Thanks to the corporate purge of Alt-Right outlets after Charlottesville, my old articles on ‘Cosmopolitans’ and ‘Cosmopolitanism’ have vanished into the dankest dungeons of the Goolag. At the same time, the word Cosmopolitan has gained public notoriety after having been used by Stephen Miller to slap down the Fake News, sending them into a tizzy over the supposed “anti-Semitic roots” of this word (although I am not suggesting that Miller acquired the word from me or anyone else on the Alt-Right). The longer article on the theory of the Cosmopolitan elite probably deserves to be reposted in full, but I would like to first recap its basic ideas in a briefer and more accessible way.
To put it briefly, the theory is this: the ruling elites of the West, the vast majority of whom are biological Europeans just like you and I, are not driving our societies into suicide because they are “cucks” or “ethnomasochists”. Their bizarre actions, such as cracking down on nativist internet memes and chat room posts while tolerating dangerous foreign terrorists, do not stem from “misguided good intentions” that will dissipate when their disastrous results become apparent. Nor are they enchanted puppets dancing to the tune of some hostile outgroup (e.g. “the Jews”), who will return to normality when the strings are cut and the puppeteers unmasked. They are themselves a hostile outgroup: a self-interested transnational community that identifies with the one-world ideal and the globalist power structure, and at most pays a superficial lip service to the interests of Western nations such as France, Germany, America etc.
As the universalist pretensions of this class do not permit it to identify itself clearly, it falls to ourselves to draw the chalk circle and pronounce a name upon it. The most suitable option is Cosmopolitan, a neutral synonym for “citizen-of-the-world”, spelt with a large ‘C’; this contrasts with small-‘c’ cosmopolitan in the same way as chinoiserie, a style open to anyone, contrasts with Chinese, a member of a political and national unit. Needless to say, words like “traitor” and “ethnomasochist” are unsuitable here, as they imply membership in our own national community by default; “globalist” is better, but implies a policy option subordinate to a national interest, whereas the globalist policies of Cosmopolitans are identical with their own supra-national interests.
An accurate definition of the Cosmopolitan elite requires a couple of theoretical underpinnings. For a treatment of its material class component – which can be called managerial-plutocratic – the best choice is Sam Francis’s posthumous work Leviathan and Its Enemies, which builds on Burnham’s theory of the managerial revolution. This book explains the general traits of managerial rule (e.g. emancipation of the elite from ownership of fixed property), as well as the alliance of managerialism with plutocratic finance capitalism, and touches briefly on the evolution of the Western managerial elite into an “autonomous global force”. But it is not primarily concerned with Cosmopolitanism, and cannot suffice as an explanation of it, as it repeatedly states that managerial rule can also take nationalist and conservative forms.
Thus, we must also account for of the ‘spiritual’ component of Cosmopolitanism, meaning intangible factors such as idealism, loyalty and identity. As we have seen, the supra-national Cosmopolitan class forms an identity group unto itself, indifferent and even hostile to the Western nations over which it rules. In order to grasp this, we ought to do away with excessively primordialist and Romantic theories of identity, because these give us no means of explaining Cosmopolitan anti-whitism (except in terms of foreign influence and collective mental illness). Julius Evola’s view of national identity laid out in Men Among the Ruins – that a ‘State’, itself animated by an ‘Idea’, forges a national community out of suitable human materials – is far more suitable for our purposes, as all three components are clearly visible here: progressivist one-world ideal, global corporate-bureaucratic power structure, and Cosmopolitan elite community.
This raises an important question: who, exactly, is to be defined as a Cosmopolitan? If the identity of the group depends on the “globalist power structure”, then wouldn’t that restrict the definition to the managers of multinational corporations, international organisations like the IMF, and supranational bureaucracies like the European Union? We cannot cast the net so narrow, because many nominally-independent Western nation-states – on whose support the minimalist power of the purely globalist organisations depends – are in reality outposts of globalist power subject to entrenched Cosmopolitan domination. This is true of Europe, whose largest states are in a globalist stranglehold, while even the scattered dissidents in Eastern Europe are still colonies of the E.U.; in the independent U.S.A., a ‘Cosmopolitan-American’ distinction might be drawn along the lines of the ‘Bluegov-Redgov’ divide, albeit with the latter saddled and bridled by the former in the same way that cuckservatives are dominated by the Left. In the more-or-less independent state of Russia, we see a nationalist government restraining “pro-Western” elites, many of whom are actual or aspiring Cosmopolitans.
With regard to elites embedded in Western nation-states, the question of Cosmopolitanism depends at bottom on self-identification and primary loyalties; and while these may be imprecise, they are not just matters of personal choice, as most power structures in the West are rigged to advance Cosmopolitans and sideline or eliminate nationalists. When we drop below the class level of the managerial and plutocratic elites, however, the term ‘Cosmopolitan’ ceases to be of much use regardless of individual feelings, and terms like “traitors” and “subversives” can come back into play. It is obvious that your average SJW prig or antifa freak has little to do with globalist ideals and structures, but merely knows that signalling anti-white opinions is high-status for some reason, and that street violence in the name of “anti-racism” tends to go unpunished by the police. On the other hand, such individuals often possess strong beliefs in an idealised version of globalism, so they can perhaps be said to stand to Cosmopolitans as “believing laity” stand to “the priesthood”.
As for non-white foreigners raised into the Western elite, they tend not to fall into the strict definition of a Cosmopolitan, for most such people are just ethno-advocates spouting one-world boilerplate for reasons of sheer opportunism. (This may not be the case where mixed-race individuals are concerned: Barack Obama, for example, is a well-heeled Cosmopolitan politician masquerading as an angry American negro, and not the other way around.) As Western elite status, progressivist ideals and ethnic disintegration are all most preponderant among whites, it makes sense that the majority of true-believing Cosmopolitans are whites. However, driven by the need to project global legitimacy and hedge against the majority white population in the West, the Cosmopolitan elite must not only open its arms to non-whites – it must also forgive them, at least for now, ethnonationalist double loyalties that would lead to severe vilification for whites.
The strong anti-European stance of the Cosmopolitan elite is, in my view, a feature and not a bug. As we learn from de Jouvenel’s narrative in On Power, every manifestation of Power (i.e. central authority) tends to seek its own expansion from a limited to an absolute form; and its primary means of doing so is to raise up the powerless against those socially and politically strong enough to impose limits on Power. In early modern Europe, this was a matter of absolutist monarchs allying with the lower orders in order to break the power of the aristocracy; in the modern world, it can only entail Cosmopolitan elites appealing to the world majority of non-whites, in order to erode the restrictions placed on their own power by Western nation-states.
In the case of the Cosmopolitan elite, the urgency of this general inclination is vastly increased by its particular circumstances. Firstly, the global plutocratic and managerial elite is a predominantly white group in a world overwhelmingly populated by non-whites, and this alone places its legitimacy on a potentially insecure footing. Even worse, Cosmopolitanism descends almost entirely from European imperialism in terms of both ideology and structure, despite its loud claims to the contrary. Finally, while the Cosmopolitan elite may be open to a minority of non-whites, the majority of those whom it is presently importing into the West are coming here to serve as 1) menial scab labourers and 2) political auxiliaries in the cold war against nationalist Europeans. In order to expunge its own guilty anxiety and win the goodwill of non-whites, the Cosmopolitan elite is compelled to make a virtue-signalling ‘human sacrifice’ of national whites and their interests – an act that harks back to the deeply irrational beginnings of Power as explained by de Jouvenel.
Of course, we true Europeans – loyal to our nations and civilisation – have no reason to go along with any of this. And it is in our designation of our enemies as Cosmopolitans, and not merely as elites, that our cause against them gains its legitimacy. It is always possible to stir up a vulgar populism against ruling elites, but this is an act befitting the Left, as all societies are run by elites and the only possible result of any revolution is to replace one elite with another. Liberation from the rule of a foreign body – especially one that systematically denigrates and corrodes our culture and religion, replacing them with filth and nothingness – is a very different matter.
Lastly, we can treat the questions raised by the Fake News article quoted in the first paragraph above: does the concept of Cosmopolitanism in fact originate in Soviet anti-Semitism, and is the term “Cosmopolitan” just a synonym for the “wandering Jew”? The answers are, of course, no and no. Firstly, only a lazy and semi-literate Politico hack could say that this word has its roots in Stalinist Russia, when cosmopolitan and cosmopolite were used widely in nineteenth-century Britain and commonly opposed to patriot. More importantly, even in the special sense of the word used here, Cosmopolitan simply is not a synonym for Jew. Although the secular Jewish elite is an important pillar of the alliance of minorities and foreigners promoted by Cosmopolitans so as to hedge against national Europeans, Cosmopolitanism as such does not depend upon the Jews; and in that sense, I dissent from the overblown anti-Semitism of those who cannot seem to grasp that biologically “Aryan” elites might have their own reasons for screwing us over.
However, when I first researched the suitability of this term as a descriptor for the global elite, the discovery that it had once been employed as an anti-Semitic code word was all the more reason to decide in favour of using it. I hoped that the term would gain popularity, be picked up by the media, and bait them into making themselves look stupid – and when Stephen Miller used the term, that is exactly what happened. The word Cosmopolitan, in contrast to awful clunkers like Lügenpresse, can troll the Fake News exactly the way we want: it sounds innocuous to the public ear, yet triggers the dumb hacks to jump on Wikipedia and spew up their expertise with a double dose of hysteria, further accentuating the already well-advanced “boy who cried wolf” syndrome.
This reaction by the media serves to visibly link the “anti-Semite” slur with a self-interested defence of the elite, feeding into our own arguments. And while we can avoid formal “hate speech” laws by driving the main force of our critique against Cosmopolitans, those who submit to informal tone-policing by the Left will find it increasingly difficult to discuss and criticise the global elite without coming under some sort of suspicion. This can be made to work towards a strategic goal: the total conquest of Western society’s “radical option” by the forces of the true Right.
To put it briefly, the theory is this: the ruling elites of the West, the vast majority of whom are biological Europeans just like you and I, are not driving our societies into suicide because they are “cucks” or “ethnomasochists”. Their bizarre actions, such as cracking down on nativist internet memes and chat room posts while tolerating dangerous foreign terrorists, do not stem from “misguided good intentions” that will dissipate when their disastrous results become apparent. Nor are they enchanted puppets dancing to the tune of some hostile outgroup (e.g. “the Jews”), who will return to normality when the strings are cut and the puppeteers unmasked. They are themselves a hostile outgroup: a self-interested transnational community that identifies with the one-world ideal and the globalist power structure, and at most pays a superficial lip service to the interests of Western nations such as France, Germany, America etc.
As the universalist pretensions of this class do not permit it to identify itself clearly, it falls to ourselves to draw the chalk circle and pronounce a name upon it. The most suitable option is Cosmopolitan, a neutral synonym for “citizen-of-the-world”, spelt with a large ‘C’; this contrasts with small-‘c’ cosmopolitan in the same way as chinoiserie, a style open to anyone, contrasts with Chinese, a member of a political and national unit. Needless to say, words like “traitor” and “ethnomasochist” are unsuitable here, as they imply membership in our own national community by default; “globalist” is better, but implies a policy option subordinate to a national interest, whereas the globalist policies of Cosmopolitans are identical with their own supra-national interests.
An accurate definition of the Cosmopolitan elite requires a couple of theoretical underpinnings. For a treatment of its material class component – which can be called managerial-plutocratic – the best choice is Sam Francis’s posthumous work Leviathan and Its Enemies, which builds on Burnham’s theory of the managerial revolution. This book explains the general traits of managerial rule (e.g. emancipation of the elite from ownership of fixed property), as well as the alliance of managerialism with plutocratic finance capitalism, and touches briefly on the evolution of the Western managerial elite into an “autonomous global force”. But it is not primarily concerned with Cosmopolitanism, and cannot suffice as an explanation of it, as it repeatedly states that managerial rule can also take nationalist and conservative forms.
Thus, we must also account for of the ‘spiritual’ component of Cosmopolitanism, meaning intangible factors such as idealism, loyalty and identity. As we have seen, the supra-national Cosmopolitan class forms an identity group unto itself, indifferent and even hostile to the Western nations over which it rules. In order to grasp this, we ought to do away with excessively primordialist and Romantic theories of identity, because these give us no means of explaining Cosmopolitan anti-whitism (except in terms of foreign influence and collective mental illness). Julius Evola’s view of national identity laid out in Men Among the Ruins – that a ‘State’, itself animated by an ‘Idea’, forges a national community out of suitable human materials – is far more suitable for our purposes, as all three components are clearly visible here: progressivist one-world ideal, global corporate-bureaucratic power structure, and Cosmopolitan elite community.
 |
| ‘Leviathan and Its Enemies’ – Samuel Francis |
With regard to elites embedded in Western nation-states, the question of Cosmopolitanism depends at bottom on self-identification and primary loyalties; and while these may be imprecise, they are not just matters of personal choice, as most power structures in the West are rigged to advance Cosmopolitans and sideline or eliminate nationalists. When we drop below the class level of the managerial and plutocratic elites, however, the term ‘Cosmopolitan’ ceases to be of much use regardless of individual feelings, and terms like “traitors” and “subversives” can come back into play. It is obvious that your average SJW prig or antifa freak has little to do with globalist ideals and structures, but merely knows that signalling anti-white opinions is high-status for some reason, and that street violence in the name of “anti-racism” tends to go unpunished by the police. On the other hand, such individuals often possess strong beliefs in an idealised version of globalism, so they can perhaps be said to stand to Cosmopolitans as “believing laity” stand to “the priesthood”.
As for non-white foreigners raised into the Western elite, they tend not to fall into the strict definition of a Cosmopolitan, for most such people are just ethno-advocates spouting one-world boilerplate for reasons of sheer opportunism. (This may not be the case where mixed-race individuals are concerned: Barack Obama, for example, is a well-heeled Cosmopolitan politician masquerading as an angry American negro, and not the other way around.) As Western elite status, progressivist ideals and ethnic disintegration are all most preponderant among whites, it makes sense that the majority of true-believing Cosmopolitans are whites. However, driven by the need to project global legitimacy and hedge against the majority white population in the West, the Cosmopolitan elite must not only open its arms to non-whites – it must also forgive them, at least for now, ethnonationalist double loyalties that would lead to severe vilification for whites.
The strong anti-European stance of the Cosmopolitan elite is, in my view, a feature and not a bug. As we learn from de Jouvenel’s narrative in On Power, every manifestation of Power (i.e. central authority) tends to seek its own expansion from a limited to an absolute form; and its primary means of doing so is to raise up the powerless against those socially and politically strong enough to impose limits on Power. In early modern Europe, this was a matter of absolutist monarchs allying with the lower orders in order to break the power of the aristocracy; in the modern world, it can only entail Cosmopolitan elites appealing to the world majority of non-whites, in order to erode the restrictions placed on their own power by Western nation-states.
In the case of the Cosmopolitan elite, the urgency of this general inclination is vastly increased by its particular circumstances. Firstly, the global plutocratic and managerial elite is a predominantly white group in a world overwhelmingly populated by non-whites, and this alone places its legitimacy on a potentially insecure footing. Even worse, Cosmopolitanism descends almost entirely from European imperialism in terms of both ideology and structure, despite its loud claims to the contrary. Finally, while the Cosmopolitan elite may be open to a minority of non-whites, the majority of those whom it is presently importing into the West are coming here to serve as 1) menial scab labourers and 2) political auxiliaries in the cold war against nationalist Europeans. In order to expunge its own guilty anxiety and win the goodwill of non-whites, the Cosmopolitan elite is compelled to make a virtue-signalling ‘human sacrifice’ of national whites and their interests – an act that harks back to the deeply irrational beginnings of Power as explained by de Jouvenel.
 |
| ‘On Power’ – Bertrand de Jouvenel |
Lastly, we can treat the questions raised by the Fake News article quoted in the first paragraph above: does the concept of Cosmopolitanism in fact originate in Soviet anti-Semitism, and is the term “Cosmopolitan” just a synonym for the “wandering Jew”? The answers are, of course, no and no. Firstly, only a lazy and semi-literate Politico hack could say that this word has its roots in Stalinist Russia, when cosmopolitan and cosmopolite were used widely in nineteenth-century Britain and commonly opposed to patriot. More importantly, even in the special sense of the word used here, Cosmopolitan simply is not a synonym for Jew. Although the secular Jewish elite is an important pillar of the alliance of minorities and foreigners promoted by Cosmopolitans so as to hedge against national Europeans, Cosmopolitanism as such does not depend upon the Jews; and in that sense, I dissent from the overblown anti-Semitism of those who cannot seem to grasp that biologically “Aryan” elites might have their own reasons for screwing us over.
However, when I first researched the suitability of this term as a descriptor for the global elite, the discovery that it had once been employed as an anti-Semitic code word was all the more reason to decide in favour of using it. I hoped that the term would gain popularity, be picked up by the media, and bait them into making themselves look stupid – and when Stephen Miller used the term, that is exactly what happened. The word Cosmopolitan, in contrast to awful clunkers like Lügenpresse, can troll the Fake News exactly the way we want: it sounds innocuous to the public ear, yet triggers the dumb hacks to jump on Wikipedia and spew up their expertise with a double dose of hysteria, further accentuating the already well-advanced “boy who cried wolf” syndrome.
This reaction by the media serves to visibly link the “anti-Semite” slur with a self-interested defence of the elite, feeding into our own arguments. And while we can avoid formal “hate speech” laws by driving the main force of our critique against Cosmopolitans, those who submit to informal tone-policing by the Left will find it increasingly difficult to discuss and criticise the global elite without coming under some sort of suspicion. This can be made to work towards a strategic goal: the total conquest of Western society’s “radical option” by the forces of the true Right.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comment will appear after it has been checked for spam, trolling, and hate speech.