This perhaps shows more clearly than anything else that deviation has, so to speak, only to be developed and allowed to pursue its course to the end in order finally to lead to subversion properly so called, for when that which is most inferior seeks to imitate and make a counterfeit of superior and transcendent principles, then is the time when real subversion can justly be spoken of. ~ Rene Guenon, The Reign of Quantity
From time to time, I get notices from readers about items that they believe are of personal interest to me. They may be books, requests to review articles, or links to web site or talks. Most recently, someone sent me a link to what he called “New Righters debate Christianity”. The idea density of that description is quite low. I asked for a specific reason to listen to that, but never received a reply.
Obviously, anyone who understands Gornahoor would know that we have nothing in common with the so-called “New Right” and we disdain debates. This lack of understanding also demonstrates why it is pointless to go on ad infinitum. There are hard limits to human understanding. Nevertheless, with time running out on the number of posts, I want to make our position clear once again. But first, a few comments on the debate.
I had outlined this piece without listening to the “debate” because the topic was poorly framed. However, I subsequently looked up Jonas De Geer and see that he is a serious man, so I intend no disrespect to him. Mr Johnson’s point reduces to this: “my unicorn is prettier than your mule.” His imaginary racial solidarity, imaginary Europe, and imaginary neo-pagan religion are beyond criticism, unlike something that actually exists, or has actually existed.
There is the obvious confusion of “Europe” as the name for a geographic continent; that is merely a conventional (artificial) designation. However, when we go looking for the “real” Europe, that is, Europe as it exists in consciousness, as a self-identification, we run into a problem. When Belloc says, “Europe is the faith and the faith is Europe”, that is what he means. There was a self-identification of oneself as being in Christendom, effectively much of what is now called “Europe”. Beyond that, there were heathens, i.e., those outside of Europe.
For the Romans, the Empire was the whole world, the Ecumene. Beyond the Ecumene, there were only barbarians, i.e., those outside of civilization. The Roman Empire included a good chunk of Europe, but no one thought of himself as a European, but rather as a “Roman”. Even the Germanic tribes that overran Rome, considered themselves to be Roman, not European. They formed the “Holy Roman Empire” in its various configurations, not the Holy European Empire.
No one answered the question about when the Swedes identified themselves as European. Did the Vikings consider the English and the French as racial brothers when they were terrorizing those nations? The question is risible. They only became part of “Europe” after their conversion to Christianity. There are several other quibbles, some of which we mention in passing, both to clear the air and to point out Mr Johnson’s confusions: Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris was confiscated by the State and is not under the control of the Church.
Then there are some points about anger. St John Chrysostom: “He who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be sins. For unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices, it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but even the good to do wrong.”
Thomas Aquinas defines wrath as “the spiritual strength to attack the repugnant”. In this case, it is not an irrational emotion set aflame by demons, but rather an inner power that is in the service of the good and the true. Peter Chojnowski in his booklet Flesh of my Flesh has a chapter on this topic, particularly as it relates to men in the modern world. Because of the ideals of “tolerance” and “niceness”,
anger is kept from its normal release in the rectification of that which is disordered. When normal release in acts of ordering are forbidden due to a legal and juridical preoccupation with rights and tolerance, you have personal and social explosion waiting to happen. … to prevent a man from expressing in any way his repulsion to the disorderly, the perverted, the obnoxious, the dishonorable, is to invite and even ensure the engendering of psychological frustration which can only manifest itself in violent rage.
So back to the debate itself. Whatever the stated purpose was at the beginning, it quickly devolved to answering this question: “How can Europe—or “the White Race”, which is for some reason considered synonymous—be saved. Perhaps that is a burning issue in the confines of that small room, but we are immediately struck by a larger issue. To wit,
Europeans have no desire to be saved.
They are especially opposed to being saved by anything like the New Right, which is considered racist, nationalist, and fascist. Many tens of millions of Europeans were killed in the 20th century to combat those ideologies. Despite occasional outbursts of enthusiasm, European nationalist parties have no traction at the current time. Hence, they refuse to take the actions the New Right considers necessary. Hence, they are forced to embrace the following dubious premise.
Beliefs lead to action.
Specifically, the belief they hold is the reason the Europeans refuse to take a certain action. So in order to provoke the desired action, it is first necessary to hold the belief that would necessitate that action. Hence, the task is changed from convincing Europeans to take action to convincing them to embrace a desired belief, or worldview. But then the New Right encounters another obstacle: the European mind is not a blank slate, but is already filled with beliefs, opinions, and worldviews of various sorts. Hence, Europeans must somehow be convinced that their beliefs are false. Herein lies the next obstacle:
Europeans are happy.
Europeans are prosperous. The top 10 happiest nations on earth are European. So how welcome is either Mr Johnson’s jeremiad of racial annihilation to the average Joe European?
Clearly, the debate has no point, other than to discredit Christianity. If Traditional Christianity represents “superior and transcendent principles”, then Mr Johnson is proposing its counterfeit. That is the force of subversion as described by Guenon in the epigraph. Mr Johnson is proposing a new pagan god, the white race, based on no principle higher than biology and no morality other than its promotion. Unfortunately, biology has not been able to provide any stable definition of race. As we recently read, Julius Evola includes many peoples under the “Aryan” umbrella, far beyond the immediate confines of Europe.
There are two inconvenient facts that were mentioned in passing, but deserve being emphasized.
- When Europe was Catholic, it didn’t need saving
- Now that Europe is de facto, if not de jure, non-Christian, it does need saving.
For example, for time (1), there would be no issue with birth rates as there is for time (2). Now you can trust and hope that Mr Johnson’s future option (3) unicorn will raise birth rates to replacement levels or you can try to identify the real solution.
There was no explanation given to the change in worldview. Mr Johnson’s assumption is the post-modern assumption that beliefs and worldviews are arbitrary and that people are malleable, able to adopt and discard them at will. He makes no rational argument for a contemporary European to discard his current liberal worldview and start believing in unicorns. The truth of the matter is the opposite of what is assumed. It is not that a faulty worldview will lead to degeneration, but rather that a degenerate people will adopt a faulty worldview.
Part 2 will reframe the debate in terms of Tradition.