It’s all a matter of reaching that stage where the population clearly sees the danger. There will be no European rebellion until Afro-Maghrebians hold power and are seen thus as oppressors and occupiers — not until the economic catastrophe resulting from immigration and demographic decline breaks out. This is slowly beginning. One resists an authority, in effect, only if it is seen as alien and illegitimate — one doesn’t resist social facts, a particular kind of society, or national forms of power.
(see colonisation; convergence of catastrophes; resistance and reconquest; state of emergency)
* * *
Colonisation
The occupation and permanent installation of a people (or several peoples) on another people’s homeland. This term is preferable to that of ‘immigration’.
This is what Europe is presently suffering: a massive colonisation by alien peoples, which makes it the greatest tragedy in her history, because it threatens to destroy her ethnic stock. This colonisation is far more serious than a military occupation, because it’s potentially irreversible. At the same time, this colonisation threatening an Islamic conquest of Europe is carried out with the complicity of the United States.
From a tactical perspective, it’s necessary to speak of colonists rather than of immigrants, and to stop affirming that the latter are victims of ‘exploitation’. Just the opposite, these colonists have come to Europe to live at our expense. Their invasion comes from both the maternity wards and porous borders (30 percent of French births are now of alien parentage and, if nothing changes, by 2010 Islam will become the largest practiced religion in France).[113] We are suffering ‘a colonisation from below’, very different from the former European colonisation of the Third World. The gravity of the phenomenon has been compounded by Europe’s demographic collapse.
European colonisation was civilising: it brought many things to the countries involved and, contrary to the dogmas of the xenophilic Left (dogmas echoed by Right-wing Parisian intellectuals), it had little effect on native culture. Rather, it (stupidly) reinforced Islam, laying the basis for its current historic assault on Europe.
In every realm, resistance to this colonisation and reconquest constitutes the single overriding objective of every European political project of the Twenty-first century.
(see ethnomasochism; resistance and reconquest)
* * *
Communitarianism
The doctrine that diverts and disfigures the notion of ‘community’. Of American origin, communitarianism is a doctrine advocating the cohabitation of different ethnic communities within the same society, each with its own laws, imagining that harmony between these different communities is possible.
It’s the very negation of the idea of a people — it’s a variant of apartheid. Hardly possible in the United States, communitarianism is completely unrealisable in Europe. Touted as an alternative to forced assimilation, communitarianism is unfortunately defended by certain stargazing intellectuals of the Nouvelle Droite.[114] It’s a delirious and abstract understanding of social polytheism and derivative of the notion that Empire is a ‘pluriversum of peoples’.[115] As practiced by the French state today in regards to Muslim and Afro-Asian aliens, communitarianism has the effect of fragmenting society into an array of ethnic ghettos. It’s derived from the Rousseauian idea (‘social contract’) that cohabitation between different ethnic groups is possible within a single political entity, through the magic of ‘education’ and ‘political reason’.
Defended by recent Parisian Right-wing converts to Rousseauianism and anti-racism, this thesis simply doesn’t hold up. No people can be an amalgam of different ethnic communities, the product of some miracle carried out under the state’s beneficence. Our intellectuals are not only dreamers, but historical ignoramuses, like everybody else today. They want to fabricate homogeneity from heterogeneity, mixing sulphur and saltpetre, hydrogen and oxygen without setting off an explosion. In respect to immigration, communitarianism is the stupidest possible response, based on the most infantile utopia ever conceived by Western intellectuals and bureaucrats. Their theoretically ‘harmonious’ solutions have been a disaster in practice.
The communitarian doctrine and those who defend it are, objectively, complicit with ethnic colonisation and the Islamic invasion. The worst aspect, in the case of the Right-wing communitarians, is the vanity of their explication (that of Bouvard and Pécuchet,[116] the two kindred ‘philosophers’, unable to distinguish thought from reality), while the Left’s explanation is simply a cynical calculation. Neither matters: the facts suggest that communitarianism ends in civil war.
(see assimilation; resistance and reconquest)
* * *
Community, community-of-a-people
A group whose organic bonds are animated by the sentiment of belonging, homogeneity, heritage, and wanting to live together and share the same destiny.
The notion of community opposes that of ‘society’, whose essence is mechanical, heterogeneous, and based on a social contract. Community is the most natural way to group humans, since it’s based on ethnic and spiritual kinship — which establishes a harmonious equilibrium between its members and serves as the most propitious expression of their culture. Community pre-exists its specific forms of organisation and institution, for its essence is historical, innate, and non-contractual, unlike society.
Community, though, never exists in a pure state; it always includes certain social relations. One speaks thus of a ‘communitarian model’, whether of the nation as a community-of-people, of family, clan, association, army (community of combat), etc.
The communal model radically opposes the social model of egalitarianism and individualism. In the communal model, human relations are hierarchical, interdependent, and multi-functional. The community is not limited to the present; it has a history and a destiny. Its being transcends individual existences, imbuing it with meaning. The social model, in contrast, is purely contractual, mechanistic, and abstract, with the individual isolated, easily excluded, and the whole ensemble prone to rapidly descending into a jungle. The nihilism of contemporary market society is unthinkable in the communal model.
From this perspective, the community-of-a-people is organically subdivided into encompassing sub-communities: nations, regions, towns, clans, families, etc. True democracy, in the classic Greek sense, is only possible within such a communal context. This follows the implications and co-responsibilities of communally-related individuals; of their common ethnic bonds; and the common projects and memories linking them. The social model, on the other hand, is prone to ethnic chaos and its individual members are indifferent to one another, solidarities are purely artificial, self-discipline is impossible, democracy a simulacrum, and order a constraint.
A community-of-the-people — given that solidarity, social justice, freedom, security, defence, and the transmission of values are possible within it — operates with at least a minimum of ethnic unity and a sense of innate belonging.
In defining the Ummah[117] as a community of believers opposed to the Western individualist model of anonymous society, Islam finds in its communitarian nature a very powerful and effective idea. Despite the good sense of its social and philosophical precepts, Islam nevertheless remains the enemy, for its totalitarian and obscurantist ideology is totally incompatible with the European mentality of the liber civis: the free man. This is not a matter of disputing Islam’s critique of the West, but of denying it the right to offer us its solutions. Each must find it in himself, in his own way.
It’s possible that the idea of community among ethnic Europeans will be reborn only in misfortune.
(see people)
* * *
Competition, struggle for life
The clash of living-forms for supremacy and survival.
Competition, or the struggle for life, constitutes the principal motor force of evolution in everything from bacteria to humans, as well as history. Even the most fanatical pacifists acknowledge it.
Competition affects every domain of existence; it’s observable between individuals and between groups. Communal solidarity is the sole element mitigating its harshness. In blunting the individual’s egoism, its goal is to ensure the superiority of the community over other communities.
Even religions that ‘submit to God’ (Islam, for example), which might appear to renounce competition, appeal to it. For an individual or for a people, decay sets in once one starts believing that competition and the struggle for life are ‘unjust’, that enmity toward the Other is ‘abnormal’, that the state of peace is natural and war unnatural, and that the Garden of Eden is possible on Earth. Competition, the struggle for life, is the normal, permanent state of all living things — pacifism renounces life; it’s a morality of slaves.
There’s no use complaining about enemies: we should instead take satisfaction in fighting and eliminating them, knowing that they will always be with us. Those who declare that they have no enemies, that they aren’t in competition, that peace is perpetual, have succumbed to the entropy of extinction and death, which will pitilessly eliminate them. Even the most sincere cooperation is never definitive. An individual or a group or a people not in competition with one another are threatened in the long run by dying off. Vital forms of harmony are paradoxically born as much from struggle as from concord. And the choice of one’s friends is inextricably linked to the designation of one’s enemy.
The enemy is never wrong, if he wins. A ‘superior people’, a ‘superior individual’, a ‘superior group’ (whether military, economic, religious, etc.) operates not with abstract, ontological principles, but on the basis of the concrete results that come from competition. This is the case for all living things. One is never ‘intrinsically superior’ to others. One is superior only in successfully achieving supremacy.
It’s the law of the strongest, the most capable, the most flexible that always dominates. Vae Victis, death to the vanquished, such is the law of life; there has never been born a philosopher who could prove otherwise. If an individual possesses talent and will, he can defeat multitudes. Competition is economic, political, ethnic, etc. It’s based on an alliance of will and talent. One ought never to complain about being dominated. It simply comes from not being strong enough — not effective, not clever, not wilful enough.
The key to victory in any competition, as Robert Ardrey[118] saw, is the combatants’ solidarity. For humans, competition and the struggle for life are not primarily individual, but collective. In this way, the friend-enemy polarity is formed, a polarity which is the source of life itself.
(see selection)
* * *
Conception-of-the-World
The ensemble of values and interpretations of reality — implicitly or explicitly distinct to a specific human group — whether a people, a civilisation, a family of thought, political or not, a religion, etc.
One speaks, almost indifferently, of a ‘worldview’.
The conception-of-the-world transcends — goes beyond — political doctrines, as well as ideologies, and can even comprise several antagonistic ideologies, often based on the same principles. For example, the liberal Right and the socialist Left, progressive Christians and atheistic cosmopolitans, share the same general conception of the world. A conception-of-the-world comprises the intellectual and spiritual, rational and intuitive facets. It’s different from culture, in which several conceptions of the world can coexist within it. A conception-of-the-world implies a political and historical project, along with a specific view of man’s nature.
In the European, Western universe, there are two opposed conceptions-of-the-world. The dominant one, issuing from Judaeo-Christianity, is egalitarian, individualistic, and cosmopolitan. The other, more or less censored today, and derived from ancient European paganism, can be called inegalitarian, communalist, and ethnic. With Nietzsche, the latter achieved conscious philosophical formulation. Certain people, like Christian traditionalists, share aspects of both conceptions of the world, living an inner contradiction. It’s the war over conceptions-of-the-world, to which myths are evidently associated, that ultimately affects history’s course.
(see Judaeo-Christianity, paganism)
* * *
Consciousness, Ethnic
The individual or collective consciousness of the necessity to defend the biological and cultural identity of one’s people, the indispensable condition for the longevity and autonomy of its civilisation.
This is what today’s European, deformed by bourgeois individualism and universalism, lacks the most.
Ethnic consciousness clashes with the prejudices of modern anti-racism and ethnomasochism, both of which afflict Europeans. The dominant ideology demonises ethnic consciousness and equates it with a racist perversion and a will to persecute. Europeans are thereby denied the right to an ethnic consciousness, a right which every other people has been granted.
Bourgeois individualism is the principal ideological obstacle to the rebirth of ethnic consciousness. This individualism goes hand-in-hand with forgetting one’s roots and identity. The absence of ethnic consciousness is a collective mental affliction, associated with the pathological refusal to accept that one is a product of a certain ancestral heritage — a refusal born of that narcissistic individualism of which the West is so fond. The notion of ethnic consciousness will dominate the coming century. Jews, Chinese, Arabs, and Indians understand this well. Europeans alone have failed to see its appeal.
Democracy is real only among an ethnically homogeneous people, conscious of its ethnic identity. Ethnic consciousness is the democratic foundation for justice and social solidarity between members of the same people, as the Greek tradition understood it.
(see democracy; ethnosphere, ethnic blocs; philia)
* * *
Consciousness, Historical
The consciousness of belonging to a civilisation and to a people long inscribed in a distinct history and destiny.
Historical consciousness ought to be the basis of the political. Its aim is to ensure the long-term survival of a human ensemble, integrating it with the destiny of future generations. Unlike Muslims, Chinese, and others, European leaders lack historical consciousness. History no longer exists for them, neither in the past nor the future. Their temporal horizon extends only as far as the next election. This absence of historical consciousness will undoubtedly become the tomb of Western civilisation, incapable as it now is of envisaging the future or measuring up to the stature of its past — and thus unable to ensure its own survival.
(see people; long-living, short-living people)
* * *
Consumerism
Choice of a society founded exclusively on the quantitative dimension of its members’ material consumption — to the detriment of all other considerations.
Consumerism is the lowest degree of materialism and economism, since it’s uninterested in long-term economic power, neglects the economy’s ecological effects, and focuses exclusively on the mere volume of immediate consumption. Consumerism is a form of slavery, to which the mass men of our civilisation have succumbed, these mass men who are neither citizens, nor actors, nor responsible individuals, but rather passive, domesticated beings. Questions of an ecological, ethnic, or political nature hold no interest for the consumer. Even his personal security takes second place to his standard of living. A goose in the barnyard of a foie gras[119] producer.
Consumerism stems from a certain mental pathology — as Thorstein Veblen,[120] Guy Debord,[121] and Jean Baudrillard[122] have shown. It’s a matter of accumulating objects, things, but it lacks a sense of ends, even in matters of pleasure or well-being.
(see economism)
* * *
Convergence of Catastrophes
The converging lines of civilisational rupture that in the course of the Twenty-first century will consume the ‘modern world’ in a great planetary chaos.
For the first time in history, humanity as a whole is threat
ened by a convergence of catastrophes.
A series of ‘dramatic lines’ are coming together and converging, like merging river streams, in a perfect concomitance of ruptures and chaotic upheavals (between 2010 and ’20). From this chaos — which will be extremely painful at the planetary level — there will emerge the possibility of a new post-catastrophic world order — the painful birth of a new civilisation.
Briefly summarised, here are the principal lines-of-catastrophe:
The first of these is the cancerisation of Europe’s social fabric. The colonisation of the Northern Hemisphere by peoples of the South — which is becoming more and more imposing despite the media’s reassuring affirmations — is creating an extremely explosive situation; the failure of multi-racial society, which is already increasingly multi-racist and neo-tribal; the progressive ethno-anthropological metamorphosis of our Continent, a veritable historic cataclysm; the return of poverty to the West and the East; the slow, but steady progression of criminality and drug use; the continued fragmentation of the family; the decay of the educational system and especially the quality of instruction; breakdowns in the transmission of cultural knowledge and social disciplines (barbarism and failing competence); and the disappearance of popular culture for the sake of that mass cretinisation which comes with ‘spectacular’ culture. All this suggests that European nations are headed toward a New Middle Ages.
Why We Fight Page 10
