One of the secret lies of liberal democracy is the dogma of free speech. The word ‘propaganda’ has obtained over the last six decades a nasty flavor; hence the need to use the word ‘communication.’ However, as much as everybody in modern society craves to communicate, traditional community ties, or in-group ties, are more than ever before subject to the process of disintegration. It is worth recalling that etymologically the terms “community” and “communication” are of the same origin. But how can one communicate if community no longer exists?
To provide a make-believe image of absolute freedom of speech, the media and the modern Prince resort to a hyperbolic language filled with hyperreal metaphors and qualifiers. This is especially true regarding the terms ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’. These terms have assumed the emotional role in rallying political allegiance formerly reserved for terms evoking nationhood and patriotism. Opinion makers in Europe and America are not so much concerned with the content of their language, but rather with the appropriate packaging of the language and its emotional impact on the masses.
For effective communication a modern politician (or the modern Prince?) is required to use images with a cheerful setting and a happy ending scenario. His looks are important too. An aspiring presidential candidate must be concerned more with his dentures than with his deontology. A well-fitting Armani suit and polished Gucci shoes are far more important than his IQ. The image is essential since it does not encourage reflection, but obliterates all reflection. The hyperreal image on TV screens with all the trappings of wealth, power, and personal appeal is ideal for propagating new political lies and, by extension, for instituting horrendous political censorship.
For a European or American politician who aspires to high office, the ritual of repentance has become de rigueur.
- Excerpt From: Communication: The Terror of the Hyperreal, by Tomislav Sunic
Against Democracy & Equality: The European New Right
Today, more than ever before in the history of mankind, it is the specificity of peoples that is threatened by the universalist credo. Whether one travels to Warsaw or Sarajevo, or lands in Bucharest or Berlin, the blaring of rock music and the iconography of junk culture have become the new lingua franca, of the global village. One could spend days in the Budapest Hilton without ever knowing one had left the suspended bridges of the hotel complex of down town Atlanta. The new universalism, in order to enforce its creed, no longer needs to resort to genocide and depopula tions, to the frigid climate of Kolyma or Katyn, to which Stalin, in the name of a paradigmatic global proletarian, carted off Volga Germans, Kalmuks, and Chechens. The new universalism need only turn to a tepid universe of Kentucky Fried Chicken, a society in which everybody equals everybody, and where ethnic identities, therefore, mean nothing.
This “cool Stalinism” strips peoples of their souls by creating a Homo economicus-dollaricus. The end results of both brands of universalism are pretty much the same, except that the veiled violence of liberal universalism can now be more dangerous than the blunt violence of communism. It is an irony of history that naked violence often preserves regionalism and ethnic roots; each persecution has its cathartic virtue, and each sacrifice invariably strengthens a peoples’ historical memory. Communist violence has triggered a hitherto unseen ethnic pride from the Balkans to the Baltic lands. In an air-conditioned hell of cool universal ism, by contrast, regionalism and the love of one’s country do not need to be openly crushed; instead, they can be turned into a commodity, and thereby rendered superflu ous, if not outright funny. If ever the ethnic pride disappears from Eastern Europe it will not be as a result of communist repression, but rather as the outcome of a new infatuation with capitalist gadgetry. The global village knows how to enslave Ulysses’ lotus eaters without even making them realize the peril that they face.
In a system in which everything has become a commodity, ethnic identity is viewed as an expendable triviality too-a triviality that may at best arouse some culinary interest or a tourist’s curiosity. If necessary, universalism will even do good business from the hammer, sickle, and swastika-as long as they sell well. For a globe-trotting merchant, home is where he hangs his hat, and where he makes a big buck. Montesquieu was, after all, not wrong when he wrote that commerce is the vocation of equal people.
Speech given at the “Nordic Festival / Nordiska Festivalen – 2008 ” Gothenburg, Sweden, Aug. 30, 2008
Dr. Tom Sunic
We start to wonder about our identity at the moment when we are about to lose it. Our fathers and our grandparents never asked questions about their identity; they never worried about it. They took for granted their affiliation to a given religion and to a given tribe or a people. It is with the rising tide of globalization, along with the waning of the traditional nation-state, and with the rising tide of multiculturalism and multiracialism that we start asking a question about who we are. The minute we raise the question of identity we start thinking about national identity.
But is this still really so today? How do we define our modern identity? Let us propose a couple of modern definitions that are onerous to Europeans.