The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRaches Archive
Napoleon
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
Carle Vernet, An equestrian portrait of Emperor Napoleon with a battle beyond.  Cropped by Raches; see full painting.
Carle Vernet, An equestrian portrait of Emperor Napoleon with a battle beyond.  Cropped by Raches; see full painting.

As I search history for inspiration on how to overcome the New Dark Age, I have not infrequently focused on three great leaders:  Caesar, Napoleon, and the last and greatest leader of Western Civilization, Adolf Hitler.  For except insofar as the Jews were concerned, the Suicide of the West was not a race war:  “It was a war between aristocracy and degenerate democracy…”

Today is the 217th anniversary of coronation of Emperor Napoleon, and the 216th anniversary of Napoleon’s brilliant victory against much larger forces at Austerlitz.  In homage to the great man, I mark this day with a remarkable insight from Dr. Oscar Levy’s preface to Ludovici’s Nietzsche: His Life and Works (London, 1910), pp. viii–ix, xii–xiii, here excerpted with my addition of some illustrations:

[*viii] Nietzsche may have been right, therefore he may be unsuccessful.  I myself regard Nietzsche’s views on art, religion, psychology, morality, as extremely sound; I think they are proved both by history and by common experience; I even suspect that they could be confirmed by science, if only science would give up looking at the world through the coloured spectacles of democratic prejudice . . . but then, it is so difficult to give up this democratic prejudice; for it is by no means simply a political opinion.  Democracy, as a political creed, need terrify no one; for political creeds succeed each other like waves of the sea, whose thunder is loud and whose end is froth; but the driving power behind democracy is not a political one, it is religious—it is Christianity.  A mighty religion still, a religion [*ix] which has governed the world for two thousand years, which has influenced all philosophies, all literatures, all laws, all customs up to our own day, till it has finally filtered into our hearts, our blood, our system, and become part and parcel of ourselves without our being aware of it.  At the present moment we are all instinctive Christians.  […]

[*xii] I was on a visit to Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche, in her villa high up amongst the hills of Weimar, waiting in the drawing-room for my hostess to enter.  It was the first time that I had stood upon the holy ground where Friedrich Nietzsche gave up his heroic soul, and I was naturally impressed; my eyes wandered reverently around the scene, and I suddenly noticed some handwriting on the wall.  The handwriting consisted of a powerful letter N which the ingenious builder had engraved profusely upon the oak panels of the room.  The N, of course, reminded me of another big N, connected with another big name,—the N which used to be engraved together with the imperial crown and eagle upon the plate and regalia of Napoleon Bonaparte.  There was another victim of democracy: the man who, elevated by its revolutionary wave, tried to stifle and subdue the anarchical flood, was swallowed up as ignominiously as its other implacable opponent, the plucky parson’s son of the vicarage of Röcken.

Andrea Appiani, Napoleon I of France.
Andrea Appiani, Napoleon I of France.

The mighty sword in the beginning and the mighty pen at the end of the last century were alike impotent against—Fate.  No doubt, I saw in that moment, as though lit up by a flashlight, the fate of Europe clearly before my eyes.  A [*xiii] fate—an iron fate.  A fate unavoidable for a continent that will have no more guides, no more great men.  A fate unavoidable for an age that spills its best blood with the carelessness of ignorance.  A fate unavoidable for a people that is driven by its very religion to disobedience and anarchy.  And I thought of my own race, which has seen so many fates, so many ages, so many empires decline—and there was I, the eternal Jew, witnessing another catastrophe.  And I shuddered, and when my hostess entered I had not yet recovered my breath.

Dr. Levy wrote amidst a civilization that was rotted to its core, beneath a veneer of superficial modern glitz and glamor.  Decayed for so long by the spiritual poison of Christianity, it had then spent more than a century repudiating all aristocratic and hierarchical principles for “liberty, equality, brotherhood”—for democracy.

It is an historic irony that this Jewish author should point to his own Jewishness in this context; for in his analysis of that nation which decided “to be at any price”, Nietzsche incisively identified why the Jews usually promote decadence as their source of power.[1]The Antichrist, 24.  But the Jews are neither the source of the decay, nor unanimous in the satisfaction that they usually take from it.  For his part, Dr. Levy declared what few in the modern age will dare to say, or even dare to think, when he pointed to the fate of they who “will have no more guides, no more great men.”  His only mistake in this passage was that he could not foresee one who was to be greater than Napoleon—who was commensurately struck down with greater viciousness.

Needless to say, such matters will be ill understood by those democratically-minded types whose lot is never to understand.  Redouble this for those who are preoccupied with fairytales.  Napoleon, a deist, restored the Church and had the Pope officiate at his coronation, for much the same reason that Oliver, an absolute atheist,[2]An article with evidence of Oliver’s lifelong views on religion, among other topics, is intended for near-future Proems. was given to quoting Gibbon’s thoughts “of writing a dialogue of the dead, in which Lucian, Erasmus, and Voltaire should mutually acknowledge the danger of exposing an old superstition to the con­tempt of the blind and fanatic multitude.”  The French Revolution was a disaster for civilization, an orgy of mob violence, a nightmare of horrors mostly avoided, understated, or soft-pedalled by ejucaters[3]An Oliverism.  Ejucaters who inject pus in into young minds in the boob-hatcheries must be distinguished from educators, with whom they are frequently confused. enamored of égalité.  Napoleon was a wise leader, but not a revolutionary philosopher.  He rose to power in the mob’s revolution, then seized that power for himself—and thereupon, he imposed on the masses the order that stops them from behaving as base savages.  It is all the worse for the plight of the West that that order contained within it the seeds of its own destruction:  The same Weltanschauung that destroyed Napoleon himself.

Since that era, and in truth long before, there have been two Frances at war with each other—or perhaps more properly, a France fighting for its survival against an anti-France.  In the Revolutions of 1848 and at many other points in the Nineteenth Century, France lost.  In the Twentieth Century, this submerged conflict came to a head:  The Second World War was a fight for the soul of France.  France lost decisively.  The spite and savagery of post-War France was the historical reprise of the French Revolution.  And today, where is the Frenchman’s integrity, his intellectual daring, his proud refusal to bow to stupidity, but in outcasts subject to persecution?

In the long-term historical view, Napoleon was a bulwark who could have stabilized Western civilization.  Whatever his faults,[4]I do think that Napoleon’s solution to the Jewish problem would have been racially disastrous.  But a clear understanding of the problem in racial terms did not develop until later in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. he had the wisdom of leadership,[5]Cf. my remarks about Napoleon in my commentary of August 21, 2021. the grand force of personality,[6]Democratically-minded creatures know not and care aught for the difference between delusions of grandiosity, and genuine grandeur:  For they hate superiority, all the worse if it is true.  In a word:  Napoleon would have been insane, if he didn’t believe that he was really Napoleon. and the military heroism to push back against the social and cultural sickness that gave rise to the French Revolution.  The question was whether Western civilization wanted to be saved.  The answer was no.  The rot was too deep already—more than two centuries before I now write in the New Dark Age, the sickness was already nigh fatal.  And thus, Napoleon is gone.

In a poetic way, the arc of Napoleon’s rise, his glory, and his defeat is symbolized in the passion and pathos of his personal life.  The Empress Joséphine is an historical figure of tragic grace; she agreed to divorce the husband she loved, so that he could beget the heir she could not bear him.[7]Perhaps Napoleon should have taken a tip from the Hindus:  Maharajas never had any such difficulty.  But he was not so revolutionary.  From his love to her, the Emperor ordered that she keep the title of Empress, by which she is properly styled.  Years later, the exiled Napoleon II wished that Joséphine had been his mother.  As well we may wish that his father had crushed the spirit of the democratic Weltanschauung!

Henri Frédéric Schopin, The Divorce of the Empress Joséphine 15 December 1809 (1843).  Cropped by Raches; see full painting.
Henri Frédéric Schopin, The Divorce of the Empress Joséphine 15 December 1809 (1843).  Cropped by Raches; see full painting.

It was not to be.  And where do we stand today?

France, and all Europe, turns itself into a camp of the saints.

Weakness is everywhere accounted a virtue, and strength a sin, such that the meek shall inherit the Earth.

The corrosive spirit of democracy has so suffused the culture that nigh no one will oppose it.  Political dissenters are oft trapped in populist arguments about “global elites”, against whom they cry out in the language of democracy—the language of a worldview that blinds them, so they cannot see there is not much elite about these “elites” at all.  They are plutocrats, who rule through disorder, corruption, and the gullibility of the ochlocratic mob:  They are the logical end of democracy, for a mindless mass never truly ruled itself.  They are the antithesis of aristocrats, in the literal sense of ‘rule of the best’:  They are kakistocrats, the prime beneficiaries of a system in which, as Oliver put it, society is stirred by agitators so that “the dregs at the bottom rise to be the scum on top”.

Amidst the grey gloom that hangs over the ruins of what the West once was, there is only one way for higher civilization ever to begin to grow again:  Radical thought-leadership.  Would-be culture-warriors who marginalize themselves should perpend, by analogy, how Napoleon rose to power in a degenerate revolution, then overthrew it from the inside on 9. November 1799, whereafter a period of consolidation led to his Imperial coronation on 2. December 1804.  It is, perhaps, a line of thinking for one who could proceed to defeat the larger forces of rival powers at a cultural Austerlitz. ®


Notes

[1] The Antichrist, 24.

[2] An article with evidence of Oliver’s lifelong views on religion, among other topics, is intended for near-future Proems.

[3] An Oliverism.  Ejucaters who inject pus in into young minds in the boob-hatcheries must be distinguished from educators, with whom they are frequently confused.

[4] I do think that Napoleon’s solution to the Jewish problem would have been racially disastrous.  But a clear understanding of the problem in racial terms did not develop until later in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries.

[5] Cf. my remarks about Napoleon in my commentary of August 21, 2021.

[6] Democratically-minded creatures know not and care aught for the difference between delusions of grandiosity, and genuine grandeur:  For they hate superiority, all the worse if it is true.  In a word:  Napoleon would have been insane, if he didn’t believe that he was really Napoleon.

[7] Perhaps Napoleon should have taken a tip from the Hindus:  Maharajas never had any such difficulty.  But he was not so revolutionary.

 
Hide 43 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Tom Verso says:

    Congratulations Raches on having your column upgraded from blog to the prestigious blue box center column of TUR.

    • Agree: Right_On, von Frey
    • Thanks: Raches
  2. In the end Napoleon was a failure due to over-reach.

    I mean what lunatic attacks Russia and tries to beat them on their home ground?

    The lasting legacy of his regime was in the radical overhaul of the school systems and science.

    For that we can be grateful.

  3. The same Weltanschauung that destroyed Napoleon himself.

    Napoleon was not destroyed by any weltanschauung. He was destroyed by an alliance of Britain, Prussia, Russia, and Austria. And a dozen also-ran minor powers.

    • Replies: @Cookie Boy
    , @Dutch Boy
  4. @Cookie Boy

    The lasting legacy of his regime was in the radical overhaul of the school systems and science.

    Industrializing child raising has hardly been a boon for society or civilization. Science without wisdom also reveals its fruits.

  5. Can’t really be sorry that the French aristocrats got what was coming to them. The guillotine was a great addition to the Western cultural heritage.

    • Disagree: Yevardian
    • Troll: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
  6. Anonymous[401] • Disclaimer says:

    The problem with your idea about YHWH is that the Bible said that YHWH is the Aryan Vedic god Ahura Mazda, so you are against an Aryan god? In old Persian it was “Ahmi yat ahmi” which means YHWH.

    • Troll: von Frey, Raches
  7. @Cookie Boy

    Regarding the subject of Napoleonic overreach:

    According to one or two of the military figures closest to the Emperor on the Russian campaign, it had been his intention to conquer Russia and then continue eastward. Apparently he harbored designs to overthrow British rule in India and add that to the Empire.

    • Replies: @S
  8. Right_On says:

    Frederic Raphael claimed that Kubrick – when they were working together on the script for Eyes Wide Shut – remarked that “Hitler was right about almost everything”. (They were both Jewish, of course.) Presumably, Kubrick was just teasing Raphael, but if anyone had said that to me, I would have immediately asked: “Really? What exactly was he right about then?” Unfortunately, Raphael didn’t take the bait.

    I mention this as Kubrick was fascinated by Napoleon, and planned to film a three-hour epic telling the story of the emperor’s life. (He wanted David Hemmings to play the lead.) Kubrick also thought Napoleon’s relationship with Josephine was “one of the great obsessional passions of all time”.

    It’s not that big a stretch to think that an admirer of Napoleon might also think Hitler was right. Raches, for one, would agree.

    • Thanks: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
    , @Yevardian
  9. Baxter says:

    Liberalism-a product of the Protestant-Enlightening era burst onto the world stage in two violent episodes: the American Revolution and the French Revolution. Continental Liberalism, though born of the same stuff as Anglo American liberalism, produced wildly different outcomes than its counterpart in the New World. Much of the rot we live in today can trace its ideological DNA back to the Liberalism born in the eighteenth century. Napoleon capitalized on the problems caused by the disease, and he was clear-headed enough to see the French experiment with the “Cult of the Supreme Being” and the “Cult of Reason” could never provide France with a sound moral structure. Ultimately he failed in his quest for empire and the spiritual disease of Liberalism continued to undermine the Gallic Catholic soul, culminating in the collapse of the Second French Empire. After that, France was running on momentum of its accumulated cultural inheritance (which lasted right up to the 1960s).

    • Replies: @BlackFlag
    , @Mark G.
  10. Bookish1 says:

    Napoleon tore down the gates of the Jewish ghetto and brought them into the government and that is when the west entered a period of delirium that we are still in.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
  11. Billy Ash says:

    We have another Raches (vengeance?) column with only a few comments. Is it because no one can understand what is being said and why?
    I see: Christianity, Democracy, America are bad, but why are Hitler, Napoleon and Aristocracy good?
    Perhaps 2,000 words are not enough to express a cogent argument? How about a book?

  12. It may just be possible that “democracy” (lets just call it representative government from here) is a workable idea, but that the hybridization of it with past forms of government (all that has been tried since Jesus) is the problem. A system designed to weed out sociopaths, decentralize all functions of government and distribute them, and not allow self-selection for the most centralized positions is maybe something that would work with Christianity and not be self-defeating for our people. This has not been tried in a long time and information on such systems suppressed. I got the idea from a podcast here on Unz, but I admit I need to find it again because the professor had such a system roughed out already.

    This would REQUIRE racial homogeneity at a minimum, because it is a highly social system where every single citizen has some participation on a regular basis, if only to continually hire and fire each other from “elected offices”.

    The idea is you really cant built a cohesive social structure bigger than 100 people. But you don’t need to. This would be highly inefficient from a modern “productivity” perspective, but highly efficient from the perspective of building healthy and competent people which should be the purpose, not the means.

    I think the major problem with Christianity is not the teachings of Jesus but the way people since his death have interpreted them. I think many of the fundamental terms in the Christian bible need more depth of thought than even your average learned Christian gives them. There are 2000 years of Western heresies that have gone uncorrected and won’t be found in the words of Christ himself. Only in the words of his subsequent followers.

    Christians were never meant to afford the same respect and confidence to the rest of the Book that they do the Gospels. The particulars of the divinity of Jesus Christ, I think are the cause of a lot of misunderstanding and evil. I don’t even think it mattered to him. He repeatedly said as much. It was the knowledge of God that mattered not the mode or means.

  13. @Emil Nikola Richard

    After the Russian campaign Napoleons army was spent, he lost all his crack troops in the retreat out of Russia.

    His comeback just resigned France to histories dustbin because he spent so much of its human resources on his ego.

    His aura of invincibility was smashed in Russia and he started making basic errors like his positioning of his canons at Waterloo.

    People forget he was French by a slim margin, he was essentially Corsican.

  14. Dutch Boy says:
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Napoleon was undone by himself. He believed he could endlessly play off one hostile power against another. Eventually, those powers realized that he was playing them for suckers and united against him. As one of his officers remarked: “He was as great as a man can be without character.”

  15. They always say, “Chinese Communism? What communism?”

    They ought to say, “American democracy? What democracy?”

    This article assumes democracy exists. It doesn’t. If it did it would be truly revolutionary.

    • Replies: @Resartus
  16. …but the driving power behind democracy is not a political one, it is religious—it is Christianity.

    This premise is incorrect. Nietzsche’s life was a waste and his philosophy full of serious problems. The above premise is just the beginning.

    The further society has gotten away from the morality of Christianity, the worse its condition has been. The slope that western civilization has been sliding down, with greatly accelerating speed, is a good example of the problem. Lawlessness has come to characterize the west, and crime is rocketing out of control because of the idiocy generated by a society that refuses to acknowledge God as creator and law giver.

    • Agree: Ron Mexico
  17. BorisMay says:

    Mmmm… Without money and the help of international finance none of this could or would have come about.

    Chaos, conflict and unnecessary death are the most profitable investments a banker can make.

    Invasions of Russia cost a lot of material, manpower and suffering. Someone has to finance it. A certain clique always finance these unmitigated disasters and yet, despite their obvious connections to everyone else’s sufferings, never seem to have to pay a price for their sins.

    It is not great leaders, and not philosophers and not utterly corrupt systems of government that is at fault.

    It is the love of wealth, influence and most of all the love of money which is at fault. It is a lifestyle choice from which the Zoroastrian priests suffered…hence the rise of Mohamed the Moslem. This love was adopted by the Judaic clergy…hence the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. And in turn adopted by the Christian clergy…hence the birth of Adolf Hitler (a reincarnation of Jesus of Nazareth), which is most probable from the hatred of him which is at least equal to that of Jesus the Nazarene, if not greater.

    It is the love of money that is really the root cause of the demise of the West. It has taken 2500 years from the founding of Rome.

    Turn your back on greed, exploitation and money.

    There is no great leader to save you, there is no cavalry coming over the hill to rescue you, only you can save yourself.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  18. hillaire says:
    @Anonymous

    Well… if I were you I wouldn’t fret unduly…. the ‘jews’ being ‘jews’… stole their God and their scriptures mainly from Sumerian sources…

    They then of course had the Greeks write it down for them, because of course, when you are a nation of illiterate criminals and shysters… you need to utilise the cultured and their graces.. (and lend to them at compound interest)

    Nowadays the ‘jews’ devote more time to their Magikal Talmud and its dreary strictures…. and when they are fanciful.. like the chickenswingers of chabad (chokmah binah daath) they whip out the old kabalah…

    It was probably ‘jews’ that stole ole Boney’s todger…

    I wonder where Napoleans schmeckle resides?… I believe the yankees have it, they should give it back..

    but only when the Froggies are ‘free’ again.

    • Replies: @hillaire
  19. hillaire says:
    @hillaire

    NB: of course the theft of Napoleans ‘privates’.. is the mother of much speculation, not withstanding his emancipation of the ‘chosen’ post great sanhedrin….

    there seems to be some ‘corso’ in the great but diminutive tyrants lineage and of course the ‘circumspect’ state of his most useful appendage, and whether in fact it was how should one say…

    ‘complete’…. and thus the need to hide it away…

  20. BlackFlag says:
    @Baxter

    What is the relationship between this 18th century Liberalism and the Industrial Revolution. My understanding is that Liberalism predated the IR by a few decades. These two huge events took place at almost the same time; I’m thinking it’s unlikely to be a coincidence. Did Liberalism lead to the IR? Or were both caused by the same forces (e.g. Scientific Revolution, increased incomes)?

    • Replies: @Baxter
  21. Wokechoke says:

    I’ve come to appreciate Czar Alexander very much after looking at his biography. He lost at Austerlitz but out generalled Napolean in the Moscow campaign and then buried Napoleon in the Palatinate. Don’t forget the last great Czar.

    • Replies: @Raches
  22. Raches says: • Website
    @Right_On

    It’s not that big a stretch to think that an admirer of Napoleon might also think Hitler was right.  Raches, for one, would agree.

    More people would see this, if Hitler were placed in his proper historical context.

    By the by, early on after I discovered the real Hitler, I experimented with calling myself a Bonapartist as political cover in situations where I unavoidably needed to be circumspect, or where I wanted to spread ideas without triggering someone’s conditioned reflexes at the name “Hitler”.  This stance let me manifest my authoritarianism, anti-egalitarianism, and contempt for proto-Bolshevik revolutions; however, it is weak on race and the Jewish question, among other obvious problems.  It was an interesting approach, and I sincerely admire Napoleon; but I ultimately found this unworkable.

    Julius Caesar works for the same purpose; for Hitler was above all a Caesar-figure, i.e., a popular leader who used the power of the mass to smash the power of the mob. ®

    • Thanks: John Regan
  23. Raches says: • Website
    @traducteur

    Can’t really be sorry that the French aristocrats got what was coming to them.  The guillotine was a great addition to the Western cultural heritage.

    That’s the spirit of the mob that reverted to base savagery, in the orgy of murder and proletarian hatreds known as the “French Revolution”.

    Just wait till next 3. September.  Besides the holidays of the Goebbels family, Adolf Hitler’s birthday, and sundry other days associated with German National Socialism, I have for some years memoralized 2. December, for the reasons stated in the above article—and at the opposite end, the day when the gracious princesse de Lamballe was murdered.

    It also so happens to be the day when, 147 years later, Britain and France turned a local German-Polish conflict into a European war, which then grew to a World War.  On that day, for people to assume that my outrage and mourning were only for the dead princess has been—sometimes expedient, for survival in a world in which real harm can sometimes befall those who speak too freely. ®

  24. Baxter says:
    @BlackFlag

    The industrial revolution and the rise of liberalism were virtually contemporaneous, that much is true, and reshaped the nineteenth century, for better or worse. I haven’t thought much about a connection between the two. Both of them took root and flourished first in the nations of the Protestant culture. The Catholic world lagged behind considerably even well into the twentieth century. In my opinion, both liberalism and capitalism are intellectual and spiritual diseases set free after the Reformation. Modern capitalism, according to Amintore Fanfani, began in Catholic Italy during the Renaissance-it was born there, but did not grow and take over society. It was in the Protestant world that capitalism was able to grow with the decline of faith. Liberalism, on the other hand, is entirely a post-Reformation philosophy.

  25. Raches says: • Website
    @Wokechoke

    I’ve come to appreciate Czar Alexander very much after looking at his biography.

    Here is a good embeddable and downloadable recording of the piece that Beethoven dedicated to Czar Alexander (Wolfgang Schneiderhan, violin; Wilhelm Kempff, piano; 1953):


    (File information; scores, and other recordings, of Violin Sonata No. 7, Op. 30 No. 2[Edit:  I do not know why the embedding code shows only the length of the first movement above.  The file is over 27 minutes long; and it will continue to play in your browser, past the apparent end.])

    History is complicated; and much as I admire him, I am not as partial to Napoleon as I am to some other leaders.  Let’s put it this way:  Despite some of his remarks at the beginning of Mein Kampf about the Napoleonic Wars, even Hitler paid his respects to the great French Emperor when he entered Paris.  Napoleon had such a character as evokes that respect; and in the context of modern times, he is historically symbolic of imposing authority on égalité run amuck. ®

  26. Yevardian says:

    Are we just going to forget how Napoleon abandoned his entire army to die in Egypt, his unquenchable spitefulness, his constant lying, his unbelievable pettiness, the way he betrayed and burnt virtually everyone who ever got close to him?
    And unlike most other European tyrants, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon didn’t even believe in anything, no ideology, no great vision, no belief system, nothing – except his own megalomania.

    Whatever his talents, Napoleon the man was trash. Comparing him to a true great soul like Caesar? Don’t make me puke.

    It would have been poetic justice for him to be executed (preferably guillotined), as he sent so many others to pointless deaths, but instead he was allowed to while his days writing his endlessly self-justifying (and dreadfully dull) memoirs.

    • Agree: René Fries
    • Replies: @Raches
  27. Yevardian says:
    @Right_On

    It’s not that big a stretch to think that an admirer of Napoleon might also think Hitler was right. Raches, for one, would agree.

    Hitler’s vision, and the new Germany that he built, whatever opinion one might have of it, certainly had a powerful romantic grandeur to it, and was, to some degree, quite original.
    Napoleon’s views on government were simply that of technocratic expediency.. at best.
    By nearly all accounts, Hitler was a pleasant enough character in-person (if somewhat rigid, distant and overly austere, hence his lack of military promotion, despite model behaviour and personal bravery), and remained loyal to his friends as far as political circumstances allowed (he felt Röhm left him no choice, etc ).

    Napoleon on the other hand was a liar, a cheat, incapable of serving anyone except himself. As Tolstoy commented in his research for ‘War and Peace’, if anyone desires to see what fundamental smallness of character looks like, go no further than Napoleon’s memoirs.

    • Agree: John Regan
  28. @Anonymous

    If you read Ezra more closely the Habiru chicken thieves hoodwinked
    Kyros the Great (by their own admission the “Anointed of the Lord”!)
    into building them a “second” temple (they never had a first one, let´s face it)
    by telling him that of course they worshipped the same god, yayayayah.

    That´s not quite the same.

  29. Mark G. says:
    @Baxter

    Liberalism-a product of the Protestant-Enlightening era burst onto the world stage in two violent episodes: the American Revolution and the French Revolution. Continental Liberalism, though born of the same stuff as Anglo American liberalism, produced wildly different outcomes than its counterpart in the New World.

    The leaders of the American Revolution were much more influenced by John Locke and the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers than the leaders of the French Revolution, who were influenced more by French Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire, Diderot and Rousseau. Because of this, the American Revolution turned out better than the French one. Rather than declare himself emperor like Bonaparte, Washington just served two terms as president and then left office. Most Americans were appalled by the Reign of Terror, even the most radical of them like Jefferson and Paine.

    Both the American and French revolutionists talked about liberty and equality but the French emphasized equality over liberty. The influence of Sparta admirer Rousseau was especially pernicious. Rousseau had little influence among the leaders of the American Revolution. Rousseau’s belief in some sort of mystical general will could easily lead to a dictator because any would be dictator could claim to be a representative of the general will. The influence of Rousseau led to Napoleon and then twentieth century tyrants like Hitler, Lenin or Pol Pot, an admirer of Rousseau.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  30. @Cookie Boy

    Code Napoléon, gendarmerie and the metric system, all things that would have done the US good too (esp. the gens d´armes = paramilitary police).
    Public education had already been introduced by Maria Theresia, but alongside
    the Great One Napoleon was the midwife of modern Europe.

    As for the overreach he explicitly recognized it, but the ever-escalating necessity
    to secure his conquests justified a long shot (cf. his desperate attempts to
    legitimize his dynasty).

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  31. Resartus says:
    @obwandiyag

    They ought to say, “American democracy? What democracy?”

    Yep, if Democracy (Majority/51% rule) was really a thing in the US…

    Most Democrat policies would never have come into being…..
    ie Gay Marriage, as Popular votes could never be taken to the Supreme Court to
    be ruled against……. Roe vs Wade would have had to be taken to the voters…. etc etc etc

    Liberals have no clue how lucky they are to be living in a Representative Republic…..

  32. S says:
    @Buck Ransom

    According to one or two of the military figures closest to the Emperor on the Russian campaign, it had been his intention to conquer Russia and then continue eastward. Apparently he harbored designs to overthrow British rule in India and add that to the Empire.

    Interesting, it seems then as though both Napoleon and Hitler had broad dreams of doing a reprise of Alexander’s invasion of India, using locals met along the way as allies and auxiliaries, the latter in late 1942 via a purported gigantic pincer of Army Group South from out of the Caucuses linking up in the Middle East with Rommel’s Afrika Korps coming out of Egypt. Much unlike them, though, Alexander didn’t have to contend with the already existing near complete global hegemony of the British Empire, otherwise they may just have succeeded in repeating history.

    Below, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Al-Husseini, meeting with Muslim volunteers at the opening of the Islamic Central Institute in Berlin on 18 December, 1942:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini

    https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Führer_Directive_32

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

  33. Thrallman says:

    Napoleon was a wise leader, but not a revolutionary philosopher. He rose to power in the mob’s revolution, then seized that power for himself—and thereupon, he imposed on the masses the order that stops them from behaving as base savages. It is all the worse for the plight of the West that that order contained within it the seeds of its own destruction: The same Weltanschauung that destroyed Napoleon himself.

    There are at least three Christian worldviews, all bad:

    1. The martyr cult.
    2. Dualism. The good Church vs. the wicked World.
    3. The inherited Jewish worldview of unwavering obedience to an arbitrary God.

    That said, the connection between Christianity and democracy seems tenuous. Feudal Europe was staunchly Christian for centuries. There is scarcely a thought of democracy in the Bible — the nearest example I can find is when Matthias was chosen as an apostle by casting lots (Acts 1:23-26). Monarchs Queen Elizabeth and Czar Nicholas II both claimed to rule by divine right.

    Instead of searching for a connection between Christianity and democracy, it would be more useful to promote the scientific worldview, the Lorenzian. The struggle is not good versus evil. It is good versus good. The battle is not Jesus versus Satan. It is between bucks batting antlers, fighting for the same meadow and the same does.

    The problem with democracy is that all men are not equal. Social Darwinism has been given a bad reputation, but remember the alternative is social Creationism. It is the absurd belief that somehow humans have been exempted from the law of evolution.

    There is no staying the same. Either a species adapts or it degenerates. The proof of this is very simple: Cave fish are blind. Remove selective pressure from a population and it will degenerate, as surely as air escapes from a balloon. This is exactly what the welfare state does.

    • Thanks: Almost Missouri
  34. moron says:

    The Napoleonic armies that conquered much of Europe were still Revolutionary. At all times they were on the revolutionary side, destroyed churches and icons, and overthrew the same decadent aristocracy that our latter days reimagined into some kind of romantic heroes.

    The Nazi movement in Germany over a century later was also a kakistocracy, and immediately promoted the lower middles against the ancient nobility. This essay is just wrong.

    • Troll: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
  35. Wokechoke says:
    @Mark G.

    The English aristocracy was never as vicious as that of the French upper classes. You could marry in or be enabled through trade in the English system of honors as well. The French aristocrats were all of the blood.

  36. If a “great man” (usually expressed by themselves or their biographers and sycophants) comes up to a dias and says he or she knows what is wrong and how to fix it then run a mile from them.

    The people have to find a new method of government because returning to ones vomit election after election is tedious and defeats human progress.

    But you must now realize that power is taken and never given, that is what make Napoleon and Hitler and others like them so alluring, they had the balls to take power

    • Replies: @Raches
  37. @BorisMay

    the birth of Adolf Hitler (a reincarnation of Jesus of Nazareth)

    Would the reincarnation of Jesus of Nazareth kill himself rather than face crucifixion?

  38. @nokangaroos

    Though I agree with the rest of the comment, I have to disagree with the first sentence.

    Code Napoléon, gendarmerie and the metric system, all things that would have done the US good too

    The US does have a federal (i.e., national, i.e., Code Napoléon-esque) law, which is actively seeking to supersede and drive out State (i.e., Constitutional) law at every turn. Everywhere it does so, it empowers the kakistocracy.

    (esp. the gens d´armes = paramilitary police).

    We already have a national police: the FBI. They are the country’s most powerful, corrupt, and politically converged police force. We do not need more of this, we need to be rid of them.

    (I note that Wikipedia, presumably following the FBI’s lead, now describes the FBI as “the domestic intelligence and security service” first and as a law enforcement agency only second. In other words, the FBI is the American Gestapo, or more accurately, American Stasi, though the latter comparison wouldn’t embarrass them as much as the former.*)

    As for paramilitarism, that properly belongs to the people’s militias, not the national police. The former happens to be Constitutionally prescribed, the latter proscribed.

    As for the metric system, whatever. Practically everyone is happy with feet and pounds, which correspond much more poetically to real world phenomena than does the arbitrary, and erroneously founded, metric system. Several decades ago, the Federal government spent some billions of dollars to convert the country to the metric system. Predictably, the result was nada.

    ———

    *Ironically (or should that be “unsurprisingly”?), the FBI was founded by a Bonaparte, a great-nephew of Napoleon.

  39. @Mark G.

    The American “Revolution” would be more accurately titled the American War for Independence. The leaders of the American War did not seek to overturn the moral or social order; they sought merely to chart their own course, free from Westminster’s interference. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and most of the rest of the Founders were themselves important and well-connected in the British empire. They just thought the head office was stifling them too much, so they decided to go their own way. “No taxation without representation” was much more the animating spirit of the American revolt, rather than the “RiGhTs of MaN!”, “Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!”, or the “Cult of the Supreme Being”.

  40. Raches says: • Website
    @moron

    At least you are named honestly.  I will file this with your defense of disgusting sexual mutilations. ®

  41. Raches says: • Website
    @Cookie Boy

    But you must now realize that power is taken and never given, that is what make Napoleon and Hitler and others like them so alluring, they had the balls to take power.

    Hitler thought this part through.  In 1924 (published 1925), he declared:

    The goal of a political reform movement will never be reached by enlightenment work or by influencing ruling circles, but only by the achievement of political power.  Every world-moving idea has not only the right, but also the duty, of securing those means which make possible the execution of its ideas.

    A false dichotomy that sets idealism against the seeking of power renders all idealism impotent, and leaves power unto those who will worst abuse it.  Cui bono?

    It is a bitter lesson that I learned the hard way:  For much of my life, I betrayed my principles by “idealistically” renouncing any means to put them to practical effect.  In final judgment, is that any better than being unprincipled? ®

  42. Raches says: • Website
    @Yevardian

    Whatever his talents, Napoleon the man was trash.  Comparing him to a true great soul like Caesar?  Don’t make me puke.

    The correct comparison is, of course, the analogy of Napoleon to Alexander the Great.  Thus if you disagree, you can puke at me and Spengler together.  (Not that I buy into Spengler’s philosophy of cyclic history, in the abstract.)

    I would not accuse Napoleon of being a political philosopher, as Hitler was.  Nevertheless, I recognize that in practice, Napoleon was a stronger bulwark against the rising democratic Zeitgeist than all of the reactionaries who tried to restore the old order; and I agree with Dr. Levy’s observation that the horridly degenerate Nineteenth Century was bracketed by two great opponents of democracy:  The conqueror who seized the power of an egalitarian revolution to crush it, and the great philosopher of the Will to Power.

    A detailed comparison and contrast of Caesar and Hitler would make for an interesting thesis.  Alas, it will not fit into the margin of this comment. ®

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Moderated by Raches. Anonymous comments are welcome, but will be moderated more strictly than those from commentators with at least a pseudonymous reputation.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Raches Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Becker update V1.3.2
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
How America was neoconned into World War IV