the human species, a group, even individuals, anxious to change their social position. As Gómez Dávila wrote in a short extract: “Ideas tyrannize those who have few;” and ideology fanatically guides those who achieve power with the support of the mass of fools who believe others who are less foolish. With the not infrequent collaboration of businessmen who take advantage of the stupidity of others. Ortega’s man-mass is the normal individual, sick with stupidity, led by the most astute.

[Richter: “Those who have most favored and nurtured the Stupidity of the people are those who have profited the most”].

The big problem is when the stupid rule, a revolutionary inversion of natural hierarchies. “The fool will be servant to the wise” (Proverbs 11:29). The inversion of the hierarchical order in public life is the reason why collective stupidity is today an expanding phenomenon, described as infantilization by those concerned with the spread and intensity of the phenomenon in everyday life.

John Paul II recognized that “stupidity is also a gift of God, but we must not misuse it.” A frequent motive is vanity, which often deviates or obscures intelligence. Then, the intelligent person aspires to be what he is not and acts stupidly, because “pride is a fairy that satisfies all the desires of the idiot” (Jean Paul Richter), a creature who always wants to be satisfied with himself. And since vanity, as Hobbes observed, is a frequent affliction of the politician, today we can speak of the predominance of the “idiot genus” because of the large number of politicians, required by bureaucratization in the statist governments, supported by the mass of the stupid. Moreover, idiots prefer the company of idiots. Karl Kraus used to say, “the secret of the demagogue consists in making himself as stupid as his audience so that they believe they are as intelligent as he is.” That is why it does not matter to the professionals of politics, political careerists of the demagogy that is presented as democracy, to promote manipulable fools, or to make themselves look like idiots in order to attract fools and increase their entourage with fools; and with clever people who pass themselves off as fools.

In addition, there is what Wilfredo Pareto said: in every political order, there is always a political, cultural and economic elite. And since the idiot is also his own best friend—stupidity with political and cultural power—today the media, is very profitable for economic oligarchies, especially if it is coupled with a lack of scruples and emotional appeals to humanitarianism. Well, humanitarianism justifies, for example, that the Herodian rulers and the innumerable idiots that inhabit the earth consider abortion progressive, the greatest, by far, of the genocides—it is usually already the first cause of mortality in many “advanced” countries—and euthanasia, another even more humanitarian genocide underway, which only benefits businessmen.

[Added to abortion as a contraceptive resource is the “need” to exterminate before birth those that Álex Navajas calls, “the climate killers,” because as the population increases, the damage to Mother Earth increases].

Carl Schmitt used to say about humanitarianism: Wer Menscheit sagt, will betrügen, he who appeals to humanity wants to deceive. The decadence of Europe, victim of the humanitarianism described by Robert Hugh Benson in 1907, in the apocalyptic novel Lord of the World, is often compared to that of the Western Roman Empire.

[It is curious that Pope Francis recommends this book from 1907, critical of Comte’s religion of humanity, a religion of sentiment. For example, the hymn of the Masons (“The Lord that dwells in earth and sea”) combines feelings and emotions that exalt humanitarianism, a secularization or politicization of Christian charity].

Various causes are adduced. Philippe Fabry argues, incorporating the interpretation of Mikhail Rostovtzeff to that of Montesquieu, that the main cause was the loss of freedom. Hanlon’s well-known principle or law—”one should not attribute to wickedness what is almost always the consequence of stupidity”—completes the explanation. But there is no shortage of evil idiots.

[Ricardo Moreno Castillo rightly adds that stupidity is more harmful: “Stupidity is more harmful than evil because it is easier to fight against the second (because it acts with a certain logic), than against the first (which lacks it ). You can talk to an evil person and even convince him that he could be much happier becoming a good person. A stupid person, on the other hand, is invulnerable to reasoning. If we could suppress the evil in the world it would be a little better. But if we could suppress stupidity, the world would be so much better” (Introduction, p.18).].

Historical experience teaches that men become stupid when their civilizations decay. Ortega recalled this precisely with regard to the Roman Empire. But it is doubtful whether it was stupidity, mainly that of the ruling oligarchies converted into decadent castes, that caused freedom to decay; or whether, on the contrary, it was the decadence of freedom that caused the intensification of collective stupidity. Probably both. What is certain is that the decadence and disappearance of cultures and civilizations owes much to stupidity.

It is written in Ecclesiastes (1:15): stultorum infinitus est numerus (as to fools, infinite is the number), a disputed translation of the Vulgate of St. Jerome, which coincides, however, with the phrase of the pagan Cicero in the Epistola ad familiares (9. 22. 4): stultorum plena sunt omnia, “all things are full of fools.” Assertions corroborated by Albert Einstein: “there are two infinite things: the Universe and human imbecility, but I doubt the former.” The intensity of politicization, driven by ideologization, unconscious or conscious promoter of stupidity as an interpreter of faith in Koalemos, proves it at this moment. Since religions are the key to cultures—a word related to cult—and civilizations, it is obvious that idiocy is incompatible with them and it is necessary to destroy them so that the god of stupidity may prevail. The religious founders, knowing what Ecclesiastes, Cicero, other sages and common sense said, wanted to improve the human condition. It is not strange that the psychiatrist, a lay substitute for the confessor, has become the family doctor, as faith in the biblical God migrated to the State and the market, as the American theologian William T. Cavanaugh says.

The politicization—”even the personal is political”—which substitutes religion for politics, affects first and foremost the ruling classes. The dumbing down by “the antiquarians of ideology” (G. Morán) and the maternal humanitarianism of feminist bio-ideologies (women are the most oppressed class according to Marxist-Leninist neo-faith) is beginning to be as evident as the influence of propaganda (no less humanitarianist, and, I might add, merciful—”the banalization of compassion,” says Manuel Alejandro Rodríguez de la Peña—”without ceasing to be destructive”) of the fourth estate, the media in the hands of “loquacious illiterates” (Alberto Buela). “Compassion, in this century, is an ideological weapon,” said Gómez Dávila in one of his famous scholia. A weapon easy to handle even by the stupidest, it is used by rulers and businessmen without the slightest scruple to attract and convince the masses they exploit.

Once religion, which provides security compatible with freedom, has been superseded by politicization, which creates uncertainty, one of the problems of “affluent societies” (J. K. Galbraith) consists, in fact, in the alliance between the political, cultural and economic elites against the people, at the time when The Revolt of the Masses (Ortega) and The Revolt of the Elites (Christopher Lasch) coincide. This alliance explains the influence of the manqué individual, who, as Michael Oakeshott observed, began to gain popularity and followers with the development of state capitalism—the only real “capitalism”—coinciding with the formation of the new estate of professional politicians, when the State, a technical apparatus, the artificial form of the Political, was affirmed. Professionalization that also explains the political rise of the eternal estate of the idiots. Against the first, the Jesuit Pedro de Ribadeneyra cried out in his Tratado de la religión y virtudes que debe tener el príncipe cristiano para gobernar y conservar sus Estados. Contra lo que Nicolás Machiavelo y los políticos de este tiempo enseñan [Treatise on Religion and Virtues that the Christian Prince must Have to Govern and Conserve his Realms, and Against what Niccolò Machiavelli and the Politicians of that Time Taught] (1595). Against the second, much more numerous, Richter testified in the essay in which he poses as the spokesman for Stupidity. “The begetters have played a role in our revolutions,” lamented Chateaubriand, incapable of understanding “the right side of history,” as former US President Obama, Nobel laureate for the extraordinary merit of being black, although there are hundreds of millions of blacks, liked to say.

Stupidity, said Voltaire, is “an extraordinary disease” of narcissists incapable of perceiving their own stupidity. Its peculiarity consists in the fact that, since “it is not the sick person who suffers because it, but others,” it becomes socially more dangerous than the dominion of the wicked, because, as Ortega pointed out, “the wicked sometimes rest; the fool never.” Indeed, the fool, a character unmistakable with the insane, the ignorant, the narrow-minded, the short-sighted, the illiterate or the uneducated in the conventional sense, has no limits.

[The famous wise Count of Keyserling liked to talk with the shepherds of Gredos and Baztán, whom he considered among the most cultured men in the world].

Cicero said the same earlier: “any man can make a mistake; only a stupid person keeps on doing the same thing.” And Einstein confirmed it: “the difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has limits.” A scientific statement by whoever makes it, which excludes normal people guided by common sense, becomes the greatest enemy of stupidity—a reason for the stupid to try to extirpate it, when they achieve power. Hence the fifth rule of Cipolla’s little manual, in agreement with Moreno Castillo: “the stupid person is the most dangerous type of person that exists.” A rule applicable with reservations in private life, which multiplies the danger of fools when they act in public life, in which they are more and more numerous. Perhaps also as a consequence of the combination of humanitarian liberalism with democracy, in which everyone can give his opinion, although his opinion generally reproduces that of stupid people who spread the ideas of others among the multitude of fools by nature.

Indeed, in the democratic context, the stupid easily act as wise men. Heine observed during the German Vormärz: “the wise emit new ideas and the fools expand them.” One explanation may be that, according to the great philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, “almost all new ideas have a certain aspect of stupidity (or foolishness) when they are first produced.” The Portuguese poet Fernando Pessoa saw it differently: “no intelligent idea can gain general acceptance unless some stupidity is mixed with it.” Both views are reconcilable: the English journalist and historian Paul Johnson realized that the spread of moral relativism owes much to the interpretation and dissemination—obviously by fools—of Einstein’s theory of relativity, one of the origins of “post-truth” and the fact that, as the great statesman Felipe Gonzalez said, “in democracy, the truth is what the citizens believe to be true.”

The growing interference of fools in politics is surely the greatest danger to democracy. Almost two centuries ago, Tocqueville grasped that North America did not get along very well with excellence and meritocracy.

[Tocqueville’s fears have been realized. Tocqueville would not come out of his astonishment if he could see that, by one of those unforeseeable twists of history, America – which Hegel saw as an immature nation and Raymond Aron still said was not a nation – is one of the greatest dangers to freedom, while Russia seems to defend it. See Thomas Molnar. Le modèle défiguré: L’Amérique de Tocqueville à Carter (1978); Sheldon S. Wolin, Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism (2008); R. R. Reno, Return of the Strong Gods: Nationalism, Populism, and the Future of the West (2019); Zbigniew Janowski, Homo Americanus: The Rise of Totalitarian Democracy in America (2021)].

And Nietzsche, a critic of mass democracy, warned in 1872 against superficial, popularizing and reductivist pedagogy. But for almost a century now, “the conspiracy of the imbeciles” (the expression is by Jean-Paul Brighelli) has been dedicated to establishing “the predominance of the cretin.” The continuous pedagogical reforms to “democratize” teaching, especially since 1968, when the homo festivus et stupidus appeared on the scene, encourage collective idiocy.

[The pedagogical fashion consists of promoting the emotional and absurd investigations instead of teaching and training students in the fundamentals].

Bureaucratized Universities—bureaucratization, which may be necessary due to technique, idiotizes the administered when it is excessive—cultivate idiocy, which the new media, “the priesthood of the ruling class” (Zbigniew Janowski), spread like a contagious disease. Radio, cinema, television, internet, cell phones, tablets, telephones and the “entertainment industry” multiply infinitely the influence of the press of Heine’s time. Back then, the large number of illiterates protected people from cultural cretinism. Today, “to promote culture is to crown the mediocre,” said a pessimistic Gómez Dávila, who always kept in mind die schrekliche Simplifikateure that Jacob Burckhardt, one of his two “patron saints” (the other was the skeptical Montaigne), feared so much. “Stupidity is always there, one would realize it if one did not always think of oneself,” said Albert Camus, and the simplifiers fascinate fools with a bit of propaganda.

Even Noam Chomsky recognizes that “propaganda is to democracy what a club is to a totalitarian state.”

[Edward Bernays (1891-1995), Freud’s nephew who settled in the USA, is credited with the invention of the technique of public relations, and the origin of propaganda as a method, namely, marketing, to channel and “manufacture thought.” Bernays successfully organized a campaign to make women equal to men by encouraging them to smoke. See Bernays’ Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923), Propaganda (1928), Public Relations (1945), The Engineering of Consent (1955), and Philippe Darantière, Le techno-nihilisme. Idéologie du changement de civilization].

Pius XII warned in his Christmas radio message of 1944: “Propaganda models all souls after the same pattern, taking away their peculiarities and almost their very life. Even the differences in psychology and attitude between the sexes tend to diminish as much as possible. For all this, the people, which is essentially a great family of diverse but harmonious souls, gathered around what is common to them, disappears. And the mass emerges, with its great empty, collective, enslaved soul.” A mass composed of subjects—at least in Europe there are no other citizens than the politicians who rule in the parties—who live in a more or less virtual unreality, what has been called “metaverse” or metauniverse, the universe beyond. It is happening with the new generations, more and more infantilized. For the new media not only creates what Heimito von Doderer christened die zweite Realität, the second reality inhabited by “the digital idiot,” but it has exponentially increased the possibility of propagating theories and doctrines whose idiocy knows no bounds, while instilling fear of reality as the only truth.

Although violent totalitarian States or Governments still exist (today we must say patriarchal, masculine or sexist—Machiavelli, for example, is a “sexist” in the feminist new-speak) most, if not all the European States and Governments and those of the exsanguinated Christianity, are Sovietizers (Vladimir Bukowsky). Robert Spaemann marked them as totalitarian “liberals.” Rod Dreher calls “soft” totalitarianism, in Live Not by Lies, that which is being imposed in the United States, encouraged by the government of the left-wing cretins presided over by Biden, whose last resounding feat has been to provoke Russia led by Putin, the “satanic enemy” of the progressivism of the stupid.

[One difference between the USA and Europe and other countries is that, there, “the wicked,” led by former President Trump, another anti-progressive “Satan,” are enemies of the stupid].

Self-proclaimed liberal democrats states and governments promote—and finance—stupidity (not always intentionally but for stupidity’s sake) in education, in the media and through the infinite and increasingly maternal Legislation, which conditions behavior by idiotizing the way of acting and even speech, which, among other things, must be automatically emotive and inclusive.

Peter Sloterdijk does not believe that the capacity to think is being lost. What is happening is that life today does not invite us to think: we live in such a hurry that news is rushed through without giving us time to digest it. He is quite right.

[Karl Steinbuch published, in 1966, Die informierte Gesellschaft. Geschichte und Zukunft der Nachrichtentechnik (The Informed Society. History and Future of News Technology), on the need for society to be sufficiently informed. In 1989, he published Die desinformierte Gesellschaft: Für eine zweite Aufklärung (The Disinformed Society: For a Second Enlightenment), warning that the abundance of news was destroying education, whose disaster he predicted, and bewildering public opinion. In 1992, he published Kollektive Dummheit: Streitschrift gegen den Zeitgeist (Collective Stupidity: Polemic against the Zeitgeist)].

But it is a fact that, due in part to technological advances and sentimental humanitarian pedagogy (unfortunately without poetry, “the voice of the ineffable,” as Juan Ramón Jiménez used to say) collective stupidity is becoming widespread, encouraged and guided by governments which, aided and encouraged by the new technologies, are all practically totalitarian today—states in which, as experience shows, there is an abundance of functional illiterates and idiots in positions of command. But the stupid revolutionaries are generous. Bent on the noblest task of equalizing everyone, they impose educational laws to bring the new generations up to their level.

There are still subjects or administrators who think and complain that their governments treat them as imbeciles. But they do not realize how imbecilic are the supportive rulers, who want them to be equal to them. The skeptics who remain (and seem to be more and more in number because of the authoritarian if not tyrannical measures because of the coronavirus and the increase in taxes to defeat “sinister” climate change) fear that, if the rulers are incriminated for their wastefulness, kickbacks, bribes, vote-buying through subsidies, threats, excesses or other corruptions—defense lawyers could allege, as a mitigating or exonerating circumstance, that they are poor fools.

It is worth clarifying that collective stupidity or dumbing down is a very different phenomenon from the “weak thinking” described by Vattimo. It has been frequently observed since Robert Musil wrote that “freedom and reason… have not been in good health since the middle of the 19th century or a little later.” This was the time when, according to Whitehead, began the destruction of common sense, thanks to which stupidity was bearable. The manipulation of political language by Soviet agit-prop contributed effectively to its destruction. One of the first to notice a great regression in the intellectual level was precisely the Soviet dissident Aleksander Zinoviev (1922-2006), reconverted to communism when the USSR imploded, perhaps shocked by the superior stupidity of the supposedly liberal democracies.

[Cf. Michele Federico Sciacca, L’oscuramento dell’intelligenza; Alain Finkielkraut, The Defeat of the Mind; C. Castoriades, La Montée de l’insignifiance (The Rise of Insignificance). André Glucksmann held postmodernism responsible in La Bêtise (Stupidity), and Giancarlo Livraghi, The Power of Stupidity. On the relationship of postmodernism with the turn of socialism towards modal ideologies, typical of cretinocracy, see Stephen R. C. Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault. The postmodern appears, Ernst Jünger mocked, when a woman puts on a new hat. Fashion, which is frequently a falsification of customs, is also often the cradle of stupidity, for fashionable stupidity is preferred to old-fashioned wisdom].

The propagandistic use of (pseudo)political language as common language, the “inclusive” language—”so a word out of the thought of the heart of man” (Sirach 27:7)—already makes it possible to legally punish the inconvenient or incorrect judgment with the very new and unlawful “hate crimes;” Orwell’s “thought crimes” in 1984. “The corruption of language reveals that of man,” said A. García-Trevijano; and the totalitarian powers want to coercively impose the language of stupidity as a common language, so that its corrupt nature is not noticed.

The rise of revolutionary cretinocracy is not attributable, however, only to the bureaucratization of politics by the ideological mode of thought—whose spirit is totalitarian—typical of the protective States of maternal tendency that treat their subjects as children. “Ideologies render to those who lack ideas the same service as wigs do to bald men” (Ricardo Castillo) and create sectarians and one-sided people who “have only certainties” (Bertrand Russell), while normal intelligent people are full of doubts. Mark Twain advised not to argue with the stupid so as not to be put on their level.

Bureaucracy—”the government of nobody” (H. Arendt)—is consubstantial to the State, a technical apparatus whose ratio, the status ratio, contributes powerfully to impose the quantitative culture of rationalism over the qualitative, aided by the social sciences, which confuse quantity with importance, as if in real politics everything had been decided in advance.

[See, René Guénon, The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times. The ratio status, inherently interventionist, turned into l’ordre publique (public policy) of the Napoleonic État de Droit (rule of law), uses governance, a business technique adopted by the technocracy of the liberal Totalitarian State].

Bureaucracy is the form in which the State is personified by governments eager to “protect people from themselves” as Gunnar Myrdal recommended to his government, perhaps inspired by the biblical saying that the number of fools is infinite, even if they are Swedes, to establish the “Empire of Good” described by Phillipe Muray. Unbelieving, Sloterdijk ironizes: “so many civil servants allow the State not to be seen.”

“The fool is greedy, envious, petty,” said Unamuno. And Voltaire and Ortega failed to add that, if the stupid have power, they easily become, without realizing it, scoundrels. To achieve the noble goal of equalizing everyone in idiocy, the bureaucracy commanded by the stupid is concerned about culture and civilization, which reflect the identity of a people with itself. Hence, its direction is entrusted to direct and indirect nomenklaturas in which swarm more or less fatuous fools, madmen [perhaps because there is no shortage of insane people, Alain de Benoist generalizes and considers the stupid to be insane], organic intellectuals and non-venal intellectuals who still believe, no longer in the goodness of socialism, but in that of communism, promoted in part by the UN, and by “experts,” advisors, specialists, convinced of, or feigning, their moral superiority—careerists and crooks, rogues, knaves, criminals and international financial mafias, who exploit emotions. Fools instinctively corrupt culture to assert themselves in power, as is happening at the moment, when children are perverted, for example, with the Bolshevik argument that “children do not belong to their parents.” [Are they res nullius or state property? If they belong to the State, does the State copulate?]

According to Cipolla’s third rule, “a stupid person is a person who causes harm to another person without at the same time obtaining a benefit for himself, or even obtaining a harm.” And since stupidity is now a contagious pathology so widespread that it can be called a pandemic, we are beginning to talk about the urgency of a movement to survive what can be considered the pathological religion of stupidity. Rémi Brague blames the phenomenon on the failure of the modern project, describable as the planning of the future in imitation of Creation, implicit in the Pelagian “New Christianity” of the Count of Saint-Simon, “the father of planners” (Wilhelm Röpke), creditor of Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Mao and other progressive atheists. The renewing principle of techno-scientific Christianity reads: “Religion must direct society towards the great goal, which consists in obtaining as rapidly as possible an improvement in the lot of the poorest class.” As this religion tends to equalize, this explains its success among the supporters of social justice, despite the fact that there are also degrees of stupidity among equals.

Brague, who suffers from the reactionary disease of preserving common sense, wonders if there is any sense in the existence of human beings in the context of the culture planned by what skeptics call the “international of stupidity,” very well represented by the virtuous tyranny of the stupid “counterculture” of woke bio-ideology. The progressivism of the fools who exploit the clever, which politically functions as the Maoist wing of the “robolution,” as they say in Cuba. Robolutionism that aspires to destroy culture—the key is the “sexual revolution”—by imposing its particular nihilistic, rather than Marxist, conception of morality and culture. Thomas Sowell published in 1999 the very current Barbarians inside the Gates.

Morality, the ethos, depends on the religious beliefs that concretize and fix, in a certain way, the customs and uses, that is to say, the Law, the aesthetics, etc. But the invading morality of our days is not the same as the one we knew, warns Alain de Benoist in Les Démons Du Bien (The Demons of the Good). From the new moral order to gender ideology.

It is possible to synthesize the new morality of the new culture imposed by the stupid ungovernments in that of the aforementioned woke fashion. Spread from California as a “counter-sexuality” to free the human being from sexuality (we must be idiots, agree the reactionaries and libertines), replacing it with other pleasures, such as the love of trees and plants. The devaluation of the body thrives in the environment of the “age of digital dementia,” observes Juan Manuel de Prada.

[The idea of contrasexuality, which already has many followers in the world of idiots, seems to have been suggested by Michel Foucault, who was homosexual].

The new morality of the imbeciles is a mutation of the “anti-fascist” puritanism of the pathological political correctness prevailing in the immature “Imperial Republic” (R. Aron) to which one could apply Dostoyevsky’s phrase “tolerance will reach such a level that intelligent people will be forbidden to think in order not to offend the imbeciles.”

Saul David Alinsky, Tolstoy according to Thomas Mann and other influences adapted Marxism-Leninism to the United States, which is today the champion of “cultural Marxism,” Neo-Marxism that has little of Marx. Marx, who was not an idiot, said he was not a Marxist (je ne suis pas marxiste); and to be a Marxist today is a symptom of incurable idiocy. “The poor,” recognizes the French Marxist Thomas Piketty, “no longer vote for the left,” which is usually the preferred choice of idiots fascinated by the myth of social justice that legitimizes the robolutionaries. But the American mercantile spirit, just as it once led democratic anti-Bolshevism, now exports profitable pathological nonsense, also democratic, such as equating the foolish with the clever through Calvinist political correctness, and revives supposedly Marxist movements such as Black Lives Matter, but in the Nazi version, which substitutes class for race. An amusing trick of Fortuna with the permission of Clio, so that Hitler retrospectively defeats Stalin and the communists clinging to the dogma of the class struggle.

Racist identity movements are subsidized—as before in the USSR of the class struggle—by big businessmen, financiers and multinationals, generally from the US, attracted by the profitable, fashionable stupidity (secular and political ideologies and religions are today fashions) of the “woke culture,” which cultivates the ego of idiots by increasing their self-esteem, and by “cancel culture” of the hyper-individualism of “woke capitalism”—another way to ruin the hated middle classes to control the economy and establish the messianic New World Order of the rich. For, as Cavanaugh says, “the ‘one world’ ideology only really benefits those who own capital, which can move freely across borders.” The stupidity of the fashionable counterculture can be very profitable. On the occasion of the coronavirus pandemic—skeptics call it, Plandemic—there is talk of a political-media-pharmaceutical conspiracy to make multi-million dollar deals by taking advantage of global stolidity.

[The New World Order of globalism seems like a whim of greedy, conceited, stupid or bored billionaires—four things not incompatible—mainly North Americans, grouped around or led by the Zionist George Soros. One of his dangerous diversions is the harassment of Putin, a supporter of the traditional order].

It is worth commenting on the case of Spain, before concluding these notes. It is an unbeatable example of the first fundamental law of human stupidity enunciated by Carlo Cipolla: “each one of us always and inevitably underestimates the number of stupid individuals circulating in the world.” Ungoverned by the successive governments of the Monarchy of Parties, increasingly stupid, Spain constitutes an excellent example of the capacity of political stupidity to move mountains.

[“When the dictatorship disappeared in Spain due to the death of its incumbent, the different species of fools became evident,” writes Moreno. As the stupid are not indifferent to money, encouraged by Mr. Solchaga, minister of Mr. Felipe Gonzalez, a lawyer practicing as a statesman, they began to throw cash around to control the economy and get rich].

Indeed, the Kingdom of Koalemos’ Stupidity managed to establish itself in Spain perhaps more solidly than in other countries, taking advantage of the third reinstatement of the Bourbon Dynasty, by skillfully using the Preamble of the 1978 Carta Otorgada (Charter of Grant), certainly not the Constitution, since, prudently, political freedom was not returned to the people, and replaced by the right to vote ritually for the parties. Renan said that human stupidity is the only thing that gives an idea of infinity. And the Preamble suggests, precisely as a guideline, to establish an “advanced” democracy in order to progress infinitely.

[Reinstatement is not the same as restoration. The first modern Reinstatement was that of Fernando VII, the second that of Alfonso XII and the third that of Juan Carlos. In fact, there was a fourth fleeting Reinstatement, that of Amadeo de Saboya, which implied a change of dynasty. Some believe that the awarding of the Order of Charles III to the podemite Pablo Iglesias and other politicians loyal to Sanchismo by Felipe VI, has dealt the coup de grace to the Crown].

Influential monarchists foolishly recommended the convenience of a “pass to the left”—for which the naive and the foolish instinctively voted—in order to consolidate the Monarchy. [For the third time in less than 175 years and, in fact, at the expense of the Zeitgeist, republican and democratic].

In fact, an oligarchic consensus was instituted, like the social-democratic one existing in Europe, with a modernizing left wing around the Socialist Party, undoubtedly the one preferred by the King, “engine of change,” which included resuscitated separatists and communists, and a contemporizing right wing, of the “center”—judging by the facts, a branch of the socialist party to fix the economic flaws and control the dissenters. The Monarchy of Parties chopped up the Nation in the Charter of Grant according to the principle divide et impera, the “modernization” fostered collective stupidity and reduced politics to a razzle-dazzle between the consensual parties, in fact, a uni-party. Finally, the most idiotic people of the Kingdom have come to power, who surpass in totality the undeveloped stupidity of Dr. Zapatero and his entourage—the incapable Dr. Sanchez and his stupid females and stupid males.

[See, Y. Couceiro, “La superioridad moral de los necios,” La tribuna del pais vasco (13. IX. 2018). The moral superiority of the socialist religion lies in the fact that it conceives politics as a civil war to definitively redeem humanity—a bloodless war, by means of legal revolution in pacifist socialisms, or a bloody war, as necessary, in its most radical varieties, the communist and the anarchist, also with different variants. Mr. Zapatero resumed the Spanish Civil War by inventing the law of Historical Memory and other legislation. Dr. Sanchez aspires to win this civil war definitively, without knowing how far he is willing to go. The precedent that opened the way was the politicization of the judiciary by Mr. Gonzalez, Charlemagne Prize winner in 1985, deservedly praised by Hispanic and many non-Hispanic idiots].

The problem of Spain, which began in 1711 with the Bourbon establishment and worsened since the Spanish War of Independence (the Peninsular War), consists in the fact that, as the stupid men and women in power only know how to play at destroying, in the first place, culture and, with it, the State that supports them, the Nation is finally in a position of religious, moral, aesthetic, political, social, economic, sexual, demographic crisis. And as a Nation about to be extinguished.

[Thanks to the power of the sacralized State—and the complacent failure of the Church—they can declare a sin against Stupidity a crime in civil terms for whatever they can think of. For example, hate crimes or opposition to abortion].

The current misgovernment is “100% integrated by a cast of intellectually disabled people” (F. Jiménez Losantos dixit), practically all of them confessed republicans in a State that is formally monarchic. In order to celebrate them as they deserve in the elephantine, corrupt and absurd State of the Autonomous Communities, new ministries, general directorates, institutions, etc. have been invented. The final objective seems to be to restore Hispanic-American unity by integrating into the 21st century socialism bloc, nostalgic of the much-missed Soviet Union, and as a victim of satanic capitalism, apparently an enemy of Koalemos.

[Cf. Royal Decree 1150/2021 of December 28 (B.O.E. 31. XII. 2021) by which the Sanchez government authorizes itself—just like the famous Ermächtigung Gesetz of March 24, 1933, which granted Hitler full powers—to dictate the measures it deems appropriate to guarantee National Security].

The citizens suppressed for more security by the socialist party’s decree of a civil war nature, like all socialisms, the definitive death of Montesquieu and The Spirit of the Laws [since the division of powers is fictitious, Montesquieu’s fundamental rule is also violated, as in all liberal totalitarianisms: “The tax on goods is the tax of freedom. The tax on persons is the tax of servitude.” A tax against the family, one of the limits that Bodin—the theoretician—placed on state sovereignty, and concentrated in the Marxist social-democratic tax on income]—the objective of the successive monarchical governments seems to be, at least from a certain moment, the Kulturkampf necessary to put the Nation at the forefront of the age, led by progressive ideologies, such as bio-ideologies, enemies of the antiquity of common sense and the ratio status. The main ones are: the misandric or gender one, which, stricto sensu, is limited to defending the legitimate human right of women to be idiots, even if Putin says it is “a perfect phantasmagoria,” and in a broader sense defends, for example, legally regulating the menstrual cycle; the ecologist, defender of the Earth against human perversity that chokes it with CO2-impregnated fumes; the hygienist, health or sanitary (greatly strengthened by the support of the churches—vaccination is “an act of love,” they say in the Vatican) favoring dictatorship (assuming vaccination is necessary) to tyranny (if it is unnecessary) to combat the coronavirus flu.

[Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, Archbishop of Luxembourg and President of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community (COMECE) has asked for a Covid passport to be required for access to religious services. Where is the Church “on the move” headed? National Socialism invented the “public health policy”—the function of the WHO—which suppresses the natural right or freedom of the individual to decide about his body and the way to heal himself].

These three ideologies are mothers of the LGTB and all the other letters, of the “counter-sexualist”—there is a ministry in charge of an energetic sexual commissar, who sings the truths to the dawn star—the animalist—there is a general direction for everything related to animals (it is not clear if it includes or excludes “politicians,” perhaps because the director has not heard of Aristotle), “ecosexualism” (love to/and with trees and plants), climate change (a branch of ecologism)—the fight against fumes including cow flatus, as well as Pachamamalogy, which enjoys a certain appreciation in ecclesiastical environments, etc. They have the undeniable merit of creating numerous bureaucratic jobs that remedy structural unemployment, which remains fixed as the highest in Europe (at this moment double the European average) since the “transition” began.

Everything points to making Spain the universal example of how collective stupidity can triumph, undoubtedly, the ideal way to advance democracy in order to establish die wahre Demokratie, the true democracy—something like the Kingdom of God in the land of the Puritans of the Fifth Monarchy—dreamt of by Karl Marx as the goal of all socialisms, the desire-mandate to which the Law of the [anti]historical Memory, popularly known as the “Law of the Hysterical Revenge,” points to—the Law that the socialist misgovernment of Dr. Sanchez (of course, a democrat, since the democracy of the stupid can only be socialist or communist) calls with more precision of “Democratic Memory.” Typical laws, with which, as Richter says, “the idiot forbids reason to go beyond memory,” in order to channel peacefully in the correct march of history towards universal stupidity, those who are not yet idiots as they should be and the new generations—if there are any, given the fall in the birth rate, encouraged, with the help of propaganda, by the high taxes that punish families so that they become idiotic and do not procreate.

The nature of the political consensus among the oligarchies is obviously very different from that of Cicero’s consensus omnium, the social consensus determined by the ethos that unifies the peoples. It has ensured that, even if the Nation is not totally idiotized, it is at least in the hands of so many fools, childish people, even for their age, as it has never been before. Without lacking the resentful, delinquent, wicked and everlasting careerists, who always come to the honeycomb of rich honey that are Budgets. O tempora, o mores! The time of stupid apprentices of the customs of Ali Baba and his gang, in “a country,” laments a reactionary journalist, “inert, anesthetized, stupefied, dumbfounded and something like a fool.”

The politics of the transition (“transaction” Jesús Fueyo specified) to the Monarchy in which the Church “became mute,” as Tocqueville said of the French in The Ancien Régime and the Revolution, is, for the reactionaries entrenched in common sense, a mess characterized by the disputes between the traditionally anti-national or anti-Hispanic left—converted, again Koalemos gratias, to Latin Americanism, an expression more stupid and, therefore, more correct than Hispano-Americanism—and the social-democratic left that acts as a centrist “right.” Democracy—”the sovereignty of a people over its destiny” (J. Fueyo)—identified with outdated anti-Francoism, awaits its turn. In the meantime, democracy, Yeah!

The secret of the consensus between the left and the fetish of the center is that, as Nicolás Gómez Dávila (1913-1994) perceived, the right and left “have signed against the reactionary [in the sense of the one who reacts] a secret pact of perpetual aggression.” Consensual Hispanics do, in fact, reasonably brand people, groups or parties that are not in tune—those that do not accept, for example, the decomposition of the oldest nation in Europe, or oppose the culture of death—as being extreme right-wing. This is a very logical curse-argument, since the “right” is the right wing of the oligarchic consensus. They are also labeled as Francoists or “faças.” The apothegm, says Amando de Miguel, of historical fascism, “well, there is no other,” “everything within the State; nothing outside the State.” An apothegm from which the anti-politics of the misgovernment (which perhaps borders on criminality, as long as the penal code is not duly modified to adjust it to the ethos of the kingdom of Koalemos) of the rulers, acolytes and plugged-in members of the PSOE Sanchista, standard-bearer of Stupidity, benefits from.

“If there are no completely intelligent men, there are completely stupid ones,” writes Moreno Castillo. Most of the completely stupid have integrated into the new socialism—socialisms attract fools—and the reactionaries, who are not even stupid, since they live in a world apart—perhaps they do not even vote—say that politics has turned Spain into a dunghill. Some scornfully equate the progressive Kingdom of Spain to the solidly established Kingdom of Peronia, laus Koalemos, in Argentina, from where it radiates imperially to the whole world, together with its Venezuelan partner and the Cuban luminary.

Having practically finalized these flash-notes, the leadership of the right wing of the socialist party, led by characters so infantile and stupid that they have committed political suicide, imploded. In principle, it was not a mere incident in the race to advanced democracy. As Dr. Sanchez also imploded the socialist party, not to improve it, which is certainly impossible, but to re-found it as PSOE and Co. [Probably following Peter Drucker’s advice when a business enterprise is going badly, Sanchez has a doctorate in economics]—the disappearance of the monopoly of consensus by the two original dynastic parties leaves the Monarchy of Parties out in the open. The historian Pedro González Cuevas writes in his recent book: “Felipe VI and his descendants have the future against them. And the fact is that, unlike his father, they have nothing to offer either to the left or to the nationalists.” The reaction of the subjects to the crisis of the self-styled popular party, which for many has become unpopular, reveals a certain weariness with the concentration of stupid people in the political class. However, judging by the symptoms, the popular party will continue to be the unpopular coryphaeus of the socialist party and its associates.

Finally, everything is unknown in the struggle between stupidity and common sense. Will neuroscience and the fashionable artificial intelligence intensify the permanent revolution that is leading the West to dumbness and servitude, and will they obtain the universal remedy so that everybody will definitely be an incurable idiot? The traditional magister vitae, history, would cease to be a work of art (Ranke); the new history would finally be the story of the vicissitudes of Stupidity and those still capable of thinking, residing in the paradises of the stupid, would have to console themselves by imagining, like Blaise Pascal, the joy of living in an intelligent hell.

[With corrections to the version published in Razón española, no. 232 (July-August 2022), and with thanks to Arnaud Imatz].


Dalmacio Negro Pavón (Madrid, 1931) has been professor of History of Ideas and Political Forms in the Faculty of Political Science and Sociology at the Complutense University of Madrid and is currently professor emeritus of Political Science at the CEU San Pablo University. He is also a full member of Real Academia de Ciencias Morales y Políticas (the Royal Academy of Moral and Political Sciences). He has translated and edited several classic works of German, English and French political thought. His many books include El fin de la normalidad y otros ensayos (The End of Normality and Other Essays), La ley de hierro de la oligarquía (The Iron Law of Oligarchy), Lo que Europa debe al Cristianismo (What Europe Owes to Christianity), Il Dio Mortale. Il Mito dello Stato tra Crisi Europea e Crisi delle Politica (The Mortal God: The Myth of the State amidst the European Crisis and Crisis of Politics), and La tradición de la libertad (The Tradition of Liberty).


Featured: “An Allegory of Folly,” by Quinten Massys; painted ca. early 16th century.

The School of Salamanca: Origins of Political Economy and International Law

At the beginning of the 16th century, Salamanca was a city of 20,000 to 24,000 inhabitants, with about 7,000 students (today there are 145,000, of whom 30,000 are students). Founded in 1243, the University of Salamanca is the third oldest university in Europe. In the Golden Age (1492-1681), Spain was the country with the largest number of university students in Europe.

The reputation of the University of Salamanca grew stronger from the 15th century onwards. It became a center of intellectual influence, the symbol of the Renaissance and of Spanish humanism. The great figures, such as Antonio de Nebrija, Fray Luis de Leon, St. John of the Cross, Luis de Gongora and many others studied there. Unlike the Universities of Valladolid and Alcala (the vanguard of Spanish Erasmism), which were mainly focused on theology, Salamanca was also oriented towards legal, political and economic studies. However, the School of Salamanca was above all a theological movement that had as its primary objective the renovation of theology.

[The two most complete works on the School of Salamanca are those of Juan Belda Plans, La Escuela de Salamanca y la renovación de la teología en el siglo XVI, and Miguel Anxo Pena González, La Escuela de Salamanca. De la Monarquía hispánica al Orbe católico].

The theological humanism of the School of Salamanca, and more broadly of the Hispanic Neo-Scholastic school (the scholastic tradition going back to the University of Paris founded around 1200), was an original synthesis of Thomism, Scotism and nominalism, enriched successively by Dominicans, Jesuits and Franciscans, but also by Augustinians, Mercedarians, Carmelites, secular priests, jurists and laymen. The period of its full flowering was from 1526 to 1604; thereafter, its influence declined and finally died out in 1753. At its peak, the trend in favor of Thomism as an orthodox line was very strong; but in the sixteenth century the intellectual atmosphere was open enough to allow the expression of very different concerns and visions. To illustrate this atmosphere, it is worth recalling that the universities of Salamanca, Alcala, Valladolid and Osuna were familiar with the work of Canon Copernicus, who defended heliocentrism with De Revolutionibus (1543). Its study was optional at the University of Salamanca in 1561 and its teaching was compulsory from 1594 onwards. This situation was not exceptional in sixteenth-century Spain, since the Casa de la Contratación de Indias, an institution created in 1503 to promote navigation, had a large team of royal astronomers and cosmographers fully aware of European astronomy.

[Eugenio Bustos, “La introducción de las ideas de Copérnico en la Universidad de Salamanca,” Revistas de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas naturales (67), pp. 235-253].

Francisco de Vitoria (1483-1546), the Master of Masters

It was the Dominican Francisco de Vitoria (1483-1546), who first contributed to the prestige of the School of Salamanca. Vitoria came from a family of converts. He first studied at the Universities of Burgos and La Sorbonne. He was thirty years old when he left Paris and returned to Spain. He first went to the University of Valladolid, then arrived in Salamanca in 1526, where he remained until his death.

[Since the 1980s, studies on Francisco de Vitoria have multiplied. In fifteen years (1980-1995), Ramón Hernández Martín (author of Francisco de Vitoria. Vida y pensamiento internacional) estimates no less than one hundred works have been published. See in particular, Francisco Castilla Urbano, El pensamiento de Francisco de Vitoria. Filosofía política e indio americano, and Simona Langella, Teología y ley natural. Estudio sobre las lecciones de Francisco de Vitoria].

The School of Salamanca, or “Hispanic School” (since there were many of its followers in Hispanic America), was not the result of a deliberate plan, or of a well-established project. It was a current of thought that was spontaneously created around a master. And this master-founder was Vitoria. For him, as for all his followers, if power is necessary for the State, its raison d’être and its finality can only be the common good. The Pauline idea that power comes from God was accepted by the whole of Christianity, but it gave rise to two opposing interpretations. For some, the monarch governs and imposes laws in an absolute manner, by direct delegation from God (a point of view later developed by James I of England and by Bossuet). In Spain, however, it was quite different, since the idea outlined by Isidore of Seville (560-636) at the time of the Hispano-Visigoths—that the monarch or the dominant oligarchy does not receive power directly from God, but indirectly through the people. This conception was theorized and concretized by the great masters of the School of Salamanca in the 16th and 17th centuries. In other words, for Vitoria, Francisco Suarez, Luis de Molina and so many other Neo-Scholastic authors, God does not grant power directly to the monarch, but only to the people, who freely transmit it to the king by means of a pact that can be modified. The power is “of human right;” it is not directly divine, and it can be more or less ample, according to a free pact. The king is not a mediator between the will of God and the people, but rather the people are.

Vitoria’s freedom of expression from his chair is astonishing. An example: the instrument that Spain brandished to exercise its dominion over the Indies was a bull of Pope Alexander VI, which gave the Crown of Castile a right over the lands and inhabitants of the Indies. However, in two of his famous re-readings (Relectiones) De Indis and De jure belli (1539) [Francisco de Vitoria, Leçons sur les Indiens et sur le droit de guerre. trans. Maurice Barbier, o.p., (Libraire Droz, 1966)], Vitoria simply asserts that the Emperor is not the master of the world and that the Pope is not the lord of the planet either. According to Vitoria, the papal bull does not legitimize either the conquest or the discovery. He asserts that the property of the Indians does not belong to the monarch, nor to the conquistadors, and that the Spaniards do not have the right to get their hands on the gold of America or to exploit the wealth of the continent against the will of the Indians. The emperor, he says, rules over a community of free peoples. Imperial laws are only just insofar as they serve to promote, conserve, and protect the indigenous people.

What are the illegitimate and legitimate titles of domination and conquest according to Vitoria? Illegitimate are the alleged powers of the Emperor or the Pope over the world; the right of discovery; the violation of natural law by the natives (anthropophagi, human sacrifices, incest, homosexuality, etc.); the acceptance of foreign domination by a minority of the rulers and the ruled; and finally, the alleged special gift of God. Legitimate only are: the right of people and the right of natural communication; the right to preach and to announce the Gospel freely; the tyranny of the native rulers, the agreement of the majority of the natives; the alliance and the call for help from friendly peoples; and finally, a point that seems to be debatable—the temporary incapacity of the natives to administer themselves. One sees that paradoxically the arguments that justify today the right of interference (the possibility for international actors to intervene in a State, even without its consent, in case of massive violation of human rights) are not so far from his own.

In short, according to Vitoria, the Indies should be considered a political protectorate. A protectorate justifiable only insofar as it serves the welfare of the indigenous peoples. On the other hand, Vitoria and his followers generally agree that individuals who have never been Christians should not be forced to become so.

The reaction of the Emperor, Charles V, was remarkably debonair and peaceful. He limited himself to sending a letter to the prior of the convent of San Esteban in Salamanca to urge his colleagues to show a little more restraint and caution in expressing doctrines that might offend the dignity of the Emperor and the Pope.

In his 13th lesson, De jure belli, Vitoria redefines the theory of just war, developed until then by Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas. He states his three principles: One should not seek the occasions and causes of war, but should live in peace with men; the rejection of the Gospel is not a reason for just war. War should not be waged for the loss of the enemy, but for the defense of one’s country and so that peace may result. It is necessary finally to have a just proportion between the violation of the right and the evils generated by the war, and to benefit from victory with measure and moderation.

If Francisco de Vitoria is often considered the founder of international law, it is not because he invented the notion of the law of nations, the jus gentium (the Greeks and the Romans already used, in the relations between States, elements of a true system of international law, later developed by Saint Augustine, Saint Isidore and Saint Thomas), but because Vitoria was able to discover the fundamental laws of relations between men. His genius was to consider the law of nations as a natural law, common to all men and to all States.

The Disciples of Vitoria

A whole group of scholars soon became part of Vitoria’s lineage. About twenty names are famous, but about 80 deserve to be studied. They soon became the moral conscience of the Empire. Among them: Domingo de Soto, known for his theory of money and his renovation of the law of nation /jus gentium; Melchor Cano, who advised King Philip II to resist the temporal claims of the Pope; Tomás de Mercado, who studied the commercial exchanges between Spain and the Indies; Martin de Azpilcueta, former rector of the University of Coimbra, who was the first economist to correctly analyze the process of inflation caused by the influx of precious metal from the Indies.

To these names should be added those of Juan Gil de Nava, Pedro de Sotomayor, Juan de la Peña, Mancio de Corpus Christi, Bartolomé de Medina, Domingo Bañez, Juan de Guevara, Luis Sarabia de la Calle, Fray Luis de León, Diego de Covarrubias y Leiva, Bartolomé de Medina and Juan de Maldonado. Then, the names of a second generation, to which belonged the Jesuits Luis de Molina (who taught in Madrid and Coimbra), Juan de Mariana, and especially Francisco Suarez (1548-1617). The economic thought of these authors was new and original. Domingo de Soto maintained that the wealth of nations came from exchange and not from the accumulation of precious metals. He was thus clearly opposed to mercantilism.

[Raoul de Scorraille, François Suárez de la Compagnie de Jésus, d’après ses lettres, ses autres écrits inédits et un grand nombre de documents nouveaux, 2 vols.; Joseph H. Fichter, Man of Spain: A Biography of Francis Suárez; José Manuel Gallegos Rocafull, La doctrina política del P. Francisco Suarez (Jus, 1948); Mateo Lanseros, La autoridad civil en Francisco Suarez (IEP, 1949); Reijo Wilenius, The Social and Political Theory of Francisco Suarez (Societas philosophica Fennica, 1963); Jean-François Courtine, Nature et empire de la loi. Études suaréziennes; and A. Couartou-Imatz, La souveraineté populaire chez Francisco Suarez (Faculté de droit de Bordeaux, 1974)].

Luis de Molina explained that the right price is the price of competition, of the game of supply and demand; that the value attributed to things is subjective and not objective, as Marx, and Ricardo before him, would later say. For Molina, the right price is the market price; it is the abundance or scarcity of goods that determines their price and not the costs of production, work or risk, as was believed in the Middle Ages (via Duns Scott).

The masters of the Salamanca school criticized excessive taxation and price controls. Price controls can and should only be exceptional. They also clearly defended property, which is necessary for social peace; to deny it, to refuse it, according to them, is a heresy (Domingo de Soto), but it is not absolute; it can never be detached from its social function.

The thinkers of Hispanic Neo-Scholasticism condemned usury, but accepted moderate interest. They were therefore attacked, on the one hand, by Protestants and Catholics who demanded a return to the purity of the Church’s doctrine and who reproached them for softening the prohibition, and, on the other hand, by secular authors who accused them of hypocrisy because they sought exceptions to the principle.

These thinkers also made a distinction between citizens and foreigners. Luis de Molina is the very example of the scholastic author who today offers arguments to defend restrictions on the international market and immigration.

After the Dominican Francisco de Vitoria, the most famous author of the School of Salamanca is the Jesuit Francisco Suarez (1548-1617). His work was known throughout Europe in his time. It consists of 27 volumes (unlike Vitoria who did not publish anything during his lifetime, his re-readings being notes taken by his students).

Suarez is an anti-absolutist thinker. In his Defensio fidei (1613), he states the fundamental axiom of Neo-Scholastic theology: “No king, no monarch, has or has had according to the ordinary law, the political principate immediately from God or by the act of a divine institution, but by means of human will or institution” [Cited by Couartou-Imatz, L’État et la communauté internationale dans la pensée de Vitoria (Faculté de droit de Bordeaux, 1972), p.16]. Public power always comes from God, but it is given to the people who place it in the hands of an individual or an institution for reasons of historical circumstances. This being the case, only the authority that does not lose sight of its mission is legitimate—that mission being, the attainment of the common good and the respect of human dignity. At the heart of the Neo-Scholastic approach is the integration of theology, ethics, politics and economics. The Dominicans and the Neo-Scholastic Jesuits cannot be described as individualistic thinkers in the contemporary sense, even though their work demonstrates a constant concern for human dignity.

It is only from the beginning of the nineteenth century that several Spanish and European jurists, all specialists in international law, began to recognize the influence of Vitoria and his followers on the Dutch Protestant jurists, Hugo Grotius, and the German, Samuel von Pufendorf, who were then considered the only precursors of international law. Their influence on the works of the Italian jurist, Alberico Gentili, the German philosopher, Johannes Althusius, the French political theorist, Jean Bodin, and indirectly on the group of Scottish economists, headed by Adam Smith, is equally undeniable.

The precursory character of the School of Salamanca was more and more admitted from the turn of the 20th century. In France alone, the pioneering work of Ernest Nys (1894), Alfred Vanderpol (1911), Hubert Beuve Méry (1928) and Louis Le Fur (1939) should be recalled.

In the field of economics, however, it was not until another century later that the thinkers of the School of Salamanca were recognized as the founders of modern economics. For a long time, they were confused with the most vulgar mercantilism (which defended the idea that the possession of precious metals made the wealth and power of nations). It had even been said that the thinkers of the School of Salamanca, guided by their religious principles, had been unable to understand the mechanisms of the market and prices. But this was not true!

The works of Pierre-André Sayous, Joseph Schumpeter, José Larraz Lopez, Luis Martínez Fernández, Andrés Martín Melquiades, José Barrientos, Juan Belda Plans, Murray Rothbard, Marjorie Grice-Hutchinson, Jesús Huerta de Soto, Raymond de Roover, Alejandro Chafuen, to name but a few, have shown that the thinkers of Hispanic Neo-Scholasticism described and systematized, long before the economists of the 19th and 20th centuries, and in an almost complete way, the theory of subjective value, the theory of marginal utility, the theory of prices, the quantitative theory of money, the phenomenon of inflation and the mechanisms of exchange. What is most surprising is that modern economic science has confirmed the conclusions reached by the thinkers of the School of Salamanca through theological and ethical reasoning, as early as the 16th century.

Many ultraliberal supporters of the Austrian School have sought to see in the Salamanca School the origins of the liberal school of economic thought.

[See Alejandro A. Chafuen, Christians for Freedom. Late Scholastic Economics/ Raíces cristianas de la economía de libre mercado ( Buey Mudo, 2009); Thomas E. Woods, The Church and the Market. A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy/ La iglesia y la economía. Una defensa católica de la economía libre ( Buey Mudo, 2010); André Azevedo Alves and José Manuel Moreira, The Salamanca School. For the opposite view, see Daniel Martín Arribas, Destapando al liberalismo. La Escuela Austriaca no nació en Salamanca (SND Editores, 2018)].

Some of the most feverish supporters even went so far as to assert that “God is liberal/libertarian;” perhaps in order not to be outdone by those who, like Camilo Torres or Leonardo Boff, saw in Christ “the first communist.” But this is to forget that the Neo-Scholastic authors never separated the economy from morality, from natural law and from God. And this also forgets that the principles of a just Christian order, juridical, political, economic and social, are in direct opposition to those of a liberalism that idolizes freedom and private property.

The Influence on Power

What was the influence of the School of Salamanca in the 16th century? On the Church it was undoubtedly very important. Members of the School of Salamanca were omnipresent at the Council of Trent (1545-1563). During its three stages, the Spanish participation amounted to a total of almost a thousand people, of whom 245 are known among the most prestigious figures.

What about political power? It is impossible to overemphasize here the close and privileged relationship that existed between the thought of Vitoria and his followers and the Spanish Monarchy. On November 20, 1542, Charles V promulgated in Barcelona the New Laws of the Indies. His decree abolished slavery and the encomienda and ordered that the Indians be considered free vassals of the Crown of Castile. But obviously the ideal ran up against the realities and the interests of the men. The pressure of the Spanish authorities of the Indies and the various insurrections (in Peru) compelled the emperor to modify partially the contents of his decree. But the influence remained however tangible in the more than 3000 laws of the Indies enacted by the kings of Spain.

A word about the Valladolid controversy, which in 1550-1551 pitted the Dominican Bartolomé de Las Casas against the humanist theologian, also a Dominican, Juan Ginés de Sepulveda. Sepulveda declared the domination of the Indians just in order to civilize them, to teach them religion without doing it by force and to have them respect natural law. Las Casas, on the contrary, was a pacifist. According to him, there was no legal title that could justify the Spanish presence in America. He proposed the restitution of lands, compensation for the Indians and peaceful evangelization. But his pacifism was perceived by the whole School of Salamanca as an unrealistic and irresponsible thought. In this, Vitoria was paradoxically closer to the realist or moderately Machiavellian (and not at all Machiavellic) Sepulveda, a fine connoisseur of Aristotle, than to the utopian Las Casas.

[Machiavellianism refers to a conception of politics that advocates the conquest and preservation of power by all means. The adjective “Machiavellic,” which has passed into common French parlance, refers to the dark and manipulative interpretation of Machiavelli’s best-known work, The Prince (1531). Thus “Machiavellic” is always sinister and nefarious. This is to be distinguished from the term “Machiavellian,” formed by contrast to designate the concepts stemming from Machiavelli’s political philosophy, without passing judgment. Thus, “Machiavellian” is realist philosophy in politics].

Today, scholars continue to argue about the position of the Salamanca School on individual rights. For some, the Salamanca masters represent a resurgence and development of an authentically Aristotelian and Thomistic framework centered on an organicist conception and objective natural law. For others, they are closer to the notion of subjective law centered on individual rights and liberties. For some, they are part of the most orthodox Catholic tradition; for others they break with it and anticipate modernity.

Are Vitoria and his followers at the origin of the modern conception of human rights? No, answers the philosopher of law Michel Villey. “Certainly, the Spanish scholastics had a great desire to impose their theology and their conception of a natural moral law on jurists; but to derive from it duties, obligations to be borne by the individual. They were agents of order. As for deducing from the dignity of nature the ‘rights’ of man, they were not ready for it, not having the taste for anarchy, because of their attachment to tradition.” According to Villey, human rights have their source in a deviated Christian theology; they are the product of modern philosophy, which emerged in the 17th century.

In any case, the legacy of the School of Salamanca is originality of thought, a combination of an organic conception of society, centered on the common good, with a prominent place given to the dignity of man and even to individual rights; a simultaneous defense of the right of the city and the right of individuals.


Arnaud Imatz, a Basque-French political scientist and historian, holds a State Doctorate (DrE) in political science and is a correspondent-member of the Royal Academy of History (Spain), and a former international civil servant at OECDHe is a specialist in the Spanish Civil War, European populism, and the political struggles of the Right and the Left – all subjects on which he has written several books. He has also published numerous articles on the political thought of the founder and theoretician of the Falange, José Antonio Primo de Rivera, as well as the Liberal philosopher, José Ortega y Gasset, and the Catholic traditionalist, Juan Donoso Cortés.


Featured: “Francisco de Vitoria,” by Daniel Vázquez Diaz; painted in 1957.

The New Wars of Religion

The West’s got religion—and its hell-bent on spreading it all over the planet. And it won’t quit pulpiteering, with bombs and simoleons if need be, until every knee shall bow.

There was a telling document penned by Jamie Raskin (member of Congress), which received notoriety by being rather accurately summarized by Tucker Carlson: “Russia is an orthodox Christian country with traditional social values and for that reason it must be destroyed no matter what the cost to us. So, this is not a conventional war, this is a Jihad. Jamie Raskin said that out loud but many in Washington agree with him.”

To be clear, these are Mr. Carlson’s words, not Mr. Raskin’s—but what Mr. Raskin actually writes is far worse, for it is the blueprint of the new “Wars of Religion” that the West is now engaged in. What is happening in the Ukraine is merely the “holy ire” of the “united West” which cannot abide resistance to its new faith, a faith which Mr. Raskin clearly outlines. In fact, Mr. Raskin’s “blueprint,” penned October 25, 2022, is also a good description of the fight now raging inside the West itself, between those that identify as “progressive” and those who refuse to accept this new faith, which is ultimately anti-human at its core.

First, Mr. Raskin draws upon his vast reserve of historical knowledge, to give us the “rationale” for the war in the Ukraine (i.e., its necessity), which is just one theater (among many) in the larger “wars of religion”:

“In the eight months since Russia began its atrocity-filled and illegal war of aggression against the people of Ukraine, the Ukrainian people have given Americans not just the chance to defend the values of national sovereignty, democracy and pluralism but also great hope for the world’s future. Had Ukrainians been quickly defeated by Putin’s army, as so many people expected, had Volodymyr Zelensky fled the country, as so many people expected, then a dangerous tyranny would have destroyed a nascent democracy, and prospects for democratic causes everywhere in the world would have darkened. Large countries would have felt emboldened to attack small countries everywhere.”

Truth, like water, always finds a way out: “Large countries would have felt emboldened to attack small countries everywhere”—says a congressman of a country which has long been “emboldened” to destroy various “small countries” in the noble effort to spread “democratic causes,” and euphemistically known as “United States Military Operations”—or USMOs. Remember, Iraq, where the US deemed killing 500,000 children a good price to pay for “democracy?” And let’s not forget that Mr. Raskin’s country is the only one that has actually used atomic weapons—twice. Self-awareness is always in short supply, it would seem. But look over there, in the Ukraine, “a dangerous tyranny” would have “destroyed a nascent democracy” were it not for the indignation of the self-righteous. We’ll not bother reminding Mr. Raskin of the bloody catalogue of crimes committed by this “nascent democracy,” and it’s Banderites in charge, and their “heroic” army.

Then, things really get interesting, as Mr. Raskin discovers his talent for writing purple prose:

“But today there is hope because of the strength of President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people, and the cause of democracy and freedom in Ukraine is the cause of the democratic world. We should unite around this just struggle and stay focused on it.”

“Democracy” and “freedom” are such delightful words—because you can fling them about to your heart’s content, with nary a worry about having to explain what they actually mean. They also have such a “ring” of “morality” to them, so important in a West entirely emptied of any notion of right and wrong. It is really a curious thing—everyone loves talking moral, without actually having to be moral—it’s enough just to declare that we all need to belong to the “democratic world,” in which if you say the wrong things, you will be destroyed (just ask the January Sixers, or the Trucker Protestors in Canada, those opposing the Covid tyranny, or those expressing “alternative” views on social media, labeled as “disinformation,” or “hate-speech”). In Mr. Raskin’s democracy, only his side “owns” the truth, and “love.”

Leaving aside the various egregious assumptions passed off as “facts” by Mr. Raskin, let us instead observe him in full flight:

“It is a bad colonial habit to suppose that ultimately peace depends upon the wishes of the great powers and the great powers alone, and even progressive and liberal people can fall into this colonialist reflex.”

Without dragging in irony, we can safely assume that Mr. Raskin is a confirmed and dedicated American isolationist who champions neutrality and non-interventionism, and strongly fights any and all “colonialist reflex,” especially of the US of A. And here we all thought “peace” meant keeping America happy, or you’ll get the crap bombed out of you, courtesy of “shock and awe,” and then have your population that survives starve to death via endless sanctions. Yes, “a bad colonial habit” can be terrible “reflex.”

But not so fast. What Mr. Raskin really wants to say is that the “democratic” world order needs constant vigilance, where arms and billions can be shipped off wherever “democracy” is in utter peril (of course, this does not include places like Saudi Arabia—only places that Mr. Raskin says are in “peril,” are in fact in peril. That’s just progressive “commonsense”).

And there’s always more:

“Ukraine’s struggle embodies a democratic future. Its civilian and military leadership is young and diverse, representing a post-Soviet generation that has learned to treasure freedom and value democracy. Its president, who is Jewish and thus belongs to a small national minority, was elected with 73% of the population, and now has even higher levels of support, thanks to his extraordinary wartime leadership. Thousands of Ukrainian women are fighting on the front, and a woman serves as deputy minister of defense. Sexual minorities are represented within the Ukrainian armed forces. Ukrainians soldiers routinely speak two languages. Ukraine has displayed a striking degree of toleration and decency during a war.

“The Ukrainians also inspire democratic forces all over the world with their example of civil society. This war is fought and won on the Ukrainian side with the help of countless civilians, organized informally into small horizontal groups, who fill the gaps in logistics. An emblematic image of this war is of the vans driven to the front by civilians to supply soldiers. Where conscripted Russians destroy Ukrainian homes, neighbors come to help. Another common image of this war is the partially repaired house: in the regions from which Russia has been forced to retreat, Ukrainians do what they can to rebuild their neighbors’ homes.”

I guess no one bothered to tell Mr. Raskin about the Maidan coup that his country micromanaged—to defeat a duly elected (democratically, but never mind) president, and bring in a reign of neo-Nazis. Cue the Banderites, as “freedom fighters.” This can all be put down as the usual blather about “democracy” and “freedom” and how we have to help Ukraine (and no one else. Sorry, Yemen. Apologies, Armenia. Only Ukraine can now mean “democracy,” and no place else). Come to the Dark Side.

As for the current Ukrainian leader, one Mr. Zelensky, whose native language is Russian and who had to learn Ukrainian for the job, and who was always seen as “pro-Russian” earlier, there is the easy assumption that he’s “Jewish,” even though he and his wife have had their children baptized in the Orthodox Church, and he is assumed by many in the know to have converted a long time ago. He did give a rather Christian cri dec coeur at Easter:

But facts should never get in the way of a narrative, especially when “democracy” is at stake. How else can you spread “democracy” if not by the fear of some “weapon of mass destruction.” Quick question, Mr. Raskin—name one country that is now better off for having American “democracy” spread all over it, courtesy of a USMO? The old adage of leaving a place better than when you found it somehow doesn’t trip off the tongue.

But what Mr. Raskin writes next reveals the real reason why Russia is hated so much by the West, and why everything must be done to destroy it, lest it become an example of hope to those in the West who happen to disagree with Mr. Raskin’s vision of a “brave new world”:

“Moscow right now is a hub of corrupt tyranny, censorship, authoritarian repression, police violence, propaganda, government lies and disinformation, and planning for war crimes.”

Let’s unpack this a little more closely.

First, Mr. Raskin lays out the litany of “sins” that are unforgiveable in a “democratic” and “peace-loving” place like the US of A. And here you thought he was actually talking about Washington. Shame on you! Pay attention. It’s “Moscow,” that “hub” of evil, with its Orcs threating to swallow up the world, one “Ukraine” at a time. WMD redux.

But who exactly is “planning for war crimes?” Moscow? That would be interesting, given what the Banderites of the Ukraine have accomplished quite a lot in that department. But it’s more likely that grammar has gotten the better of Mr. Raskin and he means that the US of A is planning to hold Nuremberg 2.0, or 3.0, with Russia now in the role of the “Nazis.” So much for analogy.

And what is the nature of these Orcs? What makes them so, so evil? These words should give everyone pause: “[Moscow] is a world center of antifeminist, antigay, anti-trans hatred, as well as the homeland of replacement theory for export. In supporting Ukraine, we are opposing these fascist views, and supporting the urgent principles of democratic pluralism.”

In the West, being “antifeminist, antigay, anti-trans” is now a casus belli. Denial is the worst crime imaginable in “democratic pluralism.” No war can be juster than that fought by the utterly self-righteous against such “hate=mongers.” Mr. Raskin is happy to unloose the floodgates of his country’s vast cash reserves to win—and no matter how many Ukrainians have to die. It will all be worth it. Just ask Iraq, Libya, Somalia where death and misery is worth the promise of “democracy.”

If you didn’t notice, there is also a serious problem with logic here, which Mr. Raskin, like his grammar, cannot seem to manage. If he is for “feminism” then this means that he has a very clear and precise understanding of what a “woman” is. But at the same time, he is pro-trans, which means that he cannot clearly define what a woman is. Being pro-trans means that he therefore a misogynist because he believes that men make better women, and women cannot really be “women,” because men can also be “women.” And therefore there are no “women,” and hence “feminism,” because that would mean that men would have to be told that they are not “women.” And that is pure “evil,” to have to tell a man that. The crucial tenet of this new religion is to pretend that fantasy is reality, and mollycoddle everyone along, and throw the full weight of the state at anyone who disagrees. And now the US of A will also go to war to make sure you take its fantasy du jour as reality.

But things get worse. To be trans also means that it is very difficult to be “gay,” having deleted “unsuitable anatomical parts.” Which means that by advocating the trans, Mr. Raskin is by necessity also homophobic, because he is denying that “man” exists. If there are no “men,” then there cannot be gayness. And for the gay to become trans would require serious surgery. Suddenly, Mr. Raskin is trapped by his own “democracy.” Hence the bombs… which Hollywood film worth its salt does not solve problems with a gun—that is why guns must be banned. But more guns for the Ukrainians.

And just like “democracy” and “freedom”—“fascism” is such a handy shibboleth, tactically mentioned to rouse maximum outrage. What, “Moscow” is “fascist!?” Bombs and billions of greenbacks! Never mind that it was the Soviets who actually defeated the real Nazis, while America has been happily subsidizing real Nazis.

But, wait, what the heck is “democratic pluralism?” And what exactly are it’s “urgent principles?” More grammar difficulties, one would have to imagine, since democracy is not about plurality, but about a people united as one. The vox populi. Not a cacophony of misfits (mob-rule). So, does this mean that Mr. Raskin does not like democracy because he wants “pluralism.” Does this mean that he is therefore also a “fascist?” Good thing his party wants to ban guns.

And a word about that strange accusation that “Moscow” is the “homeland of replacement theory for export.” But wait, didn’t Mr. Schumer, just endorse this “theory?” Does this mean that Mr. Schumer is actually part of Moscow’s “hub” since he endorses the “replacement theory?” Having to go and fight Russia via Ukraine suddenly got complicated, especially since one of the reasons for the war, outlined by Mr. Raskin, is also now being espoused by a fellow American who just happens to belong to the same political party as Mr. Raskin. Talk about a Fifth Column!

But back to “Moscow.” People like Mr. Raskin have assumed the mantle of the self-righteous, which is typical of the unrighteous:

“Ukrainians today give the democratic world a chance for a critical and historic victory, and we must rally to their side. It is important to be on the right side of a just war, and it is even more important to be on the right side and win.”

“A critical and historic victory”—because “Moscow” stands in the way of a trans-world? Of a world filled with pride parades? Of a world ruled by the rage of childless harridans? Of a commodified humanity that needs to be shipped around wherever there is a drop in the birth-rate? How curious that these are the only “reasons” that Mr. Raskin can firmly grasp as “facts” to orchestrate the US of A “to be on the right side of a just war.” But a just war for whom? It’s fine and dandy to flick off rhetoric with one’s finger—but exactly which people will have to die in order to make sure that the new religion of the self-righteous wins the world?

The fact is, in the West itself, there are huge segments of the population who defy this “democratic pluralism,” whom Mr. Raskin calls “fascists,” whom his party seeks to silence with endless lawfare, and whom it wants to silence. “Democratic pluralism” to succeed cannot have dissent and disagreement. That is what the West is now showing to the rest of the world.

In other words, there are millions who feel they now have more in common with the human values embodied by Russia than the inhuman (trans-human) “values” that Mr. Raskin is trying to sell as “democracy” and “freedom.”

The veil has lifted, and we will not be joining Mr. Raskin and his various self-righteous cronies in this fight. If he wants to see the world as foe-and friend, then we the people will first have to decide who is really our friend and who really our foe. Only then will we enter into what he calls “a just war.” Our allegiance is no longer a given. That is what true freedom and democracy is all about. We will not be fighting his “wars of religion.” People of his ilk, the political class, have not yet gotten this message. But get it they will. It’s only a matter of time. Realty always wins over fantasy.

Untold millions of us in the West are Christian. We hold traditional values. We do not want our children neutered, sexualized, or brutalized for the sake of your ideologies. We defy all your many anti-human agendas constructed around warped sex and pleasure. We want more family. We love the innocent laughter of little kids, the delight of happy wives. We want more community. We want more roots. We want nations and borders. We will never become rootless, lonely, “useless eaters,” inhabiting your “democracy,” your “pluralism,” your “world order.”

We will indeed fight a just war if and when it comes—and while the political elite are busy spreading “democratic pluralism,” via Pronoun Seminars backed up by bombs and big bucks. We’ll see who wins in the end. And here’s a question—when was the last time that the US of A actually won a war?

But it is true that with their billions, “rulers,” the political elite have the capacity to do great harm. That will be what we the people will have to suffer through until we are free of the deadly fantasies of politicians.


Aristarch writes whenever something catches his eye and the Muse grabs him by the throat.


Featured: “Stupid War,” by Agim Sulaj; painted in 2019.

How the West Brought War to Ukraine: A Review

[Read an excerpt from How the West Brought War to Ukraine]

It can be rather effectively argued that the greatest export commodity of the USA is war, commonly known as the Military Industrial Complex, which has spent the bloody decades after WWII bringing “democracy” to the benighted of the world—by bombs and sanctions, if necessary.

The latest such grand crusade is the war in Ukraine, which we have all been told to think of as “us” defending a fragile “democracy,” invaded out of the blue by the latest manifestation of Attila the Hun. Here was Ukraine happily minding its own business, until one day Putin woke up and decided that he needed to be a world-conqueror and off he went to “invade” Ukraine. The simplistic narrative of the “innocent” and the “criminal” has deep appeal in the Western psyche, conditioned no doubt by Hollywood. Thus, all the media had to do was point out the “criminal,” and the rest took care of itself. Out came all the virtue-signaling that the West is now so good at mustering. Now, there is not a shred of doubt in the minds of the majority in the West that this is a war between the “good guys” and the “Great Villain,” with the likes of Biden, Justin Trudeau, Britain and all the other cheerleaders for “democracy” constantly handing David’s loaded sling-shot to Ukraine to get the job done—but which the likes of Zelensky keep dropping. This is what fighting villainy to the last Ukrainian actually looks like.

But there is a far worse invasion that was completed a long time ago—that of the Western mind, addled by what is euphemistically known as “the mainstream media,” which knows that spin is the most effective form of victory in any war.

This is why Benjamin Abelow’s book, How the West brought War to Ukraine is a must-read, for it shows that this war is not about Ukraine, but about Russia, which needs to be brought to heel and become “democratic”: “…the vaunted goal of ‘regime change,’ which in the United States is sought by an informal alliance of Republican neoconservatives and Democratic liberal interventionists” (p. 5).

Abelow is careful in his analysis and gives a thorough and balanced account of what led Russia to undertake an attack on Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Despite mainstream narratives, the attack was carefully provoked (orchestrated comes to mind). So, unlike “settled history,” which would have us believe that Ukraine is the “innocent bystander” in all this, Abelow undertakes a meticulous unpacking of the various provocations (Ukrainian and Western), which began in 1990 and finally came to a head on February 24, 2022. Wars don’t just happen; they are the result of a long series of failures and outrages. In the words of Professor Richard Sakwa: “In the end, NATO’s existence became justified by the need to manage the security threats provoked by its enlargement. The former Warsaw Pact and Baltic states joined NATO to enhance their security, but the very act of doing so created a security dilemma for Russia that undermined the security of all” (p. 51).

Given that Russia is a nation-state, it must look after its geopolitical interests and defend what is crucial to what it deems necessary to continue, as Jacques Baud has so often pointed out in this magazine. Not to recognize these interests is to be blind to reality: “The underlying cause of the war lies not in an unbridled expansionism of Mr. Putin, or in paranoid delusions of military planners in the Kremlin, but in a 30-year history of Western provocations, directed at Russia, that began during the dissolution of the Soviet Union and continued to the start of the war. These provocations placed Russia in an untenable situation, for which war seemed, to Mr. Putin and his military staff, the only workable solution” (p. 7).

These provocations are now well-known, and thus rigorously ignored, denied or glossed over as “Russian propaganda.” These include bringing arms as close to the Russian border as possible; the expansion of NATO, despite promises given to Russia that that would never happen; the withdrawal of the US from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty and the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (which now gives the US first-strike capability); the ousting of a democratically elected Ukrainian government and installing neo-Nazis into power in 2014; NATO military exercises along the Russian border; pushing Ukraine to join NATO, despite warnings from Russia that that would mean war; since 2014, training and arming the Ukrainian military, in which many of the units are openly neo-Nazi; actively nurturing Russophobia in Ukraine; encouraging the bloody war in the Eastern portions of Ukraine, which were seen as “pro-Russian” and therefore hostile. There are many others that can be listed.

Of course, the last provocation was telling Zelensky not to negotiate when Russia attacked on February 24. He was ready to do so, and a war would have easily have been avoided, and many helpless lives saved. But Boris Johnson flew out, met the Ukrainian president, and negotiation was off the table.

And this is the most baffling thing—the West does not want peace at all. It wants a war of total annihilation for Russia, which will never happen, of course, but which the West so far seems not to understand (perhaps because it is now governed by leaders who have little understanding of warcraft). No Western politician bravely calls for negotiations, for a ceasefire, for peace, for even a little breather. It’s war and more war, and the billions and arms keep pouring in: “To my knowledge, Zelensky never received any substantial American support to pursue his peace agenda. Instead, he was subjected to repeated visits by leading American politicians and State Department officials, all of whom spouted a theoretical principle of absolute Ukrainian freedom, defined as the “right” to join NATO and to establish a U.S. military outpost on Russia’s border. In the end, this “freedom” was worse than a pipe dream. Although it advanced the aims of the United States—or, more accurately, the interests of certain American political, military, and financial factions—it destroyed Ukraine” (p. 60).

The military historian Bernard Wicht, whose interview appears elsewhere in this magazine, very astutely observes that the West no longer has the ability to wage conventional war—not even the United States; this is why armed conflict in the 21st century is now “farmed” out to modern-day condottieri, who bring their private armies wherever their paymasters tell them to go. Is this is why billions are being sent to Ukraine, to pay for all the mercenaries? The war machine chugs along, indeed.

The strength of Abelow’s book is that it makes complexity accessible. Wars have so many moving parts, and Abelow with a deft hand guides the reader along. As is true of all good writers, this book is filled with clarity and insight, with an eye for the bigger picture, and all the while letting facts lead where they will. This is a rare talent nowadays.

Given the much-mentioned threat of nuclear war, the book ends with a prescient warning: “Policy makers in Washington and the European capitals—along with the captured, craven media that uncritically amplify their nonsense—are now standing up to their hips in a barrel of viscous mud. How those who were foolish enough to step into that barrel will find the wisdom to extricate themselves before they tip the barrel and take the rest of us down with them is hard to imagine” (p. 62).

Finally, as professor Sakwa pointed out, this entire tragedy would have been easily avoided if Zelensky had been encouraged to say just five little words: “Ukraine will not join NATO.” Why he could not say that lays the entire blood-guilt upon the collective leadership of the West.

How the West brought War to Ukraine is satisfying to read because it brings truth to light—and that is the highest calling any worthy writer can pursue. Rush out and buy it; and after you’ve read it, you will be both amazed and infuriated. The condottieri now run the show—but perhaps we the decent folk of this world will learn once again how to get rid of them. Perhaps this will be this war’s silver lining.


C.B. Forde lives in rural Ontario, Canada, where he reads, thinks and dreams.

One Month, Two Speeches

Introduction

Summer’s westerning month of September was bookended by two notable speeches. On the first of the month the American bureaucracy wheeled up to the podium at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania’s Independence Hall former Vice President Joseph R. Biden. On September 30th, with cranky Jerome looking down from heaven, a cranky Vladimir Putin strode up to the ambo of Moscow’s St. George’s Hall. When in place both men proceeded to give speeches. Displayed for all was the dichotomy of the present world order. The contrast could not be starker. It is the purpose of this essay to lay bare the startling divergence of the hour: a degenerate Enlightenment order and a rising east with knowledge of itself and determination to not buckle to bullies.

House Rules

Please be aware that I will be using “Atlanticist,” “globalist,” “neoliberal,” and “neoconservative” interchangeably. While there are denominational differences among these sons of Scratch, readability must have a say.

Location, Location, Location

Let us start with the location chosen for each missive. Only part of communication concerns actual vocal or written messages. A great deal is said by other means, location is one such channel. When Christ, the new lawgiver, was reconstituting Israel he deliberately staged certain pronouncements to allude to Moses, the old lawgiver. For example, compare Matthew 5-7 to Exodus 21-24. When the Council of Trent finally met in 1545 the Council Fathers purposely chose to meet at a city within the bounds of the Holy Roman Empire. This was both sensible and symbolic given their goal to address the late upset to the north. When the Germans defeated the French in 1940 Chancellor Hitler made a point of having them sign the surrender order in the selfsame train car which saw previously-defeated Germans sign the 1918 Armistice agreement. Locations matter because locations speak.

A Decrepit Shell Speaking in a Crumbling City on the Ruins of a Revolution

When the former Senator from Delaware was guided by his beloved caretaker Jill Biden to the ambo of Independence Hall, what was the message of the place? The Hall is famous for being the location 250 odd years ago where the Founding Fathers met to sign the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It is also the place several years later where a clique of those men successfully overthrew that Revolution during their Constitutional Convention coup. Note well that during Mr. Biden’s talk while there were many mentions of the Constitution, the Declaration received but one acknowledgement.

How fitting that Joe Biden, who was installed in the White House in an equally underhanded manner, gave his speech in the same place where the North American Novus Ordo Seclorum was so shadily codified in the first place. Biden’s location was not merely a nod to history but the completion of that Ordo; things have come full circle. The grandsons of the same sort of clique which hijacked the Revolution brought things home on September 1 of this year. The sacrifice was complete. Whatever of the old American spirit which subsisted in the state was finally dead.

It was a moving touch that the broadcast was persistently dogged by police sirens. Philadelphia has turned into the typical Democratic Party garbage heap. It is the kind of trash pile which the world has come to expect every time the DNC takes control of a major city, state, or nation.

The former Vice President’s cough-filled address marked the logical conclusion of the American saga. The bureaucracy came to its apotheosis on September 1. On that account I suppose he was right calling Independence Hall, “Sacred ground.” On that day they replaced the UNITED STATES color of law system, which itself deposed the Constitutional system on March 28, 1861, and that Constitutional arrangement dashed the hopes and sacrifices of the Revolution it pretended to canonize on September 17, 1789. The snake eats its tail, and one revolution topples its predecessor.

I don’t know the gematria of all these dates, but I know what something is when I see it. This latest drama which Biden’s talk inaugurated began on November 22, 1963, the day John Kennedy popped his clogs in a murder most foul. The drama closed out in success this September 1st at Independence Hall. The Frankenstein-like accession of the civil departments of the Federal government over their creators, the nominal office holders, was complete. With it ends America’s Imperial phase. Now commences our Dominate.

The Slayer of Dragons

The first thing which strikes one about the location of President Putin’s speech is its name, St. George’s Hall. George was a Christian saint, famous for slaying a large reptilian beastie many moons ago. In fact, England adopted this selfsame anti-lizard patron during the days of the Byzantine Empire when Anglo-Saxon mercenaries brought back his devotion from their service at Constantinople, the Second Rome. This is the same node from whence his cult entered Russia.

Howsomeever, a building being named for a saint! I rack my auld wet brain to think of any such edifices associated with the UNITED STATES corporation. Do any of our big shots hold their conventuals in a “Jesus Building,” “St. Mary’s Auditorium,” or “Venerable Bene Town Hall?” No, I suppose such names would jar with the Masonic cornerstones most American civil buildings have ensconced within them.
Biden’s speech had plenty of the civil religion buzz words developed for a people who’ve never enjoyed a unified cult. The state for Americans has come to act as a sacramental, visible placeholder for an institutional church, but it just doesn’t quite cut it. The closest Americans have to Russia’s St. George’s Hall is an idolatrous Capitol Building dedicated to another St. George, Washington in this case. This deified American St. George is surrounded by a medley of pagan gods and Founding Fathers (well, at least Federalist ones). While Jill Biden’s geriatric patient filled his speech with shibboleths to the American civil religion, the speaker’s religious messages were as meaningless as possible. The ancients did a much better job at state worship. Only the broad, generic McGod so beloved by test audiences got a nod from Brandon.

One last point on location, Philadelphia has quite an occult history. I suppose the ghost of occulty old Ben Franklin has something to do with this. Their massive city hall is the creepiest building I’ve been in, and this is something coming from someone who has acted in his fair share of haunted houses. The thing is covered with spiritualist statuary. The best examples are on the lower parts of the building which show the support columns resting on the backs of people. What a fitting motif for the enlightened government of barristers and bankers! For special effect the Hall sits kitty-corner to the famous Masonic Temple. All of this sits on Broad Street, and I’ve enough holy rolling in me to remember that: “Broad is the way that leads to destruction.” The Biden administration could not have asked for a better location.

Lights, Camera, Action!

What You Have Spoken in Darkness…

The devil is in the details.

The-most-popular-president-in-American-history-whom-no-one-remembers-voting-for was backgrounded by blue, red, and blue (sic) lights projected on the side of Independence Hall. Because the former Vice President is so popular the thoughtful press has consistently close-cropped the filming of his public appearances. Oddly enough, even though the display of America’s national colors is always red, white, and blue, in that order, the September 1 speech indeed saw blue, red, and blue. Note that red and blue are colors of two of the main denominations of Freemasonry. Thus, crusty Biden was bathed in sinister red for the whole of his speech. This doubtless was an accident. In no way was it an attempt to intimidate the considerable number of Donald Trump’s supporters who were the whipping boy of Biden’s sermon. Finally, sarcasm aside, the dark of night added an oppressive, claustrophobic feel to the Pennsylvania speech.

As for those in attendance, I have not been able to find any detailing of them. We must assume they were municipal nobodies, perhaps members of the Philly City Council or the Chamber of Commerce cajoled to attend. This attendance mystery is entirely fitting as it nicely mirrors the question of who exactly is in control of the Executive Branch at present. (Then again, perhaps we have our answer if we think about those colors.) Politics aside, few determined observers can believe that Joe Biden or Kamala Harris run anything. As I’ve said before, the bureaucracy is large and in charge. That was the purpose of the whole speech.

The slutty pretense of executive autonomy, which in fairness was very much unraveling during the Trump days, has gone by the wayside now. For example, on June 16th, 2021 Hunter Biden’s father met with Vladimir Putin in Geneva. He said in effect that the UNITED STATES had no intractable disagreement with the Russian government. Atlanticist interests could be reconciled with those of Russia. Before the day was out the State Department contradicted Biden. As this article goes to press the G7 meeting is soon set to be held in Indonesia. The former Vice President again put out an olive branch, albeit an anemic one, saying he would speak to President Putin if their paths crossed. The White House press office, with the lackey MSM in tow, wasted no time “reimagining” Biden’s remarks to be an absolute “no.” Under no circumstances will Biden and Putin be allowed to speak, they said. I have said the bureaucracy has toppled the state; that the September 1st address was a wrap party for the plan so long in the making. There is no esoterica in this. If the nominal Executive says something, and his nominal employees publicly countermand him, that’s all she wrote. My point is made.

… Shall be Heard in the Light

As for President Putin’s speech, it was conducted indoors in a large, well-lit room. This allowed television viewers to see who was in attendance, assisted by the regular cuts to the audience which the Russian broadcasters included during the 40-odd minute speech. Those in attendance consisted of holders of high office, military big shots, religious leaders of various faiths, and other notable Russian personages. However, CNN’s Matthew Chance and Nick Walsh assured their viewers that none of Putin’s auditors were convinced by his presentation on Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s former territories. How they know this is any man’s guess. Perhaps they have access to the same scrying mirror which the White House Press Office has. It’s called the old gaslight.

The Thing Itself

Having addressed the externals of the September 1st and 30th talks, what are we to make of the speeches themselves?

Priorities

Dark Brandon has shown adept management of crises during his two de facto years in office. The Afghan withdrawal, securing America’s southern border, and engaging with spiraling stagflation are all incidents which manifest the deft Democratic touch. Furthermore, the Biden Administration has made putting Ashkenazi Jews and transsexuals, two groups which have been completely ignored by the power structure these last 20 years, into prominent positions of power. (Ah, musha, there’s that sarcasm again).

In fact, concerning this last group, to address possible troop shortages in the event of a major war, Brandon’s Pentagon recently reminded male crossdressers that they are still liable for the UNITED STATES’ draft. On “National Coming Out Day ” the former Vice President said, “Today and every day, I want every member of the LGBTQ+ community to know that you are loved and accepted just the way you are – regardless of whether or not you’ve come out.”

Preferring the liturgical calendar to the ersatz pop one we’re given, I don’t go in for all these days and months of awareness, but fair play. Nihilominus, are there no bigger fish to fry than the condition of minuscule sexual minorities? Is there no homelessness address? Is there no addiction to see to? Were the crossdressers even asking the power structure, dripping in blood and usury from head to toe, to belly up to their cause in the first place? And where is Brandon’s gushy spirit as his pirates turn Ukraine into, not a front company like Burisma or a laundering project like Hunter’s art career, but a front nation? Where is the compassion of those Washington devils as Orthodox Ukrainians and Orthodox Russians, some of the last so-called white people left who still have an ethno-religious consciousness, kill each other by the thousands?

Yes, indeed, priorities have always been tops at the Biden White House. Thus, when the administration asked for aire time for 8pm, Thursday, September 1st everyone knew the topic was critical. And what did the most-popular-president-in-American-history discourse on? What was so pressing as to require a coast-to-coast prime time slot? Was it inflation, energy supply, or the resurgent opioid crisis? No, it was something graver still: the danger of “M.A.G.A forces,” an irresistible “threat to our democracy.”

Vassals

Putin’s speech concerned actual threats. He said the quiet part out loud. The Foggy Bottom bunch overthrew the USSR. This was a point doubtless startling to Western auditors of the talk who still irenicly believe the fall of the Berlin Wall was some groundswell of democratic sentiment.

Washington had to gin up the next enemy. With the commies gone scary brown Saddam Hussain became the of enemy of the Bush I White House, then white militias became the foe of the Clintons, they were switched out for Muslims during the Bush years, and now the Caucasian threat is back as “election deniers.” The carousel of make-believe American enemies is a hard ride to get off of. Anyhow, Putin mentioned actual threats to Russians in his talk, including Russian ethnic nationals in formerly-eastern Ukraine who were the victims of actual racism, discrimination, and violent attacks.

Perspective

Of course, before continuing we ought to put the internal paranoia of the American ruling class and their European lackeys, as well as the defensive and critical stance of Russia’s top caste, into a larger global perspective.

If At First You Don’t Succeed

After picking away for nigh on a decade, the darlings at Foggy Bottom succeeded in provoking the Russian Federation into invading Ukraine in February 2022. This sort of thing had been tried before. During the closing weeks of the sadsome Bush II administration globalists tried setting off a major war between Georgia and Russia. Sidestepping for a moment the 2014 neoliberal hijacking of Ukraine, as late as January 2022 the State Department attempted to spark a war between Russia and Kazakhstan via the old stalking horse of a color revolution. This was quickly beaten back and forgotten as eyes moved east in the following days.

Biden’s talk was a paranoid sloughing of ruling class anxieties. And it is well they are anxious. Their designs for a unipolar world order have been set back decades. Up to and through the Coronavirus upset this order seemed monolithic. Not so now. Events move apace. Events turn screws. As the pressure and failure of the West’s gamble mount, the sweat is beginning to show.

Under the Bus is a Crowded Place Indeed

Three meta-adjustments have come about because of the ongoing Ukrainian war. First, an alternative power block is being hung upon the heretofore moribund skeleton of the B.R.I.C.S. association (i.e., Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). Second, African and Middle Eastern nations, heretofore cowed by the caresses and threats of Atlanticists, have been decidedly stand-offish during the whole Eastern European saga. Finally, watching the scheme they worked so hard to effect crumble on the battlefields of Ukraine, the ruling cliques of the UNITED STATES and NATO organizations have thrown the nations of Europe under the bus.

The ongoing world realignment is the necessary background to understand why the American power elite chose to focus on the spurious MAGA movement as a threat to “our democracy.” The New World Order which seemed a fiat accompli is over for the foreseeable future. This span of time will likely be longer than those now in high station (in and out office) will live for. In its place two or more power blocks will divvy up world allegiance, with the B.R.I.C.S. confederacy and China being the main contenders. As of this writing Saudi Arabia is courting them both. If this proposal is successful then the Kissinger-engineered world order, including the petrodollar, will be over, and the U.S.’s geopolitical order will sink that much faster.

Second, the heretofore scrapping Second and Third World governments, who were so easily led by the nose during, for example, the Second Iraq War are decidedly going to let the neoliberals figure their way out of Ukraine by themselves. That Antony Blinken and Lloyd Austin had to make a summertime junket of Africa weeks after Serge Lavrov visited the continent shows their hand. Blinken was told in no uncertain terms by Naledi Pandor, South Africa’s Minister of Internal Relations, that Africans will no longer be at the beck and call of every northern hemisphere government which snaps its fingers. Further, and these statements were said during a press conference, Africans will not take being spoken to in the patronizing manner which has been tolerated heretofore.

When the developing world has addressed the war in Eastern Europe they have been in the favor of the Russian cause, or at least sympathetic to their position. One need only peruse Arab or African papers to see this is so. The Chechens, having been duped by the globalists in the 1990s, have since come to their senses and now prove to be a valuable asset for the Russian military. (A rump of dummy jihadis finds itself fighting for Ukraine in the Sheik Mansur and Dzhokhar Dudayev Battalions. More on these sorts later).

Then there are the economic shifts to consider. See the meeting of the Commonwealth Of Independent States in Astana, Kazakhstan held in the middle of October. Also, there is the Future Investment Initiative in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. This “Davos in the desert” featured visits by stockjobbers Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase, David Solomon of Goldman Sachs, and—always my darling in these articles—Jared Kushner of Kushner (Really. That’s the name of his interest. It’s a perfect appellation for a man who never once, even in public office, has thought about anyone’s welfare but his own).

Lastly, Western European countries have been left high and dry by the American Deep State and the NATO loons. What was looking to be a difficult winter in Europe in terms of heating and electricity became grimmer still with the Nord Stream pipelines shutdown on September 26. They ran through the Baltic Sea from northwestern Russia to Germany, bringing natural gas into Central and Western Europe. This event, more than the referendums, set the tone of Vladimir Putin’s speech a few days later. Whoever did that sabotage certainly is getting their frequent flier miles in. On October 13 several people were arrested trying to blow the TurkStream gas line sky high, a line which roughly runs under the Black Sea from the Crimean Peninsula to Istanbul.

Why is this betrayal of NATO allies a surprise to anyone? The Europeans thought they could ride the coattails of the globalists. Little did know that the same mad sect which threw the 1956 Hungarians, 1975 South Vietnamese, 1991’s Shias and Kurds, and 2021’s Afghan National Army, under the bus with n’er a second thought, would do the same to them. The only people more pitiable than Western Europeans in this tragic-comedy are the sucker Ukrainians. It’s one thing to be a lackey for the globalists, but in bellying up to newly-minted “the rules-based order” of Europe, Ukraine merely hoped to be a lackey to lackeys. Being the slave of slaves is never an enviable position to be in.
The Ukrainian army has been losing this war from day one. Like a patient bleeding out on an operating table, were Ukraine not receiving fresh infusions of cash and weapons to throw away on the battlefield and embezzle afresh this war would have long been over.

Having been built up by Western militaries since the Maidan coup in 2014, by the summer of this year it had been ground down to a nub of its former self. From midsummer until September their capacities were being rebuilt by NATO advisors, but they shot their bolt in the ill-fated Kherson Offensive which was costly for an army in no position to expend resources. From that offensive until now the Ukrainian military has been under the direct command of NATO. One need only pursue the multiple Tic Toks of foreign mercenaries in their army, many with American accents, to get the gist of things.

As long as this situation obtains, we can expect the course of the Ukraine war to look like the other instances of Foggy Bottom and NATO military intervention. Think of places like Bosnia, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. What is the modus operandi of the globalists? Slow bleeds. The Atlanticists will turn Ukraine into a festering forever-war like those other places. The best-case scenario Ukraine can hope for right now is to still exist as a heavily indebted failed state.

All these factors moved the American ruling class to get Biden to give his September speech. When all else fails, look inwards for boogeymen. But note that the same ethnic and national consciousness which was decried in America on September 1 (“white supremacists”) is the same bait which the globalists used to fire up the Ukrainians internally, and rally support for them abroad. Included in this of course is the Nazi Azov Battalion, beloved by the New York Times and the ADL.

Everything the neoconservatives touch turns to ash. Their scheme in Ukraine has gone so badly that ISIS men from Syria have been shipped into theater to aid Zelensky’s errand. You know things are bad for NATO when they have to resort to such an old hat. Those jihadists are getting old by now, and they must be getting sick of impromptu relocations. The old fly-in-the-Islamists routine was used to move Al Qaeda from Afghanistan to Pakistan (2001), from Pakistan to Libya (2011), and from Libya into Syria (2013). Poor old Libyan jihadist Abdelhakim Belhaj, who himself once innocently marveled at his supposed enemies thoughtfulness in carting around his buddies, is going to need a hip replacement soon.

Beads of Sweat

The point of all this is that the neoliberals are cornered. Everything has blown up in their collective Western face, and their collective Western Alfred E. Newman composure is breaking down (“What, me worry?”). On October 13th Josep Borrell, the European Union Foreign Affairs And Security representative, showed the hand of his ilk. He said,

Most of the rest of the world is a jungle, and the jungle could invade the garden. The gardeners should take care of it, but they will not protect the garden by building walls. A nice small garden surrounded by high walls in order to prevent the jungle from coming in is not going to be a solution. Because the jungle has a strong growth capacity, and the wall will never be high enough in order to protect the garden. The gardeners have to go to the jungle.

This strange horticultural-cum-stockjobber simile (“the jungle has a strong growth capacity”) succinctly shows that the West is fundamentally offensive in its outlook no matter how it pretends that its support for Ukraine is defensive.

Not to be outdone, on September 15 Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, visited Ukraine dressed in blue and yellow, the colors of their flag. Having thrown dupe Ukraine into the woodchipper, she eased the turmoil of the moment by promising Ukrainians access to the E.U.’s cell phone network. Ukrainians will doubtless remember her thoughtful generosity as they stumble through freezing, electricity-less homes this winter. But Ukrainians are not the only ones in luck. Western Europeans, anxious about coming heating and electrical bills, and closer to a larger theater of operations should the war develop in that direction, doubtless had their anxieties calmed when Ursula said to Zelensky, “Your European friends are by your side as long as it takes.” As Swedes learn to enjoy the trebling of their electricity bills in the weeks after that meeting, they took heart their Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson’s donation of one billion more krona to assist in Ukraine’s heroic embezzling operation.

The globalists will fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, and maybe the last European too. Much has been made of Annalena Baerbock’s September 10th statement, “We will continue to stand by Ukraine as long as necessary.” Perhaps the foreclosed Germans to whom Baerbock is superficially obliged will shiver that much more proudly as they huddle around burning barrels swathed beneath their Ukraine flags. Yes, much has been made of that comment. For my money though, the last sentence of the address is more staggering yet. She said, “All of Europe knows that Ukraine is defending our peaceful order.” Thou sayest, Annalena, thou sayest.

Back to the Speech

Backgrounded by these events, we return to Biden’s speech. I would be remiss not to note his multiple invocations of “We the People.” As I reviewed his talk for this article, I thrilled that one of my favorite hobby horses was on such proud display. “We honor the will of the people,” said the man sworn in behind barbed wire, said the man whose election was so resoundingly popular and squeaky clean that someone, somewhere on the MSM each day since makes a point to remind the viewers of this certainly adamantine truth.

You see, though, you and I are not “the People.” I’ll not rehash my earlier series of articles on this topic except to point out that the Constitution’s capital P is a proper noun referring to a specific group of people. In short, the People are the historic signers of the state and national constitutions of America, their genetic descendants, and whatever fresh blood the People deign to admit in via their Ivy League vetting process. In a rare moment of lucidity, and a rarer moment of honesty from a member of the Biden crime family, Hunter’s father boldly stated, “We must never forget: We, the people, are the true heirs of the American experiment that began more than two centuries ago.” Former senator Biden does work for the People. It is one of the great questions of the 2020 election—the December event not to be confused with the worthless though famous November mass strawpoll—to speculate on how and why the bloodline stat electors chose Biden.

Likewise, the mummy from Scranton repeatedly confused the UNITED STATES organization, of whose Executive branch he is the nominal head, with America, the lived reality of many millions of men reaching back some thousands of years. Biden further confused his UNITED STATES company with the common law republic of 1789-1861. I will not bog down in the nitty-gritty of this distinction. Yet I adduce the People/people and US/America differences to buttress an appraisal of the Enlightenment, and all of its works and pomp (including its enlightened state structures), which have obtained in Russia for some time. Namely, the nation-states birthed by the 18th and 19th Century philosophical and political upheavals are full of fluff and feathers concerning their freedom jabber. If governmental organizations were so solicitous for the liberty of their peoples they would not need to resort to the sort of linguistic subterfuge Mr. Biden used in Philadelphia.

“We believe in honesty and decency,” said the patriarch of a top shelf seedy family. In the course of Biden’s talk he spoke also of “MAGA forces.” Later he went on to associate them with “white supremacists and extremists.” And here we have something a damn sight more serious than the larger farce of the Brandon administration. We have in this talk the further kettling of dissenting voices. Former Vice President Biden’s words were the continuation of a dialogical and mental redefinition process going back over a decade. This process means to turn any and all dissidents (n.b., including actual leftists, and those beyond the usual paradigm) into “conservatives,” and these newly minted “conservatives” will then be designated as “terrorists.” This work has been loyally assisted by Silicone Valley and the MSM every step of the way. By using the martial language of “forces” we see the broad coalition of Trump supporters slip neatly into the “domestic terrorist” category.

The Clinton administration lives, and moves, and has its being in the Brandon White House. The plot to maneuver American patriots of various worldviews into the “conservative extremist” legal camp began in the 1990s with outrages like Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the Oklahoma City bombings. These were provocations wrapped in false flags smothered in the defamation of America’s so-called white working class. Who is former Senator Biden’s Attorney General? None other than that proud son of Zion Merrick Garland, the Federal prosecutor for the OKC trial. It’s funny how, as the Washington Post has lately phrased it, “The domestic terrorism threat that has metastasized, with white supremacists and conspiracy-minded anti-government types emboldened,” at just the same time a minion of the Clinton crew, who ginned up the first round of this nonsense, is the top Bar Association member in the UNITED STATES group. Then again, in another lucid moment, perhaps Brandon meant low men like himself and Garland when he bemoaned those, “living in the shadows of lies.”

We have no time to delve into the nonsense about Governor Gretchen Whitmer and her staged FBI-inspired kidnapping, Hilary Clinton’s seeded the narrative of a 2024 GOP election steal (talk about the pot called the kettle black), the recent Vice/HBO special about extremism in the US military (as if any patriot could stomach Mark Milley’s army), or the White House’s August 2022 United We Stand: Countering Hate-Fueled Violence Together summit (stoking the nonsense of Americans being at each other’s throats). It is sufficient to assert that all this internal instability jazz is a deflection from the global consequences of Ukraine.

The Real “Soul of the Nation” Speech

While America’s former Vice President mentioned the immorality of Trump’s supporters, the Russian President spent considerably more time on the ethical dynamics of the hour. As Biden’s talk had the air of offense, albeit domestic offense, throughout Putin’s lecture the defensive nature of Russia’s actions provided a single linking theme. While Brandon’s speech writer chose to invoke the historic civil mythology of America, Putin invoked the 1990s as a chronological anchor point. “We remember the challenging years,” he said, alluding to the Western-instigated privations which many millions of Russian citizens very much do recall to this day.

Putin dropped a number of bombs during his September speech, and none was bigger than his reference of U.S. “vassals.” What an apt word. The feudal order, which was well along reasserting itself by the Interwar Years of the last century, is now nakedly pressing upon the enlightened peoples of the West. Statutory suzerainty slithered itself into the lives of the once-proud common law American republic. Beyond America, where do we look except we see a renter’s life sprawled out before the peoples of the collective West? Rent, rent everywhere. I do not limit this grim surfly prognostication solely to the realm of real estate. All aspects of life will be owned and apportioned by middlemen—I’m sorry, middlezirs (or whatever your favorite neologism be)—if the globalists have their way. Just the other day I spoke to a young one who informed me that even video games are now largely accessed through a subscription model. Of course, the shimmy of bankers and lawyers into the living habits of Westerners is not what Putin had in mind by mentioning “vassals.” Pertinent though my alleyway is, the “vassals” he doubtless meant were the above-described Western Europeans, backstabbing and backstabbed.
Not content to make a hell of their part of the world, the Atlanticists wish to spread their poison east. As Putin said, “They want us to be their slaves.” Western missile placements, and NATO memberships vie with pride parades and social media in their aggression towards Russian state power and cultural autonomy.

“We’re told the West is there to protect the rules. Who defined the rules?” asked Putin. As it happens, the International Bar Association defines those rules. Do not forget for a moment the provocation pulling Russia into Ukraine was not an end in itself. The globalists pulled that stunt in order to justify kicking out the economic legs of Moscow by cutting their business ties. That was supposed to trigger a color revolution whose end was the toppling of the present Russian administration.

There was even talk in the MSM at one point, in the more rabid neoliberal journals, going back years before this war calling for Russia to be declared a rogue state. This is not a rhetorical term. Such a Bar designation would put the Federation in the geopolitically impotent camps of Taliban Afghanistan and the former ISIS territory in Syria and Iraq. Russia would be kicked out of the nation-state club. It would go from being one legal entity approved and admitted by other legal entities into their “community of nations” mafia to being “merely” a lawful government cut off from the entirety of world commerce. By the by, this system is not much different from how your local Masonic lodges or Chambers of Commerce admit and refuse members. It’s the same system, it’s really just a matter of scale. Traditionally the ability to hold territory and conduct courts were the only conditions of being a lawful ruler. What one’s national neighbors thought of your legitimacy was irrelevant to being a sovereign state. Not so when sticky barristers and moneymen run the show. With them you also get the feminine obsession of others’ approval thrown in. The West has deconstructed all aspects of life. This would not be so bad. Revisionism can be as good for peoples as it is for people. Sure, doesn’t the Church kick off Compline with an examination of conscience? Revisionism is fine. What is alarming is that the West has nothing, absolutely nothing, to replace their deconstructed world with. We can tear down but we do not have it in us to build up.

Putin encapsulated the madness of the hour, mentioning, “Parent 1 and parent 2” towards the end of his sermon. According to The New York Times there “are more than 60 comprehensive gender clinics in the United States.” The article notes that there are many dozens of less all-encompassing offices for transsexual persons (i.e., they offer hormones but don’t do surgery). Now I know enough to tell you that no one does anything in this Babylon world unless they can make money off of it. If there are dozens of these chop shops that means this is a sensible commercial decision. And that means there is clientele enough to float these ventures.

Because America’s misrulers have decided to bet it all on one roll of the Ukrainian dice, at least some solid degenerate American values are rubbing off. On October 10th the Jerusalem Post reported there is an app in Ukraine—now easily accessible, thanks to Ursula’s cell phone bonus!—whereby enrollees will be notified if Putin drops a nuke. Upon this notification the sensualists of Kiev will hoof it out to a nearby hill for an orgy. Fifteen thousand people have registered. Logistics will be assisted by color-coded wristbands advertising the wearer’s favorite sexual positions. This is the Ukraine the globalists are gunning for.

Making an allusion to the unthinkable in the liberated West, Putin closed out his lecture by quoting Christ. He said, “By their fruits you will know them.” Indeed.

Conclusion

As a decrepit Biden coughed his way to the finish line of his shameful speech, amidst hecklers and police sirens he said, “I see a very different America—an America with an unlimited future, an America that is about to take off. I hope you see it as well. Just look around.” He may well be correct. Joe, Crusty Joe, Creepy Joe, Sadsome Joe, Joe-who-may-yet-make-good-on-that-baptism-of-yours: if the crew about you does not cool it, America, the whole stinking “rules-based order,” and the lot of us auld raggy oldies besides, will take off alright. We’re going to be blown very high indeed. Cool it and do what grace beckons.

Epilogue: The Gift that Keeps on Giving

Because of the timeliness of this essay I have feverishly spent October writing. As we watch the Atlanticist pups play an irresponsible game of chicken with the lives of us all, the kind editors of this site have humored my own game of chicken with deadlines. Coming down to the calendric wire as this essay has, the two lines of thought which the September 1st and 30th address suggested have continued to play out as October fades into November.

The historical and philosophical consciousness which Vladimir Putin demonstrated in St. George’s Hall continued with his October 27th speech in Moscow at the Valdai Discussion Club. The geopolitical shift, that being the end of the post-WWII world and what will replace it, was the umbrella item over his lengthy speech/Q&A. The right of societies to determine their politics and morals contrasted with the McWorld model of the G.A.E. It was a nice, ever so subtle touch to begin the talk with a reference to the globalist obsession with climate change and its threat to species. Putin used this motif to pivot to the danger a unipolar world poses to local cultures. More immediately,

Putin noted the West continues to play a “dangerous, bloody, and dirty game,” once again suggesting negotiations to end the war.
The more principled leftists in Congress agreed. Thirty progressive Democrats underwrote a letter sent to Hunter Biden’s father calling for negotiations with Russia, a cooler tone, and a realization of the worldwide economic implications of this Ukraine errand. This harkened back to the one time in my life honest Democrats did something nobel, the heroic and hopeless stand a few of them made to stop the Second Iraq War 20 years ago. This time around their backs gave out. After submitting the letter they shamefacedly walked it back a few days later. Their paymasters in Raytheon and Lockheed snapped their fingers.

Since Barack Obama’s point man shuffled out of Independence Hall on the arm of Nurse Jill, the marvel and byword which is Late Imperial America continues to be what it is (as all things must). Joe Biden has had four major “senile moments” since Philly. On September 29th he wander away from a F.E.M.A. podium off cue and began greeting everyone as his handlers tried in vein to reign him in. As he left a U.N. event in October he confusedly stood on the stage pantomiming to Secret Service agents as to what to do next. In the middle of that month in Oregon the former Vice President added to the many peculiar incidents of him sniffing people’s hair. Last week from the write of these closing lines, he “blanked out” when asked about a 2024 run. The reporter quickly ended the interview.

These are silly things from a silly man. Like Biden’s September 1st talk, however, the month did not pass without something darker again stirring. The “conservative extremists” were back. Boo! Within spitting distance of Halloween the Deep State rolled out a ludicrous story surrounding Paul Pelosi, the besotted husband of the Speaker of the House, a visitor in his underwear, and a hammer. The details of this weird attack do not concern us. What is pertinent is that the sun did not set before the former Delaware senator, with MSM hot on his heels, linked the “extremism” of this latest San Francisco false flag with that other sideshow, the January 6th boomer-conservative-cum-agent-provocateur rally. This would all be funny except that people don’t seem to notice the mental state of the former Vice President, nor do they have the discernment to see through a patently false story fed out for obvious political reasons. If they can’t see what’s going on in Ukraine why should they see this? Be it dying West or rising East, so it goes.


John Coleman co-hosts Christian History & Ideas, and is the founder of Apocatastasis: An Institute for the Humanities, an alternative college and high school in New Milford, Connecticut. Apocatastasis is a school focused on studying the Western humanities in an integrated fashion, while at the same time adjusting to the changing educational field. Information about the college can be found at their website.


A Letter to Professor Dugin from Poland

Dear Professor Dugin,

I am writing to you mostly because I am afraid that if I don’t write, no other Polish common folk will. I want to give you my sincerest condolences for the untimely death of your daughter, Darya. She was a beautiful young woman with a top-class education, who fell prey to the dark forces of modern-day Ukrainian Nazism. So, one can say that on that horrific day beauty, femininity and careful thought were killed by indiscriminate hate and a devilish murder imperative.

I actually thought about her assassination quite a lot, as I am unusually drawn into following this whole war on the web, even though Poland is still (as of yet) on the sidelines. You certainly know that there were voices in Ukraine and Poland which ostentatiously praised her killing—I can only say that I am deeply ashamed about those Polish people who had no decency, to the point that they expressed such inhuman views.

I also want to write that I was totally aghast at our Prime Minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, calling in May, in the British press, for an all-out NATO war on Russia, to force a regime change in the Kremlin. Only after a few weeks I realized that he wasn’t even serious about this idea, even though his text had an apocalyptic tone. His “call to arms” of May 10, 2022 also hatefully refers to your “Russkiy Mir” concept, which he equates, just like that, with Nazism and communism, both at the same time—well, perhaps he was at least a little shamed when he learned about the killing of Darya, as it obviously appears that he might have inspired this heinous act.

However, there are still some people in Poland who at least try to have a balanced view of the whole war situation, although I would say that the death of Darya certainly does not invite a “balanced view.” Not being sure about your familiarity with Polish circles, but I’ll give you the names of Leszek Sykulski and Jan Engelhardt—Sykulski is a specialist in geopolitics who has a very independent and level-headed way of seeing things, while Engelhardt publishes the Mysl Polska (Polish Thought) weekly; perhaps the only politics-related newspaper in Poland with a pro-Russian view, but still with a very small circulation.

Professor Dugin—if we are to avoid war between Poland and Russia, we need really cool thinking leaders which is now not the case on the Polish side. I would just like to turn your attention to the fact that a lot of current hate towards Russia in Poland was born after what we call “10/04/10”—the Polish presidential jet air disaster in Smolensk. Russian secret services have been blamed for 12 years now in Poland for pre-arranging this disaster, and about 30 – 40 percent of the Polish population firmly believes this assassination version, no matter how counterfactual it actually is. There is even a new official report which claims to have proved the so-called “explosions theory;” but actually it’s an exercise in fake science glossing over obvious questions. I know, because I have lost untold hours studying this disaster myself. The whole disaster and the following investigations are an unbelievable story, where both Polish and Russian sides have clearly contributed, but I’ll leave it for now.

I read so much of independent sources about the Russo-Ukrainian situation that since at least the purported Bucha killings I’ve been holding my fingers crossed for the Russian army. We have such a tornado of lies, manipulations, cherry-picking and all other disinformation tricks in Polish media that actually it makes me depressed, because I clearly see it all happening.

For about two months now I have been reading in Russian (I had this old socialist course at school, for 8 years), and now I can say that I can understand up to some 80 – 90 percent. I even began toying with the idea of somehow joining the Russian forces—if Konashenkov says that some 2,000 Poles went to fight for the Ukrainians, why is nobody going to fight for Russia? Shouldn’t it be a manifestation of one’s political views? And if so, are Polish views really so one-sided? It’s disheartening to realize that we’ve been emotionally programmed by the media so effectively. The problems with me are that I’m 53, overweight, highly short-sighted, zero shooting skills. Looks like I can only offer my thoughts in English!

Professor Dugin—I wish you all the best and that you may get over this horror as quickly as possible. The world is in dire need of your thinking.

Support and admiration,

Przemyslaw Abramowski

P.S. I wrote this on September 25th, but I am a procrastinator. The letter now flies off to you. In the meantime—Kerch Bridge, three more people blown to heavens. But now we have a tough Russian response. Professor Dugin—I imagine the spirit of Darya helped the Kremlin get their act together. Continued support. P.A.


Przemysław Abramowski lives in Szczecin, Poland. He is an engineer who also translates from English. He researches contemporary politics, the complexities of the modern world and the human mind, as well as war and military history.


Featured: “Henri Cordier,” by Gustave Caillebotte; painted in 1883.

AfD… Party of the Russian Germans?

The October 9, 2022 elections in Lower Saxony saw the German populist party AfD (Alternative for Germany) double its tally with 10.9 percent. Fingers pointed for its pro-Moscow stance. This German political movement is coming out of a difficult year and soaring in the polls. In some districts, such as Hanover, the party even got 30 percent of the vote. These districts have a particularity—they are largely populated by Germans from Russia [also known as the “Volga Germans”].

On April 3, 2022, the media outlet Visegrad24 tweeted about Germans from Russia as a “fifth column” within Europe. Reacting to a video in which German Russians showed their support for the “Special Military Operationm” this pro-NATO media pointed the finger at a community that has been living in Germany for nearly three decades. With Russian and German flags, mixing the two languages, this community, very little-known outside of Germany, is nevertheless 3 to 4 million strong. It is a community full of surprises.

The Germans of Russia are ethnic Germans, with some two and a half centuries of history. Originally from Germanic lands, who went out to the steppes of Kazakhstan and Siberia via the banks of the Volga, they only returned home after the fall of the USSR. They are not economic migrants like the Turks, or refugees who left the USSR as people today flee Afghanistan or Syria. The comparison with our compatriots pieds-noirs does not hold either because the latter lived in Algeria, but in French departments. To get an idea, we should rather imagine, as an example or as an improbable analogy, millions of Italian-Americans who, after a century of American way of life, returned to Italy. German Russians are characterized by their ethnic identity. Recognized during the time of the Soviet Union, their Germanness allowed them not only to return in 1992, but also to obtain German citizenship. Leaving Kazakhstan or Siberia, where they were deported by Stalin in 1941, these Germans returned to their homeland. A homeland they had left in 1763 when their ancestors responded favorably to the call of Catherine the Great.

Cultural Distinction and Political Shock

The Germanic origin of these new citizens was not enough to erase two centuries of Russification and decades of Soviet rule. Their economic integration took a generation. But their “cultural” integration, which is slower, enrages German right-wingers. The Germans of Russia resembles the former citizens of the GDR more than the tolerant, open-minded West German of 2022, who is totally in line with the cosmopolitan type of “anywhere.” Conservative, proud of their German identity while retaining their Russian culture, the German-Russians became visible in the media in the mid-2010s, during the demonstrations against the reception of Syrians, by holding up signs that read, but written in Russian: “My homeland will remain German!” The Germans from Russia were then the talk of the media.

In the 2017 parliamentary elections, the AfD won 13% of the vote and became the third largest party in Germany. Russian Germans were 15 percent to vote for this movement against 10 percent for the rest of the German population. This was a shock for the German media. The AfD thus achieved its good tally among former citizens of the USSR and their descendants. In the last elections, the AfD fell to 10.3%, but limited the damage and again obtained good results in the German Russian districts.

A Community that is Now a Must for the AfD

The Lower Saxony elections of October 2022 were a major victory for the AFD. After a difficult year of electoral setbacks, the nationalist party doubled its tally and national polls now give it 16 percent of the vote. This is a real “comeback” when some predicted the AfD would be marginalized after the war in Russia began.

In the Wahlbezirk district of Hanover, the party received 30 per cent of the vote. In the 2021 parliamentary elections in Berlin and in almost all major West German cities, the Russian-German districts carried the AfD. This was the case, for example, in Cologne-Chorweiler (15%), in the Marzahn district in Berlin (16.8%), Buckenberg in Pforzheim (30%) and Oberhausen (22.2%) in Augsburg, in Bavaria. The tally was down from 2017, but it was enough to allow the AfD to limit its drop and retain 83 seats.

Germans from Russia are the backbone of the AfD in Berlin, for example. The nationalist movement has a real electoral policy vis-à-vis this community, and this is not limited to campaigning the day before the election. Germans from Russia have even reached the highest level of the party, such as the MP Eugen Schmidt, born in Kazakhstan. There are leaflets in Russian, a proposal to relax language tests and family reunification, an international position favorable to the “Russian world.”

Since February 24, the AfD has sought to be the bulwark of Germans from Russia against Russophobia in Germany. Despite pro-Kiev statements by Georg Pazderki, former head of the AfD in Berlin in the first weeks of the conflict, the party’s line remains the following: Russia is not responsible for the war. Thus, the AfD demands an end to sanctions, an end to arms supplies to Ukraine and neutrality on pro-Russian referendums. The attack on Nord-Stream and the increase in gas prices have led Alice Weidel, the party’s co-president, to say that “an economic war is being waged against Germany.” Voting preferences have risen from 9 percent in May to 16 percent at the end of October. Since mid-September, demonstrations have been held on Mondays in almost every city in Germany. Against the backdrop of inflation and the gas crisis, the demonstrators are criticizing federal policy towards Moscow. Russian imperial flags were flown alongside the German flag. The media and the party’s opponents mocked them, saying that with the AfD, it was not “Germany first” (its slogan), but “Russia first.” However, reducing the AfD vote of Germans from Russia to their pro-Moscow stance misses the point.

Fundamental Anchoring of the AfD Vote

It should be remembered at the outset that the Russian-German community is strongly divided over the situation in Ukraine. Some Germans from Russia lived in present-day Ukraine before their deportation in 1941. Others understand the Russian position, but condemn the use of force. The AfD vote among Russian Germans is therefore not just a pro-Putin or simply anti-immigration vote. The AfD vote is a German vote. Russian Germans want to be recognized as what they are: Germans from Russia. And the AfD knows it. Russian Germans have been complaining for a quarter of a century that they are treated as immigrants by the rest of German society. In fact, their history is very peculiar—but they are Germans. They keep saying so. The AfD is the only party that plainly says to this population: “You are Germans. You must not be treated as immigrants.” Assimilation? “How can that be? You are native Germans.” These words really catch the attention of Germans from Russia, even if they do not vote AfD. In contrast to this, a left-wing newspaper, a few years ago, ran the headline: “All immigrants must learn German, except Russians.”

The AfD is certainly not the party of Germans from Russia in the sense that the majority of them still vote for other political movements. Nevertheless, since 2017, the German populist party has achieved good results in this community. The war in Ukraine was a real dilemma for the AfD—either align with the media’s one-track thinking or keep the bar high with respect to Moscow and the Russian world in general. The AfD chose to take a non-Atlanticist line. Declared dead in the spring of 2022, the movement is now in first or second place in many Länder. Whatever its electoral future, the Germans of Russia will be part of it!


Stéphane Brizzi writes from France. This article appears through the kind courtesy of revue Éléments.

Dismantling Legacy Narratives: An Interview with Massimo Mazzucco

Massimo Mazzucco, film-maker and polemicist, is Italy’s best-known debunker of the mainstream media narratives. An associate of Giulietto Chiesa (1940-2020), with whom he founded Contro.tv in 2019, he came to prominence through documentaries dismantling the 9/11 gambit, thereby attracting armies of hostile fact-checkers. Alongside Margherita Furlan, one of the country’s most astute foreign policy analysts, and a disciple of the writer Giulietto Chiesa, Mazzucco has focused his efforts via the website luogocomune.net, on unifying the Italian opposition to those who would blithely ram the European Titanic into the iceberg. He has recently published, Ucraina, l’altra verità [Ukraine—The Truth Viewed from the Other Side]. Mendelssohn Moses conducts this interview with Mr. Mazzucco.

Note: It may be useful for our readers to learn that Giulietto Chiesa, whose name, on the notorious Myrotvorets “hit-list,” was crossed out on his death with the label “Liquidated,” stated the following at a 2015 conference on the EuroMaidan coup d’état:

“The crisis in the Ukraine is not a regional one. It is the US, clashing with the rest of the world, and that starts with a direct onslaught on Russia. The US knew the Ukraine was a bomb waiting to go off… and intends to expel Russia from world financial markets, a radical shift which will alter the face of power worldwide… some pretext will be seized upon to freeze Russia out of the Swift system, and thus forestall all her financial transactions… I may be rowing against the tide, but it’s to save our skins. Were WW III to erupt, you and I along with all those who deride me as a conspiracy theorist will go up in smoke. I’m very concerned, because we are teetering on the edge of war, a great war. Before our eyes, lies the premise for WW III. Before ever the Ukraine enters NATO, something terrible will happen. On the borders between the Baltic States and Russia, preparations for war are underway… The crisis in the Ukraine is the opening shot in an onslaught by the USA and Europe against Russia, for which the sanctions are an indicator. The Ukraine is the stick with which to beat Russia… (Italy) will only recover her sovereignty if she withdraw from NATO and become, once again, a free, neutral and sovereign state. All the more so, that what NATO, what this sort of defence represents, will be utterly useless in the event of war.

Mendelssohn Moses (MM): Tell us a little about your websites and internet channels—Luogocomune.net, Contro TV, Casa del Sole. How did you decide to found them, and when?

Massimo Mazzucco (Massimo M): Luogocomune.net, the website I set up in 2004, was among the very first “re-information” sites in Italy. I launched it in the wake of my research into what went on at New York on September 11, 2001. As time went by, the site evolved, and we now deal with the major controversies of our time—from a “re-information” standpoint.

MM: You’re often seen on Cento Giorni da Leoni, Byo Blu, Visione Tv—the re-information channels in Italy—which are very high quality, and with which you cooperate closely. And they seem to be self-financed, which is quite an achievement. Is that correct?

Massimo M: Absolutely. Each one of our websites is self-financed, thanks to donations; and we are all in constant touch—by that I mean that we share all the most relevant information, and we often invite one another to speak.

Massimo Mazzucco.

MM: Only François Asselineau of the UPR here in France seems to have understood that the string-pullers are playing the same electoral game with Fratelli d’Itali and Meloni as they played with Cinque Stelle four years ago. Would you mind debunking the Meloni hoax for our readers? Who are her puppet-masters? What are some of her more egregious untruths? What is her so-called program?

Massimo M: Well, I don’t really think Giorgia Meloni is being “managed” by third parties. That said, to get into government, she decided to drop major planks of her platform, including pulling out of NATO and the EU! And she has had to claim that she backs the Ukraine and NATO 100%, despite having been rather less on board with Atlanticist positions earlier on. Having by now seriously blunted the point of her blade, she has come to resemble Mario Draghi, the outgoing Prime Minister, to a degree that once she gets into power, I fail to see how she might make any difference relative to her predecessor.

MM: The sovereignist opposition in Italy presented some remarkable candidates, on remarkable platforms—no vaccine mandates, no vaccine pass, no to NATO, no to the Euro, no to the EU. Italia Sovrana e Populare, the group around Davide Barillari, the allies of Pino Cabras, the Italexit with Dr. Gianni Frajese—doubtless the most high-powered group of people standing for office in the whole of Western Europe. Many of these people are brilliant intellectuals who have put their career and livelihood on the line over the past two years. They have proven that they have principles. Despite blackmail, threats and coercion, at least 20% of the population has refused to take the “vaccines.” That’s a 20% potential voter base. However, apparently no one has gotten into Parliament. How is this possible?

Massimo M: The bad news is that the parties which one might call “anti-system,” rather than all pulling together, chose to stand for election separately. As the Italian electoral system requires that one garner 3% of the vote to get into Parliament, not a single one of these parties has got in! All I can say is that I hope everyone has learned the hard way from this debacle, and that next time round, they stand united.

MM: Italexit candidate Nunzia Schiliro has just said on Byo Blu television news that a main reason for the dissidents’ electoral flop at this critical juncture is the “cognitive decline of Italian youth” and “galloping illiteracy in the general population.” Would you like to comment?

Massimo M: Well, although “cognitive decline” is a reality, my own view is that this is not the reason for the flop. As I’ve just explained, with each new party standing for office separately, they ended up shooting each other in the foot.

MM: Many young Italians have never heard of Enrico Mattei, a strategic genius who revolutionized Italy’s place in the world. He opened relations with Russia and China and launched the flow of gas from Russia—by the way. Should his ideas not be discussed and taught all over Italy, now?

Massimo M: Enrico Mattei held ideas which led to his death. His policy of cooperating with Russia did not wash with the USA, and since Mattei would not cave in to the Seven Sisters, the decision was taken to get rid of him. For Italy to assert his ideas, and what he stands for in history, would mean charging the USA with that crime, a move which Italy is not in a position to make at the present time.

MM: Massimo, you are the author of several documentaries on the events of 9/11 (Twin Towers), as an Own-Goal by the US against the US. The so-called “elites” appear to have decided they no longer need the Western population alive, for both financial and ideological considerations. Would you like to comment?

Massimo M: I’m not entirely certain that the Western elites no longer need their populations. They do need them, but as subject peoples, as slaves, rather than as upstanding citizens. The by-now notorious Great Reset road-map is a blatant illustration of that.

MM: An incredible public debate took place on June 7th between foreign policy analyst Giorgio Bianchi, military specialist Manlio Dinucci, and the high-strung chief editor of Corriere della Sera, Fiorenza Sarzanini. The latter had just published a frontpage piece on a purported “Putin lobby” in Italy, without however adducing a shred of factual proof. What is the fall-out from that debate?

Massimo M: Fall-out? Further to that debate, charges of blacklisting individuals have been leveled at Corriere della Sera. I would suggest that this has not precisely gilded their reputation.

[Following an Italia Sovrana e Populare public meeting at Rome on October 15, the journalist and ISP candidate Giorgio Bianchi and Francesco Toscano, head of ISP, flew to Gioia Tauro in Catania. From the airport, Toscano dropped Bianchi off at a hotel at 1 AM. At 3 pm, the room bell rang, and two police officers, along with the hotel receptionist, burst into the room. The police said they were “looking for information,” and searched his belongings. They had no search warrant, nor were any charges pressed. Bianchi has no criminal record.

Further to the Corriere della Sera front-page attack in early June on “Putin’s lobby in Italy,” including Bianchi’s photograph, this is the second or third time incidents of this nature have occurred in relation to Bianchi, who in August was granted an exclusive interview with Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Maria Zakharova].

MM: Italy has been occupied since 1955 by NATO—there are over 100 NATO/US bases, two of which at least have nuclear weapons. In the event of war with Russia, Italy, generally considered the world’s most beautiful country, would be entirely destroyed. Is there any understanding of this among the people?

Massimo M: The Italian people, more’s the pity, do not grasp how real that danger actually is. We tend to imagine that nuclear war only happens in films—whereas, it could break out at any moment.

MM: Thank you for this interview, Massimo.


Vladimir Putin and Russian Sovereignism

As we mentioned in a previous article, Boris Yeltsin’s period of government in Russia led the country into unprecedented economic chaos and a real danger of fragmentation. The savage privatization of companies and infrastructures gave birth to the emergence of the so-called “oligarchs,” former officials and politicians of the communist regime who had accumulated a great deal of power and wealth with these privatizations, wealth that contrasted with the growing misery of the majority of the Russian population.

In September and October 1993, the discontent of a large part of the population against Yeltsin’s policies led to the uprising of the Duma (parliament) against the president. The previous elections had given a majority to Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a populist and nationalist leader, but the very presidentialist structure of Russian politics meant that in reality the Duma had very little power. In the uprising would converge the patriotic and illiberal forces that would form the basis of the patriotic movement that would be led by Vladimir Putin: Zhirinovsky’s nationalists, the Russian communist party (actually national-communist) of Gennady Zyuganov, and tsarist and orthodox religious groups. Despite their ideological differences, these groups had in common their opposition to liberalism and Westernism, and their defense of the integrity and sovereignty of Russia.

The rebel deputies made a strong stand in the Duma building, which was shelled by military units loyal to Yeltsin. The uprising was crushed. But from this point on Yeltsin’s political line began to waver. Yeltsin’s eight years in power had been a truly dark period in Russian history, with an anti-national government allied to the interests of foreign powers. His policy of change towards a Western-style liberal society was based on Western foreign investment and large loans from international financial institutions. However, none of this materialized in reality—the loans from the International Monetary Fund were in dribs and drabs, immensely smaller than promised and served only to pay the interest on the foreign debt.

In a way, a certain parallel can be drawn between the Russian and Spanish transitions: Governments that respond to foreign interests, dismantling of industry, privatization of companies and danger of fragmentation due to growing nationalism. The only difference is that in Spain there has not been the patriotic reaction that took place in Russia.

Although the uprising in the Duma was crushed by force, it showed the failure of the Yeltsin project. The oligarchs, enriched by savage privatizations, and who supported liberal and pro-Western policies, withdrew their support for the president and promoted an unknown—Vladimir Putin, thinking that he would carry out a policy more in line with their interests. Yeltsin resigned on December 31, 1999, so the year 2000 was the beginning of a new era in Russia.

Vladimir Putin was a bureaucrat. He had nothing to do with the patriotic and sovereigntist forces that had led the 1993 uprising. But Putin came from the Security Services (the former KGB) and was educated in the idea that these services, together with the military might, were meant to defend the national interest.

From the beginning of his mandate, Putin advocated a more assertive and nationalistic foreign policy, which would not be subordinated to the interests of the Western powers, and which gave him the support of the Russian military elite. But, at the same time, he skillfully enlisted the support of Boris Berezovsky, the leading oligarch of the Yeltsin era, who thought, wrongly, that Putin would further his interests.

Putin forced the oligarch Vladimir Gusinsky into exile. He also brought about the fall of Roman Abramovich and Alexander Voloshin, other powerful oligarchs. Subsequently, the new leaders of these clans helped him to drive out Berezovsky.

In fact, from the very beginning, Putin initiated a battle for control of the economy, which led to a confrontation with the oligarchs. He succeeded in exiling Berezovsky and Abramovich. Subsequently, in July 2000, he arrested Vladimir Gusinsky, the largest media owner, accusing him of having stolen ten million dollars from the state-owned Russian Video company.

In 2003, near the end of his first term, Putin arrested the powerful oil millionaire Mikhail Kodorkovsky, accusing him of tax evasion and corruption. Even at that time, and using these arrests as an excuse, the West began to accuse Putin of “authoritarianism” and of returning to the police methods of the Stalinist era. This campaign was joined by the media (New York Times, 2003, Washington Post, 2003); and the U.S. State Department itself claimed that the basic freedom of Russians was in danger. As we can see, the Western (more specifically US) animosity towards Putin goes back a long way, from the moment he refused to be a puppet—like his predecessor, Yeltsin.

Kodorkovsky perfectly represented the former functionary of the communist apparatus, enriched by the savage privatizations of the Yeltsin era. He tried to use his immense fortune to finance his campaign for the Russian presidency, emboldened by Western support, which presented him as a representative of “liberal and democratic” values.

The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few oligarchs had caused some 31 million Russians (more than 20% of the population) to subsist on the equivalent, or less, of 50 dollars a month. According to a UN study, half of the Russian population lived in poverty; and according to figures from the Russian State Statistics Committee, in 2002, more than forty million Russians suffered from malnutrition. In such circumstances, it no longer seems so strange that many Russians longed for the Soviet era.

Together with this data concerning the quality of life, the destruction of the state health care system should also be noted. All this led to a drop in life expectancy from 70 years for men in the Soviet era to 57 years.

The Putin government’s political offensive against Kodorkovsky was central to President Putin’s second election in 2003. It projected an image of fighting against the oligarchs that made him very popular for a population that, in the words of political scientist Yuri Tsyganov, wanted to see all Russian gangsters prosecuted and punished for the social destruction they had caused in Russia.

Kodorkovsky was noted, not only for the accumulation of great wealth, but for his intention to use it politically. He had made large contributions of money to what he called “democratic opposition parties,” and had tried to exploit social discontent to instigate a change of regime.

In view of all this, the Western propaganda that keeps talking about “Putin’s oligarchs” is pathetic, when precisely what has characterized Putin’s domestic policy has been the persecution and economic and political neutralization of these oligarchs, enriched during the Yeltsin period, and who had been characterized by their support for liberal and Westernist ideas in Russia.

Towards the end of his second term, in 2007, Putin gave an important speech at the Munich Conference on security policy. In this speech he set out a whole doctrine of international relations based on multipolarity, a doctrine that is essential to know in order to understand the deep roots of the current conflict with Ukraine.

This doctrine can be summarized in the following points:

  1. The unipolar model of the world is not only unacceptable, it is impossible.
  2. The USA has overstepped its national borders in every sense, imposing its economic, political, cultural and educational policies on other nations.
  3. Decision-making on the use of military force should be at the UN.
  4. NATO is advancing its border forces to our borders.
  5. What happened to those promises given by our Western partners after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?
  6. With one hand “charitable aid” is given, with the other hand economic backwardness is preserved and profits are collected.
  7. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has become an instrument for securing the interests of some states against others.
  8. Russia, in its millennia-long history, has always had an independent foreign policy. We will not change this tradition.

With these eight points Putin clearly established the basic lines of his international policy. The mere fact of maintaining the unity of Russia against the policies of balkanization and disintegration of the Yeltsin era readily meant a confrontation with the unipolar “New World Order,” cherished by the US after the collapse of the USSR. Maintaining Russian national pride, the refusal to ask for forgiveness, the uninhibited assumption of its own history (from Tsarism to the USSR)—constituted a provocation towards the ideology of this “New World Order,” which consists of nothing more than exporting and imposing the values of American society on the entire globe.

To all this must be added the low permeability of Russian society as a whole to the ideological project of Agenda 2030, with all its tentacles: neo-feminism, climate hysteria, gender ideology, immigrationism and multiculturalism. Russia has become a problem for the “New World Order,” a “problem” with a vast expanse, reserve of raw materials and nuclear weapons.

During the Trump period, nothing serious happened. Trump proved to be the least globalist of all US presidents (he did not initiate any war), more concerned with domestic issues of the American nation, and whose moves in international politics did not clash (at least head-on) with Russia.

With the arrival of Biden everything changed. This character, who is nothing more than a puppet of the neo-con sectors of the Democratic Party, made it very clear in his electoral campaign that his policy would be aimed at making the USA once again the world LEADER. This meant that the USA would return to the policy of Unipolarity (disguised as “multilateralism”) and, therefore, confrontation with any power that opposed them.

Let us recall that the neo-cons are the spokesmen of a messianic vision of America as a nation united only by a creed capable of extending to all humanity. In the neo-con theory, the USA is a “universal nation” that has “human rights” as its foreign policy axis, in the same way as the Soviets had Marxism-Leninism. Biden’s America is thus once again the expansive epicenter of “liberal democracy.”

For the neo-cons, that is, for Biden, liberal democracy and the market economy, can be built anywhere in the world, with the help, if necessary, of American fighter-bombers and missiles; or, better still, of a puppet state—as in the case of Ukraine. Any opposition is “tribalism,” Nazism, Stalinism or all three at once. Naturally, the arms lobby smiles complacently.


José Alsina Calvés is a historian and philosopher who specializes in political biography, the history of science and the history of ideas and edits the journal Nihil Obstat. This article appears through the kind courtesy of Posmodernia.


The Emergence of Conservative Populism in Europe: Possibilities and Limitations

The recent victory of Giorgia Meloni and her party, Fratelli d’Italia, leading a coalition described as “conservative,” in Italy, is the latest episode of the advance in the nations of Europe of parties and movements that we qualify as “conservative populism.” Obviously, in Spain, the reference of this type of party is Vox. In this article we intend to analyze the possibilities and limitations of these political forces from the ideological perspective of a radical and sovereignist Hispanism, with a reasoned and reasonable criticism.

First of all, we will shred the stupid accusation, repeated ad nauseam by both the champagne Left and the liberal Right, that these parties are “fascist.” To do so, we will analyze what fascism really was, and bearing in mind that this term can have two real meanings: Mussolini’s regime in Italy, which ended with the defeat of that nation in World War II; or also, in a much more generic way, a set of political movements that occurred in Europe and Latin America in the interwar period and that, with some exceptions, also disappeared after World War II.

Regarding the accusation, also repeated ad nauseam, of being “ultra-right” or “extreme right,” we are not going to bother, since these terms are authentic “flatus vocis,” without any real content. In the usual political chatter we have heard how the PP, C,s, ETA, Catalan separatists, judges and the sumsum corda were accused of being “extreme right”. For the sake of mental clarity, we will not enter into this debate.

Italian fascism, from which comes the generic name given to other similar movements, was born as a split on the left of the Italian Socialist Party, of which Mussolini was a prominent leader. The main point of belligerence was Italy’s intervention in World War I, a thesis defended by Mussolini and his supporters against the “pacifism” of the Socialist International. Once the war was over, and Italy was among the victorious powers, the interventionists considered that it had not received, on the part of the other victorious powers, the economic and territorial compensation to which it was entitled.

All this ended up provoking the split, and the formation of the “fascios di combatimento” first, and later of the National Fascist Party, absorbing a good part of the so-called “national syndicalism,” of Sorelian inspiration, and also the nationalists of Corradini, of a more conservative tendency. In the images of the famous “March on Rome,” all the Fascist leaders accompanying Mussolini were people who came from Sorelian syndicalism.

Italian fascism always perceived itself as a revolutionary movement, opposed to liberalism, and which differed from Soviet communism by opposing the Nation as a political subject to the social class. Although on coming to power the movement became more moderate and “right-wing,” to the point of tolerating the monarchy, these revolutionary premises were always present, and re-emerged with force in the proclamation of the Italian Social Republic, even in the midst of the World War and with the Allied invasion of Italy.

The fundamental characteristics of this regime were:

  1. Single Party: the National Fascist Party.
  2. Corporate economic regime. Although there were state enterprises, private ownership of the means of production was admitted, but with rigid state control. Corporations brought together unions and employers with state presence and control.
  3. Secularism. The regime was NOT confessional, although it respected Catholicism as the majority religion. This secularism was not an obstacle for the signing of the first Concordat with the Holy See, with the recognition of the Vatican State.
  4. Expansionism. The regime was in favor of colonial expansion in Africa, hence its intervention in Abyssinia.
  5. Vague appeals to the heritage of Rome, and affirmation of the Mediterranean against the Anglo-Saxon.

Curiously, the only major movement outside Italy to claim the term “fascist” was Mosley’s British Union of Fascists, which was also born out of a split in the Labor Party.

It is evident that none of these elements, beyond vague appeals to national sovereignty, is present either in Giorgia Meloni’s party, or that of Salvini, nor, much less in Vox. We can only find echoes of state interventionism in Le Pen’s Rassemblent National. And this is so for two reasons—first because their ideological sources have nothing to do with each other (none of these parties comes from the left); but, above all, because the political, economic and geopolitical conditions of today’s Europe have nothing to do with the Europe of the interwar period.

Let us first analyze the conditions in which these political forces have emerged. We will then look at their successes and limitations, and finally, the possible positions of dissident movements in the face of the emergence of these forces.

From our point of view there is a fundamental event, which completely changed the political paradigm, which is the collapse of the USSR, and which opened the doors to ideological post-modernity, and which gave wing to the project of a unipolar world, with the USA as the hegemonic power, and the “end of history” as an aureole myth.

However, before this fundamental event, there are a series of issues to comment on, of events that mark the path in some way. The first was the appearance of the so-called Frankfurt School, which began to take shape in the years prior to World War II in the Weimar Republic, but which reached its maximum influence in the 1960s, and whose most paradigmatic representative was Herbert Marcuse.

The thinkers of this school were all of Marxist formation, although most of them militated in the German social democracy and not in the communist party; but they made such a deep criticism of Marxism that they emptied it of content. Their thesis was that the working class had become bourgeois and lost its revolutionary potential; and, consequently, it was necessary to look for new revolutionary “subjects” in the oppressed minorities and/or those who, because of their way of life, questioned the “status quo”: women, homosexuals, immigrants, students. In fact, the path of abandoning the class struggle and the beginning of the so-called “partial struggles” began.

These ideas were the theoretical basis of the so-called “May ’68” student revolts in many universities in Europe and the United States. Although the movement arose in “progressive” American universities, such as Berkley, it had special repercussions in France. It should be noted that, in France, the movement was driven by situationists (anarchists), Trotskyists and Maoists, but never had the support of the PCF loyal to Moscow.

This movement was hardly revolutionary. It responded to the demands of capitalism to generate new consumer habits, and to combat traditional morality, which had become an obstacle to mass hyper-consumption. The foundations for the consumerism, hedonism and nihilism that characterize postmodernity began to be consolidated in this movement.

Another fundamental event occurred in the 1980s, with the emergence of political neoliberalism under Ronald Reagan in the USA and Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom. Neoliberalism, as a reform of classical liberalism, had been incubating since the 1940s (Walter Lippmann Colloquium, Montpelegrin Society), Hayek being one of its most important theoreticians. Its political subject is to be found in the individual, but not in the rational-Cartesian individual of classical liberalism, but in the post-individual consumer. Contrary to classical liberalism, neoliberalism considered that the market was not a spontaneous phenomenon, and advocated an “interventionist” state, in the sense of acting to create these market conditions.

On the other hand, this neoliberalism advocated abandoning all Keynesian and social protection policies, since it conceived social life as a struggle of “all against all,” and considered that social protection policies encouraged laziness and irresponsibility.

The fall of the USSR opened up an excellent scenario for these proposals. Capitalist states no longer needed to prove that their workers lived better than those in socialist countries. Liberalism, mutated into neoliberalism, had been left alone when the main referent of socialism collapsed; it no longer had to present itself as a political theory or justify itself.

The collapse of the USSR meant the end of the Cold War, and gave rise to the United States to cherish the idea of a unipolar world, subject to its empire. As a consequence, we had a series of phenomena:

  • The increasing pressure of international organizations, which were nothing more than tentacles of the Anglo-Empire, on the sovereignty of states and peoples.
  • The increase of immigrationism, whose function, apart from providing cheap labor and creating social dumping, is to dilute the identities of nations and peoples.
  • The domination of globalism and its vicarious ideologies (Agenda 2030) over the media, educational programs, universities, cinema, television series, in an increasingly suffocating proportion. Globalism is a sort of synthesis between neoliberalism, social democracy and the champagne left, which allows it to present and perceive itself as left-wing and “progressive,” but it is nothing more than a tentacle of the Anglo-empire.
  • The consolidation of the EU as a political-economic branch of the Anglo-empire for the control and submission of Europe and NATO as a military branch of the same.
  • Economic sanctions, isolation and destructive war against any state that tried to oppose globalism: aggression against Iraq, Serbia, Syria, Libya by the USA and its allies/vassals. Economic sanctions against Poland and Hungary. “Warnings” from van Der Leyden to the Italians of what can happen to them if they do not vote “correctly.” Humiliation of Greece, etc. The current war against Russia is part of these processes.

All this has generated in many European nations significant pockets of discontent in large sectors of the population. The destruction of the middle classes, the conversion of the proletariat into the “precariat,” the growing fiscal pressure that does not translate into improved services, the feeling of conservative sectors of the population that their values are constantly criminalized, the problems generated by uncontrolled immigration, insecurity and delinquency, the growth of the squatting phenomenon—and the inability of the left, social democrats or champagne lefists to channel this discontent, as they are part of the System that has provoked it.

In this context, the conservative and populist parties and movements have had the ability to capitalize on this discontent. With all their differences, which they have, parties such as Meloni’s, Salvini’s, Le Pen’s, Vox or Alternative for Germany (AfD0 have ridden their electoral successes on these sectors of the population that felt orphaned of representation.

However, it is one thing to channel discontent and quite another to have the capacity to act on its causes. This capacity depends on the real power that one has; but also, and above all, on the proposed objectives.

In political action we must distinguish between what we want to do and what we can do. It must be understood that, many times, the deficiencies and the distance between proposals and realities respond to this lack of power; but if what has been achieved is in line with what is desired, the political action is correct. A sovereigntist government, such as the Hungarian government, confronted with the European Commission, may have to give in on some things, but this is not due to a lack of will, but to a lack of power. We cannot deduce that this government has betrayed its objectives, but simply that it has not been able to fulfill them.

Now, in this case, my concern is not about the distance between objectives and achievements, but about the objectives themselves. All these parties agree in demanding from the EU more sovereignty for the states and less interference in their internal policies. This differentiates them from the liberal-conservative parties, such as the PP, which are absolutely surrendering national sovereignty to the Eurocrats. This is a very laudable objective, even if it is not entirely achieved, since it is to put a spoke in the wheels of globalism. Another objective is the development of a “cultural war” against the ideologies of the 2030 Agenda, and it is also very laudable, even if it is not 100 percent achieved.

However, none of these parties has clearly and distinctly demanded that the EU develop policies of its own outside of U.S. interests. None of these parties has viewed NATO as a threat to sovereignty equal to or greater than the EU itself. And, consequently, none of these parties has called for NATO’s exit from the nation in which they operate. And this is what is worrying.

The current situation, the war in Ukraine, the sanctions against Russia, the energy crisis, the sabotage of NS2, lowers many masks and has turned the cards upside down. Meloni rushed to affirm her support to Zelensky. Le Pen is silent. Vox, through the mouth of Rocio Monasterio, has accused Russia (against all logic) of sabotaging the NS2, while Santiago Abascal in a tweet (unless it is a fake) claimed that “the climate lobbies were financed by Russia.” It is best not to talk about the Poles. The only ones who have taken dignified positions, against sanctions against Russia, have been Orban and Alternative for Germany.

I insist. The worrying thing is not that they are not able to get their respective countries out of NATO; the worrying thing is that they do not even propose it—that they do not consider NATO a threat to sovereignty; that they do not see, or do not want to see, that all the ideological garbage of the 2030 Agenda, which they fight, comes from the USA; that it is an instrument of globalism, and that this globalism is nothing more than the ideological alibi of the Anglo-empire.

Having said all this, I am now going to focus on the Spanish case, that is, on Vox. There is a very interesting book by Pedro Carlos González Cuevas, Vox, entre el liberalismo conservador y la derecha identitaria, in which he advances the theory of “las dos almas de Vox” (the two souls of Vox). According to this theory, there would exist in Vox a liberal sector (sometimes extreme liberal), Atlantist, close to the American “neocon,” and another more sovereigntist sector, more interventionist in economy and closer to the identitarian approaches. I agree with this theory, but with an addition: it is evident that the liberal sector is the one that controls the party.

This duplicity, which in the future may generate crucial tensions, with an evident predominance of the liberal sector, not only affects ideological and international positions, but also national political action and strategic alliances.

A Hispanist and identity-based policy, for example, would be incompatible with being the crutch of the PP, since in the designation of the main enemy, fundamental in all political action, the PP-PSOE tandem, the two-party system and in general the 78 Regime, would be pointed out, and an alliance with the PP would be as unthinkable as with the PSOE. On the other hand, if we start from the extreme liberal premises, the designation of the enemy is different—the left and the nationalists are pointed out, and the PP is considered as a natural ally, to be “right-winged.”

It is evident that Vox’s strategy is the latter, which shows the absolute predominance of the liberal sector. This could end up having dire consequences from the electoral point of view, because if the electorate ends up seeing Vox as a simple crutch of the PP, it will end up transferring votes to the major party. The worst thing that could happen to Vox is a PP-Vox coalition government, since experience shows that in these cases the big party eats the little one.

But it must also be recognized that there are militants, middle managers and even deputies in Vox who are not on this line. If in the future their influence in the party were to increase, the party could change some of its positions in a notable way. I would also like to clarify that these ideological tensions have nothing to do with the Macarena-Olona affair. The tensions that this lady has provoked are framed in a matter of “ego” and personal ambitions, without any ideological dimension.


José Alsina Calvés is a historian and philosopher who specializes in political biography, the history of science and the history of ideas and edits the journal Nihil Obstat. This article appears through the kind courtesy of Posmodernia.