Sunday, November 19, 2017

Men Of The West - Patriarchal. Christian. Hard Right.

(Here is a website that you might want to bookmark – check it out!)

The World Is Sick But We Have The Medicine - Men Of The West - Posted by Theophrastus

Unless you have your head stuck in the sand somewhere, you have seen how bad our society has become. We are living during a time when Hollywood has not only confirmed our suspicions, but gone beyond what most of us could have possibly imagined. Consider this post from Vox Day, where he links to other sources that speak of the horrific sexual exploitation and abuse of young actors. Honestly, if that doesn’t make you sick, then you have something wrong with you – and that is exactly the problem in Hollywood. They are sick with a demonic sickness.

Sure, any reasonable person has known that our entertainment industry has been sick for a long time. They have pushed miscegenation, homosexuality, illicit sex, drugs, and more for years. They have bashed religion, especially Christianity, normalcy, and traditional values. But did you really expect that not only have movie executives abused adults, they have targeted children, leading to death, mental illness, drug abuse, and more.
Still, it is not just Hollywood that assaults Western Culture. Our political machine does as well. We live in a world where the longest serving Speaker of the House of Representatives  (Dennis Hastert) was convicted  (after admitting it) of sexually abusing boys back when he was coaching wrestling. He is hardly the only sexual deviant in Washington, D.C.
And where did Hastert commit his crimes? When working in the public schools. Hardly a day goes by that we do not see yet another teacher abusing a student. The school system is a cesspool.
So our educational, entertainment, and political structures are totally devoid of goodness. They are not only non-Christian, they are outright evil. It is enough to make some folks despair. Well, if you are not a Man of the West, anyway.
So that is the bad news. Here is some good news.
We are winning. Oh, it may not always look like it. It won’t be easy. There are plenty of battles to still fight. But we will win. It is inevitable.
So what can we do? We fight every battle that comes before us.
So Hollywood is degenerate? Quit supporting degeneracy. I am not saying that you can never see another movie, though some have taken that route. What I am saying is that we must avoid those films that are antithetical to our worldview. A movie glorifying homosexuality? No thanks.
I am also not saying that we have to go watch “Faith-based” movies, if they are not up to snuff. No need to support mediocrity. At the same time, there are a few pretty decent movies out there. For example, Kevin Sorbo and Sean Hannity recently put out Let There Be Light. I went and watched it, and was pleasantly surprised. It was an enjoyable film. Certainly, it was not the greatest movie ever made, but the acting was good, the story was worthwhile, and it supported Christianity.  Definitely a step up over most of the garbage coming from Hollywood.
Find worthwhile entertainment and support it.
The educational system is evil? As we have argued since we first began posting here, HOMESCHOOL YOUR KIDS. For the love of God, get your kids out of public schools and take the responsibility to train them yourself.
The political system is devoid of morals? Kick the bums out. At every election, refuse to support degenerates. Support those who stand for Western Culture. Be involved, as much as you can, in enacting change in your local governments, state governments, and yes, in Washington.
In every avenue, support goodness and fight evil. When you see evil, confront it, just as Stephen Willeford and Johnnie Langendorff did. BTW, have you signed the petition to award those two heroes the Medal of Freedom? If not, then do so. That is one simple way to support good things.
Yes, the world is sick. It is evil. We cannot ignore it. We have the medicine that  the world needs. We have Christ. We have Western Culture. We have those things that are good and true. Be bold. Be firm. Be strong.
Go get ’em.

Plato's Cave and Our Current Reality - By Earick Ward

What is reality? Do you we think we know what is true today?
What if I told you, that what you think you know of our [current] reality is but a lie? A series of images projected upon a wall in a cave.
Plato wrote of such a thing in his “prisoners in a cave” allegory. In it he describes prisoners being born in a cave, shackled, facing a wall. Images passed in front of a fire, are projected onto a wall in front of the prisoners. This for the prisoners, is reality. They know of nothing beyond what they’re exposed to by the light. As the allegory continues, what if a prisoner is somehow freed? He at once, seeing the fire, would be blinded by its brightness, so that he would no longer be able to see the shadows. If told that “this is reality”, in his pain and fear, he would not believe, and would demand to be reshackled to the wall. Continuing further, what if he was forced from the cave altogether? Again, he would be blinded by the light of the sun. Eventually, as his eyes grew accustomed to the light, he would see the world for what it truly is. Plato concludes the allegory by suggesting that, seeing reality (for what it is), our freed prisoner would feel sorry for his fellow prisoners, and seek to return to the cave, to help free his fellow prisoners. Upon returning to the cave, our enlightened prisoner would be blinded by the darkness. The prisoners, believing that the journey outside the cave harmed this man, would fight to the death, any attempts to free them from their bondage.     
Freedom / Bondage
A similar story is told in the Bible, in Exodus 16:3, and recounted again in Numbers 14:4.
The Israelites said to them (Moses & Aaron), "If only we had died by the LORD's hand in Egypt! There we sat around pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly to death."
I have always been struck by this passage. Would a people prefer bondage to freedom? Seemingly so.
Today, we are increasingly faced with a contrived reality. A mirage. Images shone on a wall (television screens, cell-phone, laptops) portraying what our captors wish for us to believe (is reality).
What is truth? Let me suggest that truth, increasingly, is a byproduct of force. Are any important matters reasoned true today, or are we stuck in a battle of messaging wills? In this, let me suggest, the Left are winning, as we’ve abandoned reason, and are left with, whatever message can be advanced enthusiastically enough, to run roughshod over the other. As Goebbels stated;
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.  It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie; and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
What we see playing out in America, and throughout the world, is two starkly different worldviews: Freedom and the State (bondage). Of course, bondage isn’t being sold as such. It’s being sold as “free stuff” and “safety and security” from the ravages of hatred. Who doesn’t want free stuff and safety and security? Of course, reason informs us that there is no such thing as free stuff, and that safety and security for some, demands that freedom for others must be infringed upon and/or suppressed.
Let me suggest that the Left have ingeniously played the long game. For a century, they have patiently infiltrated the institutions of influence; Academia, Media, Politics, and the Church. They have operated in the shadows, advancing lies as truth. This past decade has seen what I believe is the beginning of the final battle between light and darkness. Between freedom and bondage.
What is truth, if we no longer live in an age of reason? A discomfort exists amongst all. What is true has been abandoned, for what advances the interest of my tribe, or the will of my masters? It is seemingly no longer possible to reason a way forward, but to exert a force of will, to advance one’s particular worldview. In this, we Conservatives are at a disadvantage, and in my opinion, will represent our eventual demise.
Individualism (freedom), our greatest virtue becomes are biggest tactical weakness. It is much easier to mount a force of will, when all of your forces pull in the same direction, without question. In this, as a top-down, command and control ideology, the Left have an advantage. Leftist masters determine a pathforward, which gets disseminated throughout their institutions of influence. Their foot-soldiers then advance on the path until they’ve secured victory. See any man on the street video, where these clowns are asked to articulate why they’re protesting. Watch any CNN or MSNBC (FAKE NEWS) broadcast. Or, the actions of our representatives in Congress. Does anything that they’re saying or doing ring true? Do they appear to be open to reason, or are they advancing their force of will?   
Let us appoint a new leader and return to Egypt (or the cave). In the end, the people (the mob) will accept the comfort of lies (bondage), over the reality of truth (freedom). Our efforts to free our fellow captors are being met with fear and anger. As Plato suggests, they will fight to the death, to maintain their belief that what they’re seeing on the cave wall is true.

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Poor Robert Mugabe - Taki's Magazine - by Hannes Wessels

After 37 years of murderous and destructive rule, it looks like the curtain is finally coming down on the Mugabe regime. Military coups are seldom welcome, but few of Zimbabwe’s beleaguered citizenry are unhappy with this dramatic turn of events. After decades of misery, the prospect of life under “Gucci Grace,” the ghastly First Lady, provided a frightening future scenario that propelled the military into a direct and decisive confrontation. Almost universally this man is now reviled, and few will lament his political demise. But it was not always like that, and be mindful; he did not get to where he did without international help, and he could not have ruled for 37 years without the enthusiastic assistance of a liberal-socialist political and media machine that revered him no matter what he did.
British foreign secretary Boris Johnson spoke emotionally about “this beautiful country” that has suffered a “brutal litany of events” under the despotic rule of a man who has rigged elections and stands responsible for the “murder and torture of his opponents.” He said that “all Britain has ever wanted for Zimbabwe…is for Zimbabweans to be able to decide their own future in free and fair elections.” Prime Minister Theresa May expressed sincere concern for the safety of “British nationals” in the benighted country. These pronouncements resonate with the mood but invite some scrutiny.
Interesting to note that Her Majesty’s leader of the government is now concerned about Britons in the wake of a coup, but through the course of almost fifteen years of civil war, when Rhodesia fought to stave off the odious challenge posed by Mugabe and his forces, and thousands of “British nationals” faced the gravest of threats, the British government of the day resolutely backed the other side. And Boris Johnson’s recollection of history and Britain’s long-term commitment to “free and fair elections” is also rubbish. The fact is, the Mugabe accession to power was carefully choreographed through the ’70s by the wily mandarins of the Foreign Office, culminating in the Lancaster House Conference.
“The fact is, this catastrophe was allowed to happen largely because the Western world not only allowed it to, but enthusiastically aided it.”
Ironically, the only genuinely free election ever held in the country took place under European rule in April 1979 when a black majority government took power under the leadership of Bishop Abel Muzorewa, only for Mrs. Thatcher to renege on her promise to recognize it. “The lady who was not for turning” did a double somersault when confronted with the wrath of the African despots, who insisted on Mugabe as the leader of the new Zimbabwe and swiftly moved the goalposts to Lancaster House. Within those hallowed halls, her Machiavellian foreign secretary, Lord Peter Carrington, stitched up an agreement that (then former prime minister) Ian Smith rejected, but he was quickly drummed out of the negotiations so as not to blow the great con. John Giles, the Rhodesian legal expert at the conference, also warned against accepting the terms, and he was soon after found dead under highly suspicious circumstances. Ian Smith was unequivocal in insisting he was murdered. But Carrington and Thatcher got their way; Britain took back control of the country under the boozy governorship of Lord Christopher Soames and a farcical election was held during which Mugabe’s forces ran a violent intimidation campaign that decisively influenced the result in their favor. When then Rhodesian military supremo Gen. Peter Walls cried foul, called for a rerun, and demanded access to Mrs. Thatcher as previously promised, the door of No. 10 was slammed shut in his face.
A beaming Prince Charles, resplendent in his naval commander’s uniform, soon arrived to deliver Rhodesia on a silver platter to a richly undeserving Robert Mugabe, who thus came to power with the blood of thousands of his countrymen on his hands. Virtually the entire world, led by the liberal praise-singers of the mainstream media, with the BBC jubilant at the fore, cheered the dawn of “freedom” and the demise of “racist, settler rule.”
From then on Mugabe, hard as he tried, could do no wrong. He quickly set about destroying “the jewel of Africa” by dragging the country into an encounter with a command economy where he and his cronies would attempt to control all the levers in the public and private sectors while following a vaguely Marxist blueprint.
Tax levels were hiked to being some of the highest in the world, the best civil service in Africa was smashed, and his stated commitment to a nonracial meritocracy was a lie from the start. In all sectors, black political hacks, regardless of their experience or qualifications, were ushered into positions way beyond their ability. Antiwhite racism was institutionalized throughout the public sector. Detention without trial was the order of the day, and during his tenure there has never been anything remotely like a “free and fair election.”
When the threat of political opposition appeared early in the ’80s in Matabeleland, Mugabe reacted with a ferocity and brutality that would have cheered Stalin and Mao. A systematic state-sponsored genocide ensued, and scores of thousands were killed—more were maimed and tortured. The world looked the other way. Oxfam refused to speak out. Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives defended the genocide, insisting that the Zimbabwean killers were merely addressing “legitimate security concerns.” As minister for overseas development, Baroness Chalker remained a loyal friend and was well-disposed to having her photograph taken holding hands with the man while romping up the steps of the State House.
British aid continued to flow freely, and Mugabe was frequently entertained by the Queen. The Conservatives under John Major paid him a parting tribute by rewarding his atrocious behavior with a knighthood. He returned from the investiture to Zimbabwe to explain that gays and lesbians should be evicted before referring to like-minded people as “worse than dogs and pigs…beasts…guilty of subhuman behavior,” and called for them to be removed from society. The Labour government of Tony Blair ensured that Zimbabwe’s police and intelligence services were well supplied with British-made equipment so the terror machine was kept in good order.
In the late ’90s the Americans, despite Mugabe’s policies, were still cheering him on. Bill Clinton’s ambassador to Zimbabwe, Tom McDonald, was gushing in his praise of him and rather astonishingly concluded that the country, thanks to the man’s tender ministrations, was an “African success story.”
The sad irony is it was the same whites who had powered the Rhodesian economy through fifteen years of war and sanctions before independence that were the dynamic that kept the new regime buoyant despite the official hostility. Vital players were the farmers. Through their efforts, exports of agricultural product in the postindependence era increased and the national coffers were kept reasonably full. The people Mugabe loathed most made the monster look good and played a significant role in feeding him until he decided to devour them. Four thousand white farmers (.03% of the total population), their families, and dependents were “ethnically cleansed” starting in 2000 and the economy collapsed, triggering the worst hyperinflation in history. This resulted in soft sanctions and a travel ban on the president and some of his cohorts. Zimbabwe joined a legion of ravaged African countries with populations reduced to a life of fear and famine.
The fact is, this catastrophe was allowed to happen largely because the Western world not only allowed it to, but enthusiastically aided it. Consumed by an obsession with political correctness that forbids criticism of tyrants when they are black, no one had the gumption to stand up and call the man to account; instead they helped him on his horrible way. If the liberals who ruled and their media associates had stood by the same principles that they screamed about when it was time to ride the anticolonial bandwagon and impress all with their contempt for all things white and allegedly racist, the history of Zimbabwe might have been a happier one.
Unsurprisingly Mugabe was relieved to find that no matter how badly he behaved, he could traverse the world and enjoy the unanimous, virtually unqualified acclaim of a misguided liberal establishment that believed he was doing a wonderful job. He took this as a signal to continue as before, so when the tanks arrived outside his house on Monday night and the generals told him and his wife the game was up, I empathized a little with poor Robert; he thought he was doing a hell of a good job.
Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email to buy additional rights.

THE BIGGEST WEALTH TRANSFER IN HISTORY | Matterhorn - GoldSwitzerland | Matterhorn - by Egon von Greyerz

What will happen between now and 2025? Nobody knows of course but I will later in this article have a little peek into the next 4-8 years.
The concentration of wealth in the world has now reached dangerous proportions. The three richest people in the world have a greater wealth than the bottom 50%. The top 1% have a wealth of $33 trillion whilst the bottom 1% have a debt $196 billion.
The interesting point is not just that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. More interesting is to understand: How did we get there? and what will be the consequences?


As the socialist dominated media dig into the Panama Papers and now recently the Paradise Papers to attack the rich and tell governments to tackle the unacceptable face of capitalism, nobody understands the real reasons for this enormous concentration of wealth. Sadly no journalist does any serious analysis of any issue, whether it is fake economic figures or the state of the world economy.
Instead, all news is accepted as the truth while in fact a lot of news is fake or propaganda. The media is revelling in all the disclosures of offshore trusts and companies. The British Queen is being accused of having “hidden” funds. The fact that offshore entities have been used legally for centuries for privacy, wealth preservation and creditor protection purposes is never mentioned. The media sell more much news by being sensational rather than factual.


Let me first put the facts right. It is not capitalism in its traditional sense which has created this enormous concentration. One definition of capitalism is:
“An economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state”
The “controlled by private owners” part of the definition fits our current Western system. But what is missing is that the current economic system could not function without complete state sponsorship and interference. This is the clever construction that a group of top bankers devised on Jekyll Island in the US, in November 1910. This was the meeting that led to the creation of the Fed in 1913. The Central Bank of the US was set up as a private bank, and thus controlled by private bankers for their own benefit.
The bankers devised what one of their forefathers, Mayer Amshel Rothschild had preached:
From the bankers’ point of view, this was a brilliant idea. They now had total control of the money without having to risk more than a smaller part of their own capital. And the government found this system perfect for buying the people’s votes. By issuing more and more debt and allowing banks to leverage their balance sheets, the nation saw their standard of living increase significantly. More cars, televisions, holidays, iPhones etc. Little did the people realise that their improved standards were all at the expense of massive increases in government debt and personal debt.


Total US debt in 1913 was $39 billion. Today it is $70 trillion, up 1,800X. But that only tells part of the story. There were virtually no unfunded liabilities in 1913. Today they are $130 trillion. So adding the $70 trillion debt to the unfunded liabilities gives a total liability of $200 trillion.
In 1913 US debt to GDP was 150%. Today, including unfunded liabilities, the figure becomes almost 1,000%. This is the burden that ordinary Americans are responsible for a burden that will break the US people and the US economy as well as the dollar. 
Whilst ordinary people have been landed with liabilities that they can never repay, the bankers and the 1% elite has profitably (ab)used the leverage that the debt expansion has created and thus amassed massive fortunes.
That is why we are seeing this enormous inequality in wealth. Ordinary people have not yet realised that they are liable for this debt. They will of course never repay it, nor will anyone else. Governments will try to solve the problem by printing even more money, thus exacerbating the problem. Eventually this will lead to high inflation turning to hyperinflation with interest rates going to at least 15-20% but probably higher. At that point central banks have lost total control of their interest rate manipulation.
The world will then discover that this time the money printing will have no effect as manufactured money can never create wealth.


The consequences of the implosion of debt and assets will lead to the biggest transfer of wealth in history. As debt implodes, so will all the bubble assets. Stocks, bonds and property will decline between 80% and 100%. This is difficult for most people to accept but just remember that the Dow declined by 90% between 1929 and 1932. And 2000 to 2002, the Nasdaq declined by 80%.
Neither of these examples involved a global debt situation or asset bubble that we are in now. This time the world must unwind $2 quadrillion of debt, unfunded liabilities and derivatives. That is 29X global GDP of $70 trillion and therefore of a magnitude that will lead to a collapse of the financial system.


Governments as well as members of the media are discussing taxing the wealthy to create more equality. Since the wealthy, especially in the US, control the system, higher taxation will be difficult to achieve. In Europe the socialists will most likely increase taxes for the wealthy. But higher taxes are not going to be required to solve the problem. The coming asset implosion will tax the rich much more than any politician could ever achieve. On average the wealthy are likely to lose up to 90% of their wealth. At the same time the debt, either personal or public, that the average person is responsible for will also implode. Thus the wealthy could lose 90% or more of their wealth and the poor will lose their debt.
This will be the biggest wealth transfer in history. But it won’t happen without strife. There will be social unrest and possible civil war before all this is over. This was not the case during the 1930s depression except for in Germany with the persecution of the Jews. Today, population in the US or most European countries is not as homogenous as it was in the 1930s. The great number of immigrants in many Western countries will lead to much greater conflict and unrest than in the 1930s.
Except for the average person who is likely to become debt free after the implosion of the financial system, the major beneficiaries will be the investors who have no debt and hold hard assets such as agricultural land, commodity investments, including precious metals of course and also certain food sector investments which will benefit from food shortages and food price inflation.


If we look at levels that various markets could reach in coming years, they might seem totally unrealistic in todays’ euphoric and exponential phase.
The Dow is today around 23,400. We are now in a melt-up phase that could see markets continue to go up substantially before they top. But the risk is very high, and any surprise will be to the downside.
Once the top is in we are likely to see a long and sustained secular bear market lasting many years. In the early 1980s, the Dow broke out from the 800 to 1,000 level where it had been for over 10 years. This is such a major long term support level that it seems likely to be reached in coming years. That is a 95% fall from here which is just slightly more than the fall in the 1930s.


Interest rates were in the high teens in the 1970s and early 1980s, in for example the UK and USA. It is probable that we will see those levels again and much higher if sovereign and private borrowers default which is highly likely. Unlimited money printing, which will certainly take place, is also a form of default since it makes the currency worthless.


Currencies will soon start their final move to the bottom. It is not easy to forecast which country’s currency will win this race, but it could very well be the dollar since it is the most overvalued of all currencies. But it serves no purpose to measure one fiat (paper) currency against another. They are all likely to reach their intrinsic value of zero.

GOLD $15,000 OR $80,000?

The current era’s currency debasement started in 1913 and is now in its final stage. Measured in gold, the dollar has lost 98.3% since 1913. Let’s say that the dollar now starts an inverted exponential move of the same magnitude as the move in the last 114 years. As I explained in my article about exponential moves, these are final moves and normally happen very fast. Another 98.3% move down of the dollar would mean $80,000 for one ounce of gold. Part of that price increase is likely to be inflation although I believe that gold should reach at least $10,000 – $15,000 in today’s money. $15,000 would be a 91% fall from here of the dollar. With hyperinflation we can add many zeros.
Back in early 2002 when our company invested heavily into physical gold for our investors and ourselves, gold was $300. We have obviously held on to the positions. We certainly have been right on the direction of the move but did expect that the final move up would happen quicker than the almost 16 years so far. Nevertheless, we are convinced that this move is still to come, and it is likely to be exponential as I explained in my recent article.
How long this will take is obviously impossible to forecast. There are a number of factors which indicate that these major moves and changes will have happened by 2025. Cycles also point to gold having a major move into 2021. So the moves could happen within 4 years but it could take as long as 8.
Forecasting exact time and price is a mug’s (British for fool’s) game, and therefore likely to be wrong. However, what is indisputable is that global risk is currently greater than any time in history. What is also certain is also that gold is the best insurance against these risks, just as it has been for thousands of years.
Egon von Greyerz
Founder and Managing Partner
Matterhorn Asset Management AG

A Europe We Can Believe In | Written by ORIENTAL REVIEW (Full text)

In early October a group of European intellectuals published the impressive and extremely important 36 theses of  conservative Manifest, which we are republishing today in full:

1.    Europe is our home.
Europe belongs to us, and we belong to Europe. These lands are our home; we have no other. The reasons we hold Europe dear exceed our ability to explain or justify our loyalty. It is a matter of shared histories, hopes and loves. It is a matter of accustomed ways, of moments of pathos and pain. It is a matter of inspiring experiences of reconciliation and the promise of a shared future. Ordinary landscapes and events are charged with special meaning—for us, but not for others. Home is a place where things are familiar, and where we are recognized, however far we have wandered. This is the real Europe, our precious and irreplaceable civilization.
2. A false Europe threatens us.
Europe, in all its richness and greatness, is threatened by a false understanding of itself. This false Europe imagines itself as a fulfilment of our civilization, but in truth it will confiscate our home. It appeals to exaggerations and distortions of Europe’s authentic virtues while remaining blind to its own vices. Complacently trading in one-sided caricatures of our history, this false Europe is invincibly prejudiced against the past. Its proponents are orphans by choice, and they presume that to be an orphan—to be homeless—is a noble achievement. In this way, the false Europe praises itself as the forerunner of a universal community that is neither universal nor a community.
3. The false Europe is utopian and tyrannical.
The patrons of the false Europe are bewitched by superstitions of inevitable progress. They believe that History is on their side, and this faith makes them haughty and disdainful, unable to acknowledge the defects in the post-national, post-cultural world they are constructing. Moreover, they are ignorant of the true sources of the humane decencies they themselves hold dear—as do we. They ignore, even repudiate the Christian roots of Europe. At the same time they take great care not to offend Muslims, who they imagine will cheerfully adopt their secular, multicultural outlook. Sunk in prejudice, superstition and ignorance, and blinded by vain, self-congratulating visions of a utopian future, the false Europe reflexively stifles dissent. This is done, of course, in the name of freedom and tolerance.
4. We must defend the real Europe.
We are reaching a dead-end. The greatest threat to the future of Europe is neither Russian adventurism nor Muslim immigration. The true Europe is at risk because of the suffocating grip that the false Europe has over our imaginations. Our nations and shared culture are being hollowed out by illusions and self-deceptions about what Europe is and should be. We pledge to resist this threat to our future. We will defend, sustain and champion the real Europe, the Europe to which we all in truth belong.
5. Solidarity and civic loyalty encourage active participation.
The true Europe expects and encourages active participation in the common project of political and cultural life. The European ideal is one of solidarity based on assent to a body of law that applies to all, but is limited in its demands. This assent has not always taken the form of representative democracy. But our traditions of civic loyalty reflect a fundamental assent to our political and cultural traditions, whatever their forms. In the past, Europeans fought to make our political systems more open to popular participation, and we are justly proud of this history. Even as they did so, sometimes in open rebellion, they warmly affirmed that, despite their injustices and failures, the traditions of the peoples of this continent are ours. Such dedication to reform makes Europe a place that seeks ever-greater justice. This spirit of progress is born out of our love for and loyalty to our homelands.
6. We are not passive subjects.
A European spirit of unity allows us to trust others in the public square, even when we are strangers. The public parks, central squares and broad boulevards of European towns and cities express the European political spirit: We share our common life and the res publica. We assume that it is our duty to take responsibility for the futures of our societies. We are not passive subjects under the domination of despotic powers, whether sacred or secular. And we are not prostrate before implacable historical forces. To be European is to possess political and historical agency. We are the authors of our shared destiny.
7. The nation-state is a hallmark of Europe.
The true Europe is a community of nations. We have our own languages, traditions and borders. Yet we have always recognized a kinship with one another, even when we have been at odds—or at war. This unity-in-diversity seems natural to us. Yet this is remarkable and precious, for it is neither natural nor inevitable. The most common political form of unity-in-diversity is empire, which European warrior kings tried to recreate in the centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire. The allure of the imperial form endured, but the nation-state prevailed, the political form that joins peoplehood with sovereignty. The nation-state thereby became the hallmark of European civilization.
8. We do not back an imposed, enforced unity.
A national community takes pride in governing itself in its own way, often boasts of its great national achievements in the arts and sciences, and competes with other nations, sometimes on the battlefield. This has wounded Europe, sometimes gravely, but it has never compromised our cultural unity. In fact, the contrary has been the case. As the nation states of Europe became more established and distinct, a shared European identity became stronger. In the aftermath of the terrible bloodshed of the world wars in the first half of the twentieth century, we emerged with an even greater resolve to honor our shared heritage. This testifies to the depth and power of Europe as a civilization that is cosmopolitan in a proper sense. We do not seek the imposed, enforced unity of empire. Instead, European cosmopolitanism recognizes that patriotic love and civic loyalty open out to a wider world.
9. Christianity encouraged cultural unity.
The true Europe has been marked by Christianity. The universal spiritual empire of the Church brought cultural unity to Europe, but did so without political empire. This has allowed for particular civic loyalties to flourish within a shared European culture. The autonomy of what we call civil society became a characteristic feature of European life. Moreover, the Christian Gospel does not deliver a comprehensive divine law, and thus the diversity of the secular laws of the nations may be affirmed and honoured without threat to our European unity. It is no accident that the decline of Christian faith in Europe has been accompanied by renewed efforts to establish political unity—an empire of money and regulations, covered with sentiments of pseudo-religious universalism, that is being constructed by the European Union.
10. Christian roots nourish Europe.
The true Europe affirms the equal dignity of every individual, regardless of sex, rank or race. This also arises from our Christian roots. Our gentle virtues are of an unmistakably Christian heritage: fairness, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, peace-making, charity. Christianity revolutionized the relationship between men and women, valuing love and mutual fidelity in an unprecedented way. The bond of marriage allows both men and women to flourish in communion. Most of the sacrifices we make are for the sake of our spouses and children. This spirit of self-giving is yet another Christian contribution to the Europe we love.
11. Classical roots encourage excellence.
The true Europe also draws inspiration from the Classical tradition. We recognize ourselves in the literature of ancient Greece and Rome. As Europeans, we strive for greatness, the crown of the Classical virtues. At times, this has led to violent competition for supremacy. But at its best, an aspiration toward excellence inspires the men and women of Europe to craft musical and artistic works of unsurpassed beauty and to make extraordinary breakthroughs in science and technology. The grave virtues of the self-possessed Romans and the pride in civic participation and spirit of philosophical inquiry of the Greeks have never been forgotten in the real Europe. These inheritances, too, are ours.
12. Europe is a shared project.
The true Europe has never been perfect. The proponents of the false Europe are not wrong to seek development and reform, and there is much that has been accomplished since 1945 and 1989 that we should cherish and honor. Our shared life is an ongoing project, not an ossified inheritance. But the future of Europe rests in renewed loyalty to our best traditions, not a spurious universalism demanding forgetfulness and self-repudiation. Europe did not begin with the Enlightenment. Our beloved home will not be fulfilled with the European Union. The real Europe is, and always will be, a community of nations at once insular, sometimes fiercely so, and yet united by a spiritual legacy that, together, we debate, develop, share—and love.
13. We are losing our home.
The true Europe is in jeopardy. The achievements of popular sovereignty, resistance to empire, cosmopolitanism capable of civic love, the Christian legacy of humane and dignified life, a living engagement with our Classical inheritance—all this is slipping away. As the patrons of the false Europe construct their faux Christendom of universal human rights, we are losing our home.
14. A false freedom prevails.
The false Europe boasts of an unprecedented commitment to human liberty. This liberty, however, is very one-sided. It sells itself as liberation from all restraints: sexual freedom, freedom of self-expression, freedom to “be oneself.” The Generation of ’68 regards these freedoms as precious victories over a once almighty and oppressive cultural regime. They see themselves as great liberators, and their transgressions are acclaimed as noble moral achievements, for which the whole world should be grateful.
15. Individualism, isolation, and aimlessness are widespread.
For Europe’s younger generations, however, reality is far less gilt with gold. Libertine hedonism often leads to boredom and a profound sense of purposelessness. The bond of marriage has weakened. In the roiling sea of sexual liberty, the deep desires of our young people to marry and form families are often frustrated. A liberty that frustrates our heart’s deepest longings becomes a curse. Our societies seem to be falling into individualism, isolation and aimlessness. Instead of freedom, we are condemned to the empty conformity of consumer- and media-driven culture. It is our duty to speak the truth: The Generation of ’68 destroyed but did not build. They created a vacuum now filled by social media, cheap tourism and pornography.
16. We are regulated and managed.
At the same time that we hear boasts of unprecedented liberty, European life is more and more comprehensively regulated. Rules—often confected by faceless technocrats in league with powerful interests—govern our work relationships, our business decisions, our educational qualifications, our news and entertainment media. And Europe now seeks to tighten existing regulations on freedom of speech, an aboriginal European freedom—freedom of conscience made manifest. The targets of these restrictions are not obscenity or other assaults on decency in public life. Instead, Europe’s governing classes wish to restrict manifestly political speech. Political leaders who give voice to inconvenient truths about Islam and immigration are hauled before judges. Political correctness enforces strong taboos that deem challenges to the status quo beyond the pale. The false Europe does not really encourage a culture of freedom. It promotes a culture of market-driven homogeneity and politically enforced conformity.
17. Multiculturalism is unworkable.
The false Europe also boasts of an unprecedented commitment to equality. It claims to promote non-discrimination and the inclusion of all races, religions and identities. Here, genuine progress has been made, but a utopian detachment from reality has taken hold. Over the past generation, Europe has pursued a grand project of multiculturalism. To demand or even promote the assimilation of Muslim newcomers to our manners and mores, much less to our religion, has been thought a gross injustice. A commitment to equality, we have been told, demands that we abjure any hint that we believe our culture superior. Paradoxically, Europe’s multicultural enterprise, which denies the Christian roots of Europe, trades on the Christian ideal of universal charity in an exaggerated and unsustainable form.It requires from the European peoples a saintly degree of self-abnegation. We are to affirm the very colonization of our homelands and the demise of our culture as Europe’s great twenty-first century glory—a collective act of self-sacrifice for the sake of some new global community of peace and prosperity that is being born.
18. Bad faith grows.
There is a great deal of bad faith in this thinking. Most in our governing classes doubtless presume the superiority of European culture—which must not be affirmed in public in ways that might offend immigrants. Given that superiority, they think that assimilation will happen naturally, and quickly. In an ironic echo of the imperialist thinking of old, Europe’s governing classes presume that, somehow, by the laws of nature or of history, ‘they’ will necessarily become like ‘us’—and it is inconceivable that the reverse might be true. In the meantime, official multiculturalism has been deployed as a therapeutic tool for managing the unfortunate but ‘temporary’ cultural tensions.
19. Technocratic tyranny increases.
There is more bad faith at work, of a darker kind. Over the last generation, a larger and larger segment of our governing class has decided that its own self-interest lies in accelerated globalization. They wish to build supranational institutions that they are able to control without the inconveniences of popular sovereignty. It is increasingly clear that the ‘democratic deficit’ in the European Union is not a mere technical problem to be remedied by technical means. Rather, this deficit is a fundamental commitment, and it is zealously defended. Whether legitimated by supposed economic necessities or autonomously developing international human rights law, the supra-national mandarins of the EU institutions confiscate the political life of Europe, answering all challenges with a technocratic answer: There is no alternative. This is the soft but increasingly real tyranny we face.
20. The false Europe is fragile and impotent.
The hubris of the false Europe is now becoming evident, despite the best efforts of its partisans to shore up comfortable illusions. Above all, the false Europe is revealed to be weaker than anyone imagined. Popular entertainment and material consumption do not sustain civic life. Shorn of higher ideals and discouraged from expressing patriotic pride by multiculturalist ideology, our societies now have difficulty summoning the will to defend themselves. Moreover, civic trust and social cohesion are not renewed by inclusive rhetoric or an impersonal economic system dominated by gigantic international corporations. Again, we must be frank: European societies are fraying badly. If we but open our eyes, we see an ever-greater use of government power, social management and educational indoctrination. It is not just Islamic terror that brings heavily armed soldiers into our streets. Riot police are now necessary to quell violent anti-establishment protests and even to manage drunken crowds of football fans. The fanaticism of our football loyalties is a desperate sign of the deeply human need for solidarity, a need that otherwise goes unfulfilled in the false Europe.
21. A culture of repudiation has taken hold.
Europe’s intellectual classes are, alas, among the chief ideological partisans of the conceits of the false Europe. Without doubt, our universities are one of the glories of European civilization. But where once they sought to transmit to each new generation the wisdom of past ages, today most within the universities equate critical thinking with a simpleminded repudiation of the past. A lodestar of the European spirit has been the rigorous discipline of intellectual honesty and objectivity. But over the past two generations, this noble ideal has been transformed. The asceticism that once sought to free the mind of the tyranny of dominant opinion has become an often complacent and unreflective animus against everything that is our own. This stance of cultural repudiation functions as a cheap and easy way of being ‘critical.’ Over the last generation, it has been rehearsed in the lecture halls, becoming a doctrine, a dogma. And to join in professing this creed is taken to be the mark of ‘enlightenment,’ and of spiritual election. As a consequence, our universities are now active agents of ongoing cultural destruction.
22. Elites arrogantly parade their virtue.
Our governing classes are advancing human rights. They are at work fighting climate change. They are engineering a more globally integrated market economy and harmonizing tax policies. They are monitoring progress toward gender equality. They are doing so much for us! What does it matter by what mechanisms they inhabit their offices? What does it matter if the European peoples grow more sceptical of their ministrations?
23. There is an alternative.
That growing scepticism is fully justified. Today, Europe is dominated by an aimless materialism that seems unable to motivate men and women to have children and form families. A culture of repudiation deprives the next generation of a sense of identity. Some of our countries have regions in which Muslims live with an informal autonomy from local laws, as if they were colonialists rather than fellow members of our nations. Individualism isolates us one from another. Globalization transforms the life prospects of millions. When challenged, our governing classes say that they are merely working to accommodate the inevitable, adjusting to implacable necessities. No other course is possible, and it is irrational to resist. Things cannot be otherwise. Those who object are said to suffer nostalgia—for which they deserve moral condemnation as racists or fascists. As social divisions and civic distrust become more apparent, European public life grows angrier, more rancourous, and no one can say where it will end. We must not continue down this path. We need to throw off the tyranny of the false Europe. There is an alternative.
24. We must turn back ersatz religion.
The work of renewal begins with theological self-knowledge. The universalist and universalizing pretensions of the false Europe reveal it to be an ersatz religious enterprise, complete with strong creedal commitments—and anathemas. This is the potent opiate that paralyzes Europe as a political body. We must insist that religious aspirations are properly the province of religion, not politics, much less bureaucratic administration. In order to recover our political and historical agency, it is imperative that we re-secularize European public life.
25. We must restore a true liberalism.
This will require us to renounce the mendacious language that evades responsibility and fosters ideological manipulation. Talk of diversity, inclusion and multiculturalism is empty. Often, such language is deployed as a way to characterize our failures as accomplishments: The unravelling of social solidarity is ‘actually’ a sign of welcome, tolerance, and inclusion. This is marketing language, a language meant to obscure reality rather than illuminate. We must recover an abiding respect for reality. Language is a delicate instrument, and it is debased when used as a bludgeon. We should be patrons of linguistic decency. Recourse to denunciation is a sign of the decadence of our present moment. We must not tolerate verbal intimidation, much less mortal threats. We need to protect those who speak reasonably, even if we think their views mistaken. The future of Europe must be liberal in the best sense, which means committed to robust public debate free from all threats of violence and coercion.
26. We need responsible statesmen.
Breaking the spell of the false Europe and its utopian, pseudo-religious crusade for a borderless world means fostering a new kind of statesmanship and a new kind of statesman. A good political leader stewards the commonweal of a particular people. A good statesman views our shared European inheritance and our particular national traditions as magnificent and life-giving, but also fragile gifts. He does not reject that inheritance, nor does he chance losing it all for utopian dreams. Such leaders covet the honors bestowed upon them by their people; they do not lust for the approbation of the ‘international community,’ which is in fact the public relations apparatus of an oligarchy.
27. We should renew national unity and solidarity.
Recognizing the particular character of the European nations, and their Christian mark, we need not be perplexed before the spurious claims of the multiculturalists. Immigration without assimilation is colonization, and this must be rejected. We rightly expect that those who migrate to our lands will incorporate themselves into our nations and adopt our ways. This expectation needs to be supported by sound policy. The language of multiculturalism has been imported from America. But America’s great age of immigration came at the turn of the twentieth century, a period of remarkably rapid economic growth, in a country with virtually no welfare state, and with a very strong sense of national identity to which immigrants were expected to assimilate. After admitting large numbers of immigrants, America closed its doors very nearly shut for two generations. Europe needs to learn from this American experience rather than adopt contemporary American ideologies. That experience tells us that the workplace is a powerful engine of assimilation, that a generous welfare system can impede assimilation and that prudent political leadership sometimes dictates reductions in immigration—even drastic reductions. We must not allow a multicultural ideology to deform our political judgments about how best to serve the common good, which requires national communities with sufficient unity and solidarity to see their good as common.
28. Only empires are multicultural.
After World War II, Western Europe cultivated vital democracies. After the collapse of the Soviet Empire, Central European nations restored their civic vitality. These are among Europe’s most precious achievements. But they will be lost if we do not address immigration and demographic change in our nations. Only empires can be multicultural, which is what the European Union will become if we fail to make renewed solidarity and civic unity the criteria by which to assess immigration policies and strategies for assimilation.
29. A proper hierarchy nourishes social well-being.
Many wrongly think Europe is being convulsed only by controversies over immigration. In truth, this is but one dimension of a more general social unraveling that must be reversed. We must recover the dignity of particular roles in society. Parents, teachers and professors have a duty to form those under their care. We must resist the cult of expertise that comes at the expense of wisdom, tact and the quest for a cultured life. There can be no renewal of Europe without a determined rejection of an exaggerated egalitarianism and the reduction of wisdom to technical knowledge. We endorse the political achievements of the modern era. Each man and woman should have an equal vote. Basic rights must be protected. But a healthy democracy requires social and cultural hierarchies that encourage the pursuit of excellence and give honor to those who serve the common good. We need to restore a sense of spiritual greatness and give it due honour so that our civilization can counter the growing power of mere wealth on the one hand and vulgar entertainment on the other.
30. We must restore moral culture.
Human dignity is more than the right to be left alone, and doctrines of international human rights do not exhaust the claims of justice, much less of the good. Europe needs to renew a consensus about moral culture so that the populace can be guided toward a virtuous life. We must not allow a false view of freedom to impede the prudent use of the law to deter vice. We must be forgiving of human weakness, but Europe cannot flourish without a restoration of a communal aspiration toward upright conduct and human excellence. A culture of dignity flows from decency and the discharge of the duties of our stations in life. We need to renew the exchange of respect between social classes that characterizes a society that values the contributions of all.
31. Markets need to be ordered toward social ends.
While we recognize the positive aspects of free-market economics, we must resist ideologies that seek to totalize the logic of the market. We cannot allow everything to be for sale. Well functioning markets require the rule of law, and our rule of law should aim at more than mere economic efficiency. Markets also function best when they are nested within strong social institutions organized on their own, non-market principles. Economic growth, while beneficial, is not the highest good. Markets need to be oriented toward social ends. Today, corporate giganticism threatens even political sovereignty. The nations need to cooperate to master the arrogance and mindlessness of global economic forces. We affirm the prudent use of government power to sustain non-economic social goods.
32. Education needs to be reformed.
We believe Europe has a history and culture worth sustaining. Our universities, however, too often betray our cultural heritage. We need to reform educational curricula to foster the transmission of our common culture rather than indoctrinating young people into a culture of repudiation. Teachers and mentors at every level have a duty of memory. They should take pride in their role as a bridge between generations past and generations to come. We must also renew the high culture of Europe by setting the sublime and the beautiful as our common standard and rejecting the degradation of the arts into a kind of political propaganda. This will require the cultivation of a new generation of patrons. Corporations and bureaucracies have shown themselves to be poor stewards of the arts.
33. Marriage and family are essential.
Marriage is the foundation of civil society and the basis for harmony between men and women. It is the intimate bond organized around sustaining a household and raising children. We affirm that our most fundamental roles in society and as human beings are as fathers and mothers. Marriage and children are integral to any vision of human flourishing. Children require sacrifice from those who bring them into the world. This sacrifice is noble and must be honoured. We endorse prudent social policies to encourage and strengthen marriage, childbearing, and childrearing. A society that fails to welcome children has no future.
34. Populism should be engaged.
There is great anxiety in Europe today because of the rise of what is called ‘populism’—though the meaning of the term seems never to be defined, and it is used mostly as invective. We have our reservations. Europe needs to draw upon the deep wisdom of her traditions rather than relying on simplistic slogans and divisive emotional appeals. Still, we acknowledge that much in this new political phenomenon can represent a healthy rebellion against the tyranny of the false Europe, which labels as ‘anti-democratic’ any threat to its monopoly on moral legitimacy. The so-called “populism” challenges the dictatorship of the status quo, the ‘fanaticism of the centre,’ and rightly so. It is a sign that even in the midst of our degraded and impoverished political culture, the historical agency of the European peoples can be reborn.
35. Our future is the true Europe.
We reject as false the claim that there is no responsible alternative to the artificial, soulless solidarity of a unified market, a transnational bureaucracy, and glib entertainment. Bread and circuses are not enough. The responsible alternative is the true Europe.
36. We must take responsibility.
In this moment, we ask all Europeans to join us in rejecting the utopian fantasy of a multicultural world without borders. We rightly love our homelands, and we seek to hand on to our children every noble thing that we have ourselves received as our patrimony. As Europeans, we also share a common heritage, and this heritage asks us to live together in peace as a Europe of nations. Let us renew national sovereignty, and recover the dignity of a shared political responsibility for Europe’s future.

Philippe Bénéton (France)
Rémi Brague (France)
Chantal Delsol (France)
Roman Joch (Czech Republic)
Lánczi András (Hungary)
Ryszard Legutko (Poland)
Pierre Manent (France)
Janne Haaland Matlary (Norway)
Dalmacio Negro Pavón (Spain)
Roger Scruton (United Kingdom)
Robert Spaemann (Germany)
Bart Jan Spruyt (Netherlands)
Matthias Storme (Belgium)