Why We Fight

by Guillaume Faye

  (see Eurosiberia; nation)

  * * *

  End of History

  A historical vision, secular heir to the (teleological and soteriological) salvation religions, according to which the age-old conflicts between peoples will progressively culminate in humanity’s regrouping within a single World State, governed by individualistic norms of peace, prosperity, and uniformity.

  The end of history is a utopia, formerly professed by Marxists, today by Islam (once its jihad has conquered the world), as well as by liberals (notably Francis Fukuyama), who believe the collapse of Communism is leading all the world’s peoples to form, in the course of the Twenty-first century, a global liberal society under the auspices of an all-powerful and self-regulating market — a society whose only problems will be minor ones resolvable by the police or existing regulations.

  The utopia inherent in the ‘end of history’ is implicit in all modernist and egalitarian ideologies. Its aim is to eliminate differences and conflicts between peoples for the sake of its peculiar model of humanity (the bourgeois consumer). This utopia hasn’t a chance of being realised, but it nevertheless has a detrimental effect on Europeans in challenging their independence, identity, and sovereignty. Linked to notions of ‘humanity’s global pacification’, the end of history is in essence a profoundly totalitarian utopia. For history, this river of destiny, whose course is unforeseeable, is far from having dried up.

  *

  With its impending clashes between large ethnic blocs, the Twenty-first century will, in actuality, be possibly more conflict-ridden and violent than the Twentieth century — because of, not despite, globalisation! On an overpopulated planet, prone to rising perils, it’s not the end of history leading to a liberal, democratic world state that we see coming, but an intensification of history, as the competition between peoples responding to the imperatives of selection and the struggle for life becomes ever more desperate.

  (see history)

  * * *

  Enrootment

  Attachment to a land, to a hereditary heritage, and to an identity that is the motor of all historical dynamism.

  Enrootment opposes cosmopolitanism, cultural mixing, and the ethnic chaos of present-day civilisation.

  The concept, however, is ‘slippery’, because it easily leads to certain misunderstandings. European enrootment is never an attachment to the past or to immobility. Instead, it links the ancestral heritage with creation. It shouldn’t be understood, then, in the way a museum has us understand it, which neutralises a people’s identity by freezing it in nostalgic memory. The notion of enrootment complements that of ‘disinstallation’, explained above. Enrootment is the preservation of roots, based on the knowledge that the tree must continue to grow. Roots are what live: they engender the tree and permit its growth.

  Enrootment is above all based on loyalty to values and to blood. The most dangerous form of enrootment, or pseudo-enrootment, occurs in the regionalist and separatist milieu of the Left — in Provence, the Basque country, and Brittany, for example — where the region’s linguistic and cultural distinctions are forcibly asserted, but on the basis of a multiracial model. Hence, the frequently heard and astonishing litany, ‘Our immigrants are Bretons, Basques, or Occitans like us’. The contradiction is total: in the name of opposing the ‘tradition’ of Jacobin homogenisation, strangers to our soil and traditions are admitted to the country — in the name of Jacobin universalism!

  If limited solely to culture, enrootment becomes a sterile folklorism. For however necessary, in itself cultural enrootment is insufficient.

  For Europeans of the future, enrootment ought never to be limited simply to attachment to or defence of one’s native country (region or nation); it also needs to be accompanied by an inner revolution that makes them conscious of Europe (perhaps later Eurosiberia) as a community of destiny.

  (see archeofuturism; disinstallation; tradition)

  * * *

  Ethnocentrism

  The mobilising conviction, distinct to all long-living peoples, that they belong to something superior and that they must conserve their ethnic identity, if they are to endure in history.

  Whether it’s ‘objectively’ true or false doesn’t matter: ethnocentrism is the psychological condition necessary to a people’s (or nation’s) survival. History is not a field in which intellectually objective principles are worked out, but one conditioned by the will to power, competition, and selection. Scholastic disputes about a people’s superiority or inferiority are beside the point. In the struggle for survival, the feeling of being superior and right is indispensable to acting and succeeding.

  Long-living peoples, the great and the small, whether Chinese or Jews, have always been ethnocentric. But one should be wary of a metaphysical supremacism that becomes demobilising or discourages all effort (‘we will always be intrinsically superior, it’s futile to worry about it’). It’s the fable of the turtle and the hare. History has repeatedly demonstrated that a people imbued with a fierce will and a hardened character can defeat and subjugate more brilliant and gifted populations and civilisations which are overly confident or decadent. This was the case of all those peoples between the Seventh and the Eleventh centuries who were overrun by the eruption of Muslim Bedouins. This is our situation today, for we too risk being overwhelmed by peoples of different cultures and civilisations.

  Europeans were powerful when they remained naïvely ethnocentric. Once they starting asking themselves about ‘the value of the Other’, the decline set in.

  America’s present dynamism is based on the conviction — whether true or not — that her model is superior to all the others. History is above all a field of subjectivity, of struggle between subjectivities.

  *

  European ethnocentrism was never a matter of hot air. The contribution European civilisation (including its American prodigal) has made to the history of humanity surpasses, in every domain, that of every other people. But one must never rest on one’s laurels. In the larger struggle of planetary competition, nothing is ever gained forever. Civilisations in any case don’t last if they don’t cultivate an inner pride, an implicit sentiment of being irreplaceable, a ferocious will ‘of identity and continuity’.

  (see competition; consciousness, ethnic)

  * * *

  Ethnocracy

  Ethnocracy[137] (in Greek, ethnos means people and kratos means power) refers to a political system for which the homogeneity of a people is an unconditional prerequisite for the exercise of the political will of the people. As a consequence, the citizens of an ethnocracy derive all political rights and duties from this ethnic criterion.

  The ethnocracy is based on the conservation of the multitude and the differences; in other words, the originality specific to each people and each culture. It is universally applicable for all peoples and cultures, and at the same time constitutes the radical overcoming of all the destructive universalisms of egalitarianism.

  It promotes the birth of healthy children (see eugenics) and strives for the conservation of the environment (see ecology), since it prioritises the living before the idols of economy, consumerism and mercantilism. It heals all forms of ethnomasochism and protects the people from self-destruction.

  Ethnocracy (also known as genopolitics) will most definitely be the great political challenge of the future.

  (see genopolitics; eugenics; democracy, organic democracy)

  * * *

  Ethnomasochism

  The masochistic tendency to blame and devalue one’s ethnicity, one’s own people.

  Ethnomasochism comes from shame and self-hatred. It’s a collective psychopathology, provoked by a concerted propaganda campaign to make Europeans feel guilty about how they’ve treated other peoples and to make them see themselves as ‘oppressors’. They are made, in this way, to repent and pay their alleged debt. A veritable historical imposture, their repentance, no less, is urged by the churches and the state.

  Ethnomasochi
sm is also at the base of anti-natalist policies that surreptitiously limit the reproduction of the European population. It’s a form of self-racism, in effect. Tainted with the original sin of his intrinsic racism, European man is guilty of being who he is.

  Ethnomasochism promotes a systematic apology for race-mixing and cosmopolitanism. Curiously, it denies Europeans the idea of an ethnic identity, which everyone else is accorded. They are obliged, thus, to mitigate themselves, while others, like Africans for example, are not. Ethnomasochism is the counterpart to xenophilia (the love and overestimation of the stranger, the ‘Other’). It’s akin to ethnosuicide. Ethnomasochism is nothing new in history. It’s a symptom of a people too weary to live and perpetuate itself: an ageing people ready to pass the baton to another. European elites have succumbed to this collective disease, which explains their indifference to the present colonisation and their idea that we should welcome it.

  (see homophilia; xenophilia)

  * * *

  Ethnosphere, ethnic blocs

  Those territories ruled by ethnically related peoples.

  The notion of an ethnosphere refers to a world based on the laws of life, to one that rejects cosmopolitanism and multi-ethnic nations, whose history is one of ongoing failure. The future of our overpopulated world belongs to homogeneous ethnospheres or ethnic blocs. China, India, the Arab world, and Black Africa are ethnospheres. The Twenty-first century will be one of clashing ethnic blocs and ethnospheres. It certainly won’t belong to the cosmopolitan hodgepodge of a World State! The planet is not going to unite into a global network of exchanges and communications, as peoples and civilisations somehow fuse into a single unity. The very opposite is coming!

  At present, Europe alone is trying to mix races and only her elites envisage the spectacle of a motley ethnopluralist society extendable to the whole world. As for the United States, founded on anti-ethnic principles, its racially kaleidoscopic society hasn’t a chance of becoming planetary. It’s not even certain if it’ll endure — for lacking an ethno-national community, its existence is likely to be ephemeral. It’s far more probable that China or Japan, representing homogeneous ethnospheres, will survive.

  The notion of ethnic blocs doesn’t necessarily imply a bellicose vision of the future. Conflict, as well as cooperation, are the laws of history. To cooperate in an overpopulated world of disparate peoples, it will be necessary to conserve one’s identity. The world of the future will have to be one of cooperating ethnospheres, though one based on the logic of ‘armed peace’. It will be a world of ‘cold war’ between ethnic blocs that will best serve us. We should nevertheless have no illusion about it: in an increasingly competitive world, conflict between ethnospheres is inevitable. Islam’s present anti-European offensive is a good example of this. As to Europe and Russia, if they don’t achieve their destiny by forming a unified ethnic bloc, they will be devoured by other continental civilisations.

  (see autarky of great spaces; identity)

  * * *

  Eugenics

  A technique for improving the genetic quality of a population.

  Biotechnologies and genetic engineering today furnish the technical and practical means of improving the human genome, not solely for therapeutic reasons, but for political ones as well. Biotechnology now makes it possible to practice a positive eugenics that directly intervenes in the genome to improve heredity, doing so more effectively and rapidly than older techniques based on selection by marriage.

  This Promethean challenge posed by eugenics was long anticipated in Europe’s archaic pagan imagination. But it evidently poses a terrible problem in offending sensibilities rooted in monotheistic creationism and anthropocentrism.

  Not only does man become the creator of himself, self-manipulating, but he finds himself immersed in the living, like a ‘biological object’, similar to other animals. Dual revolution, above and below: Man makes himself, being both a demiurge, a rival of the divine, and, in the same stroke, becomes malleable human material to be shaped and moulded. The combined death of anthropocentrism and metaphysical deism.

  Eugenics shocks tender-hearted egalitarians: isn’t it a matter of diabolically creating the ‘Overman’? Yes, of course. The essential thing is to master the process, to submit it to a political will, and not let it become part of an unregulated eugenic ‘market’. To prevent such a development, as the dominant ideology demands, is hardly tenable. The celebrated British physicist Stephen Hawking recently declared that biotechnology will permit ‘the creation of a master race’ and ‘a much improved human being’.[138]

  Biotechnology will very soon also make possible artificial, extra-uterine births, in ‘incubators’ (i.e., without pregnancy), as human and cultural genetic matter are introduced in vitro. This procedure could become a powerful means of redressing European natality, now threatened by depopulation . . . It would, of course, be preferable to do this through natural births. But in tragic situations, half a loaf is better than none . . . Between two evils, one chooses the lesser.

  (see archeofuturism; biopolitics; techno-science)

  * * *

  Europe

  Europe is our real fatherland — culturally, historically, ethnically, civilisationally — embracing and overarching her different nations and native lands.

  It’s finally time to make Europe a subject of history. It’s probably best to begin by defining a European, before determining his formal or legal nationality — simply because a stranger can call himself a Belgian, a German, or a Frenchman, though it’s much more difficult to call himself a European (or a Castilian, a Breton, a Bavarian, etc.). Europe needs to think of herself as a community of destiny, one that will replace the nation-state in the Twenty-first century.

  *

  Besides, most people in the world see us more as Europeans than as Germans, Italians, Frenchmen, etc. The way others look at us is one sign that we’re not wrong. In a globalised world, prone to civilisational clashes, Europe — beset by demographic decline, threatened with life-threatening dangers — faces the overriding imperative of regrouping in order to survive, for the isolated nation-state no longer bears any weight in a world where an entity with less than 300 million inhabitants lacks the power to assure its independence.[139]

  *

  The present European Union is a prostrate object, a bastard, devoid of identity.

  The irredeemable failings of the EU are well-known: rigid bureaucratism allied with global free-trade, submission to the United States, abandonment of sovereignty, the euro’s erratic fluctuations, an overbearing immigrant-supportive multi-racialism, etc. The process is well-known. The existing EU institutions don’t serve the interests of the European peoples.

  Returning to a Europe of cloistered nation-states is no longer an option. The French nation-state never sought the preservation of her peoples’ identity. Indeed, she herself, spurred by her cosmopolitan ideology, opened the door to the alien colonisers. We face a terrible dilemma: France or Europe? The question, though, is badly posed. What should be asked (to go over rather than under this contradiction) is: how can Europe be made, the real Europe, without unmaking and denying France? The answer: it’s the French state that’s cause for criticism, not France as a historical and cultural entity. However bad Europe’s present organisational form, there’s no reason to renounce the prospect of constructing another Europe.

  *

  On what general principles can a ‘good’ European construction take place?

  1. Europe must be built according to principles of sovereignty, independence, and power — in the spirit of the best French tradition. Of course, the worst of this tradition should also be avoided — i.e., its levelling centralism that excludes the idea of Europe (depriving her of a sovereign, central state) and resists an overarching, federal authority imbued with a strategic policy and an autonomous economy. ‘European construction’ needs to be envisioned as having a central executive power and a head of state. The present situation is a complete mess: a
single, unregulated currency, an embryonic army, member states dispossessed of 50 percent of their legislation, courts without authority! Two things in one. Either, we return to state sovereignty (with national currencies) and the EU becomes an ensemble of treaties, pacts, accords, and occasional summits (the ‘Concert of Nations’ established by the 1815 Treaty of Vienna) — the model of Nineteenth-century Europe. Or else, national sovereignty is abandoned for the sake of a European imperial state worthy of the name.

  2. According to this second hypothesis, Europe will be federal and imperial or it will not be. She can’t long remain content with the present wobbly assemblage of cooperative but unequal states lacking a common international policy, led by an uncomprehending and uncontrollable technocracy, with everything feebly held together by the rhetorical swish of free trade, democratism, and humanitarian ‘values’, and undergirded by bureaucratic regulations and financial mechanisms. Europe will exist in the long run only as a large federation of ethnically related regions.

  3. Western and Central Europe, whose future is now uncertain, needs to ally with Russia to ward off their common enemies.