* * *
Sterile disputes and sectarian divisions divide and neutralise those who ought to be in solidarity with one another. This contrasts with the enemy, who, however protean, knows how to close ranks. Our disputes and divisions are superficial — and cause us to spar with those sharing similar beliefs — those having the same intuitive identitarian vision of the world, designating the same enemy, and implicitly defending the same people and aspiring to the same goals — but who are still attached to unclear ideas, emotional conflicts, badly posed debates (‘France’ or ‘Europe’, ‘sovereignism’ or ‘federalism’,[53] ‘Catholicism’ or ‘paganism’, etc.). Without well-defined ideas, clear and unifying concepts, serene reflections, and a sense of urgency, it will be difficult to be understood and thus difficult to establish an effective ideological line. According to an old adage, whose origin I will not reveal, we need now to lay the basis, throughout Europe, for ‘a form of positive, wilful thought creative of order’.
2. Preliminary Elements
The history of the world is a history of the struggle between peoples and civilisations for survival and domination. It’s a battleground of wills to power. It’s an uninterrupted succession of prolific tragedies resolved solely through the creative powers of the determinant forces. Class struggle is no less a reality, but of a secondary order.
A people’s long-term vigour lies in its germen,[54] i.e., in the maintenance of its biological identity and its demographic renewal, as well as in the health of its mores and in its cultural creativity and personality. On these two foundations a civilisation rests.
Contrary to the prevailing belief, it’s not economic or military power, nor its social constitution or political independence, that in the last instance determines the longevity of a people or civilisation. These elements are extremely important, but they are part of the superstructure. The base of everything is biocultural identity and demographic renewal.
This is why the present situation in Europe is so tragic: for the first time in two thousand years, she is quite literally in danger of disappearing. And this, at the very moment she is awkwardly trying to unite, as if she had the prescience to regroup against that which is threatening her.
Corrupted by the Western system she herself created, Europe is gnawed at from within and gnawed at from without. Domestically: by bourgeois individualism, the cult of short-term consumerism, infertility, devirilisation, xenophilia, ethnomasochism, and deculturation. Internationally: by a population-replacing colonisation, by the Islamic invasion, and by her strategic and cultural subjugation to Islam’s accomplice, the American adversary.
Today, as night descends on them, European peoples need to consciously see themselves as a people, for they have less than a century to save their germen and their civilisation. The Twenty-first century will be the decisive century, specifically its early decades. More than ever, the old military adage — ‘vanquish or die!’ — assumes its pertinence. If the generation of native Europeans which turns 20 between 2000 and 2010 doesn’t act, everything will be lost — forever — as the spirit of those who built the great cathedrals is finally extinguished. East Europeans won’t even be able to aid their brothers in the West, for they too are sick.
The coming century will be a century of iron. It will bring about an archeofuturist return of ancient questions, of eternal disputes, after the short parenthesis of ‘modernity’, which lasted barely three centuries – a moment in history’s course. The coming age announces the titanic and the tragic — as an overcrowded humanity, crammed on a sick planet, engages its decisive struggle for survival. End of a regime and interregnum.
The key issues facing the future won’t be about financing start-ups, finding a place in the political system for women, or looking out for the well-being of the ‘gay community’, but rather about determining the outcome of the coming clash between Europe and the Islamic world colonising her: will Europeans remain the majority of the European population; will they be able to check the dramatic degradation of the Earth’s environment, etc.? This manifesto, and its dictionary, addresses these questions.
In the course of the coming century, all humanity, first in Europe, then worldwide, will confront a convergence of catastrophes. Nothing is likely to be resolved without a major crisis in which we are forced to act, once our backs are against the wall. The present system — this modern Western system — cannot be saved, contrary to the illusions of the Right or the optimism of the Left. We need to prepare for the approaching chaos and start thinking in post-chaos terms. Rationalising ‘realists’ have criticised me for a revolutionary, tragic vision. But my view is positive. History proves that intellectual ‘realists’, usually myopic experts, look at the world through the wrong end of the lens. They have even accused me of being an ‘apocalyptic romantic’. But no, I’m a realist: I believe in the concrete. More paradoxical even, these reproaches are made by self-proclaimed ‘philosophers’ who pose as anti-progressives, yet have themselves succumbed to the worst liberal-Marxist illusions — in refusing to imagine the possibility of a catastrophe. They are like ostriches who bury their overdeveloped brains in the sand — or like the eyeless sea creatures in Marianne’s[55] sewers . . . History is not a long, tranquil river, but is rather a series of falls, rapids, and, would you believe it, mouths.
Why do we fight? We don’t fight for ‘the cause of peoples’,[56] because the identity of every people is its own concern, not ours, and because history is a cemetery of peoples and civilisations. We fight only for the cause of our own people’s destiny. Our political activities — the most quotidian cultural or metapolitical, the most down-to-earth, the most humble activities, even in the formulation of our practical programs — are guided by the imperative of all Grand Politics: that is, by the struggle for the heritage of our ancestors and the future of our children.
The Logic of Decline
European civilisation is gangrened with the cosmopolitanism that comes with the Western system, which it helped create, as Nietzsche saw in an earlier phase of its decay. Europe’s destiny in this sense is tragic.
The main cause of her decline is the maturation of those Eighteenth century ideas of equality and individualism that came at the expense of our communal, national, and ethnic consciousness. Another cause is the secularisation of Judaeo-Christian universalistic — and egalitarian — values. A third is the materialistic frenzy constitutive of the bourgeois spirit.
Europeans as such are themselves responsible for the ills afflicting them: the ills of the declining birth rate, Third World and Islamic colonisation, deculturation, American domination, strategic feeblemindedness, etc. They have, in effect, allowed their enemies to pollute their spirit and corrupt their body.
Narcissism, consumerism, devirilisation, homophilia, social egoism, xenophilia (improperly called ‘anti-racism’), demographic decline, cultural neo-primitivism, a rejection of aesthetics and the will to live, hatred of aristocratic and warrior values, the cult of the economy (secular monotheism), the disfiguration of classical humanism and true spirituality, the triumph of a vulgar, hypocritical humanism — these forces contributing to the diminution of the European’s character have been at work for more than a century. Largely invisible until now, the virus of this decay has at last completed its incubation and begun to burst forth.
Ethnic Colonisation
More than ‘immigration’, we need to speak of mass colonisation by African, Maghrebian, and Asian populations, acknowledging that Islam is seeking to conquer France and Europe; that ‘the delinquency of youth’ [57] is the first step toward ethnic civil war; that the invasion is as much about maternity wards as it is about porous borders; that, for demographic reasons, Islamic power is threatening to install itself in France, first at the municipal, then, perhaps, at the national level.
The public schools are floundering, prey to the violence of ‘Beurs’ and ‘Blacks’,[58] the new conquerors. ‘No-go zones’ have passed the thousand mark. For several years now, t
he number of immigrants, either legal ones with visas or illegal ones, has exploded. These new arrivals are not employable workers, but immediate candidates for the dole. We’re standing at the edge of an abyss: if nothing changes, in two generations France will no longer have a majority European population, and this for the first time in her history. Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, and Holland are on the same catastrophic path, just a few years behind us. Not since the fall of the Roman Empire has Europe known such a cataclysmic situation. And it’s occurring with the complicity of our clueless, ethnomasochistic political class and with the criminal collaboration of the immigrationist lobbies.
The growing ethnic chaos in Europe risks abolishing our civilisation; this threat is graver than any of the previous plagues and wars that Europe has known. And we shouldn’t forget that this colonisation and Islamisation serves the interests of the United States and that the integration/assimilation of the invaders, like multi-ethnic communitarianism, is, in actuality, utterly unfeasible. There is, moreover, an alternative: reconquest.
*
Never has the ethnic and cultural identity of Europe, the basis of her civilisation, been so gravely menaced, exacerbated by the collaborationist and suicidal complicity of the media and the politicians. Laurent Joffrin[59] could thus write this stupefying phrase in Le Nouvel Observateur: ‘The extreme Right thinks it can ameliorate the disorders of the liberal future with a remedy that is as false as it is murderous, opposing its own aggressive ethnic identity to the inevitable mélange of cultures.’
The fatalistic belief here in the inevitability of race-mixing is simply unsupported by the facts. It’s no ‘mixing of cultures’ that we’re experiencing in France, but rather the destruction, the eradication, the ethnocide of European civilisation for the sake of Americanisation, on one side, and Islamisation and Afro-Maghrebisation, on the other.
Under cover of their integrationist ideology, which has never been realised anywhere in the world, our enemies, loyal to the Trotskyism of their origin, endeavour to abolish our ancestral culture, which they consider intrinsically perverse.
‘Ethnic identity’ and its defence are thus designated as an Evil — having become symbols of aggression, in Laurent Joffrin’s term. The defence and affirmation of one’s culture in this view is nothing but a form of racism.
Far from becoming a ‘planetary civilisation’, a global village, the planet is today being organised into competing ethnic/identitarian blocs. The mixing of cultures and the abolition of identities are not part of the Twenty-first-century’s project. India, China, Black Africa, the Arab-Muslim or Turkish-Muslim world, etc., are affirming their identities, tolerating neither a colonising immigration nor a cultural mélange on their soil. Only our pseudo-European elites defend the dogma of a ‘mixed planet’, which is pure illusion.
Europe is losing its ancestral heritage, while the official defence of the national ‘patrimony’ is nothing but a museological enterprise. For cultural identity, like biological identity, is fundamentally archeofuturist: that is, it stems from an ongoing renaissance of forms and generations, beginning with the original germen. Permanent biological and cultural renewal and the ongoing assertion of the will to power: such is the law of all long-living peoples. Identity is inconceivable without the complementary notion of continuity.
The struggle against identity has become the watchword of the dominant egalitarian ideology. This entails abolishing both our memory and our blood. School programs testify to it, for in class they’d rather discuss an African folk tale than sing the old French songs. Céline’s prediction of a ‘tom-tom’ invasion is coming true.[60]
*
This colonisation by alien populations is deeply rooted in our mentality. The French themselves are the artisans of France’s destruction. If she is the country most assaulted by the alien invaders, it’s because her cultural and ethnic identity is the most impaired.
The problem goes far back. Since the Revolution of 1789, Jacobin France has thought of herself as ‘the republic of the human race’, ‘the country of all men’, in imitation of the United States, which had just gained its independence. But only in the United States, this country founded on immigration and the destruction of its aboriginal peoples, is the formula true, whereas in France, a land of enrooted peoples and ethnicities, this universalistic formula is dangerously false. From the start, the French Republic was based on the dogma of a non-ethnic state.
After the defeat of 1870,[61] the Republic’s ideologues, with Renan[62] at their head, opposed Germany, a nation ‘constituted by an original people, speaking an original language’, in contrast to the allegedly more civilised France, founded not on a specific race, an enrooted history, or an inherited identity, but on a social contract and ‘a political desire to live together’. Since then there has prevailed this disastrous French ideology, which denies its own ethnic reality and makes the republican half-caste (métis) the model citizen.
In 1914, again in 1940, Germany was perceived as a hereditary enemy, representing a people of a distinct stock — a primitive, identitarian people — who were to be defeated by French republicans, detached from all blood relations and linked to their fellow citizens solely on the basis of a social contract.
By way of a historical boomerang, today’s anti-ethnic and anti-identitarian republican ideology, after having tried to destroy the historical personalities of France’s various provinces, is failing to assimilate and integrate her millions of immigrants — or rather her new colonisers. These latter have conserved their identity, whereas the native French have lost theirs! In effect, French ideology is destroying France.
Founded on a hopeless cosmopolitanism, this French ideology is deeply rooted in the mentality of bourgeois governance: hence the nearly unanimously passed ‘anti-racist’ laws of Pleven (1972)[63] and Gayssot (1990),[64] which have, by governments of the Right and Left, established a thought police, innumerable pro-immigrationist measures, and a renunciation of border controls. Generally speaking, France’s bourgeois elites, whether political or mediacratic, lack either an ethnic or identitarian consciousness.
They are indeed complicit with the present colonisation and invasion, both through their support for anti-racist activities and through their quasi-religious ideological belief that ‘identity’ is an evil, like every other political doctrine linked to ethnicity. And the most dangerous of these collaborators, in my view, are those on the ‘Right’, because they disarm and demobilise the instinctive resistance of healthy young people.
*
Such culpatory anti-identitarian activities ought to be seen as a form of xenophilia — that is, as a fascination for the Other, for the stranger — rather than as an ‘anti-racism’, which even touches the heart of those political and cultural movements claiming a French and European identity, though they demonise all forms of ethnocentrism. The evil is profound, the virus is lodged deep within the organism.
The house is on fire, but no one is saying anything. In respect to certain so-called ‘identitarian’ philosophers — who defend ‘communitarianism’, minimise or deny the effect of immigration/colonisation, and howl with the wolves against ‘racism’ — it’s neither intellectual credulity, ignorance, nor cosmopolitanism that motivates them, but simple cowardice, born from a desire to appear socially respectable, to submit to the thought police, to ‘correctly protest’ without ever crossing the cordon. Such treasons are so crude that even the cosmopolitan Left despises them. Yes, the enemy despises its own collaborators.
The enemy respects only those resisters who actively rebel.
The Blocked Society[65]
More than ever, society is ‘blocked’ and becoming sclerotic: as evident in the enormous benefits received by public functionaries who are resistant, of course, to all reform — evident also in the government’s impotence whenever it’s challenged by unions, pressure groups, the street. All this indicates the appearance of a new form of class struggle. And it’s the Leftist electorate that stands h
ere on the side of the exploiters. We find ourselves today in a situation where there are:
1. ‘Guaranteed salaries’ for public functionaries, who benefit from lifetime employment, full social coverage, and innumerable privileges; immigrant colonisers, who receive guaranteed welfare benefits, unlike natives, and practice their parasitism with impunity; and the great bourgeois fortunes (allied with the intellectual-media sphere), which have been turned into a new class of speculators.
2. A less and less protected middle class in full decline (short-term contracts, redundancy plans, cost cutting, etc.), increasingly precarious yet responsible for financing the state’s growing deficit.
3. An expanding native proletariat, unemployed or partially employed, faced with intractable poverty and insecurity. The famous exclusion[66] touches mainly these native Europeans, not the immigrant colonisers, who are the beneficiaries of public and communal assistance.
The protected classes in this way live at the expense of the active but non-protected classes they exploit. Those who write the legislation and administer it evidently belong to the protected classes.
We’re seeing as a consequence the flight of our most talented people — prelude to our Third-Worldisation. Fleeing from a blocked, indebted and overtaxed society, in which the state pressures rather than aids the vital forces, thousands of young minds are expatriating themselves every year. Who will replace them? Not unskilled, unproductive, and extremely costly immigrants, since the majority of them are welfare recipients.
Why We Fight Page 4