The Time of Lackeys, the Time of Kings, & the Time of the RepublicPetr Hampl
If you think about things that are not very important to you, there is no significant difference between repair, upgrade, and replacement. But if you yourself are what’s at issue, there’s a huge difference depending on if they‘re enriching you (as enhancement is called in current politically correct parlance) or if they want to replace you with a more fun, useful, or obedient model.
It’s not even “enriching” that’s an improvement. All studies on the subject agree that people are happier and live better in culturally homogeneous environments. Nor does it mean a more diverse selection of art or restaurants (which is not inconsistent with homogeneity of customs and lifestyles). Diversity of art and opinion is part of the European lifestyle. If we replace Europe with another Pakistan, any such diversity will disappear.
Renaud Camus quite brilliantly pointed out that what many call enrichment or complementation is in fact replacement. But it is possible to look at it from a completely different angle: neither cultural enrichment nor a great replacement, but a great conquest. The story told from the other side would go something like this:
“There are too many of us in our country. We are poor and have trouble making a living. So Allah gave us a new land. It has fields, factories, houses, playgrounds, and swimming pools. It has unprotected women who are freely available. It will take courage, cunning, and other skills . . . but with Allah’s help, we will seize it.”
Stronger civilization, weaker civilization
We Europeans should understand that ethos, and we should be able to recognize it. After all, what else is the Old Testament‘s Book of Joshua about? And in very recent history we have the example of the Wild West’s heroic conquest. It takes a lot of courage, because now we have a different climate, wild animals, and . . . dangerous savages!
“Savages are those who are hopelessly backward. No real knowledge has reached them yet. They do not know that everything we need to live is contained in the revelations to Muhammad. They do not know which religious rites are obligatory. They do not know that unchaste women are to be stoned. They do not know that Jews are to be persecuted to the ends of the earth. They do not know that abandoning the right faith is to be punished by death. They believe in their ridiculous laws of nature, and naïvely consider that they owe their wealth to the work of their own hands. They don’t know that Allah gives wealth to people, and that he will soon give us their houses, their cars, and their daughters. It does not matter if we keep them as slaves or cleanse the land of them. And we may allow the best of them to come to our faith.”
This is certainly not the narrative Europeans want to hear. After all, American Indians probably didn’t see anything sympathetic in a story of the Wild West’s heroic conquest, either. Such disputes are usually decided by a combination of the force of arms and birthrate, all of which speaks today rather for the conquerors:
- Europeans may have produced the weapons, but the ability to use them to defend themselves has been lost (or so it seems);
- the colonists clearly lead in birth rates; and
- the natives‘ children are brought up to be defenseless and to have a slave mentality, and it is drilled into their heads that the colonists are somehow morally superior and that there is an irredeemable metaphysical guilt attached to their native tribe. The children of the colonists, on the other hand, are taught to be combative and feel superior. This has the same implications as if the fertility gap were much greater than it is.
There is also historical experience. During the 1,400 years of contact between the West and Islam, two-thirds of the West’s original territory was Islamized. Approximately 100 million Westerners were killed or enslaved. We commemorate three great victorious battles — Tours, Lepanto, and Vienna – as well as, say, five others. For their part, they commemorate dozens of victorious battles. It was only in the relatively short historical period of the European Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution that the tables were turned. The West without Enlightenment ideals and its scientific and technological practices is clearly the weaker one.
New Apaches and new Sioux?
Up to this point, it’s been the same as a common story throughout history: Two civilizations colliding and struggling to see if the weaker one can survive. We may be less fierce as fighters, but we still have freedom, rationality, science, and technology.
What is historically quite unusual is the European elites‘ reactions. By elites I mean that narrow group of people who possess the most wealth, the most political power, the most influence on the media, and the most cultural capital. The distribution of different kinds of power is not the same. This narrow anti-civilization elite has an absolutely overwhelming preponderance of financial power, a slightly smaller preponderance of political power, an even smaller preponderance of media power (let’s not forget that alternative media influences tens of millions of people), and the smallest preponderance in terms of cultural capital. Today’s elite lacks the education and refinement of their predecessors; young multicultural and Green activists are the worst-educated elite in centuries.
Logically, we might expect that those who benefit the most from contemporary Western societies would be the most inclined to defend them in the face of further power ambitions. How are you going to conquer Russia or China if you destroy your own base, economically and politically?
This brings us back to the colonization story. There are no recorded stories of Indian chiefs and their shamans telling their peoples, “Those aggressive immigrants who are taking your hunting grounds and driving you out of your settlements are the new Sioux and the new Apache. Accept the fact that this is our future. The Apache of the future will have white skin, speak English, and go to Christian churches. It is only your bigotry and your backwardness that prevents you from understanding this.”
Yet there is an explanation for this enigma among the elites. There are dozens of sociological studies regarding it, but they are ignored. I use the term “new aristocracy” in my books, but it can be confusing. The point is that we are ruled by people who are uniquely equipped to conduct intrigue in the royal courts, but nothing else. We might as well describe ourselves as having a lackey‘s mentality.
Make no mistake: Today’s narrow ruling class is made up of the same families as generations ago. Someone who’s been at the top historically is, today, barely in the big leagues, and the descendants of those who used to barely manage to remain in the top league have climbed to the top of it. Some from this elite dropped out, new ones came in, but overall, it’s the same stratum. What has changed is the way they govern. Instead of all-powerful tycoons, we now see managers. Everybody serves somebody. Everybody is reporting to somebody. Anyone can be replaced. No one is accountable. It is always possible to appeal to the market or someone else’s decision. It’s certainly not for people with big egos. But if you learn to live with it, you might end up with even more money and power than your predecessors — and little or no accountability to boot.
You need three basic skills to govern in this way:
- The ability to manipulate those above you; that is, those for whom you put together PowerPoint presentations. It’s not that hard, because they themselves need to make and maintain the right impression in the first place, so it’s not in their interest to ask prying questions. After all, notice how easily and how often “creative accounting” takes place. It is rare that anyone starts digging for details and wants to uncover the reality of the situation before a business completely collapses.
- The ability to manipulate those just below you. Balance the interests of different groups, sometimes pitting them against each other, and suggest what is expected of whom in order to maintain discipline and establish an air of pretense. At the same time, make sure that the senior manager is not being opposed by a whole layer of subordinates.
- Determine to stomp the lower classes into the ground. They don’t matter. The aristocratic lackey has only contempt for them. That’s how we must understand the mainstream media. It’s not about convincing those at the very bottom what to think; they don’t matter, anyway. It’s about telling those higher up what to think.
So who is in charge? That’s the point: There isn’t anyone who can make a clear decision, no one who can stand up to everyone else, and no one who can take responsibility. The notion of someone being in charge is totally out-of-place in the world of the powerful today.
That’s one of the reasons why Donald Trump caused such a stir. After all, he never actually endangered anyone among the powerful or cut any of them off from money, but he gave the impression of being an old-style statesman — a statesman who has a vision and goes for it, despite the ensuing conflicts. What is Joe Biden’s vision? An America without Trump. And beyond? What is Bourne’s vision for the Pfizer empire? Even higher profits, of course. Beyond that? A few phrases prepared by the ad agency. That’s it.
Even Elon can’t sleep well
Trump’s problem was that he couldn’t convince the lackey elite that he was strong enough for the job. He provoked outrage, but he didn’t provoke fear. If they had really believed that he was the next Hitler and a danger to the world, they would have fallen to their knees before him.
We have reached the stage where the powerful rule through the pretense of service. It comes naturally to them, because they have been trained and selected for it since childhood. Those who are expressive and able to fight a conflict are the ones who are weeded out of the system. It’s the highly intelligent, spineless schemers who rise to the top.
This may seem undignified, but these people don’t know dignity in the old sense of the word. They’ll happily kiss the gangsters’ shoes or publicly confess guilt over their skin color if it helps their career. After all, their life is one of grandeur, but also one of constant fear. What if tomorrow a colleague invents a 20-year-old sexual harassment story? What if there are accusations of racism or Islamophobia? What if a radical environmental group starts attacking the Big Guy and generates negative media coverage? No one gets a chance to defend himself fairly. Every collaborator is also a competitor. The pack will gang up on the weakest one. No one stands above it. Even Elon Musk, Bill Gates, or George Soros would become a pariah given a few days of accusations of incorrectness.
Certainly, this new type of governance is effective, however. The richest 1% are sucking the wealth out of the rest of society faster than it has ever been done in history. Thomas Piketty correctly points out that the vast majority of corporate profits are distributed in bonuses to the top executives. The concentration of wealth is close to pre-First World War conditions, but this time wealth has been concentrated much faster, starting with the relatively democratic 1970s to today.
This brings us back to the Great Replacement and the colonization of the remnants of the West. In fact, the aristocrat-lokai concept fits perfectly into the Muslim concept of dhimmi, where Muslim rule relies on a stratum of the non-Muslims they rule serving them. This servant class can be given powerful positions. At a time when the colonists are unable to cope with the technical and social complexities of the world they are conquering, they may even have a very strong position. They can accumulate wealth, but they must not offer open resistance, and they must expect to be constantly humiliated.
We have touched on enrichment, the Great Replacement, and colonization. Now let us imagine a fourth hypothetical situation: The Saudi-Qatari army defeats Europe in open battle and the European states capitulate. How would a Saudi-Qatari occupation differ from the current status quo?
- The same managers would be in charge.
- The Muslim community would be equally favored.
- Occasionally there would be a murder or rape, but the courts would not be too concerned.
- Insulting Islam, what is now called Islamophobia, would be punished.
- Sharia would be regarded as superior to the local laws, as the constitutional courts already state today.
Again, this is a situation we know from the other side: European colonial troops defeated a band of native tribes. What followed was the seizure of territory, settlement, the division of land, and the division of functions.
What else is going on?
Not fighting is evil
The difference is that there has been no armed conflict. We in the Czech Republic know of a similar event in our own history. In 1938, we had an army of millions equipped with modern weaponry and excellent training. We Czechs were determined to fight Hitler, but the cowardly politicians decided to surrender without a fight. The result was a trauma that affected the entire nation and continues to this day.
It was wrong that our grandfathers were denied the right to die fighting. It is true that war is wrong, and it is true that dying in a lost war is even worse, but to give your country over to plunder without fighting at all . . . that is the worst option imaginable. And that is what is happening in contemporary Europe.
There are, of course, differences between countries. France gives the impression that there is still hope there, unlike the UK and Germany. Hungary is putting up a heroic resistance, and its neighbors are cheering it on. But on the whole, the trend everywhere is in the same direction: towards aristocratic lackeyism and extinction.
What does this imply? That the ideology of multiculturalism is pernicious, of course, but it also implies that if the West is to be saved, there must be a change in the elites. It is not a question of what kind of families these people will come from. It’s about the people capable of leading it again. We need people who are not afraid of negative news articles about them, and above all, the way people get into and stay in the ruling class needs to change. Above all, the defenders of the West must defeat the transnational bureaucratic organizations, the multinational corporations, the globalist universities, and the mainstream media.
After the era of lackeys, the era of kings must come again — or, as I personally would prefer to refer to it, the era of a new republicanism. An era of real democracy. An era of reason, rationality, and determination.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
All They Wanted Was a Better Life
Cryptocurrency: A Faustian Solution to a Faustian Problem
Východní záštita Evropy
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 458 Rich Houck Discusses Mishima’s My Friend Hitler on The Writers’ Bloc
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 458 Gregory Hood & Greg Johnson on Burnham & Machiavellianism
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 457
Greg Johnson & Millennial Woes on Common Mistakes in English
Deconstructing Our Own Religion to Own the Libs