Why We Fight

by Guillaume Faye

  *

  Despite the infantile euphoria of the ‘new economy’, the Internet, and the purely conjunctural upswing, the world economy is in the red and will likely lead to a gigantic world economic crisis early in the Twenty-first century. Our civilisation — based entirely on the exaltation of market society, monetary values, and economic primacy (whether socialist or capitalist) — risks perishing from the economic functions upon which it rests.

  The situation is analogous to that of a militaristic society that perishes because of the ongoing wars it wages and eventually loses. Those who actually know something about the economy (such as Maurice Allais[92] or François Perroux)[93] have warned us about idolising it — like those soldiers who warn civilians about the dangers of militarism.

  Structural factors (notably demographic and ecological ones) are never taken into consideration by those fixated on immediate, short-term results.

  The apostles of the new economy are like children masquerading as adults. The new world economic order these false prophets extol is nothing but the swansong of the old order.

  3. Strategic Principles

  With the end of the ‘Soviet menace’ and the subsequent pressures Islam and the South bring to bear on Europe (with American approval), the geostrategic situation has been thrown into upheaval. New concepts — a Eurosiberian alliance, a ‘domestic front’, and rearmament, including nuclear weapons — are accordingly rising to the fore.

  The geostrategic situation of the Twentieth century has been transformed by two factors: first, the end of the Cold War, which makes possible a Russo-European pact against the American superpower; and second, ‘from below’, an American-supported colonising offensive by Arab-Muslim peoples, allied with the Global South against Europe.

  America and Islam Against Europe

  The Pentagon’s nightmare is an ethnocentric Eurosiberia. That is, a long-term union of West and Central European peoples with the Russian Federation — a union free of Islamisation, American hegemony, and non-European colonisation.

  America’s thalassocracy[94] would like to control this vast region and prevent any rival power from rising there. Since 1945, the United States, through NATO, has sought to be ‘the foremost European military power’. As an organisation designed as a defensive alliance against possible Soviet aggression, NATO no longer has a role to play, except to keep Europe strategically and militarily subordinated to the United States. This is evident in the alliances NATO has formed with the former Soviet satellites. Incapable of adopting a common defence policy and of saying ‘no’ to their American nephew, Europeans are alone responsible for their subjugation. France abandoned de Gaulle’s strategic independence when it participated in the Gulf War[95] and again when it joined American-led NATO forces against Serbia. No one forced her to do this.

  *

  American geopolitical objectives in Europe are:

  1. To militarily and strategically weaken Russians and Serbs, the sole peoples to have resisted their Muslim enemies (Kosovo, Chechnya, Central Asia, etc.).

  2. To create dissensions among Orthodox Slavs and other Europeans in order to divide and rule them. European participation in the bombardment of Serbia, militarily futile but politically symbolic, was directly aimed at compromising us.

  3. In the spirit of ‘the Islamo-American pact’, the U.S. seeks to weaken Europe by favouring her Islamisation and her transformation into a multi-racial, Africanised society. To this end, it promotes an Islamic bridgehead in the Balkans (Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo) and pressures the EU to admit Turkey, and after that, Morocco. When we were told that the bombardment of Serbia was a failure because it failed to establish a multi-ethnic society there, this was a distortion, for it was actually a success. In accord with other Muslim states, the U.S. goal was to establish a mono-ethnic Kosovar state in the heart of Europe. In exchange, Middle Eastern states were persuaded not to attack Israel, to accept Iraq’s embargo, and, thirdly, to leave their oil assets in Anglo-American hands. It might be added that the Pentagon has consistently supported the arming of anti-Russian Muslim terrorists — everywhere from Afghanistan to Chechnya.

  In the spirit of their ancestral Qur’anic tradition — ‘the slightest resistance today for the sake of a greater domination tomorrow’ — Islamo-Arab governments accept their provisional subordination to American interests for the sake of American aid in conquering Europe.

  4. The United States welcomes Europe’s Islamic colonisation. The enormous cost of this colonisation has had the effect of diminishing European competitiveness. Millions of Third World welfare recipients have poured into Europe, while Europe’s young, creative economic elites are leaving for the U.S. The United States has a vested interest in this Third Worldisation of Europe’s economy, just as it has in the loss of Europe’s cultural, ethnic identity vis-à-vis Islam and the African masses.

  Americans have congratulated the French on becoming a multi-racial society, just as the spider flatters the frog in order to better deceive him. As Thomas Sancton writes in a Time article[96] with the hallucinatory title of ‘A French Renaissance’, ‘The French don’t like to admit it, but decades of immigration have produced a multi-racial society that is reviving the nation’.

  If the hypocritical Casanova in the White House is to be believed, the American government apparently now wants a rapprochement between the EU and Russia. In June 2000, Bill Clinton declared that it was ‘very positive that Russia had adopted a long-range approach to the EU, with the aim of entering it and NATO’.

  In this way the Americans endeavour to recuperate the idea of a continental union for the sake of neutralising it. ‘Unify, but under NATO’s leadership — that is, under our authority’. Their objective is a destabilised Continent — Americanised, Islamised, and strategically directed by the U.S.

  This is a completely logical strategy. There’s no need to morally reproach the U.S. for it, as our passive, deranged anti-Americans do. Europeans themselves need to take matters into their own hands.

  The Dangers of European ‘Disarmament’

  The present whim of European governments is ‘disarmament’ — the drastic reduction of conventional and especially nuclear arms. This stems from the dogma that, since the fall of the USSR, ‘Europe no longer has any enemies’ — a dogma exploited by the European political classes and by a cynical Pentagon.

  The call for ‘disarmament’ rests on two prejudices. The first is that security is possible without maintaining a large armed force. The only thing that counts is ‘the power of economic interests’, with war now seen as an ‘archaism’. But force and the threat to use it are one of the constants in human societies. The warrior function has never been replaced by the economic function. This is especially the case since our enemies, given the nature of their ancestral culture, respect nothing but force and its threat.

  The second prejudice is the superstitious fear of ‘nuclear’, which is refuted by history. Nuclear arms are essentially dissuasive. And nothing can prevent their proliferation.

  What is America’s military doctrine regarding Europe? It’s diabolically clever: first, to feign approval for the creation of a common (but small) European military force, a simulacrum of a common European army (‘Eurocorps’), but one which in reality would be totally subordinated to NATO, even if formally separated; second, to limit European forces to ‘peace-keeping’ operations under UN or NATO auspices, sending European troops to replace the ‘boys’ on the ground, ‘protected’, of course, by U.S. airpower; third, European forces would thus have no role to play in any real defence of the Continent, which would remain under NATO and U.S. authority. This is all very well thought out geopolitically. We will be left with only peace-keeping and policing forces fit for a banana republic.

  France is the turkey in this farce: she has unilaterally renounced nuclear testing (while the U.S. Senate has refused to ratify the suspension of American tests, which could start up again at any time); she has thus unilaterally reduced her nuclear arsen
al. The U.S. has not ended its nuclear program. In accord with the SALT accords, it has reduced its ‘overkill’ capacity, but without impinging on its global capacity. Even better: in violating its treaties and despite vain Russian and French protests, Americans continue to work on developing an ‘anti-missile shield’, which would undermine the deterrent purpose of nuclear weapons.

  In sum, the Pentagon hasn’t at all prevented the proliferation of nuclear weapons (notably among its Israeli and Islamic friends), but has, instead, sought to disarm France and Russia in order to make itself invulnerable to nuclear attack.

  Notions of the ‘Menace from the South’ and the ‘Domestic Front’

  The principal potential military threat to Europe comes from the Arab-Islamic world. Soon Iraq,[97] Iran, eventually Algeria, and already Pakistan possess or will soon possess rudimentary but devastating nuclear arms capable of reaching Europe. From this perspective, France’s nuclear force no longer functions as a deterrent of ‘the weak against the strong’ (as was the case with the former Soviet Union), but as ‘a deterrent of the strong against the crazy’.

  On the hinge of the Twentieth and Twenty-first centuries, we are going to experience a geopolitical and geostrategic change of dramatic proportions. The danger will no longer come from the East, but from the South. The great fractures won’t be inter-European but inter-civilisational. It will be a return of a long-past situation, a return to archaism: to the Eighth century of Charles Martel.[98]

  The maintenance and development of an independent nuclear military capacity for Europe, based on France’s nuclear arsenal, and eventually linked to Russia’s, will be indispensable to the Continent’s defence. In awaiting the creation of a viable European executive, the French government needs to preserve and maintain its strategic and tactical nuclear arsenal. It’s never too late to revoke a bad decision.

  Just as nothing is ever excluded from history. The possible conjuncture, in the course of the Twenty-first century, of an ethnic civil war in France and Europe, along with a military threat from Arab-Islamic countries, is no longer automatically excluded from consideration by our more lucid military planners. Supported by tactical forces, a nuclear deterrent will be indispensable against our enemies in the coming century.

  Similarly, notions of an ‘interior enemy’ and an ‘interior front’ are increasingly viable and irrefutable. Against a possible ‘Kosovarisation’ of Europe, encouraged by the Muslim states, our geopolitical and strategic orientations have got to change.

  Toward a Eurosiberian Strategic Doctrine: The ‘Giant Hedgehog’ [99]

  Our future strategic doctrine is clear. Here are its principal axes:

  1. Europeans need to form a land army, made up of native Europeans and adequate to fighting a possible religious-ethnic civil war. But is this possible with the professionalisation of the military and the abandonment of conscription? Everything depends on the criteria used to select recruits. The stakes are high. The massive presence of non-indigenous elements within the present armed forces makes them a possible fifth column.

  2. Europeans need to develop an autonomous nuclear capacity, complete with full tactical and strategic assets. Given that nuclear arms are credible only when there’s a unity of decision-making behind their possible use, there will have to be a common sovereignty, and if this is not possible, then France and Russia will have to assume a ‘defensive and deterrent pact’ for Europe, like the present American nuclear umbrella. Since Great Britain is not an independent nuclear power, but a U.S. appendage, it will have to be excluded from such a pact.

  3. Because a Russian alliance is preferable to an American alliance, Europeans need to stop seeing themselves as ‘the pillar of NATO’ and start dismantling NATO for the sake of an integrated military alliance (including the defence industry) that links the EU, Eastern Europe, and the Russian Federation. As the strategic prelude to Eurosiberia, this geopolitical vision of ‘armed neutrality’, perfectly anti-imperialist and defensive, corresponds to the ‘giant hedgehog’ doctrine that Robert Steuckers has formulated in his many geopolitical writings. Quite simply, we need to form a new Warsaw Pact, from the Atlantic to the Pacific!

  4. Threatened by Islam and the South and by the U.S., Eurosiberia has a long-range interest in forming military and economic alliances with China and India, for they too have the same enemy as us: Islam.

  5. Again, in the long-term, a future Great-European diplomacy will need to persuade the Americans that they are on the wrong path in allying with Islam and the South, and in playing their anti-European card. Even in their own strategic terms, they will not always be a thalassocratic superpower. From a visionary historical perspective, it would seem that their vocation is to return to the bosom of their motherland, Great Europe. This would be like the return of the prodigal son, as European-Americans finally realise the error of their secession. But that’s something for the day after tomorrow.

  6. Good relations with the Arab-Islamic world cannot but take the form of an armed peace that never lowers its guard. The sine qua non[100] of such a condition will entail the end of its colonisation of Europe. As the Qur’an says, Islam needs ‘to put down its hand to avoid having it cut off’. It won’t do this if there’s a sword in its hand. The idea of a ‘European-Arab Mediterranean alliance’ based on allegedly common interests is a fool’s errand, without any historical or economic basis. Europe has no need of Africa or the Middle East, which are a drag on her, a financial, economic, and human burden, and increasingly a menace. Russia is overflowing with oil, gas, and nearly inexhaustible uranium mines. It’s toward the East, toward the rising sun, that we must turn.

  Our future strategic doctrine is clear. Eurosiberia will have need of no one. It would threaten no one, and no one would be able to threaten it. ‘At the European level’, as Pierre Vial puts it in Une Terre, un people (One Land, One People), page 134, ‘Europe’s objective is to form a Eurosiberian union, an imperial confederation, based on military, diplomatic, monetary, and commercial competencies, constituting a vast market in the form of a self-centred space. Capable of showing its teeth whenever necessary, such a giant power would be able to convince the other continental blocs to give up their colonising schemes — doing so without excluding the possibility of establishing bilateral relations that would serve each of their interests.’ This says it all, for only in this way can humanity’s great civilisations, each in conserving their distinct identity, cooperate to preserve the common human heritage of this planet we call ‘Earth’.

  Eurosiberia is obviously a long-term perspective. A heartland to hold, an objective comparable to a ship sailing toward its destination, to the inspiration of pioneers conquering an unknown land. Such a Grand Political perspective will undoubtedly make myopic ‘specialists’ and bourgeois politicians (always fooled by history) turn away in fright. As yet we still don’t know how we’re going to realise this great Eurosiberian project, which will entail a true metamorphic — and archeofuturist — renaissance of the ancient European idea of Empire. The road will be difficult — and stodgy intellectuals, as well as ‘realistic’ politicians, will never cease objecting to it — like sailors refusing to take to the sea because of an unfavourable wind.

  Evoking a future historic alliance between Europe and Russia, Gorbachev, the visionary, spoke of ‘constructing our Common House’.[101]

  4. Metapolitical Dictionary

  Here, in the form of a dictionary, is a synthesis of our conception-of-the-world and our historical perspective, for it’s on the basis of keywords and concepts that we inevitably organise ourselves. There’s no need to read it in linear fashion. The index at the end of this book will help you select the ones you wish to consult.

  A

  Aesthetics

  According to its Greek etymology, ‘that which evokes a strong sensation’. Aesthetics is linked to notions of beauty, harmony, achievement of form.

  Contemporary egalitarian ideology abhors and implicitly demonises aesthetics. It associate
s (rightly) the will to power with discipline, which it considers morally unacceptable, ‘fascist’ in effect. This ideology opposes aesthetics to ‘ethics’ and situates itself in ethics’ iconoclastic tradition.

  With the plastic arts, architecture, cinema, literature, theatre, even fashion, the ugly, the unachieved, the unformed, the most far-fetched nonsense, the shady and the watered down are now preferred to the aesthetic, which is made synonymous with a menacing ‘order’.

  Since the mid-Twentieth century, contemporary arts, encouraged by the dominant ideology, have rejected any notion of aesthetics. Instead of harmony, the power of forms, the exaltation and elevation of sensation and beauty — notions of abstract ‘conceptual art’ are preferred, which becomes a pretext for degeneracy, wilful ugliness, and subsidised incompetence. Abstraction accordingly reigns, just as a jargonising meaninglessness and obscurity enthrals the intellectuals. The genuine aesthete, the authentic artist, is ostracised or marginalised — as if he were politically incorrect. Hence, the paradox of a society that strives to be ‘moral’ and humanistic, but ends up privileging barbarism, the inversion of values, and new forms of primitivism.