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.
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.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,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 ejucatersAn 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,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,Cf. my remarks about Napoleon in my commentary of August 21, 2021. the grand force of personality,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.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!
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. ®
 The Antichrist, 24.
 An article with evidence of Oliver’s lifelong views on religion, among other topics, is intended for near-future Proems.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 Perhaps Napoleon should have taken a tip from the Hindus: Maharajas never had any such difficulty. But he was not so revolutionary.