Wonderful to see this release. The first book changed my understanding of the political formation of medieval Europe.
Might we see a second release or more work related to the book and premise of Anno Domini as well? It is one of the few books I have bought multiple copies and shared them with friends.
Your insights and willingness to dig into research outside the accepted norms are incredibly valuable, Dr. Guyenot!
Since the papacy is as much a political entity as it is a religious one, is it possible the empire was already established in Europe in the form of a Church? Except that it wasn’t just Europe that was the empire, but any city or country with a diocese. After all, Constantine did organize the church administration the same way the Roman Empire was organized. Just a thought.
I expect to like this book much more than I like the foreword by Alain de Benoist. First, I cannot grasp what his thesis is. Second, Benoist seems to lament that no 'unified European Empire' has arisen. That is a good thing about Europe. Empires, like the Roman Empire or today's USA, are evil. They wage war against others and then extract taxes from them. So they kill, suppress, and steal, which clearly are evil if anything is clearly evil. Christianity was misused by the Roman Empire for strengthening the Empire. The Christian message and Jesus' example to some extent counteracted the Empire, which is why it did not become an Empire which Benoist would have hoped for, but still much evil continued, and the true Christian message and their exponents were suppressed and often murdered, like the anabaptists and Michael Servetus.. Against Benoist, Europe was not too little of an empire but too much of an empire.
A unified Europe would have much more chance resisting the genocide of racial replacement that is ongoing at this time throughout Europe. Empires are not "evil" any more than democracy or monarchy is "evil" and it betrays your own political prejudice to attempt to assign moral value judgements to systems of government. It is much more prudent to judge each system of governance and it's leaders by the actions and outcome they produced. I suspect your judgement is too clouded by the very christianity that prevented a the unified Europa that Guyenot and de Benoist speak of. You also seem to misunderstand the premise of the work: "Europe was too much of an Empire." No, Europe failed to reach unity under King or as an Empire precisely because the political machinery was co-opted by the self-declared "pontifex-maximus" of Europe and her christian souls. Please read the book, the first edition was fantastic and I suspect the second edition will be more illuminating.
Of course I attempt to assign moral value judgements to systems of government. We should try to find out which systems of government are better. However, I would agree with you if your objection were that some democracies are better than some monarchies, and some monarchies are better than some democracies. The term empire is usually associated with warfare and taxation, based on the examples of the Roman Empire and the British Empire. You and Benoist might use it differently, which perhaps is the more professional use. The German Holy Roman Empire would be a good candidate for what one might call empire although warfare and taxation was limited. You and Benoist seem to believe that a larger kingdom or empire would have been a good thing because it could have resisted the racial replacement. I respond that in Europe now you can see that the replacement is organised top-down from Brussels (and higher up and from hidden powers). The countries left on their own, without EU, might have resisted more. We might agree that the present disaster was made possible by the war and revolutions of 1914–1917. The real question is how this could have been prevented and how we can counter-act today.
Wonderful to see this release. The first book changed my understanding of the political formation of medieval Europe.
Might we see a second release or more work related to the book and premise of Anno Domini as well? It is one of the few books I have bought multiple copies and shared them with friends.
Your insights and willingness to dig into research outside the accepted norms are incredibly valuable, Dr. Guyenot!
Since the papacy is as much a political entity as it is a religious one, is it possible the empire was already established in Europe in the form of a Church? Except that it wasn’t just Europe that was the empire, but any city or country with a diocese. After all, Constantine did organize the church administration the same way the Roman Empire was organized. Just a thought.
Le evil Pope did something? to stop the hecking big chugus European empirerino!!!!
I expect to like this book much more than I like the foreword by Alain de Benoist. First, I cannot grasp what his thesis is. Second, Benoist seems to lament that no 'unified European Empire' has arisen. That is a good thing about Europe. Empires, like the Roman Empire or today's USA, are evil. They wage war against others and then extract taxes from them. So they kill, suppress, and steal, which clearly are evil if anything is clearly evil. Christianity was misused by the Roman Empire for strengthening the Empire. The Christian message and Jesus' example to some extent counteracted the Empire, which is why it did not become an Empire which Benoist would have hoped for, but still much evil continued, and the true Christian message and their exponents were suppressed and often murdered, like the anabaptists and Michael Servetus.. Against Benoist, Europe was not too little of an empire but too much of an empire.
A unified Europe would have much more chance resisting the genocide of racial replacement that is ongoing at this time throughout Europe. Empires are not "evil" any more than democracy or monarchy is "evil" and it betrays your own political prejudice to attempt to assign moral value judgements to systems of government. It is much more prudent to judge each system of governance and it's leaders by the actions and outcome they produced. I suspect your judgement is too clouded by the very christianity that prevented a the unified Europa that Guyenot and de Benoist speak of. You also seem to misunderstand the premise of the work: "Europe was too much of an Empire." No, Europe failed to reach unity under King or as an Empire precisely because the political machinery was co-opted by the self-declared "pontifex-maximus" of Europe and her christian souls. Please read the book, the first edition was fantastic and I suspect the second edition will be more illuminating.
Of course I attempt to assign moral value judgements to systems of government. We should try to find out which systems of government are better. However, I would agree with you if your objection were that some democracies are better than some monarchies, and some monarchies are better than some democracies. The term empire is usually associated with warfare and taxation, based on the examples of the Roman Empire and the British Empire. You and Benoist might use it differently, which perhaps is the more professional use. The German Holy Roman Empire would be a good candidate for what one might call empire although warfare and taxation was limited. You and Benoist seem to believe that a larger kingdom or empire would have been a good thing because it could have resisted the racial replacement. I respond that in Europe now you can see that the replacement is organised top-down from Brussels (and higher up and from hidden powers). The countries left on their own, without EU, might have resisted more. We might agree that the present disaster was made possible by the war and revolutions of 1914–1917. The real question is how this could have been prevented and how we can counter-act today.
It seems we find those with big ideas and then, install them and then, when we find they are all Epsteins, we kill them, usually not soon enough.