appraise otherness and also how to accept the innate differencesrnof all human beings. Only then will Europe bernequipped to weather the storm of egalitarian and universalistrntemptations. Egalitarianism and uni’ersalism are the worstrnforms of inclusive racism, destroying cultural and ethnic identities,rnwhether in the name of Manifest Destiny or of thernCommunist Manifesto.rnIt is no surprise that the demanding ideas of the New Rightrnhae never swayed the majority of European conservatives,rnwho in most cases continue to express their anti-egalitarianrnfeelings through integral Catholicism or Lutheranism. Nor hasrnthe New Right found a supportive ear among the chiliasticrnleft, which is c[uick to dub its cultural elitism an elegant garbrnfor intellectual fascism.rnDemocracy and liberalism have been standard topics forrnthe New Right to dwell on. Following in the footsteps of CarlrnSchmitt, Benoist argues that liberalism is incompatible withrndemocracy. Liberalism limits political power whereas demoerac’rnexpands the political power of the people. “The formularn’one man, one vote’ is not a democratic expression. Whatrnis democratic is ‘one citizen, one vote,'” says Benoist. Thernconcept of citizen, which Benoist uses, must be understood asrnadherence to a homogenous community; one is a citizen ifrnone belongs to a historic community. Genuine democracy inrnmultiethnic countries, such as the former Soviet Union, Yugosla’rnia, India, or America, is therefore impossible to achieve.rnOnce democratic impulses attempt to find their way intornsuch multiethnic countries, the ethnic patchwork begins tornbreak up and civil war looms large. So-called democracy in atomizedrnand individualistic liberal systems, which usually operaternunder the “one man, one vote” formula, means essentialK’rn”one vote, one (expandable) consumer.”rnFollowing Benoist’s logic one must not rule out the possibilitvrnthat, after events in Los Angeles, the American meltingrnpot may easily turn into a Yugoslav-like cauldron. Similady, inrnmultiethnic Berlin or Marseille an Arab or a Turkish immigrantrnwill always conceive of democracy as something thatrnpreserves and consolidates his ethnic roots in a new historicalrncommunity—a procedure that, in the years to come, mayrnlead to all sorts of urban warfare.rnOn the wider geopolitical level, the New Right sees in German)rna major player in Europe’s future, possibK in tandemrnwith Russia. Unity of Europe, yes, but not a 7-Eleven type ofrnmarket-Maastricht Europe. European unity can only bernachieed as a cultural and political confederation in the formrnof empire. In his last intervention, L’idee d’Empire (The Idearnof Empire), Benoist writes favorably about the Austro-Hungarianrnlegacy, which unlike centralistic English and Frenchrnnotions of empire, never attempted to mould a sense of nationhoodrnby physically destroying or assimilating smaller adjacentrnethnic groups. The Second German Empire, like thernAustro-Hungarian Empire, had strong centers, but it also hadrnstrong peripheries. In an age of rising nationalism and xenophobia,rnEuropeans mav be well-ad’ised to consider this modelrnagain. At present, however, contrary to Benoist’s wishes, itrnlooks as if Europe may soon end up with a dozen Monaco-likernministates. Whether European unity can, as Benoist wouldrnlike to see, be achieved remains doubtful. European unityrnappears as distant a pipe dream as it has always been. Lookingrnback, Charlemagne mav remain the first and the last emperorrnwho managed to bring Europeans together.rnThe European New Right celebrates today its 20th birthday.rnIts intellectual and scholarly contribution during the past tworndecades has been remarkable. It has proxided a new stimulusrnfor the European intellectual scene, and by refusing categorizationrnor labeling it has frequentlv bewildered both its friendsrnand foes. But its long-term political realism has already beenrnvindicated. “Nothing is foreseeable,” says Benoist, “becausernman is unpredictable.” The fall of the Wall, the erosion of Versaillesrnand Trianon architecture, the end of pan-Slavism, arcrnconfirming Benoist’s predictions of unpredictability. Onernmust agree with him that the end of history is nowhere nearrnon the horizon. What we are witnessing, again and again,rnwrites Benoist, is the majestic return of history. crnMoses Descending, 1993rnby John Frederick NimsrnThe burning questions of our time? They’re burning.rnThat’s all, as Troy did once. The ashes stay.rnIt’s not with such concern our hearts are churning:rnWhat moN’Cs the star by night, the sun by dayrnHints at a primal Why? beyond the headlines.rnBeyond the mole-eved scientist’s surmise.rnFiercer than anv hunger in the breadlines,rn7b know! to know! is the hunger in our eyes.rnBut how? In a wodd by glutes and cleavage haunted,rnHoroscope, crystal, junk bonds, fads and trends,rnGospel on T-shirts, string bikinis flauntedrnlb “make a statement.” Moses, lo! descends.rnWaves plastic tablets with gilt lettering:rn”Good is what feels good, people. Do your thing!”rnFEBRUARY 1993/21rnrnrn