From: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Subject: Hello!
Reply-To: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 10:51:30 GMT

Gentleman! I seem to have stumbled on to an interesting group. Please
pardon any goofs or errors on my part: I've just discovered the wonders
of e-mail, bbs, and newsgroups. Frankly, computers drive me nuts (i.e.,
they refuse to think like me!). Bear with me.

Some questions. Is integrism the same as Charles Maurras' (and Action
Francaise's) Integral Nationalism? Does my memory serve me here? Wasn't
Maurras attacked by the Pope for his atheism? How does this square with
"putting Christ the King" first?

I frankly cannot find any merit in monarchism or reactionary (no insult
intended) Catholicism. However, I'd be glad to discuss these issues, as
I suspect that we share similar views on many issues. Judging from the
other newsgroups I've looked at, this is (potentially at least) an island
of sanity in a sea of political correctness and vitriolic name calling!

Let me tell you something about myself. I am an adherent (for want of a
better word) of the European New Right. Are any of you familiar with 
this school of thought? Have you heard of G.R.E.C.E., Alain de Benoist,
Guillaume Faye, or Michael Walker and his magazine, The Scorpion? This 
publication can be reached at: Michael Walker, Lutzowstrasse 39,
5000-Koln-1, Germany. A very in-depth intellectual journal, practically
the only source in English of European New Right thought. If interested,
you could also read Tomislav Sunic's book, "Against Democracy and Equality:
The European New Right", Peter Lang Pub., 1990. Sunic's book doesn't do
the subject justice, in my opinion, but it's a good start.

What exactly is the ENR? Well, that's not easy to explain in a few 
sentences, but I'll try. Basically, this school of thought believes that
totalitarianism is defined not by means (mass terror, militarism, etc),
but by its ends. Totalitarianism exists where the attempt is made to
force one absolute truth, one good, one idea, one God, as the only
truth. Thus, liberalism, for all its "good" methods, is essentially
totalitariam: it sees the atomized, sovereign individual of liberalism
as the only good, as the end towards which history is working. For the
communist/socialist, this absolute good is the proletariat. For the 
Nazi, it is the Aryan "race". For the cult of multiculturalism, it is
"people of color". And of course, for every absolute good, there is a
corresponding evil. 

Essentially the ENR (the term New Right was coined by their enemies)
is pagan in spirit, and passionately pro-European. It advocates regional
autonomy rather than centralized nationalism, and champions the cause of
the small, stateless nationalities of Europe. The ENR opposes Third World
immigration into Europe, but also opposes corporate neo-colonialism in
the Third World. The ENR is vehemently anti-American, seeing the "Amer-
ican Way of life" as the major cause of global homogenization and loss
of traditional values and ways of life. The ENR opposes consumerism and
the domination of economic thinking in the political and social sphere.
Before the collapse of communism, it advocated a united, neutral Europe
in opposition to both America and the USSR. The ENR sees Christianity
as the root cause of modern totalitarianism - this idea may not be 
popular with you, but try to see where these people are coming from.
All of the modern political movements are essentially secularized
Christianity. As someone put it, never has Europe been more Christ-
ianized, precisely at the moment when the Churches and Synagogues
are empty. The ENR would argue that the past 2,000 years has been a
slow process of the de-paganizing of Europe. When the old spirit of
paganism had been eradicated there was no more need for Christianity
and the secular age was born.

Well, I've spent far too much space describing the ENR to you. I hope
you found it interesting. I don't agree with all of it, but do agree
with its central points. I'm sure readers of this newsgroup will find
much to comment on and disagree with what I've written. Feel free to
throw brickbats! In Europe, the ENR's paganism, anti-Americanism and
anti-Christianity have lost it some allies on the Right. However, some
Catholics, like Thomas Molnar, are on good terms with the ENR - friendly
disagreement.

Some comments on Burkean conservatism. Since Burke was defending beliefs
and institutions which had grown up naturally over the centuries, he 
was of course opposed to revolution. He was an organic conservative, in
that he did not think one could tinker with society at will. However,
we now live in a society which is no longer organic, which has lost its
traditions, been cut off at the roots. 

Now then, here is the dilemma: how is it possible to be a conservative
when there is nothing left that one wishes to conserve? To adhere mind-
lessly to Burkean dogma would result in giving all the advantages to 
one's enemies. One is defeated before the fight has begun, because one
prohibits oneself from questioning the underlying assumptions of the 
modern world. To worry if revolution is moral or not is a prime symptom
of this sort of thinking. Indeed, the use of the term "counter-revolution"
betrays an essentially defensive mentality.

After all, revolution means simply to go in circles, to arrive where one 
has begun. The cyclical view of history: an essentially conservative view,
but hardly a Christian one. What is the difference between revolution and
counter-revolution, anyway? Is it simply a question of which direction
the wheel of history is turning: clockwise or counter-clockwise?

If the modern conservative is left with nothing to conserve, he must 
become a conservative revolutionary, or resign himself to defeat. A
conservative revolutionary movement of sorts existed earlier this century.
Men like Maurras, Sorel, Pareto, Le Bon, Mosca, Evola, Moeller van den
Bruck, the Junger brothers, all could bit in this category. It is 
important to distinguish the conservative revolutionary idea from that
of the reactionary. The CR does not try to revive dead forms (like our
Constitutiona, perhaps?), but rather, realizing that the ideals of 
conservatism are eteranl, he seeks to create new forms to fulfill the 
role. And thus history continues. There is no going back, though the 
cycle of birth, growth, decay, and death continues (hence, circularity).]

In regards to Jim Kalb's comments: his advice on living apart from mass
society as a road to reform is sound, and is certainly compatible with
Burke. In the long run, it is the only real solution. However, I am a
cynic and a realist (blame it on Pareto and Le Bon if you like), and I
believe that the process of social disintegration has gone so far that
breakdown and revolution are inevitable. Moreover, the logic of liberal
totalitarianism (and remember, American conservatives are simply right-
wing liberals) is such that I doubt that any group which tries to resist
assimilation into the mass culture will be allowed to exist. Consider
how the State has managed to take over many functions of the family.
Some talk openly about certain "religious fanatics" being by definition
"mentally unstable" and unfit to rear children. True, the authority of
the State to do this is always under attack. But the collapse of State
authority and instability will only lead to a greater, stronger tyranny.
Anarchy = Tyranny. History provides no exceptions. The question is, no
not if, but who, will be the new caesar? Does one take the risk of 
being eaten by the totalitarian tiger, or does one, to use use Evola's
phrase, does one attempt to "ride the tiger"? If I am right (and I hope
not), then we are faced with a chilling dilemma.

However, I've babbled on long enough and taken up too much of your space
as is. My apologies for any typos and erroes. This system is rather 
inflexible and unforgiving. I hope you found my comments of interest. I
hope I haven't been too gloomy or morbid. I yam what I yam. I'm sure 
you'll find much to disagree with! Fire away.

Sincerely,

David Matthew Deane

P.S., since some of you like to sign off with quotes, here's of few
of my own favorites:

Joseph de Maistre wrote that in his travels he had seen "Poles, Russians,
Italians, but as to Man, I declare to have never seen him"

And in a similar vein, Alain de Benoist: "Ich sehe ein Pferd, aber ich 
sehe keine Pferdheit"

de Benoist again: "People exist, but a man by himself, the abstract man,
the universal man, that type of man does not exist."

Heresy! What fun! But beyond the comprehension of most Americans, I fear.
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter