René Binet and his “Theory of Racism,” part 4: The Lie of Equality
The Lie of Equality
by René Binet
From Théorie du Racisme, 1950
Translation by M.M. & Hadding Scott, 2016
THE ASSERTION “all men are equal” offered a justification for this taking power, on the one hand, and for the looting of the world on the other. The possession of capital, then the appropriation therewith of the creation and the discoveries of the men of our race by the men of inferior strata, led to the entry of these undermen[*] into politics. Bringing along moral values appropriate for justifying their new power, they prepared the total decline of the racially superior men.
With what is called the bourgeois revolution, or capitalist society, a new scale of political and ethical values was created that would lead to the establishment of the bourgeois republic, in the place of the hierarchy of the people based on the unequal merits of the men who were members of it. To each stage of the historical process corresponds a specific political development: first races are subjugated by the lord conqueror who makes serfs of them; then associations of freedmen engage in commerce, buying franchises and the right to bear arms; then independent republics of emancipated merchants begin to assess individuals based on wealth and not on race. Such are the different steps in the rise of some, and the decline of the others.
At the same time as the prerogatives of race weaken, the demands of the inferior social-racial strata become more arrogant, until the instant when the balance has been destroyed and wealth makes possible the political imposition of race-mixture, and the social and political decline of yesterday’s rulers.
Modern government is nothing more than the representative of those who have been enriched and empowered by looting. All laws issuing from these governments are initiated only as a means of racial struggle, and trample underfoot all values that had been those of earlier states.
The reciprocal duties that primordially united one man to another have been broken: the “baron” is not protecting his “retinue” anymore; his subordinates no longer owe him “services.” Capitalism exposed man without defense to arbitrariness and the curse of gold; all human solidarity was negated. Henceforth, only capitalism‘s law and possession are affirmed. Man becomes nothing but a number, a book-value subjected to brutal and unscrupulous exploitation: his honor and his dignity could not be figured into the accounting of cash-flows.
Even family–relationships have ceased to be human connections, becoming no more than subjects for the calculation of interest. At the same time as society was losing its natural foundation, race, it was abandoning all its human-based connections. A biological order that is contrary to nature, a political order that is contrary to nature: such is capitalist society. Turning its back on nature’s relationships and biological equilibrium, this society is designed to supply profit for the few parasites who founded it and live off it. It opens the door to chaotic and sterile competition, to the total anarchy of production, and to political invasion by lower races.
Production ceases to correspond to the real needs of the community so as to represent henceforth only surplus value for the usurpers of the means of production. At the same time as production loses its natural political organization, it also loses its basis within the nation. Capitalism is cosmopolitan in its social and political doctrine because it has severed all ties to the biological foundations of human societies.
*Binet uses the word sous-homme. Obviously this is to represent the German word Untermensch. Prior to the 20th century, the adjective untermenschlich, which meant immoral, was common, but the noun Untermensch practically did not exist. Nietzsche (who had the habit of inventing words) used it once with a very different meaning from how the National-Socialists later used the word: Nietzsche said that Doestoyevsky’s Untermensch was the same as his Übermensch. The National-Socialist use of the word Untermensch seems to have had nothing to do with Nietzsche, but was inspired by Lothrop Stoddard’s 1922 book The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-Man. In this context, the Untermensch is not a “subhuman” but rather a human of bad hereditary character. As Stoddard uses the word it is a catch-all term for human types that, if they become too numerous, bring civilization to ruin. That is what Binet means by sous-homme.
To be continued…
* * *
Source: National-Socialist Worldview