Said differently: an authentic pagan will always oppose a church transformed into a mosque, a bell tower into a minaret — even if an official prelate of the Church sanctions such a transformation . . .
(see paganism)
L
Land, territory
The geographical space of a people’s existence and survival — and its incarnation in a ‘place’.
The notion of people, like that of blood or identity, is incomprehensible without a notion of ‘land’ (terre). A territorial appropriation is an ethological imperative of the living. The only people — the Jewish people — having existed for a certain period in diaspora without a land, being as such a blood and spirit without a soil — always sought to recover their territorial roots: the state of Israel has since become the concretisation of its Promised Land. Similarly, the Chinese diaspora always refers to its original homeland, to which it feels bound.
*
Even Muslim peoples, Arabs and Turks haunted by their nomadic past, have ‘the land of Islam’, which they are always trying to expand. Sedentism[173] and nomadism are linked. Purely nomadic peoples, like Gypsies, have never been historically creative. Land is the place one leaves to conquer, the place one inhabits and loves — and where one is to be buried.
The conquest of space, as formulated by Wernher von Braun and Jules Verne, its principal theoreticians, has never been understood as a nomadism or an abandonment of Mother Earth, but rather as an extension. The astronomer Hubert Reeves could write, ‘When humanity begins conquering the planet Mars, it will inevitably be divided into territories’.
A people cannot exist without a land. It’s often said that the Twenty-first century will be a century without frontiers — a century of networks, flux, an age in which zones replace clearly bounded lands. This nomadic vision, however, corresponds in no way to what is coming. Globalisation provokes not a weakening of the territorial idea, but rather, as an indirect consequence, its reinforcement. Notions of homelands and territory will never be obsolete, for they are inscribed in the genetic memory. The seas, like airspace, are extensions of national territory.
*
Man is a territorial animal — one who defends his land or conquers another. Today, European lands are threatened by Islam, which is trying to turn Europe into a ‘land of Islam’ (Dar al Islam), and by Americans, who are trying to turn the Continent into one of their geostrategically dominated spaces. The defence of European lands, and beyond that, the Eurosiberian space, is inseparable from their defence as a people.
(see enrootment; Eurosiberia; fatherland; geopolitics; people)
* * *
Legitimation (positive or negative)
That set of media discourses, ideological and educational systems, and legislated arsenal of laws, which endeavours to justify the domination of a particular governmental regime and political system — through consent and legitimacy.
Positive legitimation designates a discourse in which the dominant system justifies itself through its positive acts, through its successes, and through the prosperity and civil peace it ensures. This sort of positive legitimation is no longer possible today: faced with unemployment, growing poverty, the effects of mass immigration, the explosion of insecurity, and the general imperiousness of the political class to finding workable solutions, the system now depends on negative legitimation. This sort of legitimation rests on the precept that ‘without us, things will get worse, they’d be fascist’. Power here no longer legitimises itself on the basis of its achievements, but in a virtualist manner, by invoking the spectre of the Great Threat — the spectre of racism, anti-democracy, dictatorship, etc.
After a period of failed promises comes thus the blackmail — in the form of protecting the population from evil phantoms. A political system resting on this sort of negative legitimation hasn’t long to live.
(see democracy)
* * *
Liberalism, managerial liberalism
Economic doctrines and practices advocating the maximisation of freedom for private actors in the market — and the minimisation of socioeconomic rules and interventions by political authorities.
In the United States, the term ‘liberal’ implies ‘political liberalism’ and thus ought to be translated as ‘progressivism’. The concept of economic liberalism, in contrast, is ambiguous. Let us simply say that economic liberalism is preferable to a paralysing social-statism, but in itself is positive only when serving a higher political will and operating within a protected, self-centred economic space.
To designate liberalism as the enemy often reveals a badly understood para-Marxism — a tendency which also touches the ideologues of the romantic Right, ignorant of economics and imitative of the Left. Nothing is ever black or white, and liberalism doesn’t comprise a single bloc. Properly speaking, it’s not even an ideology but rather a method, a practical economic technique. To its credit, liberalism brings to the economic realm the spirit of initiative, of competition, responsibility, efficacy, and selection. Negatively, it fosters a cult of the short-term, is indifferent to ecology, to biopolitics, and to the people’s destiny, etc.
The error of dogmatic anti-liberalism is to demand everything of it. But liberalism cannot be more than a limited doctrine, in need of correction and completion. Applied to a European autarkic space, liberalism ought to be, domestically, subject to the general political economy and, internationally, protected from global free trade.
Liberalism arises from the realm of means, not ends. It’s necessary to respect its practical efficacy but at the same time to balance it with social and economic policies subject to larger political objectives. The intervention of sovereign power in the liberal economy must not be directly economic, administrative, or fiscal — but political. It ought to be a matter of laying down general rules, establishing the major aims of industrial policy, ensuring market freedom, favouring dynamic enterprises, protecting the domestic economy — without paralysing economic actors with excessive regulation and taxation.
In this sense, we can talk of managed liberalism, which is a far cry from the EU’s bureaucratic, regulatory free-trade globalism, combining, as it does, the negative aspects of both unregulated transnational capitalism, on the one hand, and a technocratic, corporatist socialism, on the other.
(see autarky of great spaces; economy, organic)
* * *
Liberty, liberties
An individual’s or a people’s capacity to act according to their own will — a capacity gained by discipline and founded on the multiplication of competence and freedom.
The ‘free man’ has long been a model for European society, in opposition to the barbarians and slaves of Greek thought. Today, the concept of ‘liberty’ has suffered a veritable inversion of meaning, as has the term ‘democracy’. Liberty nowadays signifies what was once called ‘slavery’, since it’s confused with a permissiveness that leads to a certain kind of servitude. In contrast, real liberty is the faculty of augmenting one’s power, of multiplying one’s capacity to affect the real, and, through autonomy, of overcoming determinism. This conception opposes individualistic and egalitarian notions of liberty — conceived as forms of passive license or the absence of constraints. The slavery — that comes from the dominant ready-to-think ideology and prevents the people and its defenders from openly expressing their convictions and demands — is enforced by a thought police, an obligatory xenophilia, the interdiction of direct democracy, and the power of judges.
Defined as a global, abstract concept during the French Revolution of 1789, Liberty opposes liberties. Taken in this way, as an absolute, freedom becomes a cold, totalitarian concept. Western society no more defends liberty than did Communist society, for it fosters a general conformity in which the permissiveness toward various delinquencies goes hand-in-hand with the repression of all legitimate opposition.
The exercise of liberty presupposes discipline and order, authority and the rule of law. The laissez-faire of today’s sc
hool system, which leaves young minds completely uncultivated, is preparing the way for future barbarians and slaves. Above all, the free man is master of himself — thanks to the discipline enhancing his possibilities.
*
A free people decides its destiny for the longue durée. Today, for example, the population-replacing colonisation of Islam and the South is a symbol of Europe’s loss of liberty. It’s part of the same process that subjects Europe to America’s sphere of influence and diminishes her political and economic independence. Even individual liberty, gnawed at by the demission of the public powers before the social jungle, is affected: laxity toward delinquency, indifference to the social-economic exclusion of native Europeans, etc. In these and other domains, the singular dogma of ‘Liberty’ undermines the people’s liberties. One might paraphrase Big Brother here, with his formula: ‘Freedom is slavery’. And vice versa.
We are living through a strange, paradoxical situation — a situation of regime end: the public powers never cease regulating, monitoring, oppressing, taxing — gently and skilfully ostracising those who create and work — as it dispenses tolerance and advantage to delinquents, illegals, and lowlifes. For the regnant ideology, everything that is ‘Other’ has every right and no duty. Everything that is native and follows the natural law has only duties and is always suspect. The system endeavours to make free men slaves, and helots[174] free men. The Roman Empire died from this.
Given the demission of the public authorities before delinquencies of every kind, public freedoms have receded for authentic citizens, now deprived not just of the right to security, but victimised by arbitrary taxes and regulatory infringements. For the sake of legitimating itself, the state creates a simulacrum of new freedoms (PACs,[175] racial quotas, vaguely-designated ‘rights’ for vaguely-designated subjects, feminist laws, homophile and xenophile laws, etc.), while in the real world it’s increasingly restrictive, regulative, spying, overtaxing — discouraging every initiative, and indifferent to the collapse of public safety and the civil spirit. Globally speaking, everything that is deviant and delinquent is the object of benevolent tolerance, everything that is creative, inventive, productive, and identitarian is suspect and repressed. Even freedom of thought is no longer assured, since the politically correct (whose principal dogmas are anti-racism and the prohibition of identitarian reflexes) controls every social sphere. Freedom to think and express oneself is restricted to secondary spheres, affecting mainly those on the margins of society and deviants, particularly in respect to sexual matters.
All this is quite normal and has occurred before in history. To what conception of liberty and liberties, then, should we attach ourselves? The first rule must be a people’s ethnic freedom to determine its own destiny. The people’s will ought to transcend the authority of judges, censors, and experts. Disembodied and abstract moral principles are not to be imposed on the popular will, just as the popular will must be allowed to determine its own distinct principles.
The second rule is that the sovereign function, the public power, must guarantee social order and civic discipline, with the aim of preserving both individual and communal freedoms. There is no freedom without a legal order conforming to the natural law: there’s no freedom without authority.
(see democracy, organic)
M
Mass, massification
The transformation of a people into a mass of undifferentiated, uniform individuals.
It comes with modern egalitarianism. ‘The masses’: this concept shared by both Marxism and capitalism is alien to every organic notion of an ethnically-created people. Massification implies cultural uniformity and race-mixing (métissage), consumerism and the cult of commodities. The ‘atomised masses’ oppose both the free individual and the people as an organic ensemble organised in communal hierarchies. This enterprise of massification and homogenisation has, however, failed everywhere, except unfortunately among native Europeans, who have been emasculated by it. But despite its will to ‘reduce everything to the same’, despite socioeconomic standardisation, egalitarian market society has failed to neutralise ethnic nationalism or the resurgence of identities.
(see individualism; neo-primitivism)
* * *
Memory, collective memory
The mental integration and appropriation of one’s own past.
Just as an individual can’t act if he’s forgotten his past, a people becomes impotent and defenceless if it loses the collective memory of its history. What is memory? It’s a reserve of information about oneself that structures one’s experience and permits activities in the present to anticipate those of the future.
The dominant ideology aims today at making Frenchmen and Europeans amnesic. This is done in several ways: by deculturation, by the slow destruction of historical learning (or, similarly, by making Europeans feel guilty for being who they are or by systematically negating their genius), by fabricating a ‘false memory’ based on the memories of other peoples, by the cult of presentism, etc. If one speaks of the ‘work of memory’ today, it’s to make Europeans repent for what they have allegedly done to others: not only is our memory lost in this way, but whatever of it we do conserve is for the sake of self-flagellation. All strong, ambitious, vivacious peoples and civilisations exalt in their historical memory.
*
Long-living peoples never forget their past and possess tenacious memories. Muslim peoples haven’t lost the memory of their Qur’an and from this comes their force. Marxism never succeeded in eradicating the historical memory of Serbs, Russians, or Chinese. A people deprived of its history is a people debilitated.
‘The man of the future is the man with the longest memory’:[176] this archeofuturist formula of Nietzsche suggests that it’s necessary to project one’s memory into the future as will and project. An amnesic civilisation condemns itself to a short life. To dominate space, it’s necessary also to dominate time — to pursue one’s future destiny, one has to proudly take hold of one’s past.
(see archeofuturism; identity; people, long-living; tradition)
* * *
Mental AIDS
The collapse of a people’s immune system in the face of its decadence and its enemies.
Louis Pauwels[177] coined the term in the 1980s and it set off a media scandal — for it pointed at a painful truth (in general, the more the neo-totalitarian system is scandalised by an idea and demonises it, the more likely it’s true).
AIDS comes from a retrovirus that destroys an organism’s immune system. ‘Mental AIDS’ is an infection of a psychological nature that affects virtually all the ‘elites’ — the political class, the media class, show business, the ‘cultural’ community, ‘artists’, filmmakers — inclining them to oppose the interests of their own people and to advocate degenerate values as if they were actually ones of regeneration. A people, a nation, a civilisation — at the most complex, holistic level — is a living organism. European societies today are menaced by the collapse of their immunological defences: aggressions in this vein are not combated but encouraged. Faced with an evident danger, we’re witnessing a morbid case of anti-opportunity: that is, at the very moment when measures of anti-pathological defence are most needed, exactly the opposite is being called for — which, of course, simply reinforces the pathology’s progression.
Some examples: where the educational system produces illiteracy and violence, the reinforcement of the ‘anti-authoritarian’ methods responsible for these conditions are further encouraged; at the point when greenhouse gases have provoked a catastrophic global warming and need to be reduced, nuclear power, the least polluting of energy sources, is abandoned; as civil violence, delinquency, and insecurity explode everywhere, not only are their reality denied in the name of certain intellectualist sophisms, police and judicial measures that might curb them are at the same time undermined; the more Third World colonisation damages European peoples, the more measures are taken to continue it, to prevent the immunological reac
tions ethnic Europeans might have to it, and to denounce as ‘racist’ anyone who dares to resist it. Similarly, just as Europe is threatened with demographic collapse, policies which might increase the birth rate are denounced and homosexuality idealised. At the very moment, then, when corrective measures are required, the very opposite is advocated — which simply reinforces the malady’s progression.
There are other examples of mental AIDS: worthless, vacuous forms of ‘art’, like tags,[178] are characterised as ‘works of genius’; degenerate or deviant human types are turned into social models, etc.
*
The mental AIDS afflicting European ‘elites’ is spreading through a process of intellectual bewilderment: its pathology arises from the ‘false spirit’ that despises ‘vulgar common sense’ (claiming that black is white) and relies thus on a forced optimism (‘everything is going great’, even though it’s not). Mental AIDS is based on a misrepresentation of reality — as well as an inability to detect viral attacks.
With biological AIDS, T4 lymphocytes, which are supposed to defend the organism, fail to react to the HIV virus as a threat, and instead treat it as a ‘friend’, helping it in this way to reproduce. The same holds true for mental AIDS. Catholic prelates, like secular republicans, argue with great conviction that ‘Islam and immigration are an enrichment’, even though it clearly threatens to destroy them. Most of the time, this is not a matter of the ‘elites’’ cynical betrayal, but something worse: the loss of inner reference and sound judgment. Mental AIDS is an intellectualist pathology which must be ceaselessly denounced — for its watchword seems to be: ‘Why do something simply when instead it can be made complicated?’ Mental AIDS confuses, in effect, the enemy with the friend.
Why We Fight Page 19