*
Should we be anti-democratic? No, we should instead revive the organic democracy deeply rooted in the European tradition. Such a democracy, as the Ancient Athenian political philosophers held, is possible only among ethnically homogeneous people.
The notion of allowing aliens to vote negates the very idea of the nation and democracy. The participation of everyone in the exercise of power, in making political decisions affecting the whole, is possible only within a human ensemble possessing the same values, memories, and culture. A multi-racial, multi-confessional society can in no case be democratic, since it lacks commonly shared references. Such a society would be endemically oppressive and culminate in a caste system.
Organic democracy, in contrast, embraces the principle of aristocracy. That is, ‘the selection of the best to rule’.
Organic democracy thus presupposes a meritocracy, not a plutocracy, as we have today. It’s also necessary to understand that the form of government is not all-important. The opposition between a hereditary monarchy and a republic is mainly a matter of semantics. The existence of a hereditary king, a royal family, would contribute to ensuring continuity, tutelary protection, and the spiritual perspective of the people’s will. But this is a question that history alone will decide, for a ‘ruling family’ isn’t always necessary to assure a people’s spiritual and historical continuity.
*
Organic democracy is not egalitarian. It has need of leaders, ones who serve the people, not themselves. In the Oriental tradition, which has contaminated us today, the governing elites serve their own interests, their own vanity, their own sinecures. In the European tradition, the leader, the king, the emperor, the elites served their people, being part of it, like the brain is part of the body. Hence its ‘organic’ character.
Organic democracy, finally, doesn’t consider immediate interests alone, but the people’s historic destiny, taking account of its memory and its future generations, abiding by the imperatives of sovereignty and independence, along with a faith in the longevity of its collective, biological, and cultural identity.
*
In a word, organic democracy is founded on the following, ostensibly contradictory, but in fact complementary notions: ethnic homogeneity, the primacy of the popular will, aristocratic and meritocratic selection, and historical destiny.
(see aristocracy; born leader; meritocracy; populism)
* * *
Designation of the ‘Enemy’ and the ‘Friend’, ‘enemy’ and ‘adversary’
The enemy is one who physically poses a danger, who endeavours to eliminate you by making you disappear; the adversary dominates and weakens you.
It’s totally erroneous to designate an abstract entity, a doctrine, or a system (like liberalism or socialism) as an enemy, even if one thinks it ought to be resisted. The enemy is someone. Carl Schmitt[127] has said of the enemy that he is ‘the shape or configuration of our own question’.[128] Also: ‘Woe to him who has no enemy, for I myself shall be his enemy on Judgment Day’.[129] Whoever, in effect, has no enemies and sees no dangers will always be defenceless against a cynical enemy: as is the case today, in the Europeans’ confrontation with their Third World colonisers.
Europe’s principal enemy at present is the alien, the colonising immigrant masses, and Islam. Her principal adversary is America, which allies with Islam to weaken and dominate Europe.
In opposition to liberalism, which understands the essence of politics as mere state management, Carl Schmitt defines it in terms of ‘designating the enemy’: a definition that is true but insufficient. The political also entails designating the friend, that is, designating allies, but even more, designating one’s co-religionists, comrades, and ethnic brothers, those who possess the same interests, the same origins, and the same values.
Decadent civilisations designate their friends as enemies and their enemies as friends. Thus it is that Europe’s governing elites demonise and ostracise as ‘fascists’ whoever opposes the alien ethnic colonisers, even though these alleged ‘fascists’ defend their people’s identity and survival. By the same turn, the elites designate as friends and protect the alien masses colonising her.
*
A striking but clarifying example: Arabs and Muslims could be our geopolitical and cultural allies if they remained in their own lands, but once installed in Europe they are our enemies.
America, similarly, is an adversary, though it is not intrinsically and eternally so. The adversary endeavours to weaken and dominate, but not physically colonise and annihilate. This is why those intellectuals who designate America as the ‘principal enemy’ commit the grossest of logical errors.
(see ethnomasochism; xenophilia)
* * *
Destiny, becoming
The way of a people in history or of a creative personality, determined by Providence, will, and capacity.
Destiny is the spark that lies within a people (or an exceptional individual), that is, it’s a projection of oneself into the future, as well as an invisible pact with a transcendent power and a struggle against the hazards of time.
Only long-living peoples and great creative personalities have a destiny. It’s the fatum of the Romans and the moïra of the Greeks, this unknown but very real force that bends the backs of the gods themselves. Destiny is the sombre light that enabled Ulysses to find his way back to Ithaca and Penelope, Agamemnon to conquer Troy, Romulus to found Rome, Charles the Hammer to defeat Abd-el-Rahman. The rage of destiny has been embraced by Buddha, Confucius, Christ, Muhammad, and many others.
The mystery of destiny is both biological and spiritual, it reunites hazard and will to power in the same concentration of strength. But destiny is not haphazard or random; a good part of it is willed. It doesn’t suffice just ‘to be’, it also needs ‘to become’. As Robert Steuckers puts it, identity is inconceivable without continuity and the latter must be willed. Said differently: in the European tradition, destiny isn’t passive but active. It’s a response to an appeal, a positive response to a predestination, a call to the divine. For ‘he who has a destiny is possessed’, as Shakespeare put it; he who possesses a destiny, it might be added, responds to inner forces that possess him and call him to act. A people unconscious of its destiny is a people destined to disappear.
(see history; people, long-living)
* * *
Devirilisation
The declining values of courage and virility for the sake of feminist, xenophile, homophile, and humanitarian values.
The dominant Western ideology fosters this devirilisation of Europeans, though it doesn’t touch the alien colonisers. Homophilia, like the feminist fashion of false liberation, the ideological rejection of large families for the sake of the unstable nuclear couple, the declining birth rate, the preference of photographers for the African and the Arab, the constant justification of miscegenation, the denigration of warrior values, hatred for every powerful, forceful form of aesthetics, as well as the prevailing lack of courage — are some of the present characteristics of this devirilisation.
Confronted by Islam’s conquering virility, the European feels morally disarmed and confused. The prevailing conception of the world — whether it comes from the legislature, public education, the Church, or the media — is deployed to stigmatise all notion of virility, which is associated with ‘fascist brutality’. Devirilisation has become a sign of civilisation, of refined mores, the paradoxical discourse of a society, half of which is sinking into violence and primitivism.
Devirilisation is linked to narcissistic individualism and the loss of communal identity, which paralyses all reaction to the assaults of immigrant colonisers and the party of collaboration. This also explains the feeble repression of immigrant delinquency, the absence of European ethnic solidarity, and the pathological ‘fears’ haunting Europeans.
In no case ought the notion of ‘virility’ be confused with ‘machismo’ or with the stupid demand for some sort of ‘masculine social pr
ivilege’. There are women whose quotidian behaviour is more ‘virile’ than many men. The virility of a people is a condition for its maintenance in history.
(see ethnomasochism; homophilia; xenophilia)
* * *
Discipline
The regulation and positive adaptation of behaviour through sanction, reward, and exercise.
Discipline is the basis of all education and every civilisation. Permissive ‘pedagogical’ theories cannot but lead to the failure to transmit knowledge, as is so evident today.
The belief that ‘self-discipline is possible for all’ is a tragic perversion of aristocratic individualism. Only superior beings are capable of self-discipline, not the common man. But, against common sense and overwhelming evidence, egalitarian ideology refuses to acknowledge that there are differences between those capable of self-discipline and those who aren’t.
The refusal to accept legally-established disciplines leads to the most savage oppression, to a law of the jungle. Egalitarian ideology associates discipline and order with their excesses, that is, with arbitrary dictatorship. But just the contrary is the case, for freedom and justice are founded on rigorous social discipline. The anthropologist Arnold Gehlen, like the ethologist Konrad Lorenz, has shown that man, by his very biological nature, is ‘a being of culture’ (Kulturwesen), that is, ‘a being of discipline’ (Zuchtwesen). It’s patently obvious that so-called defenders of freedom (actually license) challenge social disciplines in the name of freedom and the rule of law, but the social and political model they advocate has the effect of destroying all freedom, all law, all social justice: as seen in the spread of delinquency and insecurity, the collapse of public education and equal opportunity, the toleration of delinquents and gangsters, privileges for influential or violent pressure groups, etc. — all this comes at the expense of the citizen’s security. We shouldn’t be afraid to say that every society refusing to uphold law and order, that is, collective discipline, is ripe for tyranny and the loss of public freedoms.
*
The judicial imposture of the dominant ideology endeavours to make us believe that the absence of social discipline is a guarantee of public freedoms, insofar as it wards off the spectre of a ‘police state’. But just the opposite is true. The ideology of license is the foundation of contemporary despotism. The greatest of liberalism’s impostures has been to confuse indiscipline with freedom and freedom with anarchy.
The anti-disciplinary societies of today are hardly exempt from repression and other, more cloaked, forms of totalitarianism. Repression has merely changed its object and nature. The rigours of the law, fiscally and punitively, now fall on the ‘transparent citizen’, but the number of no-go zones keeps expanding, just as delinquency and other criminal activities are increasingly tolerated. Indeed, all kinds of violent delinquencies have grown. ‘Hate speech’ (i.e., identitarian speech) or ‘homophobia’ is strictly repressed, as the thought police demand, but drugs are decriminalised, the threshold for urban delinquency is raised, secularism is violated in favour of Islam, terrorists and urban rioters are appeased, etc.
These are the signs of a society whose fundamental values have become suicidal — a society which represses and censors everything that is vital and encourages everything that is culturally and biologically pathological.
(see order; personality)
* * *
Disinstallation
The typically European penchant to abstract oneself from one’s own framework without denying one’s traditions — doing so for the sake of curiosity, conquest, and adventure.
‘Disinstallation’ (désinstallation), this neologism coined by Robert Steuckers, is neither a form of deracination nor of nomadism. It motivated Europe’s colonial era, but eventually turned against Europe: the spirit of disinstallation needs to be reoriented today. A good example of this is the conquest of space, whose inspiration is purely European.
The bourgeois spirit is simultaneously cosmopolitan and ‘installed’, while the aristocratic spirit is both enrooted and disinstalled. Disinstallation is a Faustian and Promethean mark of European culture. Conquests, scientific discoveries, and explorations are examples of disinstallation. Through atavism, the majority of other cultures live a static enrootment, while European enrootment has always been dynamic, disinstalled, and accustomed to the idea of movement.
(see enrootment; Promethean)
* * *
Domestication
Mental and behavioural submission to a social and ideological system, accompanied by a loss of will and proper judgment, and a physical dependence on material conditions.
This term was originally used in reference to domestic animals — incapable of autonomy and entirely conditioned by man. According to ethologists, man is ‘self-domesticated’ to the degree his behaviour is yoked to culture rather than to his impulses. For us, however, ‘domestication’ has a slightly different sense, designating that situation in which Western man’s passivity and dependence renders him incapable of reacting to the system, however noxious it becomes.
*
Its symptoms are innumerable: susceptibility to ideological conditioning (audio/visual, scholastic, professional, etc.), dependence on consumerist ways of life, loss of independent judgment in respect to propaganda and culpability, the banishment of all spirituality (replaced by the media gnosis), etc. Domesticated man is a conformist, he doesn’t revolt, he never resists, even when he engages in the simulacrum of emancipation and originality. For the sake of social rewards, he blindly follows his many inculcated prejudices. He sees the global catastrophe provoked by the immigrant colonisation, but doesn’t dare rebel and instead takes refuge in flight. He’s the perpetual victim of fashion. Above all he doesn’t want to feel ‘Other’, independent, for that would mean being excluded (the great contemporary terror). The system provides his dog food, his minimal subsistence, a financial pittance — in return he abdicates whatever critical spirit might touch him. Domesticated man is profoundly attached to the social structures conditioning him, devoid as he is of all revolutionary spirit and historical vision. Whether at the top or the bottom of the social scale, he is a human type incapable of autonomy, the model citizen of our neo-totalitarian age, the modern figure of the slave.
The paradox of the domesticated man is that he has been made to feel that he is an ‘individual’; and indeed narcissistic individualism has become his sole horizon. He’s a little like the artificially bred pig who is force-fed in his cramped cage. The individualism of this domesticated creature, though, actually conceals his submission to the herd’s morality.
How many intellectuals, artists, and brilliant philosophers, on the Right and the Left, have been domesticated (that is, sterilised by the dominant ideology and the fear of displeasing it), made to stand at attention, to dissipate their talent, and act as muzzled watchdogs? What a terrible price to pay for renouncing oneself and sabotaging one’s talent.
This sort of human being has unfortunately become the dominant type. In case of shock, serious crisis, or system failure, the model he represents will simply collapse — and then he will have to count on those minorities who, in every society, are never domesticated.
One should also consider the false resisters — those who ‘resist’, in private, in words, but from whom nothing consequential ever follows. The system has already got to them, these domestics. They can accommodate anything, provided they are fed. But they aren’t important. The best case against domestication is found in La Fontaine’s fable of ‘Le Chien et le loup’ (‘The Dog and the Wolf’).[130]
(see bourgeoisism; devirilisation)
E
Ecology, ecologism, ecological productivism
Ecology is the science of the natural environment and the concern to preserve it for the sake of human societies. Ecologism is a political doctrine that in the name of ecology pursues quite different aims.
The word comes from the Greek oïkos, meaning ‘home’, ‘habitat’. The ecological
imperative is foundational, but not so much for preserving Gaïa,[131] the Blue Planet (which still has four billion years ahead of it), but for the sake of preventing the human race from destroying itself by polluting its biosphere, the habitat in which it lives. It’s not nature ‘in itself’, this misty metaphysical concept (with nothing to fear from man) that needs protecting, but our species’ habitats.
Historically, humans, especially Europeans, have sought to dominate and domesticate nature — that is, the Earth’s ecosystem. But a good gardener, even when spurred by pride or greed, doesn’t do whatever he wants. The proverb imperat naturam nisi parendo[132] is well-known. The warming of the planet and the catastrophes it’s preparing are already manifesting their harmful effects. That’s what comes from not heeding the old Latin precept. At the planetary level, ecological cataclysms are practically inevitable in the early Twenty-first century — one of the lines in the coming convergence of catastrophes.
Why We Fight Page 12