Quantus tremor est futurus - Actaeon Journal

The eternal pain of the race, this is what is meant by the word "revolution".

Today I showed that I am ten thousand.

Left and Right "The hatred of monarchy and aristocracy drove the liberal bourgeois leftward; the fear of being dispossessed of his property, which was threatened by radical democracy and socialism, drove him in turn toward the right, to a powerful monarchy whose military could protect him. He thus oscillated between his two enemies and wanted to fool both." Schmitt, following Stahl "The right imposes the tyranny of elitist privilege, and the left imposes the tyranny of abstract equality. Fascist movements play both sides of the coin. Camatte concludes, perhaps prematurely, that the New Right has no future either in service to capital or against it." I believe this should form the basis of a reading of Left and Right today. Between the bourgeois figure and fascism one encounters the question of ideological continuity.

"Wyndham Lewis, The Enemy (as he called his journal) did not provoke the hostility against it that he had intended. Why? Because in England everything is taken less seriously, everything is still insulated, including dissatisfaction with this insulation." Carl Schmitt's enemy is a concept of the German nationalist revolution. The Englishman could not have conceived of the enemy in the same way, he would first have to overcome his being insulated. Today man is even more insulated and his declaration of enmity suggests another insulating effect, the intensity and endurance of the declaration implies what is lost and can hardly be sustained.

Ernst Jünger on the unification and differentiation of a movement. The right-wing today has made all of its mistakes here.

Rivarol's ideas are essential to understanding the revolutionary governments. He makes the distinction of the sovereign as power, the government as determinant force, the state as subject, and the nation as people. "Woe to those who stir the depths of a nation!" The danger in a monarchy is despotism, the loss of protections, the government becomes divided from the nation. In a democracy it is that the nation turns against the state, the great paradox being that it ends in a situation like despotism, the government against the people. But how can this be when the people are the government? This is the titanic state. Much of this suggests the weakness of conservatism today, of elite theory and the passive revolution of those who search for answers in the absolute form of government, a democratic ur-state.

Some notes on the concept of the nation after the French Revolution Speculation replaces sovereignty. Man is ruled by aspiring and impelling forces, bombs of values which cause the crown to rise and fall. Its values are public values, now as a dependent authority. The nation of slaves exceeds itself. Man resists subjugation but only by increasing extra-national space, both internal and external, and by increasing mastery over the government. It is a law of history that no nation remains a republic for long. The state of humanity, the society of nations, then makes enduring rule its law. This rule becomes the assertion of all parliamentary acts and the norm to which Left and Right are subject.

This is not a return to activity, merely a short polemic I thought would benefit a larger audience. The Nationalists say that the nation is the family writ large, some talk of "the folk" as merely the utmost extent of the kin or clan community. However, as any etymologist would know, this sense is, at least in english, barely 300 years old. Prior to that point, the folk is more often than not the common mass of people, indiscriminate and general in its usage, and nearly just as often a military term of mobilization as it is a social one. It is, appropriately so in my opinion, also directly related to the Latin word "plebes". The actual word for family in Old English is "cynn", the direct ancestor of the contemporary word "kin", which is (probably) also related (through "cyning") to the word "king". Kingdom is in this understanding quite literally "the dominion or rule of a family". Kin (compare: Genus) is also an originally discriminatory term, whereas "folk" does not have to be, the former indicating not only ones racial stock, but also ones classhood and gender (womankind, etc). It stems from the hypothetical PIE root-word for begetting and giving birth, and has a direct connection with, among others, the german word for child "Kind". The Folk and The Kin are different species on a conceptual level. It is good to remember the original meaning of the word "tyrant", as the servants of the same can never know the difference between childrapist and childrearer. Being a Greek could not possibly ever mean more than being an Athenian or Theban, being a German could not possibly ever mean more than being a Bavarian or Saxon, or in my own case, being a Norwegian could not possibly mean more than being a Grenlander. When one looks at the Roman Familia, the Scottish Clann, etc. the absurdity of what we can call rigid nationalism in a historical time-frame stretching past the 1400s becomes clear. Kinship and parochiality, not nationalism and imperialism.

In the end democracy resorts to the absolute appeal just to sustain its myths.

With the perfection of ideology the word becomes a motto, a principle, a designation and injunction. Infamy must keep pace with information so it takes less space but more power. This is as true of the party leader as it is for the common demagogue and even the apolitical person.

The modern nation is little more than the Parable of the Prodigal Son.

"You are at this moment about to give firm laws and a permanent constitution to a great nation, and you want this constitution to be preceded by a pure and simple Declaration of the Rights of Man. Legislators, founders of a new order of things, you wish to set marching ahead of you the metaphysics that ancient legislators always had the wisdom to hide in the foundations of their structures. Ah! Do not be more learned than Nature. If you want a great people to enjoy the shade and take nourishment from the fruits of the tree that you plant, do not leave the roots uncovered." ~ Rivarol One of the greatest passages I have read on the constitution. Essential to understanding the revolutionary nation and decisionism.

"Silete theologi in munere alieno! Theologians should remain silent within foreign walls!" ~ Alberico Gentili Perhaps even more important in the face of second religiousness. What you will notice with the Counter-Enlightenment is a type of Socratic ignorance. The nation is absolutely unique, incomprehensible to the foreigner and outside of its time. This is an image of God.

"What a prince holds naturally, applies as imitation for the true citizen." What Hölderlin says here is the law and right of the citizen, it is his connection to the fatherland even when the nation is under threat. The figure proves the spirit of man just as the exception proves the real life of sovereignty.

"If someone who came to us from the Indies were to preach his own religion, contrary to ours, the question would not be about the truth of his teaching; but because he has violated our law, it would be considered a crime, and punished according to the penalties established by the law." ~ Hobbes What barriers exist between nations when the religions are lost and only economic subjects remain? And what laws would anyone have to follow?

"The punishments set down in the law are to subjects, not to enemies; such as are they, that having been by their own act subjects, deliberately revolting, deny the sovereign power." ~ Hobbes Then insufficient punishments and wars create enemies of subjects and subjects of enemies. And one might add automatic or accidental revolts.

This has generated some interesting discussion on substack, particularly in regards to leadership and challenges to sovereignty.

Ernst Jünger and the Transmutative Power of Self-Sacrifice Rose Sybil argues that true leadership hinges on self-sacrifice and resisting technological determinism, using historical figures like Lycurgus and Ernst Jünger to illustrate the pitfalls of succumbing to the pressures of the times. Read the essay here: https://www.arktosjournal.com/p/ernst-junger-and-the-transmutative

Noticing is perspectivism for the last man.

Of course it is significant that Schmitt referred to Toynbee as the "counselor of the United Nations". Here he serves as an inquisitor.