The concrete measures the Greens have taken, once in power, are truly laughable. It is enough to consider that Mrs. Voynet[149] has managed to block the construction of a channel between the Rhine and Rhône, causing an increase in the traffic of goods via lorries between the North Sea and the Mediterranean, which will become even more chaotic, expensive and polluting.
The Greens actually couldn’t care less about environmentalism, which serves as a mere pretext for them. Proof of this is the fact that in Germany and France they go out of their way to defend the naturalisation of illegal immigrants, prevent them from being legally expelled, and so on, while doing very little indeed to serve the environmentalist cause. Environmentalism is only a mask for Leftism.
Political environmentalism, as shown by Greenpeace campaigns, is a large-scale fraud. Like many charitable, humanitarian and cultural associations, it is only one of the countless disguises the political far Left uses to move its pawns and compensate for its notable lack of any alternative socio-economic project.
The Real Causes of Immigrationism: Xenophilia, Ethno-masochism and Electioneering
Why do all Leftists favour immigration? Why is it that the more people are to the Left, the more they welcome unrestrained immigration? The reasons invoked are both sophistic and ridiculous:
First, the needy and refugees must be let in to uphold the honour of France, an open society, and the place where human rights were first formulated. According to this view, being a patriot means making one’s fellow countrymen support aliens who benefit from public aid more than they themselves. Being a patriot thus means transforming the anthropological, ethnic and cultural substratum of one’s country within one generation – an unprecedented phenomenon in French history. The second reason invoked is that, because of their birth rates, native Frenchmen are no longer able to provide a generation turnover; hence, immigrants are needed. This is a magnificent sophism indeed: why not simply take measures to increase the birth rates of the native French? Well, because natalism is seen as a political and ideological sin. So let us turn now to the real reasons behind immigrationism. The first is a psycho-ideological reason, while the second consists of a political plan.
First reason: the Left, which spearheads immigrationism and is followed in this by a guilt-ridden Right, suffers both ideologically and morally from a sort of binary complex: xenophilia and ethno-masochism – the idealisation of African and Asian foreigners, and hatred of its own roots. This is reminiscent of the syndromes affecting the anti-bourgeois Marxist bourgeois, anti-clerical defrocked priests, and anti-Semitic Jews. If applied to Leftist ideologues, political psychoanalysis would reveal that these people regard the ‘White man’ as being intrinsically guilty and stained by the unforgettable and unpardonable sin of having exploited non-European peoples (through colonialism, racism, etc.). Immigrationism and theories promoting the idea of a multiracial, mixed society thus represent the work of being redeemed for our sins. We must make up for our faults by disappearing as a homogeneous folk and allowing ourselves to be colonised and dominated. (By ‘us’ here I don’t mean Leftist ideologues, but the hateful native European masses). One example for all: for work reasons, I often visit the world of showbiz. In the course of an interview with the beautiful and talented actress Béatrice Dalle,[150] who has a perfectly Leftist outlook and a pseudo-rebellious style, I asked her, ‘Why don’t you have any children?’ She answered, ‘They would make me fat. But I love children and would be happy to adopt some, if possible.’ I then asked, ‘You mean you would like one of those Rumanian or Ukrainian orphans?’ Her answer – no further comment needed – was, ‘No. I don’t want to adopt any European children. Only coloured ones, from Africa or Asia.’ What an interesting psychoanalytical case this would be: might it be that the ethno-masochism and xenophilia of the Left stems from a racial obsession?
The second reason behind immigrationism has to do simply with political and demographic plans. According to official statistics on naturalisation, birthright citizenship[151] and lax immigration laws, the number of voters of immigrant origin is constantly growing. Now, the vast majority of these people will vote for socialist parties and the far Left, which they regard as their ‘protectors’, while the native French working class – the traditional reservoir of votes for the Left – will turn their backs on them and choose the Front National. The plan here is a very simple one: to increase the population of immigrant voters; and then, to make it easier for them to vote by automatically enrolling them on electoral lists (this used to be a voluntary, ‘civil’ process). This is a short-term plan, but one that effectively serves the career interests of politicians of the Left and far Left, i.e., to ensure a lasting majority of votes to preserve their own power. For demographic reasons, Right-wing voters will be a minority for a long time. If our folk is not good enough – so the reasoning goes – then let’s replace it with another.
National Preference: A Self-contradictory Notion
The debate on ‘national preference’ is not unlike debates about the Loch Ness monster: it concerns something which fades quickly from view. The so-called Republican Left and Right see national preference as a fascistic and discriminatory idea. Those municipalities which provide subsidies for couples of French origin are seen as breaking the law, like all charitable associations that limit their help to French citizens only. Yet, according to the French Constitution, national preference is what regulates employment in the public administration, whether civil or military. So the Constitution itself must be fascistic and discriminatory: why not reform it immediately?
The whole of international law is founded on the notion of national preference. It is applied by all countries of the world, which systematically put their own citizens first, particularly when it comes to jobs. So all countries in the world except France must be fascist – as must be the national preference laws the parliament of the Popular Front[152] passed under Léon Blum![153]
Actually, both those opposing the idea of national preference and those supporting it are victims of a self-contradictory political concept. Egalitarian ideology simultaneously embraces the idea of nation and non-discrimination, of belonging and of non-exclusion. In order to consistently pursue the path of individualism and universalism to the very end, the ruling ideology must ultimately sacrifice the concepts of nation and citizenship so dear to it. We are all ‘citizens of the world’ – that goal is clear – yet not of any specific country. The very idea of the nation, like national citizenship, is now meaningless. As is, to some extent, the ‘state’.
Do the Left and far Left, these great enemies of national preference, not realise that they are severing their very link to the nation-state and threatening their own doctrines regarding economic state intervention? Do they not realise they are implicitly siding with ultra-liberalism, which is based on the belief that there are no citizens but only individual atoms, disembodied economic subjects with no roots? The most stupid Left in the world, against all evidence, is ignoring the fact that the rejection of national preference is the central dogma of ultra-liberalism. It has never read Milton Friedman.[154]
This demonisation of national preference is actually a residue of the Marxist idea of proletarian internationalism, which had been abandoned by the builders of Communism early on because of its utopian character.
The entire debate on national preference is a case of the emergence of repressed notions. It is a matter for political psychoanalysis. It is the Front National that first brought attention to the issue by formulating the debate on a semantic level. The Front has made explicit a concept that is implicit in Republican ideology, forcing ‘Republicans’ to recognise that it is incompatible with its own egalitarian and individualist dogmas. The self-righteous advocates of political correctness find themselves caught in an ideological trap: fighting the idea of national preference while emphatically defending ‘citizenship’ (or embracing ‘French’ patriotism and the idea of France) will prove an increasingly difficult acrobatic feat. On t
he other hand, the Left is being forced to confess its hidden thought: that a Senegalese enjoys all the rights of France, but a Frenchman enjoys none in Senegal. This disregard for common sense can’t go on for long.
In drawing attention to the issue of national preference, the Front National has not managed to escape some of its own inconsistencies: for thanks to naturalisation laws, demographic trends and immigration, those it considers ‘foreigners’ are legally French by now, and this applies to the majority of young North Africans and Blacks.
Ethnic Preference: An Archeofuturist Notion
North Africans and Blacks in France who are legally ‘French’ have spontaneously ceased to reason in terms of nationality. They are Archeofuturist without knowing it: for they employ ethnic terms. They speak of the ‘Gauls’, ‘white cheeses’ and ‘sons of Clovis’[155] to refer to French natives. What a gap between the official ideology of egalitarian naturalisation and social reality...
The dilemma the Front is facing is that its ‘national preference’ imperative also applies to the majority of young people of immigrant stock, and this poses a serious problem. It is very difficult to argue that the notion of ‘French nationality’ is simply disappearing.
What would the solution be? The ruling ideology and its system are plagued by contradictions, which are bombs waiting to go off. It is the resulting clash that will solve the problem, not the ideologues of the system. It will then be necessary to make things clear and choose either to abandon the idea of nationhood completely in favour of a global individualistic and cosmopolitan outlook – the logical outcome of all egalitarian ideology stemming from Judeo-Christianity and the French Revolution; or to clearly adopt the principle of ethnic preference. This would be based not on an individual’s formal and legal belonging to a given nation-state, but rather on his belonging to an ethno-cultural community. At the moment we are sailing in the fog through compromises and cheats. But I’m sure that events not far away will make things much clearer.
One last point: the etymology of the word ‘nation’ has been completely erased by the Left. The Latin root of this term means, ‘a group of people born of the same stock’ – in Greek, ethnos.
The Revolutionary Principles of Enmity and Friendship: A Critique of Carl Schmitt (I)
Carl Schmitt’s central idea is that the essence of politics consists in identifying one’s enemies and not in the liberal idea of an arbitrary and peaceful administration of the state. He is only half right. As some of his detractors have noted – people who shared his opposition to liberalism – the essence of politics also consists in identifying one’s friends – the comrades who share our struggle. The Marxists had understood this well, without ever managing or daring to state it. Rather, they had given a utopian and mistaken formulation to the notion of ‘comrade’, which they limited to ‘class comrade’. But this is a false, abstract idea with no anthropological basis, just like the concept of ‘citizen’ that was formulated during the French Revolution.
It is reasonable to assume that a political force, party or movement will not succeed in its goals unless divergences among its members – whether sincerely ideological in nature or simply motivated by personal ambitions – are weaker than their drive to fight their common enemy. Still, external enmity is not enough in itself to consolidate a party: internal, disinterested friendships and shared views must also exist within its ranks.
It is not enough to fight against a common enemy. A genuine community of values must also exist, based on purely positive feelings. A comrade is not simply one’s ally in a struggle. Without comradeship, any cunning enemy can divide a party.
Internal friendship must be as strong as external enmity. People can hate the same enemy without this healthy aversion of theirs lessening their mutual enmity. Lenin wrote, ‘Let us unite now – we shall settle the score later.’ What he meant by ‘later’ was ‘once we have seized power’.
A subtle dialectic exists between friendship and enmity. A political movement can hope for success if its internal disputes never break out, for underlying friendship among its members prevents their mutual disagreements from turning into public, open conflicts. Trotskyists and Leninists waited until they had seized power before – tragically – parting ways under Stalin, the heir of the Leninist current of ‘Russo-Bolshevism’.
Internal enmities must always disappear in the face of external ones. In other words, the unity of a political movement cannot be based exclusively on external enmity, as Carl Schmitt suggests. This is a mechanistic view of things. A party can only find its unity in the mutual friendship of its members, in their sharing of common values that transcend any doctrinal or tactical disagreements between them.
Carl Schmitt is right in rejecting the liberal view of politics as the neutral ‘administration’ of the state. But in limiting the essence of politics to the identification of one’s enemy, he only goes halfway and forgets an essential point. His definition of politics lacks a positive dimension, both spiritual and anthropological. The essence of politics also includes the identification of one’s folk and who is part of it. It implies an answer to the question: why are we fighting – for what values? This is an affirmative view of politics: a constructive, organic and long-term view, not a merely critical and mechanistic one. Politics are not a football match: it’s not simply about defeating an enemy team, it’s about developing a positive project. Between liberalism, which confuses politics with administration, and Schmitt’s school, which limits it to the identification of one’s enemy, a third path exists that I will attempt to outline in the following section.
What is the Essence of Politics?
A Critique of Carl Schmitt (II)
Carl Schmitt’s idea of ‘identifying one’s enemy’ is a crucial one. It must certainly be integrated into the overall definition of politics, of which it constitutes the essence – the axis and foundation.
The essence of politics might be defined as the formulation and accomplishment of the destiny of a people. This implies hostility towards an enemy, but also a voluntaristic reflection on a project of civilisation. I feel that the Nietzschean concept of ‘will to power’ – understood as something pertaining to historical development and not mere war-mongering – could help formulate the essence of politics.
Today we are witnessing the death of politics. Politicians are merely fighting for a semblance of power, where no concrete project exists. Political authorities have no real power not because of the influence of financial, economic mechanisms, but because they lack a will to shape the destiny of their people – they lack a historical vision. The last politician in France was de Gaulle.
The essence of politics – which epitomises the qualities each genuine head of state must possess – is aesthetic and architectural in nature: for it consists of a long-term vision of a collective future. The true politician is an artist, a drafter of projects, a sculptor of history. He is someone who can immediately answer the questions: who is part of my people and what are their values? Who are its enemies and how can we fight and defeat them? And finally: What destiny should we choose to acquire power and carve out a place for ourselves in history?
The essence of politics pertains to historical development. It consists in building a civilisation, starting from a folk.
Liberals, who confuse politics with administration, and Carl Schmitt, who limits it to the identifying of one’s enemy, both reduce politics to economics, with its petty rules of management and competition.
The idea I have suggested for the essence of politics is an archaic one. Pharaohs were known as the ‘architects of Egypt’. Mine is tomorrow’s solution: Archeofuturism.
The Role of Sex in Ideological and Political Repression – What about Prostitution?
It is interesting to observe that the increase of taboos and proscriptions in the field of political and ideological expression go hand in hand with a collapse of sexual taboos. Pornography (virtual sex one does not personally engage in) serves as a safety valve.
It is like a theatrical set – a papier-mâché facade. People are free to consume X-rated material in all types of media, provided they think correctly. ‘Tits on the telly’, but no deviant ideas. Censorship is letting harmless subjects go in order to focus on more crucial ones. You have the right to put your fingers in the cookie-jar, but not to criticise the regime.
That being said, any repression of pornography would be stupid. The hardest blow that could be dealt to the sex industry would be to make brothels legal again, with medical check-ups and compulsory condom use. Virtual sex would thereby be replaced with real sex.
Whether state-owned or a registered private one, it makes little difference. So here is another archaic idea: to reopen medically regulated brothels.
Organised, legal prostitution is the best known way to channel deviant sexual energies, and to curb pimping and all forms of crime connected to uncontrolled prostitution. All ancient civilisations have known this.
Women who sell their bodies are not to be despised – certainly, far more despicable are politicians who make a profit off of the fake love they parade for their country. A prostitute is a proletarian like any other: she sells her work to the highest bidder, but she doesn’t sell her soul. Would it not be wiser to make legal again and regulate the oldest profession in the world? The state would become a pimp again, but this would always be better than being a dealer – for the state taxes alcohol, tobacco and petrol, all of which are clear causes of death. In organised and controlled brothels people run no real risks – not even of catching STDs.
For the time being, society cannot accept this solution, for it is puritanical in the very fibres of its permissiveness.
Misguided Theories about Drugs
Archeofuturism Page 17
