Napoleon: Minion of the Chaos, Executioner of the Peoples

by Andrew Hamilton

When speaking of Napoleon’s genius as a statesman, we must never forget (among other things) that it was he who finally reduced the Gallican Church to ruins, thus irretrievably delivering over the great majority of the French to Rome and destroying every possibility of a genuine national Church. He it was also who enthroned the Jews. This man — devoid of all understanding for historical truth and necessity, the impersonation of wicked caprice — is a destroyer, not a creator, at best a codifier, not an inventor; he is a minion of the Chaos, the proper complement to Ignatius of Loyola, a new personification of the anti-Teutonic spirit. — Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Foundations of the Nineteenth Century (1899)

NAPOLEON WAS a product of the French Revolution that ultimately gave birth to modern Communism, sexual and aesthetic degeneracy, and anti-White genocide.

The Left has never hated Napoleon. Lack of systematic demonization, and reading between the lines of System accounts in encyclopedias, publications designed to quickly and conveniently codify and communicate the Party Line, demonstrate this. (In our day government-backed Jewish Internet monopolies force-feed Wikipedia results at the top of every single Web search everywhere, regardless of topic, as though it is authoritative and the last word on everything. Most Internet users unthinkingly defer to it.)

I’ve substituted the word “Leftist” (because that’s what is meant) in the following extract from a widely-used 1975 encyclopedia where the original said “liberal”:

The Napoleonic legend, the picture of a Leftist conqueror spreading the French Revolution throughout Europe, was a potent factor in French history and helped make Napoleon’s nephew [another Left authoritarian] emperor as Napoleon III. . . . Although [Napoleon I] made use of such ruthless police chiefs as Joseph Fouché and Anne Savary [a man, despite his odd-sounding name] to suppress all opposition, he cannot be compared to . . . Adolf Hitler.

Full stop. Why not? Hardcore Leftists are privileged, tyrannical, and violent by nature. The murder, repression, and injustice they perpetrate must never be, and is never, criticized.

The same publication notes in a different article: “One of the indispensable men of the Napoleonic empire, Fouché is sometimes considered the father of the modern police state.”

This benign view of Napoleon will vanish as anti-White hatred, ascendant since the 1940s, intensifies in its extremism and violence. Statues will be defaced and then toppled, Napoleon’s stone coffin in the Dôme des Invalides vandalized and hauled away, the Arc de Triomphe damaged and perhaps razed, and history rewritten to accommodate the new Party Line.

However, this will be the result of myth-making (lying) and government-sponsored domestic terrorism, not any fundamental ideological difference that well-heeled academics, wordmongers, and racist politicians have with Napoleon and other French Revolutionary figures.

As noted by Houston Stewart Chamberlain above, Napoleon “enthroned the Jews” throughout Europe, “emancipating” them not only in France, the foremost Continental power, but in every country he conquered, thereby unleashing horrific bloodshed, tyranny, degeneracy, and ugliness upon Europe and the world in the decades and centuries that followed.

The “Pan-European” Emperor

Napoleon is one of hundreds of characters who appear in novelist Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace (1869), set in Russia during the Napoleonic Wars and encompassing the years 1805-1820. Among the battles the author depicts are Austerlitz (1805) and the horrifically bloody Battle of Borodino outside Moscow in September 1812.

Tolstoy is severely critical of the war.

From the close of the year 1811 intensified arming and concentrating of the forces of Western Europe began, and in 1812 these forces — millions of men, reckoning those transporting and feeding the army — moved from the west eastwards to the Russian frontier, toward which since 1811 [westward-moving] Russian forces had been similarly drawn. On the twelfth of June, 1812, the forces of Western Europe crossed the Russian frontier and war began, that is, an event took place opposed to human reason and to human nature. Millions of men perpetrated against one another such innumerable crimes, frauds, treacheries, thefts, forgeries, issues of false money, burglaries, incendiarisms, and murders as in whole centuries are not recorded in the annals of all the law courts of the world, but which those who committed them did not at the time regard as being crimes.

The novelist speaks of an invading French army of 500,000, though a modern source puts the number at 680,000, adding that fewer than 100,000 returned to Western Europe alive.

Through military means Napoleon vastly extended the radical policies of the French Revolution, imposing them by force on a prostrate Europe. His ultimate dream was to found a European State, a “federation of free peoples” as he put it. (The word “free” in this context is probably as dishonest and misleading as the word “democracy” is today.)

Tolstoy quotes long passages Napoleon later wrote during his exile on Saint Helena, one of the world’s remotest islands, a British possession far off the coastline of southern Africa in the Atlantic Ocean, where he died from cancer at age 51 in 1821.

The passages provide a surprising picture of the conqueror’s ambitious but little-known political objectives. Tolstoy doesn’t cite the source he used for Napoleon’s words, but it was almost certainly Emmanuel de Las Cases’ Mémorial de Sainte-Hélène: Journal of the Private Life and Conversations of the Emperor Napoleon at Saint Helena (1823), which very few people today know about. (See Robert Zaretsky, “Napoleon Wrote the Best Political Memoir,” Politico, June 17, 2015.)

With pride Napoleon described the Continental makeup of his “French” army:

Of four hundred thousand [yet a third figure for the size of his forces at the outset of the Russian campaign] who crossed the Vistula, half were Austrians, Prussians, Saxons, Poles, Bavarians, Wurttembergers, Mecklenburgers, Spaniards, Italians, and Neapolitans. The Imperial army, strictly speaking, was one third composed of Dutch, Belgians, men from the borders of the Rhine, Piedmontese, Swiss, Genevese, Tuscans, Romans, inhabitants of the Thirty-second Military Division, of Bremen, of Hamburg, and so on: it included scarcely a hundred and forty thousand [one-third] who spoke French.

Napoleon’s ultimate objective was sweeping:

The Russian war should have been the most popular war of modern times: it was a war of good sense, for real interests, for the tranquility and security of all; it was purely pacific and conservative.

It was a war for a great cause, the end of uncertainties and the beginning of security. A new horizon and new labors were opening out, full of well-being and prosperity for all. The European system was already founded; all that remained was to organize it.

Satisfied on these great points and with tranquility everywhere, I too should have had my Congress and my Holy Alliance [a reference to the Congress of Vienna and Holy Alliance instituted by European leaders after his defeat]. Those ideas were stolen from me. In that reunion of great sovereigns we should have discussed our interests like one family, and have rendered account to the peoples as clerk to master.

Europe would in this way soon have been, in fact, but one people, and anyone who traveled anywhere would have found himself always in the common fatherland. I should have demanded the freedom of all navigable rivers for everybody, that the seas should be common to all, and that the great standing armies should be reduced henceforth to mere guards for the sovereigns.

On returning to France, to the bosom of the great, strong, magnificent, peaceful, and glorious fatherland, I should have proclaimed her frontiers immutable; all future wars purely defensive, all aggrandizement antinational. I should have associated my son in the Empire; my dictatorship would have been finished, and his constitutional reign would have begun.

Paris would have been the capital of the world [note use of “the world”], and the French the envy of the nations!

My leisure then, and my old age, would have been devoted, in company with the Empress and during the royal apprenticeship of my son, to leisurely visiting, with our own horses and like a true country couple, every corner of the Empire, receiving complaints, redressing wrongs, and scattering public buildings and benefactions on all sides and everywhere.

In a sense Napoleon’s vision sounds appealing because it seems to imply European and even White unity.

But, as a French biographer of Napoleon and spokesman for the contemporary Establishment observes, “Bonaparte had no [racial] prejudices; Egyptians, Sudanese, Jews from Alexandria were all integrated into the Imperial Guard.” (Hyperlink added.)

The asserted lack of racial consciousness and loyalty is likely true because it is consistent with the universalist “new world order” French revolutionary mindset.

Consequently, a successful Napoleonic Imperium would likely not have limited itself to adopting willy-nilly the model of White subracial biological-linguistic-cultural amalgamation suggested by the emperor’s words (the dubious strategy subsequently implemented without deliberation by America in the early 20th century), but instead have devolved through prevailing Leftism into a destructive, White-hating, Jew-dominated European Union-style police state with a voracious appetite for global conquest.

Tolstoy’s Harsh Evaluation of Napoleon

Tolstoy’s harsh condemnation of Napoleon, originally interlaced with the passages I have just quoted, surprisingly parallels Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s (and for that matter Thomas Jefferson’s):

And not for that day and hour alone [following the Battle of Borodino] were the mind and conscience darkened in that man on whom the responsibility for what was happening lay more than on all the others who took part in it. Never to the end of his life could he understand goodness, beauty, or truth, or the significance of his actions which were too contrary to goodness and truth, too remote from everything human, for him ever to be able to grasp their meaning. He could not disavow his actions, belauded as they were by half the world, and so he had to repudiate truth, goodness, and all humanity.

Not on that day only, as he rode over the battlefield strewn with men killed and maimed (by his will as he believed), did he reckon as he looked at them how many Russians there were for each Frenchman and, deceiving himself, find reason for rejoicing in the calculation that there were five Russians for every Frenchman. Not on that day alone did he write in a letter to Paris that “the battle field was superb,” because fifty thousand corpses lay there . . .

Napoleon, predestined by Providence for the gloomy role of executioner of the peoples, assured himself that the aim of his actions had been the peoples’ welfare and that he could control the destinies of millions, and make their prosperity by the exercise of his power. . . .

He imagined that the war with Russia came about by his will, and the horrors that occurred did not stagger his soul. He boldly took the whole responsibility for what happened, and his darkened mind found justification in the belief that among the hundreds of thousands who perished there were fewer Frenchmen than Hessians and Bavarians.

* * *

Source: Author