The following text, which is included in the reading canon of All-Polish Youth, was written in 2008. Despite the passage of more than 10 years, it has not lost its relevance and hits with the accuracy of its observations. The weakness of the West is more evident today than ever before. The author noticed the crisis and diagnosed it before it became a front-page topic. We invite you to read it!
Terrorists, parking lot thieves, or perpetually unemployed immigrants living on „welfare” are secondary issues, stemming from the main problem Europeans have with themselves. The face of Europe’s worst enemy is not hidden under a turban. The average European will see it in the mirror.
Being cross with the Stranger is a popular activity among European traditionalists, conservatives, nationalists, and generally everyone who strongly identifies with the historical identity of our continent. This applies both to radical and marginal groups, but also, though obviously in a different form, to those who have managed to gain some foothold in the mainstream of political life in their countries. This activity is so popular among them that one can get the impression that it has a therapeutic function. The more room is given to various assimilationist-repressive-deportation plans and scenarios on the political agenda, the less influence an organization has on political life, not to mention the possibility of such radical actions. Complaining about the Stranger and laying out plans for the „vengeance of the people” is, however, so common primarily because in the face of a deep crisis it points to a simple cause and an equally simple way of overcoming it, sparing any deeper reflection and offering a clear, „heartening” hope. We rightly focus attention on migration statistics, crime, attacks, mosques, imams; but if we focus only on the symptoms, we cannot dream of addressing the causes.
There is another, even more negative effect of this way of thinking. Suddenly, some of the circles referring to our identity - and this applies rather to those who have occupied some, admittedly marginal, position in the political mainstream - begin to perceive as allies those who not long ago were rightly considered to be our internal enemy. It draws under the banners with big letters reading „war on terrorism,” „fight against Islamofascists,” and defense of „our way of life”. In times of a „clash of civilizations,” they believe, there is no room for nuance, you have to fight the alien already on its territory - the best defense is attack, and it doesn’t matter who is at the forefront of that attack at any given moment. So, what they defined not long ago, or even still define with a mixture of fear and contempt as the „New World Order”, can play a positive role?Big Brother from across the ocean isn’t so bad anymore, Older Brother probably isn’t either, after all they are on the front lines of the fight against the Islamic threat. There is no need to complain about the company, even the crusades were not attended by the saints themselves, and yet today it is almost a new crusade... the enemy is the same... Reminiscences of the crusades are on the minds of many conservatives today. However, this analogy is not accurate, so it does not give us a correct answer to the question about the essence of the problem. We should rather look at the present state of affairs through the prism of another epoch.
The secret of the crisis
Julius Evola’s insightful description of the crisis of Western civilization, searching for its deepest causes, made an opinion worth quoting: „the hierarchy degenerates, and its overthrow becomes possible in only one case: when the individual degenerates, who begins to use his inherent freedom to free himself from all higher points of reference. It is then that all ties are broken, that the metaphysical tension to which the traditional organism owes its unity disappears, and that contradictory forces, which follow different paths, become distinct [...]. The European has first annihilated the hierarchy within himself by liquidating his own potential; only then does he destroy the corresponding external order [...]. This is a decision of metaphysical significance [...]. This decision has the greatest significance in answering the question about the sources of degeneration and destruction of tradition”. („On the secret of Degeneration,” 1938).
With these words Baron Evola fits into the traditional European metaphysical notions. In accordance with the ancient Roman definition of vivere militare est (life is combat), he takes the concept of Holy War, which also appears in Christianity, to a metaphysical dimension. It distinguishes between the Great Holy War and the Small War. The Great War is the internal struggle of man to remain faithful to the hierarchy of principles and values he professes. The more or less literal struggle against a material enemy that contradicts this hierarchy is the Lesser War, the secondary war. Today, most of the indigenous peoples of Europe, especially in its western part, are in a state of permanent defeat in this most important one, the Great War. How, then, can one think of victory in a minor war?
Contemporary Europeans are not confronted with a universal caliphate, contrary to the propaganda of some non-European and quite non-European political centers that scares of a universal, equally powerful, but ethereal, Islamic „Base” (the name seems to be taken out of James Bond movies). They do not face huge armies, unlike in the past, they definitely distance themselves from the Islamic world in material and technological terms. Europeans today face a problem that they create themselves and that they do not want to solve. These few percent Muslim minorities are not a ruling class, the result of an armed invasion.
It was the result of the degeneration of the hosts of Europe, their materialism - the dullness of the masses, who decided that certain work was beneath their dignity, and the greed of capitalists, who needed cheap labor, and yet their only criterion was the profitability of production. This is how it all began when the mass influx of guest workers began in the 1960s. Since then, Europeans have managed to create for themselves an ideology legitimizing the current state of affairs, although of course one should not look for in the triumph of the postmodern ideas of the „New Left” a simple reflection of the transformation of the economic „base” as Marxists would like. Rather, they were the culmination of cultural tendencies of much older origins. After all, the absolute domination of the economic imperative in human concepts is a phenomenon occurring in the world of the ideological „superstructure,” and contrary to what various Marxists claim, it is by no means an eternal phenomenon.
Return to the future
If we were to look for historical parallels for our times, we would find them not in the medieval „clash of civilisations” but rather in the process of decay of the ancient civilisation. Much and in detail has been written on this subject since the time of Edward Gibbon, and yet it all remains a dead letter for our contemporaries.
One of the best cinematic battle scenes is the opening scene of Ridley Scott’s „Gladiator.” It is not only about its spectacularity on the one hand, or faithfulness in reconstruction of details on the other. The scene perfectly shows the civilizational dimension of the clash between the Romans and the Germans. From the dense forest, from the darkness where the barbarians are hiding, come shouts that are difficult to describe, even wild howling. It is in this direction that the columns of legionaries move with stoic calm. With iron discipline, with a kind of impersonal, affectless fatalism, they break the resistance of the barbarians, superior in physical strength, madly courageous, additionally motivated by the knowledge that they are defending their homes and have nowhere to retreat to.
In a single scene, we are given an answer to the question about the essence of the triumph of Roman civilization and why it was Roma who left such a strong mark on the face of Europe. But in such a moment the question of how it is possible that the barbarians finally triumphed, that the inhabitants of the empire, superior to them in every way materially and intellectually, one day became subjects of the Germanic chieftains, becomes even more compelling. How did it happen that a few hordes emerged victorious from a clash with such an excellent administrative and military machine that similar ones would not be seen in Europe until the nineteenth century. Legions did not come out of nowhere. The greatness of the Roman republic that founded the later Caesar Empire lay in the fact that every Roman citizen was a potential legionnaire. The legion as a community was the natural continuation of the civic community and the most logical complement to every Roman’s life and concept of existence. This was not fully realized by the brilliant commander Hannibal, who was astonished to find that in place of the new armies he sent to Hades, new ones were being formed by younger and younger warriors.
It was not the barbarians who defeated the Romans - they had dealt with worse enemies in their heyday. The Romans defeated themselves. Of course, this happened gradually, it was a staggered process, but in essence it was about nothing other than the „existence only for itself” mentioned by Evola. The plebs no longer wanted to fight for something more than money, and the mighty no longer wanted to serve the power of a Republic that imagined an objective Order, not their own. Anyway, soon no one wanted to fight for anything anymore - in fact, both accepted with relief the power of the Caesars and their Praetorians, who, although despotic, gave every politically indifferent „bread and games” according to his state. The Caesars, on the other hand, turned their state into a cosmopolitan melting pot, simply selling civil rights to those who could pay for them, or eventually granting them to all free inhabitants of the empire to increase the number of taxpayers.
There was a deeper logic to it, since the decadent „Romans” had lost the features that made them masters of the world and its people. The wealth, military and civilian organization was of no use if there were no Romans to staff them effectively, and eventually the empire had to be defended from the barbarians by barbarian mercenaries. Eventually many citizens came to the conclusion that the state was costing them too much and they themselves opened the gates of their cities to barbarian chieftains promising tax reductions. In this context, it is no longer surprising how few tribes conquered areas where men capable of bearing arms outnumbered them many times over. In the case of Civitas Aureliani, modern-day Orleans, in 451 AD, when Attila himself, who was known to have left no one alive, fought back and repelled the Huns. However, they remained an isolated incident.
How advanced the decomposition was, is evidenced by the fact that Christianity, conquering the empire at the same time, did not save the empire. For, as Dmowski rightly observed („Basics of Polish Politics”, 1905), in terms of its cultural features, „Christian doctrine arose and took shape in an environment which was not a nation [...] when the construction of the state was crumbling into ruins, and with it all the traditional civic virtues of the Roman and the very notion of the fatherland were finally falling apart. Under these conditions, Primitive Christianity had to deal with an individual who, having severed all threads, felt alone, misguided, and without any rudder in life. This individual was rescued by it; it gave him the basis of a unitary, individual morality, a morality in relation to God, to the neighbors (as individuals themselves), and to himself.” But the „religion of the individual” saved some individuals, but not civilization and the communal ethos that constituted it. This is worth remembering.
The historical analogy described is striking. Doesn’t modern man in the West also expect only bread and games? Doesn’t his guiding principle remain „self-fulfillment” - which comes down to hedonism, more or less sophisticated satisfaction of subjective needs, purely emotional, sensual? One should keep in mind, however, all the differences between ancient and modern civilization. It seems that Oswald Spengler was very accurate in describing the difference as Apollonian, and modern civilization as Faustian. The ancient man, even in the times of the greatest intensity of the processes of decay, retained the conviction of some higher, objective principle, hierarchy and harmony of the world given to him.
They can be seen in the mathematics of the ancient Greeks, where it has a sacred function, and they can be seen in post-religious Stoicism, which triumphed among the few individuals at the end of antiquity who still retained some metaphysical tension. Even the most radical sophists and skeptics, who claimed that it is impossible to know the Truth, did not completely deny its very existence. Modern man, like Dr Faustus, also searched for this principle, but in the hope that he could change it, improve it. He crossed successive borders, broke successive taboos and finally, in the face of the phenomena that triggered his dry rationalism and that turned out to surpass that rationalism, he doubted any objective principles. This is why the present state of Western civilization, and especially of its historical center, Western Europe, is a state unprecedented in history. Never before has Western man had to face such axiological chaos, never before has he been further not so much from an answer as from the very question of the objective principle of Being.
People of the white flag
The whole story is thus analogous insofar as the modern „barbarians” are also strong by the weakness of the communities among which they want to build their lives. The situation is even more paradoxical, because, as I have already noted, unlike a millennium and a half ago, we are not dealing with an armed invasion, but with simple migration. After all, it is difficult to consider as an armed force the appendages wielding sticks and stones that for many years have ruled the suburbs of French metropolises. In good conscience, the will of the authorities and society to take decisive, appropriate action would have sufficed to pacify the situation. How characteristic, however, was the behavior of the French police during the riots in the autumn of 2005, which in the face of the wads of people destroying the suburbs every night, were essentially limited to writing off the detainees, most of them without following the procedure.
Anyway, for the media it was not the rioters who became the black hero, but the contemporary Minister of the Interior, Nicolas Sarkozy, who dared to say a few blunt words about them. The behavior of the French themselves is also telling: the aggression of the young immigrants did not meet with any reaction from the local population, which was directly affected by the gangs’ activity and remained completely intimidated and passive. Even more shocking is the behavior of the French less than a year later, when in the summer of 2006 Sarkozy decided to deport a certain, not very large number of illegal immigrants. The timing was not coincidental: the summer vacations made it possible to carry out the operation, since France has a law that allows illegal immigrants to send their children legally (!) to state schools, in which case the whole family is untouchable.
The summer vacations are, of course, a time when children are not in school and the future French president decided to take advantage of this gap. However, as soon as the school year ended, hundreds of French people took to the streets, the media, intellectuals, and a large number of politicians launched a campaign to thwart Sarkozy’s plans. Bishops in many dioceses called for immigrant children to be hidden, while mayors in some cities urged French citizens to adopt them, offering a quick fix. Sarkozy’s campaign collapsed before it even began. Let us emphasize again that it was supposed to apply only to people breaking French law!
Of course, the above-quoted example of France, which is ahead of other countries in terms of processes of decay, may seem unrepresentative. But the case of Spain shows how easily stereotypes obscure deep cultural processes. The Zapatero government is at the forefront of cultural deconstruction and so far enjoys the support of the majority of Spaniards. All this in a „conservative, traditionally Catholic” country. Anyway, how much the circumstances of the current Spanish Prime Minister’s rise to power tell us. A strong, healthy, functional community, in the situation of an attack on its very center, its interior (not only in the geographical sense), on women and children, such as the attack in the Madrid metro in 2004, is strengthening its ranks, looking for retaliation, getting additional motivation to continue the fight or even to make it more severe. Zapatero’s victory, declaring that he would meet the demands of the aggressor, was a white flag, a frightening proof of the state of morale of the Spanish people.
Materialism, hedonistic individualism, or rather the egoism of contemporary Europeans, has also this basic effect in the form of tragic demographic trends. The birth rate of immigrants from Asia or Africa is much higher than that of the native inhabitants of Europe, who are in a much better material situation.
The problem is not only the consciousness of the establishment, the beneficiaries of the system, a caste detached from life, which by the way also produces its ideological legitimacy, but also the consciousness of the broad masses, who feel the negative consequences of the current state of affairs on their own skin. The situation in this respect is unique in that contemporary Europeans are committed to a comprehensive ideology, firmly rooted in the pre-political sphere, which in theory is completely cosmopolitan, but in practice often amounts to a special consideration, an exaltation of what is foreign, what Roger Scruton aptly described as paternophobia combined with xenophilia.
The current European elites do not accept the present situation with the fatalistic conviction that „this is how it has to be”, they for the most part fervently believe (and through various mechanisms of cultural and even political power are ready to impose this belief on the European masses) that „this is how it should be”. The metapolitical constitution of the European Union has been formulated by the coryphaeuses of the neo-Marxist and postmodern „New Left” who have paved the way for it by overcoming all „exclusive identities” towards a completely „cosmopolitan democracy of human rights” where, in the words of Adam Wielomski, „the relative has become absolute; the absolute has become relative.
As the eminent philosopher Eric Vogelin notes, „the right not to know about the reality of truth has become universal. In the twentieth century it is the most prominent and distinctive institution of Western societies. This institution is firmly entrenched, has entered popular consciousness, and has been elevated to the status of a principle of social order by the self-interpretation of Western societies as pluralistic societies.” The cosmopolitan „universal state”, which for Arnold Toynbee is the last stage, the old age and the twilight of civilization, is put forward as an ideal. The ideal is, evoked by Peter Sloterdijk, human vegetation in peace, health and sensual satisfaction, in a hothouse „crystal palace”, „converted to a post-heroic cultural style”. This „inhabitant of the crystal palace” is none other than Nietzsche’s despised „last man.” The „crystal palace” itself is irresistibly reminiscent of a retirement home.
When one speaks of immigrants as a threat, one most often has in mind those coming from the wider Islamic world. Trying to find historical analogies, we must again draw attention to the essential difference between us and the crumbling ancient world, a difference that puts us at a disadvantage. The decaying Roman civilization was ruthlessly demolished above all by the Germanic peoples. It was they who, together with those to whom they had bequeathed its heritage, created what we now call „the West”. It emerged as a creative synthesis of Roman concepts and the barbarian peoples’ own concepts, emphasizing their positive features over time. A millennium and a half ago we were dealing with culturally strict barbarians who belonged, most importantly, to the same Indo-European family. Be that as it may, the Romans or Greeks themselves were descended from tribes that differed little from these barbarians.
So they built their civilizations on common cultural archetypes. Today’s Europeans are giving ground to „barbarians” rooted in a perhaps primitive, but crystallized, completely different culture. Crystalized, nota bene, also in the heat of battle with our civilization circle. So it is difficult to think about any creative synthesis. But let us not underestimate the attractiveness of this culture and Islam itself, which is its backbone. Already at this moment in France we are dealing with quite a big phenomenon of proselytism of the French, by the way, Mohammedans already form the largest religious group there, if we take into account the number of practitioners.
In Germany, there are between 15,000 and 40,000 natives of this country who profess Islam. Spiritual individuals rebelling against the prevailing relativism, seeking „strong values,” a clear moral code, find in Islam the loudest answer. And Islam, for all its universalism, is nevertheless firmly rooted in a particular culture (Arabic as the „sacred language”), which it imposes by seeking to extend as far as possible the direct sphere of religious influence. Felix Koneczny was right to regard Arab civilisation as semi-sacral. In Islam there is no question of any kind of mutli-culturalism, which Christianity was at the dawn of its history, at the time of the decay of antiquity (and which, in its own way, neo-Marxists like Badiou are fascinated by) and which, unfortunately, is increasingly so today.
Voluntary conversion to Islam is already noticeable in Europe today, and it does not only concern those lost, alienated frustrations like the two Germans arrested last September on suspicion of preparing terrorist attacks, but also prominent figures. Suffice it to mention that the precursor of integral traditionalism Rene Guenon converted to Islam and went to Egypt, where he „lived like an Arab among Arabs”.
Anyway, one can ask in this context, who today deserves the term „barbarian”? In a book popular among Western European intellectuals, the manifesto of neo-Marxism „Empire” by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, the authors outline a vision of the ultimate „liberation” of homo sapiens, which, according to them, can be achieved by „fighting against the bondage of belonging to some nation, to some identity, to some people, and thus escaping from sovereignty [the inherent community - K. K.] and the limitations it imposes on [individual – K.K.] subjectivity.
Dreaming of one, global, liberated people - the „human multitude” - they see the way to it precisely in „nomadism,” the „new barbarian. Of course, it is not only about the literal meaning of „nomadism” - although when we complain about immigrants we forget that contrary to the official affirmation of regionalism, the contemporary European (not to mention the inhabitants of the U.S.) is completely devoid of any locality, he is a nomad, traveling across the whole country or continent to satisfy his material needs. This „nomadism” also means crossing cultural and ethical boundaries, „barriers” on the way to „self-realization”. Do the uprooted „Westerners” have the right to look down on the Koranic people?
Not this war
In the current crisis, some Europeans are eagerly looking across the Atlantic. Some of them are captivated by the rhetoric of „defending the West” and the supposed „conservative revolution” that would take place there. There are those who assume that the enemy of our enemy is our true friend. In doing so, they point to the fact that, unlike the countries of Europe, the U.S. government is actively combating the Islamic threat in a determined and tough manner, dealing ruthless blows to its very core, according to the principle that the best defense is attack. But such thinking is also caused by a focus on a cursory view of the here and now, on the visions served up to us by the global infosphere in dizzyingly changing images.
The hope that the American war on terrorism has any greater significance for the condition of the peoples of Europe demonstrates an absolute misunderstanding of the nature of the threat we face. There is no such thing as an „Islamic world” in the strict geostrategic sense, for that is the plane on which President Bush’s struggle is being played out. There is no pan-Arab caliphate, no sinister empire akin to the one in „Star Wars,” nor is there a worldwide conspiracy with some central Base (al-Qaeda) of Evil at its head. Among and within Muslim countries we have political conflicts, ethnic conflicts (Arabs - Persians, Turks - Kurds) or finally religious conflicts (Sunnis and Shiites - with great commitment are slaughtering each other in Iraq today).
The overthrow of Saddam Hussein, or the possible overthrow of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is of little importance for Europe. The civilizational crisis it is experiencing is being exploited by ordinary migrants and not by subordinates of some politico-military command acting under orders and according to an elaborate plan. Of course there is the problem of terrorism, but its proper dimension must be recognized. We are dealing with certain clandestine groups, two of which proved capable of carrying out two major attacks on the old continent: in Madrid in 2004 and in London a year later, with a total of 244 deaths. But they were entirely independent groups, not part of some larger, centralized and hierarchical structure.
They did not follow any orders from Osama ibn Laden. Both these groups and the much larger number of those whose plans were foiled are local, small groups for whom ibn Laden and al-Qaeda are merely a kind of founding myth, a source of inspiration and example, and sometimes a source of funds. In this context, it should be emphasized that it is the propaganda of the American media, which understandably leaves its mark on the entire infosphere, that helps Osama bin Laden in fulfilling this role. Certainly not coincidentally. The recruits, the plan, and the organization of the attacks are the work of local groups made up of residents, or citizens, of a particular country. They are not an arm of any Middle Eastern brain.
Rather, it is a particularly acute side-effect of the existence of mass immigrant populations, without which Islamist terrorism would not exist in Europe. Besides, individual acts of violence by small, radical and frustrated groups have always been present in history and it would be an illusion to think that we will ever be able to eliminate them completely. The fact that today a single act of terror by such a group can claim many more victims is due - in the main - to the progress of technology and its widespread use. On the other hand, the practice of the last two years, when several plots similar to those responsible for the Madrid and London attacks were foiled, proves that a strong police policy, mainly related to appropriate changes in legislation and procedures concerning public security, is enough to significantly reduce the danger of large-scale terrorist acts.
Even more strongly indicative of the spiritual source of Europe’s troubles is the fact that we increasingly find native Europeans among the Islamist terrorists. In October of this year, German police arrested three Muslims in Sauerland preparing bombs to attack the nearby U.S. military base at Rammstein. Two of them were native Germans (or at least Europeans, given that one of them was named Fritz Gelowicz). There is the well-known case of German Steven Smyrek, who was arrested in Tel Aviv-Jaffa by Israeli police as... a Hezbollah militant. After his conviction, Smyrek chose Israel rather than a German prison to remain among his comrades in arms. In the spring of 2006, a German woman was detained who had already flown to Pakistan to join the jihadist martyrs. Also in German custody is a displaced person from Gliwice, Christian Ganczarski, linked to the April 11, 2002 attack on the island of Djerba. - his contractor called him two hours before the attack to get his blessing.
But the naïve fascination with the United States, clearly discernible in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, a fascination with the „last Christian superpower,” as some who claim to be conservatives call it, transcends the purely political. The fact that the American president often invokes the Lord God, that a much higher percentage of Americans than Europeans attend their temples, that there is no extensive welfare system, and that the American government is still capable of forcing its interests militarily, is for some a reason to see in the United States a kind of oasis, an Atlantis, where traditional values still somehow defend themselves against general decay.
It is astonishing how the constitution of completely superficial phenomena and external forms obscures the essential truth for many. If today we see the sources of decomposition of our civilization in the total reign of radical egalitarianism and relativism, together with all its consequences, among others total economization of politics and social life, then their source and „missionary” on the European ground is America. After two world wars in which the best sons of the Old Continent died, Western Europe became a de facto colony of the USA not only in the military-political sense. Even if today the processes of decomposition are more advanced and the fight against everything that wants to counteract them is more intense precisely in Western Europe, the whole ideology that provided fuel for them was born across the Atlantic. The most radical ideas of the European left have their origins in American political mythology.
Jürgen Habermas himself admits that it was the Americans who laid the foundations for a post-national „new Europe”, a new Germany, thanks to them they have already disappeared: „the realpolitik cynicism of the hard guys, the cultural criticism made effective by conservative beauties, the anthropological pessimism,” as he wrote in the Frankfurter Allgemaine Zeitung on January 24, 2003. The United States government conducts its interventions under demoliberal banners and seeks legitimacy for its actions in these ideas. It is in America that the headquarters of Spengler’s „Caesar of Capital” is located, being equally the constructor and beneficiary of the global system.
It is there that the most important are located: the rulers of the infosphere (80% of words, sounds and images circulating around the world are produced in the US, 3/4 of television programs are made there), the cybersphere (where the leading software producers are located, the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has its headquarters in Marina del Rey, California, which coordinates a system of Internet Root Servers, most of which are located in the US). Finally, the main production facilities of global culture, pop culture, shaping the face of millions of „Westerners”, are located there.
The United States cannot be treated today in terms of a nation-state, and in general it is difficult to treat it in terms of a classically understood state, a form that emerged after the breakdown of medieval universalisms and was defined in the Treaty of Westphalia. The U.S. is today the main base of the global elite, a „metropolitan province of the emerging Empire Mundi,” as Tomasz Gabiś described it in his essay on globalization, an empire that effectively takes over the sovereignty of all territorial powers.
Admittedly, this elite still relies to some extent on the ideological legitimacy laid down by the U.S. Constitution and thus has to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in arranging plebiscites of support and mobilizing U.S. citizens to participate in them, but this is essentially a façade. The elites of the global system, largely overlapping with the U.S. elites, act primarily in the interests of the system, not just the territorially defined community of U.S. citizens. The logic of the New World Order also strikes, though perhaps less openly and severely, at the American people in its historical form - a community that is quite eclectic, yet firmly (at least once) grafted onto Anglo-Saxon and Protestant roots.
For years it has been pointed out by paleoconservatives who believe that the policy of global engagement has become a self-perpetuating machine operating in isolation from real national interests, that free trade has ruined American industry by exporting jobs to the Far East, and that large corporations make sure that the government does not dare to cut off the supply of cheap labor in the form of Hispanic immigrants (whom Samuel Huntington in his book „Who Are We?” recognized as a serious threat to the condition of the American nation). And yet, the establishment was able to bring about a permanent marginalization of the nationalist right, which now can at most produce journalistic pieces in the pages of „The American Conservative” or „The Chronicles”; while the „men of action” can play soldiers in the ranks of harmless, because completely infiltrated, anti-federal „militias”.
The very term „paleoconservatives” indicates the potential of their influence on the current political reality of their country. The measure of the system’s power is the measure of its mystification resulting in a considerable sector of the American society, which is precisely nationalistic or even isolationist in outlook, giving power into the hands of people conducting policies that clearly contradict their views and feelings. The Bush era may serve as a symbol of this, in which the votes of these despised „rednecks” opened more opportunities than ever before for radical supporters of the „great leap” towards empire mundi, i.e. neoconservatives.
Thus, America is both the source of ideas that have contributed to the erosion of European culture (which does not mean, of course, that Europeans themselves have not contributed to it) and the hinterland, the pole of a tangible force (of unprecedented power) that forces it into a political formula that seals the erosion of its subjectivity and identity. Seeing „the last hope of the whites” in the Ocean is a particularly dangerous schizophrenia, or perhaps it is simply swallowing the hook of a more or less sophisticated propaganda of „Euro-Atlantic community” and „defense of the West”.
The enemy in the mirror
Looking for the enemy in Tehran, Baghdad, Gaza, or Istanbul is a rather futile action. Terrorists, parking-lot thieves, or immigrants living on welfare, eternally unemployed, are secondary issues, stemming from the main problem Europeans have with themselves. In fact, all of these characters have arrived in our countries at the request of the natives.
The face of Europe’s worst enemy is not hidden under a turban. The average European will see it in the mirror.
He will hear it in his denunciations of the „backward Arabs,” to whom, however, he has nothing to oppose except „the opportunity to fuck whomever I please. - This is how the recently deceased Oriana Falacci, who many consider to be the „defender of Europe,” defined one of the main manifestations of the superiority of „Western civilization. Many of those who call themselves „defenders of the West” are not concerned with defending traditional European culture, but precisely with fighting against any traditional identity, and the depressing paradox is that in the western part of our continent it is precisely immigrants who remain the most culturally rooted. If Europeans want to defend Europe, the decisive battle is the one that takes place in their hearts and minds.
I keep writing about Europe, but we must be aware that the old world is divided by a civilisational rift. It is not a rift between Protestants and Catholics, Catholics and Orthodox or the like. The nations west of the Elbe are plunged in decadence, civilisationally overripe, they resemble pensioners wishing only to consume in peace the fruits of their once vigorous lives. The nations of Central and Eastern Europe were later to join the mainstream of civilization, who experienced its greatest achievements later and to a lesser extent, but who, from the moment of their birth, had an experience almost absent in the West, an experience of the Frontier, a clash of civilizations - the last of these severe clashes being the almost half-century-long reign of communism. Today, this Europe, which is younger in terms of civilization, can be a real Europe, the question is for how long. Let us remember, however, that in order for it to make sense to shout „Europe for Europeans”, Europeans must first have something of value to offer Europe.