4. In such a prospective Imperial Federation, every national member would be free, at whatever time, to quit it if it so desires.
That said, the edification of such a Europe would emerge not through the gentle evolution of the present EU, whose present political form is hardly viable, but rather through the dramatic force of already foreseeable circumstances.
(see convergence of catastrophes; empire; Eurosiberia)
* * *
Eurosiberia
The destined space in which European peoples will finally regroup, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, sealing the historic alliance between the European peninsula, Central Europe, and Russia.
The term is preferable to ‘Eurasia’.[140] Europe here reappropriates all of northern Asia for Russian domination. Beware, though: the concept of Eurosiberia is a ‘paradigm’, that is, an ideal, a model, an objective, one of whose dimensions is a concrete, agitating, and mobilising myth.
Eurosiberia will be an ‘Empire of the Sun’, across whose fourteen time zones the sun will never set. Eurosiberia is the common fortress, the common home, the maximum extension and natural expression of the notion of ‘European Empire’. It will be a veritable ‘Third Rome’, which Russia alone never was.
The notion of Eurosiberia supposes the decoupling of Western Europe from the American West, and Europe’s solidarity and alliance with Russia. De Gaulle intuitively sensed the need for this. We have the same enemies, the same ethnic/racial competitors. We — we future Eurosiberians — are a nightmare for the Pentagon, as well as for Islam. If it should ever be constructed, Eurosiberia would regroup all White, Indo-European peoples in the great regions into which they have spread, becoming — from far off and for long to come — not solely the world’s foremost power, but the first hyper-power in history.
*
The great spatial expanses of Eurosiberia — ‘from the land of the steppes to the fjords to the bush’ — would be economically independent of North America. It would neither be aggressive nor imperialist, but identitarian. China, India, the Muslim-Arab world, Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America, even North America, have an interest in managing the Blue Planet (Earth), to cooperate with a future Eurosiberian Federation — on the condition that everyone stays in their own lands.
It will of course be objected that that this is utopian. No. It’s only an idea thrown at history in the Hegelian sense. The great ideas always find their way. As Pierre Vial says, it’s toward a ‘self-governed ethnocentric Eurosiberia’ that future European elites will turn their energies, once the era of world-changing tragedies arrives.
(see idea, ideal, historical idealism)
F
Fatherland, Great Fatherland, native land
The land of one’s fathers, ancestors, and lineage. The notion of fatherland (patrie) links a ‘people’ with a ‘land’.
The need for a ‘native land’ (patrie charnelle) is ethologically and biologically rooted in the human spirit — and no form of globalisation can abolish it. Identification with a fatherland is one of the pillars of human psychology — a fatherland in which the crystallisation of the territorial imperative and the ethnic imperative coincide.
The history of European peoples is so complicated and entangled that the choice of a fatherland is difficult to make in a ‘rational’ or ‘mechanical’ manner. Will it be Brittany, Lombardy, or Flanders? Will it be France, Italy, Germany, or some other nation-state? Will it be America, to which European elites continue to emigrate? The French ideology of the nation-state, like the German ideology of Fichte’s ‘fatherland as language and culture’,[141] has diminished the idea of fatherland, basic to all anthropological relations.
In revealing a certain European schizophrenia, this question can only be answered from above: to each European his own fatherland, national or regional (chosen on the basis of intimate, emotive affinities) — and to all Europeans the Great Fatherland, this land of intimately related peoples. The consciousness of belonging to both a ‘small native land’ and a ‘great fatherland’ is very difficult for contemporaries to grasp. The future, though, will likely compel them to understand it. The Great Fatherland organically encompasses and federates the native lands of Europe. This is what I call the New Nationalism.
*
The modern world lives the assumption of the homeless and the accession of the deracinated. A nomadic métis,[142] modern Western man is a passer-by in a world that has become a Global Village — organised into networks, with universalism and global capitalism constituting its virtual fatherland. This, though, is an illusion, a remnant of a modernism already out of date. There’s no doing away with the notion of a fatherland, for it’s archaic and atemporal, inscribed in our genes, and, in this sense, it’s futurist — archeofuturist.
Even the Third World immigrant colonisers of Europe remain attached to their fatherland — to the land from which they came. But for them, especially Muslims, Europe is a new fatherland, a conquered land (Dar al Islam).[143] But beware: as a constant feature of human history, resting on the permanent conflict-cooperation dialectic governing the relations between different peoples, there will always be a temptation to occupy other people’s land. In a rather unique boomerang of history, Europe today is a victim of this alien inversion.
*
Essential to the idea of fatherland is not just an identity with a particular land, but an identity with a particular ethno-spiritual community. The fatherland is not simply a territory, but a biological lineage, the place where one’s ancestors are buried. Hence the tragedy of the pieds-noirs[144] who settled Algeria, where their family tombs have since been profaned — where they once lived and worked and from which they were forcibly expelled. To survive today, Europeans no longer need to search for other countries to conquer, but to defend the Great Fatherland that comprises all the native lands of which they are the sole rightful occupants.
At the Continental level, the notion of fatherland must resume a dialectical dynamic. The new horizon of European man — following the failure of European colonisation, the tragedy of the present Third World colonisation, and the fantasy of a ‘Western world civilisation’ — is now shaped by the need both to reconstruct their native lands and to construct an imperial Great Fatherland, Eurosiberia, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Words, of course, are always a bit imprecise. They are not mathematical concepts, but things expressive of the spirit’s subtleties. The fatherland, as a notion, has a meaning related to that of the ‘nation’, which etymologically refers to those who are closely related. The essential, however, is that all these notions possess an unshakeable popular basis. Let me give Éric Delcroix[145] the last word here: ‘Where is the real native land, in which our contemporaries still recognise themselves as being within Europe, where they can make their life worth living and thus eventually worth sacrificing? There needs to be a people, though, before there can be such a land — however legitimate their attachment to all that they have historically and sentimentally invested.’ In his view, this people is the French, who are presently being disfigured by mass immigration, to such a degree that they risk becoming strangers in their own land, given that their new ‘compatriots’ are non-European.
The issue here is to define the term ‘patriotic’ on the basis of ethnic and historical criteria rather than according to the cosmopolitan ideology of the French Revolution. As Corneille wrote in his Horace, ‘To die for one’s country is such a worthy act / Men should contend to gain its glorious prize’.[146] Again, it’s necessary that a fatherland corresponds to a single homogeneous people, for in American-style multi-racial society it’s even denied that its soldiers are sacrificed for the nation’s sake.
(see enrootment; Eurosiberia, land; nation; people)
G
Genopolitics
Genopolitics[147] (in Greek, genos means race or people), like ethnocracy, is based on the conservation of the genos, on the promotion of the healthy, the protection of the environment, a
nd on the overcoming of the Homo oeconomicus, the commercial society and all forms of mercantilism.
(see ethnocracy; eugenics; democracy, democratism, organic democracy)
* * *
Geopolitics
The study (or practice) associated with the politics of peoples, nations, and states, as they relate to mastering vital geographical spaces of land or water.
Condemned in the aftermath of the Second World War because it was stupidly declared to be ‘Nazi’ and accused of legitimating the ideology of ‘life spaces’ (Lebensraum), geopolitics (which all nations, including the Chinese and the Americans, practice) has made a forceful return today. Robert Steuckers, a European specialist in the field, writes, ‘The most fundamental of geopolitical principles posits that a narrow relationship exists between power and space’. For Steuckers, the American War of Independence, the two World Wars, the expansion of the Russian Empire, and the present (anti-European) policies of the American superpower are (or have been) manifestations of geopolitics in action. He claims, justly, that geopolitical objectives constitute the incontestable historical basis of nations and peoples.
Geopolitics distinguishes between continental powers and maritime powers (thalassocracies). The latter, like Britain in the Nineteenth century and the United States today, endeavours to dominate the land-based powers. Europe, and especially a possible Eurosiberia, is both a continental and a maritime power.
The conquest and domination of vital territorial and maritime spaces (as much for commercial as for military reasons) remains more than ever the centre of world politics. Those who claim that human rights, financial markets, the ‘new economy’, and globalisation have made geopolitics and the struggle for space obsolete claim the very opposite of the truth. The Twenty-first century will be a century of peoples struggling for land and sea, more than in any previous century, because the Earth now is ‘full’, with no empty spaces left to separate them.
*
Geopolitics displeases globalist ideologues, for it presupposes that a people’s struggle for the possession and domination of space (the territorial imperative) takes precedent over the struggle for morality or ideology. Geopolitics challenges the liberal or socialist vision of ‘one world’: an Earth whose lands are to be unified into a single homeland for a uniformised humanity. Geopolitics helps us rethink human ensembles as ethno-political territorial blocs.
In the course of the coming century — and we’re already seeing an expansion of struggles for vital spaces — there will be conflicts over petroleum, gas, and mineral resources, over water basins and potable water, over fishing reserves and rare minerals, over control of sea lanes and pipelines, etc.
*
What are the principal geopolitical challenges facing Europe?
1. The formidable advance and territorial conquest of Islam toward the North and the East, from Gibraltar to India. Even religion has its geopolitical and territorial imperatives. Islam’s present expansion represents another conquering Arab offensive against Indo-Europeans, as it sweeps in to fill the breach created by other Third World peoples.
2. The American effort to control and subject Western Europe and Russia. Since the end of Communism, the great fear of the American thalassocracy is Eurosiberia, the union of Russia and Europe, which would be a formidable competitor: hence, the EU’s disarmament and NATO’s extension into Eastern Europe; the Balkan wars, aimed at dividing Europeans; the Islamo-American pact (encouraging Turkish membership in the EU, etc.) to weaken Europe, etc.
Europe, in a word, is the target of various continentalist designs: occupation by Islam and the Global South, domination by the United States. The former Soviet-American condominium, which divided and occupied Europe during the Cold War, has come to an end. Yalta[148] is no more, but we now face an even more dangerous menace: an Islamo-American condominium. Colonisation from above and from below: this will be the major geopolitical struggle of the early Twenty-first century. If Europeans don’t become conscious of it, they will disappear from history.
(see Europe; Eurosiberia)
* * *
Germen
A people’s or civilisation’s biological root — the core of ethnicity — upon which everything else rests.
In Latin, germen means ‘germ’, ‘seed’. If a culture is lost, recovery is possible. When the biological germen is destroyed, nothing is possible. The germen is comparable to a tree’s roots. If the trunk is damaged or the foliage cut down, the tree can recover. But not if its roots are lost. The comparison holds for civilisations. The germen represents a people’s ethno-biological roots; the trunk represents the popular culture, the foliage the civilisation. Nothing is lost if the germen, the roots, are saved. This metaphor obviously applies to Europe, whose germen is now gravely threatened.
Contrary to the dominant ideology, this concept implies that cultures and civilisations rest (not uniquely but mainly) on distinct flesh-and-blood populations, as well as on their physical and cultural heritages — that is, on the real, on life — on relatively invariable bio-genetic characteristics. To deny these biological factors is as intelligent and effective as denying the Earth’s roundness, the circulation of blood, heliocentrism, or the evolution of the species — as the spiritual and intellectual ancestors of the present dominant ideology once did.
The germen is inalienable, it’s not the property of some individual fantasy, but is transmitted by every member as he transmits his line. A people can be reborn if its culture is destroyed or if its religion or spirituality are forgotten. It can recover its ancestral heritage and respond to the appeal of traditions preserved in memory, making them live again. But if the germen is damaged, no renaissance is possible (or if it is, it’s artificial).
That’s why the struggle against race-mixing, depopulation, and the alien colonisation of Europe is even more important than mobilising for one’s cultural identity and political sovereignty.
All these causes are important, but there’s an order of priority based on absolute necessity.
(see consciousness, ethnic; identity; race, racism, anti-racism)
* * *
Globalisation, globalism
The planetary universalisation of exchange, circuits of economic production and finance, along with information; the internationalisation of culture. ‘Globalism’ is the doctrine advocating the generalisation of these phenomena.
In reality, the process of economic and cultural globalisation began more than two hundred years ago. One speaks today of globalising the planetary economy. This phenomenon is not, however, quite as important as generally believed — for economies, along with national or regional cultures, remain everywhere very strong. Globalist ideology fools itself, for a genuine globalisation would lead to catastrophe, undermining both the world economy and the ecosystem.
*
Central to the dominant ideology (even to the ideology of the anti-liberal, neo-Trotskyist Left), globalist dogma is no less a part of Islam’s universalist ideology.
There are actually a plurality of globalisms: that of Islam, the cosmopolitan and pro-immigrant Left, and the liberal, pro-American West. Globalism is a weapon in the war against Europe, her identity, her power, and her economic independence. It gives vent to the utopian illusion of history’s end. As such, globalist paeans deify the Internet, the ‘new economy’, the immigrant invasion of Europe, the globalisation of financial networks — without ever seeing that ethnic realities and ancestral religions remain stronger than ever.
Globalisation, in fact, doesn’t actually challenge the diversity of cultures and the clash of civilisations, just the opposite. By an ironic dialectic, it stimulates and regenerates them.
*
The more people encounter one another in an overpopulated planet, the greater, in effect, will be the need for identity. This is why it’s very unlikely that Twenty-first century globalisation will be peaceful — or avoid civilisational clashes.
(see cosmopolitanism; universalism)
&nb
sp; * * *
Grand Politics
Political action in the historical sense, for the longue durée, that serves the people and its civilisational objectives.
‘Grand Politics’, a concept formulated by Nietzsche,[149] opposes the ‘petty politics’ of politicians and parties, with their short-term career or monetary aspirations. Petty politics results from the domination of the ‘third function’ (i.e., the reduction of politics and sovereignty to short-term economic interests). Victor Hugo’s tragedy, Ruy Blas,[150] perfectly depicts the utter opposition between grand and petty politics. Grand politics is not about individual or partisan tactics seeking some ephemeral conquest of power, but is a strategy — a strategy of great design, based on collective pride, not individual vanity. Grand Politics belongs to the realm of historical destiny — not the individualistic realm of petty party politics.
*
The European governments of our day lack any sense of Grand Politics. Their ‘petty politics’ is actually not even about seeking power, only about appearances or financial advantage or media vanity. This is especially grave considering that other civilisations — those of Muslim-Arab, Indian, Chinese, or American peoples — practice ‘Grand Politics’, as they project their destiny onto the future.
(see people, long-living; revolution)
H
Happiness, ‘small pleasures’
A secularised version, converted into social and economic objectives, of the heavenly ideal inspiring the salvation religions.
Small pleasures (petit bonheur) for everyone — to satisfy the material demands of one’s living standard — has become the formal goal of Western ideology. But happiness, even well-being, is not to be found in this market of dupes. Never have suicide rates been higher.
Why We Fight Page 15