"Intellectual elite" - this won't work. Where are your priests and warriors? If you do not have those, you are in deep trouble. Actually, we are all at the end of this deep trouble which lasts since these special guys withdrew from the world and left it to it's own devices.
Since when aren't priests Intellectuals too? The caste of priests and philosophers also consists out of intellectuals, since they embody wisdom, one of the central lacking in today's Europe.
Maybe we can in general call priests intellectuals, but we cannot call intellectuals priests.
You can pick some well known priest of the last Western cycle, and compare him to yourself. First, these guys were in the position of power, at the top of the caste system, or at least competing with warrior nobility for that position. Where are you?
These guys were initiated to this position, just like warriors, at least in ideal cases. They also predominantly came from nobility which had long tradition of having men in these positions. They had noble blood.
Evaluate how close you are to that.
I am not saying your intellectual activity has no value, but it is worth differentiating what's really needed to be considered the elite, at least in a "traditional" sense.
Against Ethnic Absolutism: Function Over Foundation
The vision articulated by Alexander Markovics and propagated by Constantin von Hoffmeister is not a celebration of rootedness. It is a rebranding of fascism, stripped of uniforms but fully intact in structure.
Its core logic is unmistakable:
One culture per territory.
One people per state.
One myth per system.
A pure ethnos, eliminating or subordinating all others.
This is not cultural preservation. It is a metaphysics of exclusion.
And at scale, it leads nowhere but war:
a zero-sum world where difference becomes destiny, and destiny requires annihilation.
No matter how elegantly packaged in talk of “organic community” or “primordial belonging,” the result is the same:
A planetary system of cultural fortresses, each armed with the right to purify its interior by any means necessary.
This is the road to a globalized ethno-fascism: One race, one culture, one state — or none.
The Alternative: Not Belonging, but Balance
What this worldview cannot tolerate — and what it cannot even conceptualize — is a system that integrates irreducible differences without eliminating them.
But such a system is possible. It already exists in embryonic form.
China is the most powerful case.
It has one of the oldest civilizational identities on Earth.
It is proud, historically centralized, linguistically complex, and deeply self-referential.
And yet—under the pressure of global complexity and technological interdependence—China has done what Markovics and von Hoffmeister cannot even imagine:
It has learned to operate as a node, not as a totality.
China does not dissolve its identity. But it no longer treats its identity as a political absolute.
Instead, it engages the world functionally, entering into systems where it is not the foundation, but a part.
This is not weakness.
It is the tectonic realism of a postfoundational world.
What matters now is not origin, but coherence.
Not purity, but sustainability.
Not myth, but structure.
The question is no longer: What people founded this system?
But rather: Can this system absorb difference without breaking?
That is the only path forward.
Everything else leads back—to collapse, to endless war, to the totalitarian death of all plurality.
We don’t need a new ethnos.
We need a new Leviathan:
Not built on blood or belief,
But on functional interoperability between irreducible forms.
Let each culture survive—not as absolute, but as structurally integrated.
Let the future be post-ethnic, post-liberal, post-foundational—yet never formless.
"Intellectual elite" - this won't work. Where are your priests and warriors? If you do not have those, you are in deep trouble. Actually, we are all at the end of this deep trouble which lasts since these special guys withdrew from the world and left it to it's own devices.
Since when aren't priests Intellectuals too? The caste of priests and philosophers also consists out of intellectuals, since they embody wisdom, one of the central lacking in today's Europe.
Maybe we can in general call priests intellectuals, but we cannot call intellectuals priests.
You can pick some well known priest of the last Western cycle, and compare him to yourself. First, these guys were in the position of power, at the top of the caste system, or at least competing with warrior nobility for that position. Where are you?
These guys were initiated to this position, just like warriors, at least in ideal cases. They also predominantly came from nobility which had long tradition of having men in these positions. They had noble blood.
Evaluate how close you are to that.
I am not saying your intellectual activity has no value, but it is worth differentiating what's really needed to be considered the elite, at least in a "traditional" sense.
Byung-Chul Han cause Russian war and death of Ukraine for no reason
https://open.substack.com/pub/jonjmoss/p/russia-adequate-use-of-entropy-justification?r=3igc5l&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Against Ethnic Absolutism: Function Over Foundation
The vision articulated by Alexander Markovics and propagated by Constantin von Hoffmeister is not a celebration of rootedness. It is a rebranding of fascism, stripped of uniforms but fully intact in structure.
Its core logic is unmistakable:
One culture per territory.
One people per state.
One myth per system.
A pure ethnos, eliminating or subordinating all others.
This is not cultural preservation. It is a metaphysics of exclusion.
And at scale, it leads nowhere but war:
a zero-sum world where difference becomes destiny, and destiny requires annihilation.
No matter how elegantly packaged in talk of “organic community” or “primordial belonging,” the result is the same:
A planetary system of cultural fortresses, each armed with the right to purify its interior by any means necessary.
This is the road to a globalized ethno-fascism: One race, one culture, one state — or none.
The Alternative: Not Belonging, but Balance
What this worldview cannot tolerate — and what it cannot even conceptualize — is a system that integrates irreducible differences without eliminating them.
But such a system is possible. It already exists in embryonic form.
China is the most powerful case.
It has one of the oldest civilizational identities on Earth.
It is proud, historically centralized, linguistically complex, and deeply self-referential.
And yet—under the pressure of global complexity and technological interdependence—China has done what Markovics and von Hoffmeister cannot even imagine:
It has learned to operate as a node, not as a totality.
China does not dissolve its identity. But it no longer treats its identity as a political absolute.
Instead, it engages the world functionally, entering into systems where it is not the foundation, but a part.
This is not weakness.
It is the tectonic realism of a postfoundational world.
What matters now is not origin, but coherence.
Not purity, but sustainability.
Not myth, but structure.
The question is no longer: What people founded this system?
But rather: Can this system absorb difference without breaking?
That is the only path forward.
Everything else leads back—to collapse, to endless war, to the totalitarian death of all plurality.
We don’t need a new ethnos.
We need a new Leviathan:
Not built on blood or belief,
But on functional interoperability between irreducible forms.
Let each culture survive—not as absolute, but as structurally integrated.
Let the future be post-ethnic, post-liberal, post-foundational—yet never formless.
Brief reply (for now):
What we once called foundations were always technologies of balance —
balance between differential and often irreducible nodes:
man and woman, kin and stranger, rootedness and movement, labor and rest,
difference and order.
These forms —ethnos, family, tradition— were not sacred ends,
but functional stabilizers that allowed difference to persist without implosion.
They emerged to sustain coherence under pressure.
And today, if we mistake them for ends in themselves,
we don’t preserve order.
We detonate it.