Archeofuturism

by Guillaume Faye

  Shlomo Shoam, who was Chair of Philosophy at the University of Ramat Aviv in Israel in the 1980s, shared the following confidential remark with me during one of the Athens symposiums: ‘The economic and military power of Israel and its safety in the face of Arab countries rests on its “Sabras” – Ashkenazi immigrants from Europe.’[176] The primary foundation of history is anthropology, which determines cultural behaviour.

  The Plan for Bringing ‘Ethnic Chaos’ to Europe

  The ethnic question today is taboo, and hence crucial. After a long period of migratory stability, Europe – and France in particular – is now experiencing mass immigration from Africa and Asia, which is changing the ethnic composition of our land against the will of its native population and in contempt of the democratic traditions we have inherited from the Greek cities, the Roman Republic and Germanic law.

  Immigrationists reason that France has always been a land of melting-pots and large-scale invasions. The proof of this? The endless waves of Celts, Germanics, Romans and Slavs that have entered the country. Sure, but these were neighbouring peoples, ‘close cousins’ to be more precise. France is indeed a mix of almost all the ethnic components of our continent, including the Germanic, but these were all populations with mental structures and forms of behaviour close to our own. For the notion of ethnic proximity, while necessarily bio-anthropological in nature, primarily concerns peoples’ proximity in terms of worldview and instinctual attitudes. King Clovis – Kounig Chlodovech, to call him by his name – was assigned the role of Roman consul by Constantinople. Mental continuity thus existed in the land of the Gauls between the Roman and the Germanic worldviews, which were added to the existing substratum of the related Celtic peoples.

  It is well-known that, from an ethnic point of view, France is a synthesis of European peoples. Immigrationists justify the massive flux of immigrants from Africa and Asia by arguing that France has always been a land of ‘miscegenation’ and hence nothing has changed – that we’re merely continuing our tradition and that there’s nothing to worry about. Actually, the ‘miscegenation’ in question only occurred between European peoples. The Germanic ‘invaders’ – the most commonly invoked culprits – were not quite as invading as one is led to believe; for after all, they were probably already present in the land of the Gauls prior to their alleged ‘invasion’, sharing a culture that was very similar to that of the Gallo-Romans. The real invasions are not those that occurred in late Antiquity, but those we are experiencing today.

  Here’s another sophism used by the immigrationists: the idea that the percentage of foreigners in the French population today appears to be much the same as that of the year... 1930. To believe this is to ignore the mass naturalisation of immigrants that has occurred and – most importantly – the fact that thanks to the aberrant law of ground (jus soli), millions of ‘young people’ of Afro-Asiatic origin, who do not see themselves as being French at all, are indeed regarded as such by law. These people reason in ethnic terms – unlike Parisian intellectuals.

  The mixing that took place in the land of the Gauls, whatever its scale, only occurred among peoples who were cousin-folks from the point of view of anthropology and culture, as well as linguistics. By contrast, the Afro-Asiatic populations which have moved to our continent since the 1960s, altering its ethnic and cultural composition (the Muslims in France will soon reach 5 million and, from around 2005, Islam will be the most practiced religion in the country),[177] share no anthropological, cultural or even mental proximity to European natives – unlike the Germanic populations with respect to the Romans, Celts or Slavs. What we are witnessing, then, is a break from tradition, not any form of traditional continuity. On the other hand, the ‘Germanic invasions’ of late Antiquity, like all the other military incursions or flows of immigration that France experienced in one thousand years of its history – at the hands of the Moors, English, Dutch, Spanish, Germans, Russians and Italians –never caused any radical ethnic changes or cultural dichotomies. Hence, when the partisans of immigration compare these intra-European movements to the mass demographic colonisation to which we are being subjected today, they are quite wrong: theirs is merely an intellectual absurdity used to conceal the true nature of what is happening.

  With their twisted – and ultimately anti-democratic – reasoning, these people aim to favour the spread of ethnic chaos in Europe, while concealing its reality. Let us not forget that the immigrationist lobbies are headed by Trotskyists, whose irrational and hidden feeling has always been hate for European ethno-cultural identity.

  Besides, these internationalists are supported in their plans by ultra-Liberalism of American inspiration. The geopolitical goal of the United States – and we can’t really blame them for playing their cards – is to dominate the continent of Europe, destroy its ethno-cultural identity and take over its markets and techno-economic resources.

  No doubt, France had already experienced a series of immigration fluxes in the early Twentieth century – at the hands of Spaniards, Italians, Portuguese, Poles, etc. But again, these were all peoples from areas not far away: Catholic folk who spoke related languages and even had a sort of shared historical memory. Henry III was ‘King of Poland’,[178] and all of European history is but an assemblage of transcontinental ‘fragments of memory’. French history cannot be understood without constant references to Germany, Italy, Russia, England, Spain, etc.

  These intra-European migrations (which in any case took place on a far more limited scale than contemporary migrations from Africa and Asia) may be compared to migrations within North Africa or from continental China to the country’s maritime areas. A degree of ‘mental distance’ certainly exists between contemporary Flemings or Germans on the one hand and Greeks or Sardinians on the other, but it is considerably less than that which separates us from the ethnic blocs of other continents.

  Can people simply be mixed together, as a cook would mix his vegetables to make a salad?

  We should not hesitate to speak up against the crypto-racist ideology of the partisans of unchecked mass immigration.

  Immigrationist lobbies – of Trotskyist observance – are perfectly aware of the fact that multiracial society means multiracist society: something that has already been noted many times in the present work but which it is worth stressing again and again.

  France, Europe and the German Question

  I would now like to address two other thorny questions: anti-German sentiment, which reflects a repressed feeling; and then the following: why still worry about ethnic problems and immigration today, in the age of the Internet and globalisation? Is this not an outdated concern? After all, are we not all citizens of the world?

  Let us engage in a little political psychoanalysis, without forgetting our sense of humour. Anti-German sentiment among the French is the product of three European civil wars: those of 1870, 1914, and 1939. These may be seen as a German ‘reaction’ to French aggression under Louis XIV[179] and Napoleon. Luckily, this feeling has receded thanks to the building of Europe and Franco-German cooperation, which was initiated by de Gaulle. Still, (in both France and Great Britain, countries with strong Germanic roots) anti-German sentiment continues to exist in an embryonic form, as a potpourri of dumb clichés, unconfessed hatred, repressed resentments and fantastical fears: ‘German, what a ghastly language!’ (what about Hölderlin,[180] Rilke[181] or Nina Hagen?);[182] ‘Those Germans want to take over Europe!’; ‘Deep down, they’re still Nazis...’, etc. The silly jokes cracked about the Belgians (whom the French in their collective unconscious perceive as ‘francophone Germans’) or Swiss Germans are indicative of the same fantasy – one that was first engendered during the European civil wars, when people enjoyed drawing contrasts between a distinguished and refined Celtic-Roman French ‘race’ on the one hand and a simple-minded, brutal and barbarian German one on the other.

  German journalists and intellectuals are also responsible for this depreciation of their own ethnicity and culture, fo
r they never cease explaining Hitler’s dictatorship as a product of typically Germanic psychological traits. This is a form of masochism and self-flagellation. Are the Russians collectively blamed as a folk for the crimes of Communism? This permanent suspicion of all that is German, of which the guilt-ridden Germans themselves are victims and accomplices, weakens the cultural power of our continent, for it neutralises the Germanic component of the European genius.

  Insidious anti-Germanic sentiment, which still pervades French society, is more of a socio-cultural thing and is not directed towards Germany as such. This is quite normal: one does not mock one’s ‘number one client’. In the issue of the newspaper Libération published on 9 December 1997, a ‘sociologist with fieldwork experience’ learnedly argues that the fact that ‘young people’ in the Alsatian city of Mulhouse are wrecking local buses can be explained on the basis of the ‘racist’ attitude of local bus drivers. And of what does this ‘racist attitude’ consist? In dirty insults aimed at ‘young people’ born of immigrant parents? Nope! ‘These people speak Alsatian with one another and this is perceived as an act of provocation’, our comic-opera sociologist explains. In other words, using one’s native Germanic language in one’s own country is intrinsically perceived as a racist provocation. What a nightmare! Actually, it is the explanation provided by this pseudo-sociologist which is deeply and naively racist. His slip of the tongue reveals a form of racism as unacceptable as all other forms of hatred directed against any given folk. For don’t racism and hatred commence when one rejects the very notion of folk? This is an extremely interesting example: for ultimately, according to the ruling ideology, everything European and rooted is perceived as being guilty and criminal. Guilty, that is, of being itself (ethnomasochism).

  By tradition, culture, heritage, education and outlook I am Latin and Hellenic. I thus feel perfectly comfortable with expressing what Europeans consciously or unconsciously expect from the Germanic spirit, which extends far beyond the borders of Germany. What are the ‘ancient’ Germanic qualities that have long contributed to shape Europe?

  Firstly, a democratic fibre – understood in the etymological sense of the term, as the situating of the will of the people above any judge’s decrees, whereby it is this will that is the basis of the law and not vice-versa. Communitarian solidarity is here regarded as more important than socio-economic hierarchies. Respect for women, the keeping of one’s word (‘frankness’), honesty in business, punctuality, active dynamism, creative inventiveness, skill in collective organisation and scientific rigour: these are all Germanic qualities.

  Yet the Germanic soul also has its drawbacks, which is why it should be tempered with the different mental dispositions of its European cousins. Take its Romantic tendency to ‘go to the very end of things’, which Madame de Stäel[183] so aptly identified in the early Nineteenth century. This excess can lead to both exacerbated nationalism and organised, suicidal and masochistic laxity (e.g., the Grünen),[184] to statism as much as anarchy, suicidal militarism as much as suicidal pacifism, self-exaltation as much as self-flagellation, and complete materialism on the part of individual consumerists – homo BMW – as much as disembodied and inert spirituality.

  The fact remains that the block of Germanic populations lies at the axial centre of our continent (which is currently undergoing a difficult process of unification) and contributes to shape many vast regions. The Germanic soul permeates the most dynamic aspects of all European countries. ‘Germanic’, however, means more than merely ‘German’. De Gaulle’s plan for European independence, the Ariane rockets, the Concorde and the Airbus are all components of a political project whose cultural essence is Roman (the will to imperial power), while also being informed by Celtic ardour and Germanic rigour and engineering skill.

  It was France, a country as Germanic as it is Celtic and Roman, that has benefitted the most from this intra-European ethnic synergy. This geographically exceptional country and crossroads of European peoples is a synthesis of Europe. The problem is that we must now choose a new horizon: France as a micro-Europe or Europe as a macro-France? Not a ‘French’ Europe, of course, with all the calamities this implies – Jacobin jus soli, taxation, bureaucracy and centralism – but one different from that based on the chaotic constitution it has given itself today, and which may adopt a political plan, as the French state did for a thousand years. It is interesting to note that it was the French and Germans – the ‘Franks of the West’ and the ‘Franks of the East’, to quote the German poet Stefan George[185] – that together with the other Franks, the Belgians, have been the promoters of this great plan.

  The European project must be pursued in ways more effective than that crippled and paralytic old dinosaur of the European Union sprung from the Amsterdam Treaty.

  The Frauds of Globalisation and Cosmopolitanism – How Tomorrow will be an Ethnic World

  Is worrying about ethnic questions not pointless in the age of globalisation? Not at all – it is futuristic: for we are not moving towards the disappearance of the notion of folk, but towards its strengthening.

  Both the partisans and the enemies of ‘globalisation’ are tilting at windmills. Through international trade and exchanges, globalisation had already occurred between the Sixteenth and Twentieth centuries – this is now an established fact. It was first set in motion by Europe with its ‘great discoveries’, the conquest of America, and colonisation. Still, the globalisation of commerce has never been synonymous with ethnic intermingling or with unchecked free trade. We are experiencing globalisation today: this simply means instant communication and the establishment of trans-national communications, as well as strategic, economic, scientific and financial networks. Still, first, globalisation does not prevent the United States from basing only 12.4% of its economy on extra-continental trade; second, globalisation does not prevent France, Italy or Germany from keeping the vast majority of its exports within Europe; and third, globalisation only affects a small percentage of human activities.

  What we should be critical of, from our point of view, is rather the champions of globalisation – or, more precisely, cosmopolitanism. This term serves not as a means to describe an existing reality, but as a weapon of ideological warfare against Europe, destined to anthropologically flood our continent after having paralysed it politically.

  These champions of cosmopolitanism say, ‘The people of the Earth are one, so let us intermix.’ They would like us to believe that the future of the planet consists in widespread intermixing, and that political and economic frontiers are being eroded. But theirs are only sophisms: this is not at all what’s happening. Ethnic homogeneity through miscegenation is not at all waiting round the bend; on the contrary, ethnic blocs are growing stronger. Only Europe and North America are being subjected to immigration. Only Europe and North America – or, rather, their intelligentsias – believe and make others believe in the inevitability of a global melting-pot. Just as Marxism made people believe in the scientific inevitability of the rise of internationalist socialism, globalisation represents a central component of the cosmopolitan ideology, which is so wisely explaining how we are ‘historically’ forced to accept the mass influx of Afro-Asiatic immigrants and to relinquish our ancient anthropological and ethnic identity as Europeans.

  Now, globalisation and immigration do not concern the rest of the world. It is an intellectual deception to argue that globalisation is a world-wide phenomenon reflecting the course of history. What is real, by contrast, is the mass demographic colonisation we are being subjected to. China, India, Africa and Arab-Muslim countries are no longer intermixing: they are exporting their blood, while preserving themselves as closed blocs. They are conquering us (partly as a form of revenge, as previously argued) through a method of infiltration, which is far more effective than open military invasion – for it won’t trigger any immediate reaction and revolt.

  Still, a concrete medium-term risk exists of ethnic civil war in Europe, should the latter rediscover its ide
ntity and lost homogeneity. This would take the form of a civil revolt on the part of native Europeans, which might be triggered by the aforementioned convergence of catastrophes. The dumb pacifism of the immigrationists and their dreams of harmonious intermingling will lead straight to war. But so much the better: stupid ideas are always overthrown by hard facts.

  Should We Abandon the Idea of a ‘French

  State’ in Favour of a European Federation?

  I have no faith in the idea of ‘world citizenship’. On the other hand, I’ve never been much attached to the French state, which is essentially a high-tax, centralised and unrepentantly Colberto-Socialist[186] entity, a leech sucking the blood of the Gauls and a cause of world wars in the past. Attached to the untenable jus soli, in the long run it will destroy what it has been entrusted with defending: the French people. The jus soli was easy to assert, like one of those gratuitous and romantic slogans from the age of the Revolution (‘All men have two fatherlands: their own and France’). Ideologues treat the term ‘French’ as a political concept, while the people have always understood it as an ethnic notion. At the time when it was formulated, there were no mass immigration flows, and so there were few risks involved in promoting utopias.