by
Jan Lis
One of the favorite pastimes of today’s rightists of absolutely all kinds and branches—from conservatives to so-called “conservative revolutionaries,” Evolians, and NSWP—is the constant mockery of leftist discourse with its egalitarian fundamentalism, “a million genders,” and Black “ancient Germanic tribesmen” in Netflix series. It must be acknowledged that leftist discourse really is a thoroughly degenerate, anti-natural phenomenon and fully deserves such treatment.
But is everything really so fine on the right flank of the political spectrum? For decades in Western Europe, right-wing organizations, think tanks, or simply authors of literature have gathered around themselves not only “aristocrats of the spirit,” but also outright marginals ready to believe in absolutely idiotic theories explaining all the misfortunes of the “white European” by external factors: Jews, liberals, Soros, Muslim migrants, and so on ad infinitum. The representative of the “higher race” is somehow placed in the position of someone oppressed literally by everyone (of course, without any fault or participation of his own), which casts serious doubt on his very belonging to anything “higher.”
Negatively intelligent authors of various English-language blogs saw in the staged (at the time this was not yet known) death of RDK leader Denis Kapustin proof that Jews “finance the mutual destruction of whites,” because Kapustin possibly has Jewish roots, and after his staged death condolences were expressed by the Israeli-Russian oligarch Nevzlin. Just reread this paragraph, dear comrade, and think—how much better is this than “transgenders and transformers”? If you think belief in such things is limited to some fringe elements, you are deeply mistaken. Representatives of various right-wing movements in Western Europe hold such positions almost en masse.
But what about right-wing intellectuals, whom it is hard to suspect of subcultural fashion or an inability to think? Perhaps the best example of a right-wing intellectual stuck in eternal “counter-Western
anti-systemness” is Alain de Benoist. His ideas and books never achieved mass circulation in our region primarily because of their complexity and non-triviality, shattering many “immutable” elements of past right-wing ideologies—hence the appropriate name of his intellectual association, the “New Right.”
For all the intellectual refinement of the authors who belonged to the umbrella concept of the “New Right,” for some of them renouncing the sins of the “Old Right” proved an insurmountable task. In their worldview, liberal globalists—led by Western states headed by the United States of America—took the place once occupied by Jews. Objects of automatic sympathy became any organizations and countries opposing this trans-Atlantic “infernal entity.”
With the start of the war in Ukraine, de Benoist and some other representatives of the New Right began to spew to the point of indecency incoherent conspiratorial heresies about a “conflict provoked by the West,” a “U.S. proxy war against Russia,” a “senseless slaughter,” and so on. People who for forty years wrote books about Indo-European identity, solar Kshatriya cults, and heroes of ancient Greek epics suddenly got lost among three pine trees of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, whose prehistory spans more than a single century.
For the champions of “Indo-European identity,” a murky conspiratorial “pacifism” with a very poorly concealed pro-Russian stench turned out to be closer than the tens of thousands of people who not in theory but in practice implement the ideological principles of all right-wing intellectuals taken together. When war was a metaphor and a bookish myth, the New Right easily operated with images of Kshatriyas, solar cults, and heroic logoi. When war became real—with blood, death, and responsible choice—these constructs crumbled, giving way to grotesque pacifism (de Benoist’s quote: “I have Russian and Ukrainian friends; I want this horror to end”) and primitive conspiracy thinking. Some of the “right-wing revolutionaries” in retirement even became open supporters of a degenerate state that is a complete and total antipode of everything the “New Right” ever wrote about.
Apparently, reflexive anti-systemness no longer allows one to escape the framework of a binary opposition to Western liberalism, regardless of what that liberalism stands for. People from our region do
not need to be told how “bravely” the United States has been fighting Russia for the fourth year already, while its “pawns,” European liberals, are “flooding the Kyiv regime with weapons.” The countries of the European Union support Ukraine not as a bearer of their own ideology, but as a guarantee of their security and physical survival.
European support for Ukraine in the war with Russia—often having an almost anecdotally toothless character—does not turn the struggle of the Ukrainian people into a “war for a gay parade” or for liberal globalism, just as the struggle of the Freikorps did not make its members ideological supporters of the degenerate Weimar Republic. But, as it turns out, the reflex of eternal denial of the “collective West,” even when that very West says “2×2=4,” proved stronger than all the “solar logoi” and “aristocrats of the spirit” combined.
In fact, right-wing discourse, which for decades mocked leftist absurdity with its “social constructions,” is itself sliding into a mythology intellectually no superior to “Black Vikings” and “transgender elves.” The belief that all key events are explained by the hidden activity of some demonic subject—be it “the Jews,” “the globalists,” or “Washington”—represents the same form of magical thinking, just with a different aesthetic.
Such an ideological configuration naturally brings us to the necessity of radically strengthening propaganda in the interests of a conditional Eastern European bloc of states and, accordingly, the consistent elimination of any pro-Russian narratives “on the right.” During the Spanish Civil War, thousands of volunteers from all over Europe fought against the Republic in General Franco’s army, having neither their own Comintern nor a hegemonic state supporting like-minded people across the world. Our friends in Western Europe can help in this endeavor; we must provide them with technical (which they often lack) and material support. The only counterweight to millions of Russian petrodollars and the radiation of “Russia Today” is passionate creative energy, which more than once has allowed “us,” in the broadest sense, to defeat the Eurasian hydra in a great number of asymmetric (not in our favor) conflicts.
