“We Are at the End of Something”

Alain de Benoist, American Renaissance, November 22, 2013

DeBenoist
A conversation with Alain de Benoist.

American Renaissance: You have said that modernity is the enemy of identity. Could you explain this idea further?

Alain de Benoist: When one considers modernity, one must consider two meanings of the word. The first is known to everyone: It is the changes of life that come with more material wealth. But modernity is also the product of an ideology that appeared in the 17th and 18th century with the Enlightenment. It is an ideology of progress, of which the basic idea is that mankind will always be better. The future will be better than the present and the present is better than the past. For this ideology, the past has nothing to teach us. The past is a graveyard of archaic customs and irrational constraints. Instead, man must use his reason to decide by himself what he wants.

Modernity also takes a unitary view of history. History is not cyclical, as it was for the Greeks, but is a straight line. This idea comes from Christianity and Judaism, which posit that there is an absolute beginning and an absolute end to history. Mankind is likewise unitary. All peoples must go through the same stages, and reach the same level of development. This is the myth of development, of technological progress.

A slum in Nairobi, Keyna--part of the "developing world."

A slum in Nairobi, Keyna–part of the “developing world.”

Thus, everything that is new has value because it is new. There is a fetishism of the novel. So when you speak of modernity you must consider not only the material dimension but also the ideological dimension. Modernity is intrinsically antagonistic to collective identities because such identities are an obstacle to the march of progress towards a unitary mankind.

Of course, modernity has a strong economic component. In Europe it was linked to the rise of the bourgeois class and its commercial and merchant values. This is the problem of capitalism. It wants to organize more markets—a world market, a planetary market—and collective identities fragment this market.

Europeans have frequently criticized the United States as a materialist society, but is not every society materialist? Is it not part of human nature to always to want more?

You are right. In that sense I would say that today we are all Americans. And it is true that the desire to have more is part of human nature. The difference is that much of European religion and philosophy are based on values that are more important, on the belief that for moral or religious or philosophical reasons, we must not submit to greed and to the appetite for wealth. This was different in America because of the protestant Calvinist idea of the elect—God shows his approval by giving wealth. You know Max Weber’s theory of the link between Protestantism and the rise of capitalism. I think these things make a big difference.

In Catholic countries money is always suspect—even though everyone wants more of it rather than less. You can see that in the fact that in France it would be impossible for a wealthy man to be elected head of state. No one would vote for a millionaire. The idea would be repulsive. But in America if a candidate is a millionaire it shows he is a success and has ability.

So in Europe people hide what they have. They don’t say how much they earn. In America there is a passion for numbers, and everything is a calculable quantity. Americans know how much they paid for everything. When American tourists go to the Eiffel Tower they ask, “How many steps to the top?” They do not understand the difference between quantity and quality.

EiffelTower

Is there anything besides Catholicism that has protected Europe from the same levels of materialism?

No longer. Today, everyone looks at the same films, listens to the same music, lives in the same kind of houses. This is something that greatly concerns me. I have traveled a great deal, and every year I see the world becoming more similar. I call this the ideology of sameness. This ideology can take religious and not-at-all religious forms, but the central idea is that we are all part of mankind, that we are brothers of the same family. There may be differences but they are unimportant and should be either eradicated or transformed into mere folklore. American Indians do their dances for the tourists but this is not traditional life.

What is the solution to this problem of sameness?

To see solutions we must conceive of globalization as a dialectic. The more the world is homogenized, the more there is rebellion. Thus, the impulse that homogenizes the planet creates new kinds of fragmentation, new kinds of divisions. Sometimes this resistance can be excessive—it can take the form of terrorism, for example.

The solution is to work locally. I strongly believe in localism. Localism means more direct democracy, it means working to create liberated spaces. That’s why I don’t believe so much in politics. I believe that the time of political parties is over. Parties take each others’ places, but they are not real alternatives. In France it is the Right or the Left, or the Left or the Right, and everything remains the same.

That is the reason why so many people are fed up with what we call the “new class” of politicians, financiers, media. There is a widespread feeling that this class does not understand the daily life of the citizens, that it is remote, not committed to a particular nation, that it has common interests instead with an international new class. This is one of the reasons for the rise of the so-called populists parties, which is the most interesting political phenomenon in the last 10 or 20 years.

What are some other examples of this resistance to globalization?

Some countries resist very well. China, for example. I was in China not long ago. Of course you can see young people fixated on their video games, their iPods, iPads, and BlackBerries, but I think the Chinese leaders have a very clear view of the state of the world. Few countries really try to think about the future. The United States, yes, certainly. Russia and China as well, but in Europe, there is nothing.

You think Americans are thinking seriously about the future?

Not the American people, but the think tanks and government agencies think very seriously about the future.

More so than in Europe?

Yes, certainly. We have politicians but nothing like your think tanks. Maybe some political clubs, but nothing else. The politicians just want to be reelected, so the future for them is next year. They don’t think globally about the world.

If global capitalism is the enemy of identity, can you describe a type of economic organization that would be a friend of identity?

Economic life must not be reduced to free exchange and to commercial and market values. An economy must take social realities into consideration, and must not be free from political authority. It is perfectly possible to have an economy of social solidarity that includes a private sector, a public sector, as well as a sector for voluntary associations, such as workers’ cooperatives. The dictatorship of the financial markets must be destroyed. An economy must be based on real production and not on financial speculation. We must fight against the de-localization caused by globalization, which results in labor-market dumping, and harms the working classes by putting downward pressure on salaries. Free exchange between nations is good for everyone only if those nations are at approximately identical levels of economic development.

In Europe there must be reasonable protectionism that guarantees salaries and revenue. We must also promote, to the extent possible, consumption of goods where they are produced, with an emphasis on local transport and economies of proximity. The re-localization of economies is a way to maintain collective identities and also to restore social ties and local democracy in a public space in which citizenship is expressed.

LocalProduce

Would you hope for a Europe that is more locally autonomous?

I am personally in support of a politically unified Europe, but this would be a Europe in which as many decisions as possible are made locally. We speak of the principle of “subsidiarity” according to which, as much as possible, and at the lowest possible level, people decide the matters that concern themselves.

That was the original idea of the United States. Every state was to have great autonomy.

But in the history of the United States the meaning of the word “federalism” has changed. Now when we say “federal” it means the central government, even though things were different in the beginning. The history of states’ rights is complex.

But that is my point. The European Union shows the same tendency. A central government always wants more power. Switzerland seems to be one of the few exceptions to this rule.

I like Switzerland very much. I would like the Swiss model extended to the whole of Europe. Do not forget that the difference between the central power in Europe (the so-called European Commission) and in the United States is that in Europe it is not even elected by anybody. There is no democratic legitimacy to it. I don’t have any illocutions about the value of the kinds of elections you have in the United States, but at least there is an election. Not in France. We elect a European parliament that has almost no power, and the only reason people take an interest in that election is because it is an indication of which parties are most popular within your own nation.

Do you think it is possible to have a politically united Europe that really does leave local decision-making to local people?

Yes. You see that in Switzerland. Of course, it is a small country.

Switzerland is divided into 26 "cantons," each of which enjoys considerable autonomy.

Switzerland is divided into 26 cantons, each of which enjoys considerable autonomy.

But in the history of Europe you have two competing models. One is the nation-state, of which France is the perfect example, but of which England and Spain are also examples. The other model is empire: Italy, Germany and so on. I think the model of empire is much better because it does not concentrate power. It leaves rights and political autonomy to the different countries and regions. A recent model would be the Austro-Hungarian empire. It contained 35 different nationalities, but it worked pretty well. Of course, it was implicated in all the troubles in the Balkans.

For many countries, the United States is an unpleasant presence, but is this simply a reflection of its power? Is this just our version of the French mission civilisatrice or British empire-building, or is there something different about the way America imposes its ideas on the world?

Certainly England, France, and Spain had great influence on the world, but the difference is that they are old countries. They have behind them 2,000 or 3,000 years, and in such a long period of time you have many different conceptions of politics. Not so in the United States. From the beginning, you have the myth of the City on a Hill, that you were the new chosen people, that you fled corrupt Europe with its monarchies and that you would build a new society that would be the best in history.

This goes hand in hand with American optimism. There may be many problems but in the end technology will solve them. Technology creates problems and yet more technology will solve them. This feeling, which is shared by so many Americans, can lead to isolationism or Wilsonianism, in which you want to colonize, though not in the old way. You want all people to be Americanized.

I notice that when I am in America I always hear music—music or television—even in restaurants. But it is always American music. I never hear any singer or music that is not American. In a few restricted circles you may see a French film, and people may know of Edith Piaf or Maurice Chevalier. But if you go to Europe or anywhere else you will hear the same music! Not only, but mostly. When it is not French, it is American music. Why don’t the French listen to Chinese music or African music or German music or Spanish music or Danish music? And it is the same for films. We see all the American films. We do not see all the German or Italian films, even though those countries are very close to France.

An American export.

An American export.

Globalization is the vehicle for all this. English becomes the universal language; if you don’t understand English, you can’t really use the Internet. So here are two reasons for the impact of America. One is the ideological reason but the other is the effect of pure power. This is normal.

From the European point of the view, surely someone like George W. Bush must have been impossible to understand because he was not Machiavellian or even sophisticated.

To us he looks like a moron. In Europe a good politician or statesman is someone who is cultivated in matters of political philosophy and literature, who has a deep knowledge of the world, who sees history as tragedy. He is someone who is a realist in politics, who doesn’t try to hide his interests behind the smokescreen of moral discourse. Americans are completely different. They put their hands on their hearts and speak of freedom and democracy.

Yesterday I was at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, where I saw a quotation from President Reagan that went something like this: “There are no limits to growth or human happiness if people can freely choose their dreams.” What does that mean? Nothing. But you can see that sort of thing everywhere.

I was recently in New York and visited Rockefeller Center. There you have tablets with quotations from Nelson Rockefeller. “I believe in humanity. I believe in love. I believe in the pursuit of happiness but nothing is more important than love.” This man’s life was making money, but he says there is nothing more important than love. He was not a lover, he was a financier. This sort of thing is very strange for Europeans.

A lover?

A lover?

And there are so many things that have come from America to Europe and settled there, such as gender studies—people like Judy Butler, who are completely mad. The crazy kind of feminism. I am not against feminism. There is a good kind of feminism, which I call identitarian feminism, which tries to promote feminine values and show that they are not inferior to masculine values. But this American version of universalist egalitarianism says there is no difference between men and women. It concedes there is a small difference: you are born with one sex or the other, but it’s not very important. What is important is that gender is a social construct, and you can make the parallel with race. Race and sex, they don’t exist because they are social constructs; they are only what your mind says they are.

You may know that last May the French government decided—it is the law now—that the French Republic “does not recognize the existence of any race.” Race does not exist, but racism exists. We must fight racism, which is presumably a hatred of something that does not exist. Curiously, these people claim to value diversity, but how can there be diversity if races do not exist? Many of these ideological fashions came from America.

Many Americans and Europeans who are frustrated with the direction in which their country is going speak of the possibility of systemic collapse. Do you foresee such a collapse?

I don’t foresee that because it is impossible to foresee anything. The main characteristic of history is that it is always open, therefore unpredictable. All the important events of the last decades were not foreseen, beginning with the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the Soviet system. Some people with a catastrophic and pessimistic view do not realize that history is open. They think nothing can change, yet change is always possible because human history is open. I don’t foresee any collapse but I believe that there is a strong possibility of a general collapse.

At least in Europe we have the impression that the political system has exhausted all its possibilities. There is also the financial crisis, which is, for me, a structural rather than contingent crisis of capitalism. You cannot live forever on credit. Look at the public debt of the United States—my God. We always add a bit more, a bit more, a bit more. But “more” and “better” are very different things. No tree can reach the sky, so it will certainly collapse.

TallTree

At the same time, there are ecological, demographic, and immigration problems. We are clearly at the end of something. Probably at the end of modernity. Never in my life can I remember a time in which all possibilities were as open as they are today. We are in a world of transition. During the cold war, things were simple—two blocs—but not anymore. What will become of Russia? What will become of China? In Africa we will have demographic growth—like the public debt in the US!

So I think collapse is possible and it may be necessary, but you cannot rely on it. You cannot sit in your chair and say, “Well, dear friends, I am waiting for the apocalypse.” That would be like the Jehovah’s Witnesses: “The end of the world is nigh.” One world may be ending, but not the world.

Collapse may be necessary for what?

For change. Americans have lived ever since the beginning of their country under more or less the same system, so it is very easy for them to believe that theirs is a natural system. In Europe we have known so many systems, so many revolutions, so many conflicting opinions. I refuse to be constrained by inevitability.

Under the current system only marginal reforms are possible. In France, the National Front is rising in a very interesting way. It is becoming the leading political party, which is very strange when you remember that because of the electoral system it has only two members in the Chamber of Deputies. But even if Marine Le Pen were elected president—I do not think it will happen but I cannot exclude it—there would be no great changes. We would live in the same kind of society, looking at the same films, playing with the same electronic games, and so on.

Marine Le Pen

Marine Le Pen

You have spoken about how complex and multiple identity is. It is composed of language, history, profession, ethnicity, sex, etc. but why can race can never be part of a collective identity—at least for white people?

You mean in Europe?

I mean anywhere.

It is even more forbidden in Europe. In the United States, it is accepted by most people that races exist—and in my mind to accept race is very different from racism—but in Europe that is not so. In the United States you have racial statistics. You can go to the government and find race statistics on everything, including crime and social patterns. The collection of these kinds of statistics is forbidden in Europe—certainly in France.

In France you may categorize people as foreigners or French citizens but many immigrants have French citizenship. Sometimes they receive it automatically when they are born there. So sociologists who want to study a racial question must look indirectly at such things as medical statistics. No one knows how many blacks there are in France. We have an idea, of course, but officially race statistics are forbidden because race does not exist. Such race statistics might be used by racist people. They could use findings about crime, for example.

But to return to the question of identity, I am concerned that the people in France who want to defend identity seem to be the first not to know what identity means. They give only a negative definition of it: “I’m not an immigrant.” Alright, you are not an immigrant, but what are you? “I am French.” But of course you are so many other things as well. You are a man or a woman, you are a journalist or a producer, you are gay or straight, born in a particular region, etc. Identity is complex.

How do you see yourself as different from Identitarians?

If I compare you and me, the first difference is that I am aware of race and of the importance of race, but I do not give to it the excessive importance that you do. For me it is a factor, but only one among others.

The second is that I am not fighting for the white race. I am not fighting for France. I am fighting for a world view. I am a philosopher, a theoretician, and I fight to explain my world view. And in this world view, Europe, race, culture, and identity all have roles. They are not excluded. But mainly I am working in defense of a world view. Of course, I am very interested in the future and destiny of my own nation, race, and culture, but I am also interested in the future of every other group.

Immigration is clearly a problem. It gives rise to much social pathologies. But our identity, the identity of the immigrants, all the identities in the world have a common enemy, and this common enemy is the system that destroys identities and differences everywhere. This system is the enemy, not the Other. That is my basic credo.

Alain de Benoist

Alain de Benoist

Is there anything in particular you would you like to say to an American audience?

What I would say to America is to try to be a bit more open to the rest of the world. Try to know other countries and not just to visit them as tourists. As tourists you don’t see much. You need to understand that throughout the world people can think differently. I don’t say they are better or worse, but accept these differences, because a world of difference is a richer world. The wealth of the world is diversity—its genuine diversity.

Topics: , , , , , ,

Share This

Alain de Benoist
Alain de Benoist is a French philosopher, leader of the European New Right, and founder of Groupement de recherche et d'études pour la civilisation européenne (GRECE). Some of his books are available in English translation through Arktos.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

    There’s an inherent contradiction as this article is presented.

    De Benoist denounces universalist modernity as the primary driver behind wrecking particular cultures, ethnic groups, races and identities, but then turns around and says she’s not an identitarian and has no interest in saving any particular race or culture or ethnic group, his beaux ideal is all the particular groups of the world uniting in a universal maneuver in order to beat back universalism to ensure that all the particular groups can continue being particular groups.

    People that are part of particular groups that have some sort of limiting factor and do not comprise the whole of humanity don’t fight and organize around abstractions like “saving particularism,” they do so around the well being of their own group. Identitarianism, nationalism, racialism, whatever you want to call it, things which De Benoist opposes, is the only real effective way to combat globalism.

    He is right, though, in stating that our modes of economic organization need to focus a lot more on real value added pursuits like mining, manufacturing, agriculture and sci-tech progress, and that transnational trade should only be less restrictive between countries that share a lot in common.

    • Anon

      This might have some possible relevance if de Benoist was a powerful government official of a fascist style government, setting policy and measuring its impact.

      Instead, he is whining about how things should be if only others (99.999% of whom have no idea of even who he is) would do what he thinks should be done based on a model he came up with while chain smoking in his tiny apartment in muslim occupied france.

      Harsh? Yes. Not the point.

      The point is de Benoist here is typical of nationalists, white and otherwise.

      They deal in the world of getting (begging?) people to agree with their pet theories. Instead, they should be measuring the ability of such theories to make effective change.

      Basically, he’s rationalizing why things have happened rather than trying to come up with models for making things happen. Excuses for why things are the way they are rather than plans for making things better based on available resources, power, influence and access to money, systems, government etc.

      This is in STARK contrast to the liberals who followed the openly satanic specific methods of Saul Alinsky (literally dedicated a book to Lucifer, lol) to infiltrate nations and seize power over time despite having no power, less money and being despised, feared and (rightfully) suspected of being communist agents of a hostile foreign power.

      These people were scum with a capital S. But they were successful because they were results oriented rather than armchair theorists.

      Well…a tiny group of white supremacists could do the same thing. One might even say, the current powers that be are particular vulnerable due to complete and utter incompetence.

      But only if we stop chasing phantoms and focus on being effective.

      • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

        IOW, the evil left is winning because they are organized and engage in (for them) effective ground level activism, based on what has worked for them in the past. What a concept.

        I don’t know everything about everything, but I am pretty sure of myself in saying that the theoretical concept of everyone in the world joining hands with everyone else in the world to combat universalist elites to save particularism will NOT happen.

        What will work are things like protesting in support of statues of white people on the Georgia State Capital grounds, (see OD today), pestering firmly but politely the CEOs of your local megacorporations to ask them why they want to swing the borders wide open.

        • ThomasER916

          You can’t name who got that statue removed without being removed from Amren. Seriously, this place is a joke.

        • Terra Magnum Imperium

          The left just learned from the churches, Indoctrinate them while they are young….

      • rowingfool

        Anon says; “The point is de Benoist here is typical of nationalists…They deal in the world of getting (begging?) people to agree with their pet theories. Instead, they should be measuring the ability of such theories to make effective change.”

        Ah, I see that you’ve been reading your Karl Marx, who put it thusly; “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.”

    • George Clark

      A french philosopher who makes sense. Go figure. Toss Lacan and Derrida. I like this guy. I also like Foucault. America has become the Panopticon, hasn’t it?

    • Young Werther

      I feel the same about some of the things you say:

      * Identitarianism, nationalism, racialism, whatever you want to call it, things which De Benoist opposes or is at least agnostic about, is the only real effective way to combat globalism and universalism
      *De Benoist denounces universalist modernity as the primary driver behind wrecking particular cultures, ethnic groups, races and identities, but then turns around and says he’s not an identitarian and has no interest in saving any particular race or culture or ethnic group, his beaux ideal is all the particular groups of the world uniting in a universal maneuver in order to beat back universalism to ensure that all the particular groups can continue being particular groups.

      (A part of me agrees in as much as I might wish to go to Mexico to hear their music or eat their food, but I don’t want their culture to take over America as it has in so many ways, or go to one of the Islamic countries if I want to *experience* their culture, but not be forced to have to listen to the call to prayer 5 times a day coming from a speaker mounted from the local city hall roof-top, or see traditional American icons taken down because they might offend the senses of an Islamic (fill in the blank) Alas, the immigration acts passed in order to bring cheap labor from 3rd world countires has altered America, some say, to the degree that going back, even if it is only ten years ago, is absolutely impossible…this must the the *wasp* in me talking.)

  • DelmarJackson

    “It has become fashionable in recent times to talk of the leveling of nations, and of various peoples
    disappearing into the melting pot of contemporary civilization. I disagree with this,…; all that should be said
    here is that the disappearance of whole nations would impoverish us no less than if all people were to become identical,
    with the same character and the same face. Nations are the wealth of humanity,…”
    Alexander Solzhenitsyn

  • http://www.awpn.net/ Celestial Time

    An economy must be based on real production and not on financial speculation. We must fight against the de-localization caused by globalization, which results in labor-market dumping, and harms the working classes by putting downward pressure on salaries. Free exchange between nations is good for everyone only if those nations are at approximately identical levels of economic development.

    In Europe there must be reasonable protectionism that guarantees salaries and revenue. We must also promote, to the extent possible, consumption of goods where they are produced, with an emphasis on local transport and economies of proximity. The re-localization of economies is a way to maintain collective identities and also to restore social ties and local democracy in a public space in which citizenship is expressed.

    Yes, a thousand times infinity!

    Curiously, these people claim to value diversity, but how can there be diversity if races do not exist?

    I’ve been politely asked to remove myself from many conversations for asking this same thing. The same people saying race doesn’t exist are some of the same people who believe the world will be much better if/when we are all the same, but they are also the same people who champion the be-all-end-all world of diversity. Anyone with even a dash of common sense can tell you this rationale and these realities can’t exist in the same space.

  • http://www.awpn.net/ Celestial Time

    ‘Yanone Kaffeesatz’,’Helvetica Neue’,Verdana for the win!

  • [Guest]

    In the “American version” of gender studies, says Benoist, gender is a mere social construct, and “you can make the parallel with race.” He also notes that in the United States “most people accept that race exists.”

    If his observations are accurate, and I believe they are, then evidently there are at least two “American versions,” one of which does and one of which does not believe that sex and race are merely social constructs. All that tells us is that the latter rules and is wrong and that the opinion-setters and policy-makers should be put out.

    I think we all know that.

    I’m convinced that it won’t happen, though. We’re headed the way of France: “…The French government decided—it is the law now—that the French Republic ‘does not recognize the existence of any race.’”

    Also, unless I’m misreading him, Benoist attributes to Christianity and Judaism the notion that “all peoples must go through the same stages, and reach the same level of development.”

    I’d be interested in knowing what causes him to believe that.

    In his concluding ode to diversity, Benoist suggests that Americans “try to be a bit more open to the rest of the world. Try to know other countries and not just to visit them as tourists. As tourists you don’t see much.”

    Even assuming that this observation (a familiar position of the left) is accurate, by what methods does he suggest we remedy our supposed insularity? In what capacity should we travel to China, Kenya, Iran, and India if not as tourists?

    • rowingfool

      To apply a little Hegel to this.

      Guest, you say that; “the French Republic ‘does not recognize the existence of any race.’”

      Well then, it that were true, then the races can’t acknowledge the existence of the French Republic. If in the consciousness of the people who are the “French Republic”, racial notions don’t exist, then the concept of that same French Republic cannot exist in the minds of people who are aware of themselves as having a racial identity.

      For them, France can never be a vehicle for expressing their particular, group aspirations because France doesn’t deign to acknowledge their existence. To acknowledge the authority of the French Republic is simultaneously to eliminate themselves as a unique, cultural entity.

      Is it any wonder then that these people would be frustrated with their role in the French Republic? And should we be surprised to find that they publicly riot to give vent their frustration in the form of street demonstrations, acts of vandalism and anti French-authority riots?

  • Luca

    We are at the end of something alright. But not just yet. I hope one day soon reasonable, logical people unite to end the social Marxism and the cult of liberalism that is destroying not only this country, but Europe as well.

    Coincidentally, I trace our decline here in the US directly to this day in history 50 years ago when Lyndon Johnson took the reins of government through a cruel twist of fate. Through his four-years of mismanagement, incompetence, ignorance and social engineering he becomes the modern architect of Liberal Democratic policies that has enabled and emboldened the likes of our current Dictator-in-Chief.

    One can only hope for a reversal of fortune in the next elections. That will be the true test of whether we are at the end of something.

    • [Guest]

      >>>One can only hope for a reversal of fortune in the next elections. That will be the true test of whether we are at the end of something.

      I believe we’re closer to France than that. As Benoist says, “Even if Marine Le Pen were elected president—I do not think it will happen but I cannot exclude it—there would be no great changes.”

      • Luca

        Look at all the despair, destructive and negative change that has occurred in the last five years. What Harry Reid just did in the senate is nothing short of a dictatorial power grab to appoint raging liberals with no firewall what-so-ever. They can now appoint Van Johnson, Al Sharpton and Bill Ayers to prominent positions practically at will, if they so desire.

        Now imagine eight years of positive and corrective change. The only bad news is we only have two choices and if that is the case, I am compelled to choose the lesser of the two evils.

        You will be right and we will be closer to France but only if the next elections fail to bring us a positive change and reprieve from the cult of Liberalism.

  • Marc Zuckurburg

    We need comprehensive immigration reform.

    Comprehensive immigration reform will raise wages and salaries, strengthen national security, prevent terrorism, enhance our domestic crime-fighting ability, ensure that we continue to encourage the best and brightest to partake of the American dream, enhance our competitiveness and our ability to innovate, and make America more prosperous.

    Make my immigration reform comprehensive, please!

    • Luca

      Seal the borders, enforce the laws and start massive sweeps and deportations.

      Instead of hiring 16,000 new IRS agents, hire that many Border Agents and move a few military bases down on the southern border.

      There you go, that’s all the comprehensive reform that is necessary.

  • JohnEngelman

    In the United States, it is accepted by most people that races exist—and in my mind to accept race is very different from racism—but in Europe that is not so. In the United States you have racial statistics. You can go to the government and find race statistics on everything, including crime and social patterns. The collection of these kinds of statistics is forbidden in Europe—certainly in France.

    - Alain de Benoist, American Renaissance, November 22, 2013

    This is frustrating for me, because I like to find information on the internet. It is very difficult to learn how different races compare in ability levels and behavior when they live together in European countries, or in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

    When debating immigration one ought to be able to refer to reliable statistics about how various immigrant groups already in one’s country tend to behave and perform.

  • JohnEngelman

    When I look into the future I see three problems. The first is the expansion of the human population. The second, related to the first, is the deterioration of the environment from man made global warming and other causes. The third is that computer technology reduces the economic value of jobs most people are able to learn.

    I do not know how these problems will be resolved. I do not think it will be pretty. I doubt the human species will become extinct. If the human population crashes the most intelligent humans will survive and reproduce. Human evolution will continue in the direction of higher intelligence.

    Higher IQ’s require larger brains. This makes childbirth more difficult. That is the only factor that can interfere with the evolution toward higher intelligence. If natural childbirth becomes impossible for most humans, the complete collapse of civilization would benefit those with less intelligence and more strength and physical aggressiveness.

    • Andrew

      John, I do not get your obsession with higher IQs. Why is this the only factor that runs through your mental filters ? Your philosophy that ” in the future we will all be a grey race of intellects” is just depressing. Most people would rather have meaning in their life which they get through family of there own racial stock and a nation that reflects it(whether you believe it or not). It sounds as if you have no loyalty to a race or better put extended family. If you are really for living in a “superior” world then look no further, the White race is already here and has created a plethora of wonderful things.

      You’re not anti-white, you’re just some sort of psychopath.

      • JohnEngelman

        you’re just some sort of psychopath.

        - Andrew

        One thing I am not is a poster who resorts to an insult like that. Your mentality, which unfortunately is not unique among those who post comments here, is something I have never encountered among the many Jews and Orientals I have known.

    • Jesse James

      John you posit, “If the human population crashed the most intelligent humans will survive and reproduce. Human evolution will continue in the direction of higher intelligence.”

      Only a person who has never been in an area where law and order collapses could think such a thing. Intelligence is always an advantage, I agree, but there are times when intelligence does not win the day. Have you ever seen a man pulled down and beaten to a pulp by a group of thugs? Did Archimedes high intellect save him when he told the Roman soldier, “Do not disturb my circles” ? I have been in a few fights and intelligence quickly yields to brute force and ruthless savagery. Yes you can think, quickly, and attempt to obtain some edge but it rapidly becomes instinct, reaction speed and force. When the Red Terror raged through Paris, Moscow, and the killing fields of Cambodia often intelligent cultivated men and women were destroyed by mobs of brute thugs. I am afraid you put too much value on intelligence. Since the dawn of cities intelligent civilized men have been protected by less intelligent but physically stronger men who recognize the value that clever men bring to a people.

      • JohnEngelman

        What you say has a lot of truth to it. What matters is the extent of the collapse. Computer technology has become essential to a country’s military strength. If it is still possible, intelligence will matter.

        Even before computer technology intelligence was an asset in war. Brilliant military commanders like Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan were able to defeat larger armies with few casualties. Brilliant military commanders require brilliant subordinates.

        • rowingfool

          As usual John, when confronted with a good argument that runs counter to your position, you respond with misdirection.

    • Martel

      Because of your obsession with IQ you now believe in a dystopian future filled with women unable to give birth to their bigheaded babies…

      Whatever is wrong with you, its starting to show in other parts of your cognitive abilities as well.

      • JohnEngelman

        What is wrong with you is obvious to any decent person. Your “thinking” so called is motivated by hatred.

    • Anna Tree

      #1) The problem with human population expansion is that it is not the brightest who are doing babies, within one race and between races: Expansion of the white population will (won’t say would) eventually enable humans to conquer and populate other planets.
      #2) Environment will be okay if #1 does go in the direction I want to foresee (more whites, less third world). Progress does create pollution in the first stages, but eventually whites are capable and willing to change their ways and fix things, if only for the future generations, but also for the plants and animals.
      #3) White people did adjust to #3 and still can (even with the tries to dumb down the education system). Offer and demand, here too, all should be fine if #1 is reestablished like it should be, if we rekindle with our moral and evolutionary compass.

      So in my opinion JohnEngelman, there is only one problem, #1. And the solution is racialism: Africa to Africans, Asia to Asians, South America to South Americans, Europe to Europeans, the (ex or not) Commonwealth to the European descendants (melting pot of Europeans) and North Amerindians. I think it can still be pretty to do, exchange and deportation of populations, it is better for health reasons and for diversity and peace. Only then can human evolution continue to higher intelligence and eventually to the survival of Earth life on other planets when the sun will die.

      Higher IQs require larger brains and it is why whites due date is 40 weeks and blacks is later. If our brains get larger, we will just give birth earlier and we already do. I don’t understand how larger brains could become impossible and trigger the complete collapse of civilization: beside the fact that right now we are dumbing ourselves so your alleged problem may be fading, let’s foresee that #1 is rectified after the white bottleneck that is happening as we speak because of miscegenation and less birth numbers, then with smaller white population in each of their original white countries (and in the commonwealth), evolution may continue, through adaptation caused by natural selection or by the last development in technology and medicine, and that could be also bigger brains. And indeed for that we will need like Jesse James writes physically strong whites racialists who protected intellectually strong white racialists.

      If I understand you well, it seems to me your last scenario was that if we don’t become more intelligent (I presume you assume by mixing with North East Asians, isn’t it?) then civilization will collapse and violence will take charge. I wish to know why you think we need to become more intelligent to be saved, aren’t the leftists seemingly more intelligent and isn’t their kind of intelligence that brought us to our current problems?

      My scenario is that the white pathological altruists miscegenate or dwindle enough to allow the surviving white racialists to empower themselves back to white nations (well unless civil wars start earlier, if so then the means although more violent in a short term, should bring the same results, at least in Europe), then each race will be let to its own devices, that should put civilization right to its former glorious tracks, well the white one the least.

      • JohnEngelman

        Orientals, people from India, and Jews have as much right to be in the United States as white Gentiles. They usually perform and behave better.

        • Fak_Zakaix

          True. However, what will you say to a European (Briton, Frenchman, Italian, German, etc.) who wants Oriental, etc. expelled from HIS country?
          Similarly, what will you say to a Israeli Jew who wants Arabs and Eastern Europeans out of HIS country?

        • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

          No, they do not.

          • JohnEngelman

            They do not do what? Perform and behave better?

          • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

            They don’t belong here in large numbers.

          • JohnEngelman

            Why not?

        • newscomments70

          Indians behave better than whites? You are generalizing. India has a high crime rate, and their rape statistics are almarmingly high. Generally speaking, they are very difficult to deal with (with some exceptions). An Indian family lives next to my brother. They are white collar professionals, but border-line psychotic. They are extremely confrontational for any trivial issue. Their kids are out of control and they bully my niece. Indians commonly don’t control their children. If you even offer mild critcism, they scream racism. This is no exception. A friend of mine from Thailand (yes, I have Asian friends) has a similar report. They allow their children to run wild through the hotel, very badly behaved. If the staff even suggest that they control the kids, the Indians will lambast the staff with hateful comments and complain to upper management. The lower staff is ALWAYS blamed. You make many generalizations about Asian culture, but you don’t have much to back it up with. Your comment that Indians behave better than whites is erroneous and extremely offensive.

        • newscomments70

          I couldn’t reply to your second post yet, so I am replying to your first:

          This is from wikipedia: “Sources show that rape cases in India have doubled between 1990 and 2008.According to the National Crime Records Bureau, 24,206 rape cases were reported in India in 2011, but experts agree that the number of unreported cases of sexual assault brings the total much higher.”

          Their murder rate is only slightly lower than the U.S. Our statistics are high because of our minotories. If we were an all white country, India’s murder rate would be higher than ours.

          I agree that their average IQ’s are higher than other minorities, and they have have a high average income. That says nothing about behavior and daily interaction with their very foreign culture. Do you interract with them on a daily basis? I doubt it.

  • http://nclinksandthinks.wordpress.com/ Roger U

    Actually, without Western handouts, they wouldn’t have that big pile of trash and would be living in traditional huts. Much more picturesque.

  • http://nclinksandthinks.wordpress.com/ Roger U

    1-capitalism isn’t a problem without the globalism which it has become attached to. Faith and heritage has been running a series on economic nationalism.

    2-they are thinking about the future, that’s why they’re allowing so much immigration. See #1

  • http://nclinksandthinks.wordpress.com/ Roger U

    “Modernity also takes a unitary view of history. History is not cyclical,
    as it was for the Greeks, but is a straight line. This idea comes from
    Christianity and Judaism, which posit that there is an absolute
    beginning and an absolute end to history”

    I don’t know about Judaism, but, while Christianity has a definite beginning and end of TIME, this is not the same as a unitary view of history. Ecclesiastes 1:9 says

    “What has been will be again,
    what has been done will be done again;
    there is nothing new under the sun.”

    This would seem to show a view of history as cyclical, like the Greeks. The damn “enlightenment” is where the unitary view of history and the perfectability of man came from as far as I can tell.

    • ThomasER916

      I’ve learned in this day an age the longer one spends in schools and universities, the more disconnected they become from reality. There isn’t a popular idea or opinion today that isn’t dead wrong. The intellectuals are the ones who got us into this mess and it’s a fool’s logic to believe they’ll get us out of it.

      • http://nclinksandthinks.wordpress.com/ Roger U

        Intellectuals are a tool that society needs, but, like a wrench, they have specific uses and if they’re broken, you throw ‘em away. None of them are infallible.

        • ThomasER916

          Precisely. Today’s intellectuals are wrenches and the world is filled with nails.

        • rowingfool

          You don’t throw them away; the steel is too valuable. You melt them down in doctrinal reeducation camps and reforge their intellectual proclivities in a mold that is better aligned with your social agenda.

          Far right, shake hands with far left.

      • Anna Tree

        I think that your mistake is to correlate time spent at nowadays schools and universities with intellect. It was maybe the case in the past but sadly not anymore as schools and universities have become the temples of a new religion where skeptism and science are censored while dogmas like diversity is a strength, islam is a religion of peace, Dalai Lama is a saint, gender and races don’t exist/are a social construct, multiculturalism is our salvation, homosexuality is innate, affirmative action is not racism, “no child behind” is good for all etc are forced without any dissidence.

        I do think intellectuals will get us out of the mess they have put us into: racialist ones. But that only with some strength and bravery from all of us.

        • ThomasER916

          I’m not mistaking anything.

          And I’m not changing anything I’ve said. When I tell the truth Amren deletes comments. Even when it’s tame. The racialists are making dumb mistakes because they’re dazzled with thoughts of high-IQ, lab tests, and bubbling beakers. They want to be recognized for their “genius” rather than save the lives of their people.

          When was the last time one of these “leaders” looked down the iron sights and pulled a trigger? For me, that was 1994.

  • ricpic

    The article is all over the place. What ruined it for me is that he dismisses Americans as not knowing the difference between quantity and quality. In short, de Benoist is a snob.

    • Sick of it

      He also blamed us for feminism. Such Marxist ideas had to be imported here from Europe!

      • Andrew

        He’s French, they’re notorious for disliking Americans. I’m not offended at what he said, I know he is not talking about me..

        • Sick of it

          I’m offended that he’s an Edith Piaf fan. Terrible taste in music.

          • Andrew

            Edith Paid fan?! where’s my guillotine!!

        • http://www.flowsimulations.com/ Claudius_II

          That’s what I’ve always heard. However for the 1st time in my life I visited France this summer. Every French person I encountered couldn’t be nicer and we went to a lot of offbeat areas.

          The only exception were the French coin dealers. However, coin dealers of all nationalities are universally nasty: even US coin dealers towards US coin collectors.

          • Sick of it

            French people, in my experience anyway, very much appreciate it when foreigners are interested in their culture and honestly attempt to speak in French. We’ll do it better than their former colonials any day of the week.

      • [Guest]

        I believe he said, or at least meant, not that feminism came from the U.S. but only that “the crazy kind” (the Judy Butler kind) did. I don’t know whether that’s true, but I believe that’s what he meant.

        He is right in suggesting that the likes of Judy Butler is crazy.

        His suggestion that Americans be “a bit more open to the rest of the world” strikes me as a bit of tripe, though. If anything, the country needs a fresh dose of what the left would call jingoism, just as white people need a heavy dose of racial self-awareness and self-interest.

        • Sick of it

          The radical feminism he mentioned is specifically the European Marxist kind. We didn’t invent it.

  • ricpic

    If Marie Le Pen were to be elected there would be no great changes in France? Is de Benoist for real? At the very least there would be a halt to the muslim inundation of France. But who knows?…given enough provocation Le Pen might order the expulsion of the muslims, either piecemeal or en masse. That would be a great change for the better. And there is enough rage in the French man-in-the-street to overcome the orthodox all-men-are-brothers tripe the ruling class pushes but doesn’t believe in any more than the-man-in-the-street.

    • Kronolog

      Even if the “Muslim question” was the main problem facing France, or the rest of Europe, it wouldn’t be solved by the election some half-competent rabble-rouser. Neither the leaders of the European populist parties, nor the populations themselves, have the character take decisive action yet. As long as bread and circus is readily available, and as long as the Muslims, as a group, accept their role as “passive citizens”, there will only superficial change.

      Of course one should expect some kind of revolution in the future, either by Europeans or Muslims, but one should expect it later rather than sooner.

      • ThomasER916

        The problem – Benoist is wrong. He talks about white French as if there’s no reason to work with white Polish Nationalists or white Latvian Nationalists. Each recognizing that individually they’ll be overrun and outgunned but together they can do anything. None of this means that imperialism and dissolution of borders are necessary. All it means is they agree that Muslims, Marxists, and Jews are a threat to their identity and have no place in Europe, that immigration is genocide and no one has the right to invade Europe.

    • Spartacus

      The situation in France is already critical. At least a third of all newborns in the last couple of years had at least one parent from africa or the middle-east, and my guess would be less than half of all newborns in the same period are ethnically French. France may be doomed already… Unless they move their derrières and do something about it.

  • Spartacus

    “The second is that I am not fighting for the white race. I am not
    fighting for France. I am fighting for a world view. I am a philosopher,
    a theoretician, and I fight to explain my world view.”

    ———————————————————————————————————————

    So… You’re not only useless, but not even fundamentally on the right side ? What the hell did I even read this interview for ?

    • ThomasER916

      I was thinking the same thing. Then again, this is the same site that supports anti-whites like John Engelman.

      I’d rather support Nick Griffin, Tom Sulik, and Kevin McDonald. They understand that you can and MUST support whites as a people while respecting their identity and autonomy as a nation. How hard is that to understand? When someone supports anything that negatively affects whites you attack them until they’re destroyed. White nationalism and white identity that is global but not globalist. It’s really not that hard to figure out and this guy is supposed to be an intellectual.

    • NorthernWind

      You mustn’t forget that DeBenois is an academic type. He is on our side but he isn’t a warrior of the race. Nonetheless, his ideas have been very influential and will continue to be influential in the future. People like him offer new ways on thinking, ways which allow us to see through modernity.

      • Spartacus

        “Modernity” is just a symptom of a greater disease, and by focusing exclusively on symptoms rather than causes, we’ll never get cured. And we all know what that disease is.

    • MikeofAges

      One world is no world. What else does anyone need to know?

  • Mike Lane

    Smart guy, but he blames modern feminism and other ideologies on America, when a lot of them came from Europe (via Frankfurt School, etc.)

  • kjh64

    “What I would say to America is to try to be a bit more open to the rest of the world. Try to know other countries and not just to visit them as tourists. As tourists you don’t see much. You need to understand that throughout the world people can think differently. I don’t say they are better or worse, but accept these differences, because a world of difference is a richer world. The wealth of the world is diversity—its genuine diversity.”

    He should replace America with “people in every country” should be more open to the world. One thing I find really annoying is this belief that somehow Americans are not open to the rest of the world or don’t know about the rest of the world. As an American, I have traveled a lot and I get ignorant comments ALL the time about the USA. (I’m from Texas and no, I’m not related to JR Ewing and don’t live on a ranch lol. ) People in every country are ignorant of most of the world. Americans are no worse than anyone else but we aren’t as ignorant as most since we have so many foreigners living in the US thanks to our “wonderful immigration policies”. We don’t have to leave home to get a lot of exposure to foreigners from the third world.

    • Sick of it

      Folks I’ve met abroad only know Louisiana from things they’ve heard about New Orleans, so I think you get the better part of the identity misread.

  • Sick of it

    Modern clothing is another globalist tool. We’ve all seen pictures of the variety of dress worn by our varied ancestors. Not so today.

  • JohnEngelman

    When people of average or slightly below average intelligence lost farm jobs during the nineteenth century they could move to cities and get factory jobs. Now that those jobs are disappearing, there are not enough service industry jobs for them. (I am thinking of waiting at tables, bar tending, and working behind cash registers.)`Moreover, service industry jobs require more academic and social skills than factory work, but they usually pay less.

    I am not gloating about this or advocating it. I am just saying it is a problem.

  • Brian

    A step toward reality would be for all legislative bills to be printed in Comic Sans.

  • Andrew

    The world is less cultured than it used to be when whites were able to rule themselves. I am only for a united Europe so it can defend itself from the foreigners and marxist invasion, after that it’s best countries keep to themselves unless another threat arises. National sovereignty ensures that uniqueness be preserved. As for America my country? I can’t stand it to be honest…

    • IstvanIN

      Yes, a European Union that provided a common defense against outsiders, negotiated disputes within Europe (to avoid fratricidal wars), and allowed commerce both among Europeans and between Europe and the outside world to the common benefit Europeans and the preservation of the diverse cultures and traditions of the European peoples would have been a good thing. What the EU has become is not.

  • Rhialto

    Benoist’s comments would have been relevant in the 1950′s. Today, discussing the negative impact of yesterday’s American culture on Europe, only serves to divert attention of White men from issue of survival. Powerful enemies, internal and external, are working to destroy Western civilization in all its phases. These enemies make no distinction between French existentialists and American materialists.

  • dd121

    Most Europeans seem to have the notion that Americans are completely insular. That certainly is not true. He seems to be saying, “America, tear down this civilisation”. Okay, just be careful what you wish for.

    • ixObserver

      Most non-Americans, actually. You can travel across vast tracts of land in America with little if any cultural change, not true for rest of the world. Low population density, cultural homogeneity within makes the ‘average’ American more insular. All of this again is a direct fall out of the ‘young nation’ factor. The older America gets, the more old-world like it will become. You can see the same affect on insularity within America as well, between different regions just like between America and rest of the world. I would assume Australia should have a similar character for the same reasons, only more pronounced. Most cultural exposure Americans get is either through TV or due to high immigration in recent times. It’s not an uncommon notion outside America that many Americans wouldn’t know where most countries are located on the world map.

      • dd121

        Your simplistic view of America is a comic book caricature. Yes, the architecture is young but the inventiveness of the American people has led the world in all areas of human endeavor for decades. We’re the most self-confident people ever to walk the earth. For that we’re viewed by many with jealousy and envy.

        • ixObserver

          I haven’t said a thing about inventiveness or achievements of Americans, I wasn’t even talking about it. Keep the personal references out. Why bother commenting on a ‘simplistic’, ‘comical’ view at all ? Have a laugh, move on.

  • dd121

    I only watch French films if I have trouble getting to sleep.

    • George Clark

      Aw, come on. Jean de florette was great.

  • silviosilver

    This interview provided succinct confirmation of my estimation of this thinker: useless.

  • ixObserver

    Nice interview. Mr Benoist brings up a lot of interesting points. Not everything he says maybe spot on but lot of insight nonetheless.

    Excessive obsession with Race and the complexity of identity:
    While Amreners say that Blacks are obsessed with race, I see exactly the same thing here as well. ‘Race is everything’ kind of stand a lot of Amreners take is not very different from ‘Race doesn’t exist’ stand that some others take and here’s why I think so. Race, the way we understand, is basically a label for sets of genetic blue prints. While biologically a strong driver, psychologically not so much. Psychologically it plays a sub-conscious role largely, not a conscious one. Race becomes a conscious factor only in a multi-racial environment, even here not all the time. Emphasizing too much on a sub-conscious pattern won’t yield much result. It is here that Amren’s perspective is flawed IMO But their question to Mr Benoist seems to indicate they are aware of this somewhat.

    Real world is all about Ethnicity, not so much about Race. Ethnicity is the more conscious part of human psychology and a strong part of identity. Race is an essential part of ethnic identity but there is a lot more going on there. This is exactly why racial solidarity of any kind (white, black, Asian) is generally a myth. The non-existence of racial solidarity is very clear from all the White wars of Europe, Mongoloids wars in Asia, Black violence in Africa. The Hispanic (funny word, his-panic ) solidarity you see is not a racial one. What race are Hispanics ?. Same goes for Jews. America is also in a bit of a unique situation in that there are pure distinct races cohabiting, which is rarely the case in most other places world-wide.

    Sometimes even ethnicity takes a back seat over purely cultural/political identity like ‘American’, ‘Indian’, ‘Brazilian’, ‘Hispanic’. Of course there are those for whom race is everything. But is this the situation with majority of people ? Nope. Exceptions only prove the rule.

    • Paul

      you should read ‘March of the Titans’ if you believe real world is not about race.

      • ixObserver

        I will when I get a chance. I read a chapter or two long time ago when it was freely available on the book’s website, was good.

    • The Verdict of History

      Very compelling… troubling though.

  • http://valeofdarkness.blogspot.com/ ValeofIgnorance

    He says race is not that important. How White is that.

  • Spartacus

    Another one who’s either a shill or an imbecile .

    • JohnEngelman

      Who? Jared Taylor? Arthur Jensen? Me?

      • Spartacus

        Jensen. And you too, for that matter.

        • JohnEngelman

          Thank you for comparing me to a great man.

          • Martel

            You belong in the category of Tim Wise, not Jensen. From a generation of sexually and ethnically confused whites, you only differ because you took another strange turn by allowing a partial recognition of racial differences.

          • JohnEngelman

            Reading Tim Wise’s “The Color of Deception” led me to read Jared Taylor’s “The Color of Crime.” It was easy for me to see that Jared Taylor’s argument was the better one. I have been accessing American Renaissance ever since.

            I had an e-mail exchange with Tim Wise. I was polite. He became nasty. Finally he told me to stop sending him e-mail letters. When I sent one more it came back rejected. I showed Jared Taylor the exchange.

            I will not post it, because I did not get Tim Wise’s permission.

  • Martel

    Everyone must bow to political correctness to some degree, that’s all it is. Its easy to see whites and asians living together doesn’t work out well. It has been tried before when American Individualistic whites suffered from ethnic nepotism on account of the Chinese, which resulted in calls for a chinese exclusion act.

    • JohnEngelman

      The Chinese Exclusion Act was motivated by whites who did not want to compete with Chinese.

      I have enjoyed living with Orientals.

      • Martel

        It was motivated by individualistic whites who noted that the Chinese did not share their views on fair labour and free market economics. This has been thoroughly documented. You do confirm that an affection/obsession with non-whites inhibits you from evaluating whites according to the same standards, let alone having any sympathy for the naivity in which they time and time again have allowed themselves to be taken advantage of. All Western anti-semitism started as a response to clear ethnocentric inspired nepotism on account of the Jews, and unfortunately this is becoming the case once more.

        I note > You are able to assign negative traits to whites as a group, while never allowing any criticism of Asians/Jews as a group. You simply follow in the footsteps of Marcuse and other, mostly Jewish pseudo intellectuals who got us in this mess.

        • JohnEngelman

          Free market economics require open borders and the right of employers to hire anyone they want to.

          • MikeofAges

            One man, one vote, one time, so to speak.

  • Martel

    These days, yes.Our intellectual elite consists out of cowards, naturally they will bite their tongue on all serious matters and will do anything to refrain from upsetting others. This wasn’t always the case, and it has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence.

  • IstvanIN

    Congratulations on getting your Royal Navy and Royal Air Force back. Wasn’t it Trudeau who dumped the traditional names?

  • IstvanIN

    I have often said I wouldn’t care if my people were the most stupid and ugly, they are still my people and I still want them to survive.

  • http://tmasierrahills.blogspot.com/ tma_sierrahills

    “Immigration is clearly a problem. It gives rise to much social pathologies. But our identity, the identity of the immigrants, all the identities in the world have a common enemy, and this common enemy is the system that destroys identities and differences everywhere.”

    This is nonsensical. The system may be destroying identities everywhere, but it is not demographically erasing Muslims, Mexicans, Africans or Asians. They can always have multiple revolutions somewhere down the line, while our people will be g-o-n-e. Makes me doubly glad that we have leaders like Taylor and MacDonald.

  • http://nclinksandthinks.wordpress.com/ Roger U

    It tends to get lost in the capitalism vs socialism screeching, but there are more than 2 economic models.

  • Anon

    I can sum up this guy in one paragraph. No one knows who he is because he is nobody. He is very bitter because he is a nobody. He has built up a complex model of why the world sucks almost devoid of any real experience or reasonable examination of anyone elses experiences. Because of this, his model is completely worthless in gaining power over anything whatsoever so he is now both bitter and impotent. Any attempt to suggest observation of what is going on now or what has happened as a pattern in history, let alone suggest ways to use that knowledge to be anything other than bitter and impotent, is treated with contempt. Nothing comes from this way of thinking, certainly nothing in the way of solutions.

    A word of advice. Ignore guys like this. Do the exact opposite of what he is doing. Admit there is alot going on you have no clue about and never could because it is far outside your scope and influence. Focus instead on common sense and what is, in fact within your own scope and influence. What can YOU do, right now, today, this minute to address the situation as you know it.

    Examples.

    You see on the news that black violence among whites is exploding. Blacks feel it is OK to openly attack whites and treat it as a game. What can you do?

    Well, if you live in the US, you can buy a gun, right now. Get a concealed carry permit. Train in how to use that gun to effectively kill. And, if, God forbid, some scumbag decides you are a nice target for the “knockout game”, you can kill him. If the laws where you live don’t allow this, you can move. And no…there is not a single place in the US where other factors make living in a bad place where self-defense is illegal, something to be desired. Quite the opposite. Liberal bastions are currently experiencing the second Great Depression. The Obama Depression. All other parts of the US have jobs. So move.

    No…you will not know what effect this has on the greater scope of the problem. It will likely take the hindsight of a hundred years or more for historians to document the cultural/racial impact of your decision to not lie down and die in the face of another races’ violence. Any conjecture about it is likely fruitless (or more probably an intentional red herring to distract from taking action today rooted in common sense). But YOU personally will experience the advantages. Others who flap their gums (like de Benoist) will, instead, increasingly be the victims of muslim violence in their own country and endlessly debate increasingly unlikely scenarios based on unobservable events. That is…..unwise. YOU personally, can do better. If by no other way than by simply hanging out and living near other people with a common sense, action oriented model of the world.

  • ViktorNN

    Localism means more direct democracy, it means working to create liberated spaces.

    This is a lesson a lot of tin pot dictators in the ranks of pro-whites could learn.

  • M&S

    >>
    But in the history of Europe you have two competing models. One is the nation-state, of which France is the perfect example, but of which England and Spain are also examples.

    >>

    Nation’s etymological root is ‘Nascere’ to be born. But being born has nothing to do with the state and everything to do with the genes. If France will not be an ethnically homogenous nation, she cannot be a functional nation state because genetic algorithms create societies. Societies do not create racial constructs.

    Further to this, as is typical for the French, he claims to believe in egality, liberty and brotherhood yet he excludes those pathetic barbarian Spanish and English (who had Latinized culture when the French were mere brawling tribal ruffians, occasionally butchered by the likes of Julius Caesar and Charlemagne to keep them from causing too much trouble). If he truly believed in affinity as a means of identity divisions, in a unified Europe, he would look at the -kinds- of societies that each group has created and use these similarities to define cladistics groups of social relevance.

    But he’s just an effete snob selling the superiority of nose-high French vision.

    >>

    The other model is empire: Italy, Germany and so on.

    >>

    Italy has known Empire and suffered _exactly_ the consequences as America now sets itself ‘bread and circuses’ up for, by refusing loyalty to the _nation_ of the Roman culture and instead ‘outsourcing’ economic dependence to the likes of Egypt and Libya (grain) Spain (Metals and Pottery) and so on.

    OTOH, until fairly recently in history, Germany was a land of warring principalities constantly striving amongst themselves when they were not being overrun by predatory Franco-Austrian and Russo-Polish ‘interests’. Frederick The Great was the German Arthur, constantly running from battle to battle, to keep his people from being completely pillaged on a seasonal warfare basis which let these ‘civilized’ nations vent their frustrated lethal urges on some unimportant population ‘off to the East’.

    Yet when Germany finally rose from the bloodiness of a constant beatings, they were among the first to emancipate women, mandate education for all and make corporal punishment, especially amongst the military classes, illegal.

    Did Germany seek Empire? No. It had ‘Empire’ (as sovereignty of ethno-identity protected statehood) _thrust upon it_. Indeed, it was the _Colonial Powers_, terrified of a bootstrap German economy and particularly chemical industry (having severe shortfalls in 18 of 26 major strategic materials resources, they had to ‘invent equivalents’), that caused them to prevent Germany from having her own colonies, in Africa and elsewhere, while outright thievery of patented processes by the likes of the ‘great’ French and British multiculturalists basically started WWI.

    Please, the man has no concept of what he speaks.

    Thinking too much about the value of others is what defeats self-identity you twit.

    Refusing to acknowledge the value of history as defining the present day attitudes and who is better or worse for want of having them is speaking to your navel.

    >>
    I think the model of empire is much better because it does not concentrate power. It leaves rights and political autonomy to the different countries and regions. A recent model would be the Austro-Hungarian empire. It contained 35 different nationalities, but it worked pretty well. Of course, it was implicated in all the troubles in the Balkans.

    >>

    Unless you were one of the subject white peoples whom the Austrians looked down upon as ‘not from here’.

    The problem with Europe is that they think ‘autonomous regional’ self-determinism doesn’t result in severe cultural insularism. It never fails to amaze me someone can claim both Wilsonianism and Isolationism of the Americans who have a _stable continental land mass_ while claiming to be ‘more worldly’ because they haven’t tried to butch or overrun any other civilized country, recently.

    Get a clue, buy a vowel: You have no identity politics beyond “I am not an outsider!” because you continue to live in the vestigial remnants of _city states_ whose social construct was that of DEFENSE against the common identity of a shared genetic algorithm which built **similar** social constructs.

    Americans, at least while we were white and willing to butcher Indians who were not, had that common belief system in ‘just like us’ shared POTENTIAL for greatness and built a _Nation State_ because of it.

    http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm#America

    Hitler, who was nowhere near as murderous as Americans were in our 19th century rite of passage, tried to help you folks along and you rejected him because it offended your spoiled brat sense of yourselves.

    Except now you are not yourselves. You are the muddy remnants of a great people whose vaunted culture is vanishing before you because the imported dregs of the world haven’t a clue how to make fine wine, cook decently, paint or write or compose music. And _their_ version of ‘French’ is whatever barbarian mudhut society their genes had constructed back at home.

    You want to talk about identity and then you fail to recognize that genetics creates society, society doesn’t create racial genetics. That single fallacy makes all his subsequent high-minded conclusions FALSE.

    He says he is a theoretician and yet he refuses to look at numbers to create, expand or confirm his theories. He is a ‘dataist’ afraid of the knowledge he says he seeks from an expanded ‘world view’.
    May genomic science as higher IQs please save us the urbane stupidity of libtard philosophers.

  • ViktorNN

    I’m not sure if you’re being serious, but in case you are, I’m afraid I have to disagree.

    Helvetica was “the typeface of modernism” – the house font of the International Style, which I think could be characterized as the aesthetic arm of Modernism in general, High Modernism being the last epoch where the world saw proud, unashamed, strong, virile, and forward looking whiteness.

  • rowingfool

    Asians????

    How did you get off on this tangent?

    Or, to extend the astronomic allegory. John, you are like a comet. One of your foci is white vs. black violence. The second focus of your ellipse is Asian and Jewish intelligence. You arguments consistently come back to one or another of these as your center of reference.

    • http://www.awpn.net/ Celestial Time

      It’s like a pathological fetish that has morphed into an obvious agenda. He certainly goes out of his way to make sure you know his agenda is more about Asians being accepted into White foundational thinking than White interests in general. Yellow John believes White society must accept Asians in any and all capacities, and he can’t stand the notion of another individual not putting them on a pedestal like he does.

      Truth be told, I would much rather have to accept as countrymen some Asians and even black women who appreciated White culture and people than have to put up with someone like Yellow John.

      • MikeofAges

        Mr. Engleman lives in Santa Clara County (aka the San Jose-Silicon Valley metro area). It is a generally high income area which in the 1970s still had the characteristics of the great agricultural center it once was. Since then, it has become increasingly gentrified, but also is run by maddening nanny-state bourgeois feminist bureaucrats who are determined to wipe out every amenity, consideration and allowance which has a common man to live a normal life. Demographically, the black population is extremely small while the rest of the population is equally divided between East and South Asians, whites and gentrified HIspanics. The underclass is predominantly composed of less assimilated Hispanics, with rest composed the remnants of the white proletariat and lower strata immigrants from various backgrounds.

        One thing that has not changed about Santa Clara County is that it’s life remains highly isolated from that of the rest of the region and state.

        The assimilated, economically successful elements live together very harmoniously, but the whites and Hispanics, also, are oblivious to the cultural imperialism they are being subject to engineered by the Maoist government. The Chinese who live there largely are not parties to this, exactly, and would not pursue it on their own. They, too, end up as object and tools in the imperialist thrust of the Maoist party. A small number are willing agents or actual advance colonists, however.

      • rowingfool

        John’s mistakenly believes that two or three statistical numbers trump the sense of solidarity that goes along with belonging to a genuine community. He doesn’t see that a group identity is vital and is as important to productive outcomes as is the performance of individuals on standardized tests. So while competition between individuals is essential and individuals need to be free from stifling group pressure to conform, without a mutual purpose a group of talented individuals is just an aggregate. People who cooperate in harmonious groups will outperform a random collection of equally talented but disparate individuals who have no sense of shared destiny or unity of purpose.

        John’s ideal society is composed of complete strangers who are intelligent yet having nothing else in common. They could be fellow passengers on a plane or in a lifeboat who will only cooperate if faced with a common threat. Organic human societies do not evolve in this arbitrary, artificial manner. So beginning with a flawed model of human association he necessarily draws flawed conclusions.

        He sees the pieces but does not see that they can only function effectively if organized under some overarching Whole.

  • http://jewamongyou.wordpress.com/ Reuben H

    The article has some interesting, and useful, concepts. I wish there were not so many typos.

  • Harry Brown

    You do realize, of course, that he can be charged with a crime in France for saying anything “racist” anywhere in the world.

    He can also be beaten to a pulp by “antifas” (left wing youth terrorists) and the French police will do nothing about it.

    Given the political and physical danger that he faces every day of his life, You should expect him to be as neutral and bland on race. He is a thinker. He is also old, weak, and tired.

    • Rhialto

      Thank you for a presenting an important point. Because of the First Amendment, America has become the bastion of free communication.

      • Brakedust

        For the time being…

    • ShermanTMcCoy

      I also believed that “W” was the absolute worst president we had ever had. Until we got “O”.

    • Hal K

      Define “racist.” If he says he wants to look out for the interests of the French ethnic group or race, which is part of the larger white race, would he be charged with a crime? If he says that preserving the country for the French people and their descendents is in the interests of the French race, would he be charged with a crime?

  • Martel

    You hold more negative views about whites, instilled by a constant exposure to Jewish/Leftist anti white tirades and a clear emotional preference for Asians/Jews, you constantly refer to whites as a morally inferior people.

    • JohnEngelman

      I have no use for white nationalism. Fortunately, white racial consciousness is declining in the United States.

      I do not dislike anyone because of his or her race. However, I do evaluate racial and ethnic groups by the average characteristics they display.

      Black and Hispanic crime are legitimate concerns, as well as the economic costs of any immigration at all during a time of high and persistent unemployment, and stagnant or declining incomes for most Americans.

      Nevertheless, there is a difference between sharing those concerns and disliking the presence of other cultures simply because they are different. I appreciate different cultures. I am pleased that that appreciation is becoming more common, especially among young people.

      • Fak_Zakaix

        What is then the problem of America, in your opinion?

  • Deam Shmiggen

    Of course most of the people commenting on this article appear to dislike this cheese-eating surrender monkey. Ask yourself why. Could it be he makes no bones about the fact that american conservatism also looks ridiculous? Sure, there really is no european conservatism, at least not in the mainstream. But Reagan, Bush? My fellow americans, these two fools are also a joke. Nothing you say will ever dissuade a european from believing that.

    • Rhialto

      Nothing will ever dissuade me from believing that. “Fool” is among the least pejorative terms that I would apply to Presidents Regen, Bush I, and Bush II.

  • Paul

    An interesting read. But on thing comes to mind. Wishy-washy

    • Anna Tree

      The usual sweet-sour French anti-americanism and the usual wishful thinking that one’s point of view is not the product of one’s race or culture..

      • curri

        America is the Evil Empire that created what France is today. After the Axis defeat the Communists (under the eyes of the Anglo-American occupation troops) murdered at least 10,000 non-leftists and jailed or stripped of civil rights many thousands of others. France has been a de facto colony of the US ever since.

        • IstvanIN

          The revolution and regicide of Louis XVI is what sent France downhill. They are one country that can not blame us for their descent into degeneracy.

  • curri

    And in this world view, Europe, race, culture, and identity all have roles. They are not excluded. But mainly I am working in defense of a world view. Of course, I am very interested in the future and destiny of my own nation, race, and culture, but I am also interested in the future of every other group.

    Far bolder than anything any prominent conservative would say in the US- with the póssible exception of Pat Buchanan.

  • Nice Guy

    We are less than our forebears; we are little men, petty and neutered.

  • BernieGoetzFan

    “But our identity, the identity of the immigrants, all the identities in the world have a common enemy, and this common enemy is the system that destroys identities and differences everywhere. This system is the enemy, not the Other.”
    How on earth is an African immigrant a victim of this system? He is taken out of his world of abject poverty, disease and savagery and placed into a Europe of banks, hospitals, schools. roads, supermarkets, malls, electronics, indoor plumbing, computers and all the rest his own people could never think of creating. He is given every sort of amenity and advantage – housing, education, food, health care, transportation …etc. He is told his culture is superior to white culture (music, sports, food, dancing, humor, fashion).
    I could go on but in no way is an African immigrant to Europe a victim. He is the ultimate beneficiary of globalism and multiracialism. And if he really misses Africa he can always go back and find it unspoiled by non-blacks.

  • Fak_Zakaix

    You should an anti-Semitism which is unique to them.

  • CrossWinds

    Christ can unite any group of peoples in Himself………

    ……..Ephesians 2:14-16…….

    14 For Christ himself has brought peace to us. He united Jews and Gentiles into one people when, in his own body on the cross, he broke down the wall of hostility that separated us. 15 He did this by ending the system of law with its commandments and regulations. He made peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in himself one new people from the two groups. 16 Together as one body, Christ reconciled both groups to God by means of his death on the cross, and our hostility toward each other was put to death.

  • Pelagian

    Things white people do: Contra Dance

    /watch?v=KevQxr-saFw

  • TriedToWarnYou

    Just FYI, but Alain de Benoist has made it very clear that he is not fighting for the white race. He does not care if whites disappear.

  • White Dragon

    “Of course, I am very interested in the future and destiny of my own nation, race, and culture, but I am also interested in the future of every other group.”

    Ethnic nationalism for all nations?

    “Immigration is clearly a problem. It gives rise to much social pathologies. But our identity, the identity of the immigrants, all the identities in the world have a common enemy, and this common enemy is the system that destroys identities and differences everywhere.”

    Common enemy = “Chosen Ones?” and their ideology (Communism)

  • Young Werther

    This is a very interesting article, good questions, interesting answers, thoughts etc. I find myself reading, reflecting, reading again, more reflection…a rather strange fellow.

    • Young Werther

      I forgot to mention how interestingly multicultural he wishes America would be, yet he wonders why no Chinese cultured is reflected in French culture…as I said he is strange…a strange lack of understanding in things he understands so well…intellectuals can really get fucked up because oddly they often lack focus…they find so many things *interesting*, yet I can surely relate.

  • Viking_61

    Such a snobby academic tone with no real description of the actual problem, much less who is to blame… What a waste of time.

  • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

    The Japanese were so kind to me that it left me with an abiding affection for them. The French on the Brittany coast were also wonderful.

  • newscomments70

    I don’t know if you read my revised rebuttal, I kept finding more information in my research. Here is my response to India having a lower murder rate than the U.S. (3.5 versus 4.7): The “official” whites only murder rate in the US is 2.6 per 100,000…lower than India. This is actually a statistic that includes hispanics as “white”. The non-hispanic white rate is even lower. i.e., in mostly-white Vermont, the murder rate is 1.28 per 100,000 (2012). If you compare that number to your statstic about India, their murder rate is at least 36% higher than the US white murder rate. And by the way, the Vermont figure is not divided up by race. That is a total. The whites-only murder rate could actually be lower.

    • JohnEngelman

      I am not making any excuses for criminals of any race. My initial point was that Indians and Jews in the United States perform and behave better on the average than white Gentiles.

      I have documented that they perform better. I have not found data comparing their crime rates, but I am confident that they are lower.

      • newscomments70

        I was responding to your comments about Indians, not Jews. I did not disagree with your statement about Jews.