*
Europeans would do well to take inspiration from this Nietzschean-Locchian notion in order to regenerate their history, for they have left history — they are no longer its master, having abdicated their destiny to foreigners. The spherical conception of history is anti-fatalistic, accepting that an unwanted decadence or an unforeseen regeneration is always a possibility. Europe’s present decline (especially demographically, ethnically, and spiritually) is not irreversible. Anything can happen: divine as well as evil surprises are the lot of history, this torrent whose course no one can foresee. But if the torrent is a succession of metamorphoses that are slow or brutal, painful or bearable, usually unforeseeable, it’s nevertheless important to realise that Europe’s historical regeneration will be ‘a leap into the unknown’ — anything but peaceful.
(see archeofuturism; destiny, becoming; end of history)
* * *
Homo Oeconomicus
Man reduced solely to his economic function as a consumer and producer.
Whatever its project, egalitarian and humanitarian ideology, in either its liberal or socialist versions, sees men as interchangeable economic atoms. The only thing that counts in this ideology are differences in productive performance or the capacity for consumption — i.e., the only thing that counts is money. Reduced thus to his market or monetary dimension, man loses his personal, cultural, and ethnic value. For both Marxist socialists and liberals, man is preeminently a producer and a consumer. The West is economist, in essence, unlike, say, Islam, whose main ambition is to conquer for the sake of its military and religious aims. The latter ideology is far sounder than the first.
The catastrophic colonising immigration we’ve known since the ‘60s was motivated by economic concerns. The sole thing that mattered was the docility and cheapness of labour. Its ethnic disfigurement of Europe never entered the mind of employers or unions. Such a strictly economic conception, oriented to production and consumption, is one of egalitarianism’s great dogmas.
Today, however, the Homo oeconomicus born of Eighteenth and Nineteenth century utopianism has fallen into crisis at the very moment ‘he’ seemed triumphant. His failing stems from the supposition that man is a ‘citizen of the world’, uniquely motivated by his economic needs. But we are now witnessing a planetary return of the ‘needs of identity’ (culturally, ethnically, religiously), as well as the ‘needs of the will to power’. The economy can never meet or master these needs. The principal aim of contemporary politics is to make man happy through economics, as if his well-being were strictly a matter of wealth.
*
In a word, the notion of Homo oeconomicus is founded on a totally erroneous interpretation of human motivation. Apart from the historical parenthesis of the last two centuries, the most profound human motivations have never been about economics or consumption. Human nature is more about sentiment than matter; its most profound impulses carry man far beyond economic concerns — toward immaterial satisfactions (feelings, faith, patriotism, etc.).
*
Homo oeconomicus represents a diminished man, domesticated, and deprived, above all, of his natural traits. Europeans have succumbed to such a domestication. But this won’t last forever; human nature will eventually reclaim its rights. And besides, this type of man is miserable: in the wealthiest, most economically successful market societies of the West, suicide rates are significantly higher than in poor societies, past or present.
Western civilisation has a totally mistaken view of human nature. Man isn’t primarily a Homo oeconomicus, but, more generally, in the larger view of the Greek philosophers, a zôon politikon, a ‘political animal’. The repercussions of such an error will not be long in coming.
(see bourgeoisism; economism; society, market)
* * *
Homophilia
The justification of homosexuality, considered not only as a normal form of behaviour, but as something worthy of protection and admiration.
After having long sought recognition as a marginal social element, the homosexual lobby now demands a sort of superiority, with heterosexuality treated as something inferior or mutilated. First equal rights, then privileges. ‘Homophobia’ (the critique of homosexuality) is accordingly prosecuted as if it were a form of racism or anti-Semitism. The lavender mafia doesn’t merely want to exist in peace, but to dominate.
*
Homophilia is one of the crudest symptoms of the decadence and dissolution of society’s sense of meaning. A people that treats homosexuality as one of the fine arts is a people that lives in contradiction to the rules of biology and ethology, and in contradiction to the ‘natural law’ of which Robert Ardrey spoke. It endangers a people’s reproduction and existence: it belongs to the anti-vitalist doctrine of the Masonic gnosis and, along with race-mixing, xenophilia, anti-natalism, and feminism, endeavours to destroy the vitalist forces, the European germen, prelude to the European’s programmed eradication.
(see devirilisation)
* * *
Human Rights, human rightism
The cornerstone of the modern ideology of progress and individualistic egalitarianism — and the basis upon which the thought police have been set up to destroy the people’s rights to exist as a people.
As a synthesis of Eighteenth-century political philosophy (often badly understood), human rights[162] is the inescapable horizon of the dominant ideology. With anti-racism, it becomes the central reference point for all collective forms of mental conditioning, for ready-made thought, and for the paralysis of all revolt. Profoundly hypocritical, human rights ideology accommodates every form of social misery and justifies every form of oppression. It functions as a veritable secular religion. The ‘human’ in human rights is nothing but an abstraction, a consumer-client, an atom. It says everything that human rights ideology originated with the Conventionnels of the French Revolution,[163] in imitation of American Puritans.
Human rights ideology has succeeded in legitimating itself on the basis of two historical impostures: that of charity and philanthropy — and that of freedom.
‘Humans’ (already a vague notion) possess no fixed or universal rights, only those bequeathed by their civilisation, by their tradition. Against human rights, it’s necessary to oppose two key ideas: that of the rights of a people to an identity and that of justice (which varies according to culture and presumes that all individuals are not equally praiseworthy). These two notions do not rest on the presumption of an abstract universal man, but rather on actual men, localised within their specific culture.
To criticise the secular religion of human rights is obviously no apology for savage behaviour, though on numerous occasions human rights have been used to justify barbarism and oppression (the genocidal repression of the Vendée during the French Revolution[164] or the extermination of Amerindians). Human rights ideology has often been the pretext for persecutions: in the name of the ‘Good’. It no more protects the rights of individuals than did Communism. Just the opposite, for it has imposed a new system of oppression, based on purely formalistic freedoms. Under its auspices and in contempt of all democracy, it legitimises the Third World’s colonisation of Europe, tolerating freedom-killing delinquencies, supporting wars of aggression carried out in the name of humanitarianism, and refusing to deport illegal immigrants; this ideology never speaks out against the environmental pollution it causes or the social savagery of its globalised economy.
The ideology of human rights is above all strategically used to disarm European peoples, by making them feel guilty about almost everything. It thus authorises their disarmament and paralysis. It’s a sort of corruption of Christian charity and its egalitarian dogma that all individuals should be valued equally before God and Man.
The ideology of human rights is the principal weapon being used today to destroy Europe’s identity and to advance the interests of her alien colonisers.
(see egalitarianism; ideology, Western ideology)
* * *
; Humanism, surhumanism
The philosophical and political attitude inherited from Graeco-Roman civilisation, which advocates the ideal of the free man — liberated from dogmas and from barbarism, part of a civil order, and cognisant of the diversity of nations.
In no case should humanism be associated with humanitarianism, as Yvan Blot (President of the Club de l’Horloge)[165] explains, ‘The humanist ideal is a synthesis of the ideal of liberty and the ideal of enrootment. To values of free speech, competitiveness, the striving for excellence, the desire to be first, there corresponds Greek values of honour, justice, equity, family loyalty, patriotism, religion — and of “philanthropy”, in the sense of that which is human’.
Humanism is a ‘school of realism’ that sees man, without utopian or optimistic expectations, as he is. It advocates both wisdom and ambition, respects differences and rejects unwarranted hatreds — but at the same time it recognises the existence of different ethnic and cultural identities.
The humanist attitude is the opposite of the desert’s fanatical monotheistic religions, particularly Islam. But it’s not a form of absolute tolerance nor, above all, is it an egalitarianism. Humanism — an anti-chaos attitude par excellence, a doctrine of equilibrium — rejects brutal dictatorship and totalitarian regimes, just as it rejects social permissiveness. It defends justice, the City’s holistic hierarchy, and patriotic duty. It similarly rejects cosmopolitanism and every vision of a ‘united, uniform humanity’ (the utopia of the ‘World State’), since the idea of ethnic distinction and civic equity are central to its conception of the political. A doctrine of wisdom and balance, a school of will and a subject of the real, humanism is the basis of the ‘state of law’ — today completely abused by its ‘democratic’ defenders.
The basis of humanism, a central tenet of the European tradition and its Graeco-Roman heritage, is thus the recognition and fusion of justice, positive law, citizenship, and ethnic identity.
*
Surhumanism, a Nietzschean notion conceptually developed by Giorgio Locchi, is a humanism for an age of crisis and transcendence. It’s a positive and tragic transgression of humanism in a state of emergency. Faced with great dangers, the authentic European needs to surpass and transgress certain principles. For the dangers threatening his people demand solutions that are as unthinkable as they are indispensable. As such, he transgresses not for the sake of pleasing a dictator or obeying such and such a dogma, but of serving his people’s survival, that is, in defending its future lineage and ancestral heritage. Over 2,400 years ago, Xenophon wrote in his Anabasis,[166] ‘A day will come when Zeus’ eagle serenely and mercilessly extends its claws.’ This is what surhumanism means.
In moments of supreme tragedy, man grants himself divine powers, attending to that which inspires and exceeds him. According to the Pythagorean tradition, he becomes ‘the ear of the gods’.
(see liberty; Promethean; techno-science)
* * *
Humanitarianism
The professed love of all humans regardless of distinction — and the affirmation of our alleged duty to assist the oppressed, hungry, or ill, etc.
Humanitarianism is a delinquent and disfigured humanism. It comes from a sort of systematic pity for the ‘Other’ and an indifference to the ‘Next’. It’s an exacerbation of what was formerly called ‘philanthropy’ and a hypocritical secularisation of Christian ‘charity’. In this sense, it comes from xenophilia and legitimises, as such, ‘foreign preferences’ that discriminate in favour of aliens.
Humanitarianism demonstrates mass support for illegal immigrants and assists victims of massacres and civil wars in faraway places (for which it feels responsible), yet at the same time it’s utterly indifferent to the poverty and precariousness of native Europeans. It’s scandalised by the deportation of Albanians, but not the deportation of Serbs. It condemns Russia’s war against the Chechens, but not the Chechen war against Russia or the Anglo-American bombing of Iraq, etc.
Modern humanitarianism began with Twentieth century campaigns against ‘world hunger’ and with the hypocritical ideology of Third World assistance. Humanitarianism corrupts the Graeco-Roman notion of humanism, for the latter advocates no indiscriminate love of humanity. Concretely, humanitarian movements don’t actually come to the assistance of the larger world. Behind their humanitarian enterprise, there’s the charity business, which is very profitable and gives the personalities of the cosmopolitan Left a good deal of media exposure. Humanitarianism has indeed been commercialised — a phony distillation of Enlightenment ‘philanthropy’. Though hardly effective in practice, its noxious ideology negatively affects Europeans, for its frantic egalitarianism implies that all men, and all peoples, are of equal worth and that the metaphysical unity of the human race imposes an obligation to help the ‘Other’, rather than one’s own kind.
(see ethnomasochism; human rights; preference, European; xenophilia)
I
Idea, ideal, historic idealism
Historical idealism, theorised by Hegel, holds that a great Idea is necessarily incarnated in history, though with no advanced knowledge of how it is to be realised.
Hegel’s position has often been misunderstood, especially by Marxists, who have inverted its meaning. When Hegel invoked the ‘appearance of Reason in history’, he didn’t mean that it was some sort of automata of fate, but rather an irruption of an Idea (embodying a will to power) that could just as well become the counter-current to the ‘inevitable’.
Curiously, historical idealism is both fatalistic and anti-fatalistic. It’s fatalistic whenever it expects that certain ideas will be realised, of necessity, by some sort of pre-programmed metaphysics (classless society, Marx’s universalistic Communism, liberalism’s myth of an indefinite Progress).
It’s anti-fatalistic whenever it poses a dissident or apparently unrealisable Idea that might be manifested in history through the power of will: the Spanish Reconquista that took centuries,[167] De Gaulle’s affirmation of German defeat in 1940, Algerian independence, Kohl’s reunification of divided Germany, etc.
*
Historical idealism is the opposite of that negative historical fatalism distinct to our myopic experts. Today, for example, these experts claim that Islam and non-European aliens are now an established part of Europe. Against such claims, we wilfully affirm and inculcate the idea of reconquest, even if its exact modalities are still unknown.
Similarly, the concept of Eurosiberia stems from a will to be realised in history, even if it’s too early at this point to determine how.
*
This positive historical idealism opposes the mechanistic view of history, in which everything is foreseen, in which every surprise or wrong turn is dismissed in advance. In contrast, positive idealism presupposes that an Idea — conceived by an unwavering will and transmitted by conscious, capable elites to successive generations — has a chance one day of being realised, despite the claims of fatalists. Nothing is ever totally lost and it’s always been minorities imbued with an idea-force that have reversed the expected course of historical events.
We obviously need to be patient, to adopt a long-term perspective, and stop believing that Rome is to be built in a day. The current acceleration of history and the rising stakes of the new century could divulge divine surprises . . .
(see history; resistance and reconquest)
* * *
Identity
Etymologically: ‘That which makes singular’. A people’s identity is what makes it incomparable and irreplaceable.
Characteristic of humanity is the diversity and singularity of its many peoples and cultures. Every form of its homogenisation is synonymous with death, as well as with sclerosis and entropy. Universalism always seeks to marginalise identity in the name of a single, unique anthropological model. But ethnic and cultural identities form a bloc: maintaining and developing the cultural heritage presupposes a people’s ethnic commonality.
Humanity will not survi
ve the challenges it’s generating if it remains a pluriversum, that is, if it remains a fractious aggravation of profoundly different ethnocentric peoples.
Look: identity’s basis is biological; without it, the realms of culture and civilisation are unsustainable. Said differently: a people’s identity, memory, and projects come from a specific hereditary disposition.
*
The Jacobin and universalist republicans — who allegedly defend the ‘identity of France’ and her ‘cultural exceptionalism’, believing they can integrate ethnically alien masses — are in the grips of a total contradiction.
The notion of identity obviously refers to ethnocentrism and remains incompatible with ‘ethnopluralist’ cohabitation. In this respect, Pierre Vial writes (in Une Terre, un Peuple) that: ‘Identity, for an individual or a people, stems from three basic elements: race, culture, and will’. The implication here is that no one of these elements suffices to form an identity: without a relatively homogeneous biological base, no culture prospers; but biology alone will not ensure a culture’s longevity, if the will of the people and its elites are lacking. A culture neither survives nor prospers with decapitated elites.
Why We Fight Page 17