Some basic values must be instilled into the minds of this active minority, this nucleus that must be organised and federated into a network that spreads throughout Europe. But what are these values?

Fundamental Values

1. The ability to identify one’s main enemy

A cultural or economic invasion and a strategic subjection can always be compensated. This becomes much more difficult when the ongoing colonisation is of a demographic and religious nature. It is therefore imperative for us to engage in a simultaneous fight against Americanisation, ethnic colonisation, and Islam. It is especially crucial never to wallow in the intellectual stupidity that advocates using the Third World and Islamophilia as weapons against Americanism. The latter is much less dangerous and much weaker than one may be inclined to think. The United States, as I have explained elsewhere, is actually an opponent, not an enemy.

2. The development of a comprehensive ethnic European consciousness

The framework of French nationalism is insufficient, both because the very concept is exclusively political and because millions of aliens are already legally French. On this continent of ours, only ethnically European populations are related to each other and enjoy ‘brotherly’ relations, regardless of their nationality and regional origin. The presence of other nationalities is perfectly acceptable, as long at their members are temporary guests and not permanent occupants. All civilisations abide by such reasoning, so why not ours?

3. Rejecting the ‘right to be different’

This perverse notion has sprouted from certain Right-wing circles, with the initial intention of affirming the right of Europeans to ethnic difference on their own soil! This aspect of ethnopluralism will be discussed further on. The ‘right to be different’ was meant to assert the legitimacy of Rightist identitarian ideas, as well as the right of European ethnicities to be preserved against any mixture whatsoever. Pierre-André Taguieff believed this to be a manifestation of differentialistic racism, which is a serious mistake, because this right to be different, as theorised by my friend Alain de Benoist, is actually a deeply egalitarian concept, a concept that was adopted by the ideological arsenal of anti-racism and immigrationism.

The above-mentioned author stated (in Eléments, number 88): ‘Because of its specific history, France has always found it difficult to accept differences regarding ideas, languages, men, women, or immigrants’. This argument is specious. It confuses the issue of regional languages with that of immigration. One must not forget the fact that, thanks to the ‘PACS’ (Civil Solidarity Pact), France was the first country to legalise same-sex unions and, above all, the first to actually grant aliens, particularly Muslims, exorbitant rights, as already demonstrated. In truth, the objection that the right to difference is not being acknowledged in France is, sociologically speaking, contradicted by the facts. Having succumbed to intellectualism, the author of these remarks has become an advocate of ‘equal worth’ egalitarianism.

What we must maintain, rather, is that within a single political unit, a single nation, differences can only be minimal, and do not constitute a ‘right’ in any way. Such differences must be completely subordinate to the principle of homogeneity, which preserves the unity of the whole, and which could only be conceived if secondary to the principle of hierarchy, always yielding to the central notion of belonging. The mandatory rule is that the duty to belong must prevail over the right to be different. If rights do apply, they cannot, nonetheless, go beyond the notion of ‘divergence’, and must remain limited to the realm of ideas. In any society, homogeneity must take precedence over heterogeneity so that the body can live and grow. Even on the level of morality and, a fortiori, that of individual origin, differences can be tolerated as long as they do not undermine social organicism. However, immigration, exacerbated feminism, and homophilia are factors that wreak organic disintegration upon society, since they all impact the latter’s foundations, meaning its biological base.

Provided that we witnessed, in accordance with the wishes of Benoist or Maffesoli (a theoretician of neo-tribalism), the emergence of various groups that advocate their right to be excessively different, not only would our society turn into a kaleidoscope of juxtapositions while any notion of national destiny evaporates, but it would become confrontational and devolve into a jungle, as understood by Herbert Spencer back in his day.

Despite their anti-Americanism, what the proponents of ‘the right to difference’ actually do is reproduce the American tribal model! They claim to be ‘anti-modern’, when the very characteristic of modernity is the dilution of social ties into classes, castes, racial groups, and isolated individuals under an overhanging Administrative State which lacks any historical roots and supervises the reign of consumerism. The current form of neo-totalitarianism seeks to emphasise heterogeneity (whether ethnic, sexual, or social) in favour of the despotic establishment of ideological, fiscal, judicial, and mediatic order. Supporting people’s ‘right to difference’ is synonymous with reinforcing the system. It is the epitome of false opposition and only serves to mimic rebellion.

Those who preach this right to difference claim that they are fighting a ‘society of clones’ when, in actual fact, all of them contribute to its creation, no matter if they are Whites, Blacks, Browns, gays, lesbians, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, pagans, fetishists, or whatever. They are all willing to live together, as long as they have a mobile phone and behave like charged atoms in the Market. The right to difference is a clever strategy devised by our Big Brother: its aim is to divide and conquer. It seeks to shatter the unifying nervous system of our social organism, relegate our belonging to mere folklore, and deny the importance of ethnic identity.

But the proponents of this pseudo-emancipatory and self-righteous conception of society are digging their own grave: the ethnic differences that they tolerate and encourage will not lead to harmony, but shall set off a string of internal wars whose beginnings we are now witnessing.

A great civilisation can only be based on a concept of collective destiny and the global community of a single People: a hierarchical and organic community, as defined by Ferdinand Tönnies, meaning an encompassing community that federates families, clans, and ethnic groups from top to bottom, under the authority of a central sovereignty that endows the ensemble with an identical direction and function, never legitimising harmful deviations, especially those which are bound to have biological consequences.

What we must do is invert the factors of the equation and envision a hierarchical society of social heterogeneity, yet one which is characterised by an organic and ethnic homogeneity that is based on the proximity of closely related groups. In short, the right to be different is essentially a libertarian and anarchic doctrine, a doctrine that can trigger both widespread conflict and a softer form of despotism.

4. Renouncing ethnopluralism in favour of ethnocentrism

Ethnopluralism is a concept that is completely devoid of common sense. Everyone knows that, by definition, our planet is ethnopluralistic. There is no need to make a doctrine out of this: reality is there for us to behold. Ethnopluralism, which complements the ‘right to difference’, strives in fact to legitimise the coexistence of Europeans and non-indigenous communities on European soil, granting these alien populations a kind of settlement right as well as extraterritoriality. It embodies yet another misconception that is centred upon derealisation and demobilisation, a misconception that was unfortunately invented by a certain Rightist grouping and that we must mercilessly fight against.

I will not reiterate all the arguments that were detailed in a previous chapter. In order to survive, every great civilisation must instil the fundamental idea of its own superiority into the minds of its youths. The arguments presented by chamber intellectuals are more moral than historical, and rendered worthless when confronted with the following modest evidence: a civilisation which does not believe that the whole world revolves around it will either be invaded or marginalised.

Nevertheless, our destiny is hardly folkloric in nature. How does one even dare to compare the history and creation of our great European civilisation with that of primitive cultures, backward tribes, and minor cultures whose fate should matter little to us? Let us return to reality here. I suggest nurturing indifference rather than domination. Why should we care about the fate and survival of all these extra-European cultures? Have they shown any concern for our own continuity? As a result of their guilt complex, Europeans never cease to praise foreign cultures and attempt to protect them. But who, apart from us, cares about European cultures? Our sickness has become so severe that we are more interested in alien cultures (although it is basically a genuinely peripheral interest) than our own. We must therefore become resolutely selfish and ethnocentric.

Adopting the healthy attitude of young Arab, Chinese, and Indian people, European youths must realise that they have inherited one of the greatest human civilisations. Everyone fights for themselves, convinced that their team is the best.

5. Redefining the European tradition of freedom

Compared to Southern and Eastern civilisations, the European sphere has always emphasised the idea of freedom and individual creation. Totalitarian Communism, on the other hand, draws inspiration from the same sources of Oriental despotism as Islam. The greatness of Europe is due to its tradition of freedom, which allows the energies of its various civil societies to reach full potential.

However, the idea of freedom is only fruitful if it is disciplined and regulated, becoming fatal when exaggerated. The decadence of Europe stems from a degeneration that has stricken the very idea of individual freedom (particularly on the level of traditions and immigration). Freedom thus turns into a sort of license and, paradoxically, thought censorship against any dissenting opinion that dares assert the European identity gains in intensity. An absolute freedom of tradition combined with mental censorship: this is what we are experiencing today. Freedom must be balanced by effort and discipline, resulting in equilibristics. We are expected to figure out how to reconcile our freedom of thought with disciplined behaviour. Freedom of action, both in the case of our public authorities and that of our civil society, must end the moment it jeopardises the fate of our People. Aristoteles dixit.

6. Combating bourgeois individualism: a purge that begins within

It is not a question of advocating asceticism or mortification, but one of acknowledging the fact that the bourgeois way of life and mentality comprise an indifference towards everything that is collective, including the common destiny of one’s people. Islam advocates this principle of communitarian solidarity, and rightfully so, while boasting about its ability to invade us because we have relinquished this value, and, as Europeans, are no longer concerned with anything but short-term individual materialism. Let us agree with the Muslims in this respect and, likewise, not forget our own people and our own extended community. For man, inner well-being does not lie in predation and individual calculation, nor in the hoarding of superfluous wealth, as Charles Champetier clearly stated in Homo Consumans, but in the act of giving, the gratuitousness of saying ‘yes to life’ and the services offered. I would go even further: it is in the fight for one’s own people that man finds, both ethologically and spiritually, his purpose and fulfilment in life, which, at the very least, applies to those who have not yet become completely enraptured and enslaved by the system.

7. Restricting altruism to one’s own people

Initially, humanitarianism (the modern version of charity) was inspired by a righteous sentiment, defined as the opposite of bourgeois egoism: finding one’s fulfilment in helping others. But in line with the constant failure of the European spirit, and under the influence of European Christianity, things have been pushed too far. We thus long to aid others before curing our own ailments. Celebrities mobilise in support of ‘undocumented’ Africans, while humanitarian NGOs advocate the right of interference and spend lavishly on foreign populations. This ethnomasochism has poisoned the minds of many, as confirmed by the songs of Claude Nougaro and Ferrat. For my part, I have great respect for those young doctors, nuns, and others who, in the most selfless manner, risk their lives and sacrifice their own comfort to go and help foreign populations in distress. They have, however, missed their mark. Their altruism honours them, but what have they ever done to help the millions of Europeans who are either in difficulty or homeless, the families burdened by unemployment, and the countless victims that face suburban insecurity and racism? The media makes the same mistake.

As regards being dedicated to a cause, an endeavour that gives meaning to life, it is better to devote yourself to the plight of your own people. Others can fend for themselves. After all, they are adults, as they constantly like to remind us. Let them prove it, then.

In short, the altruistic energy of our European youths (or some of them, at least) needs to be refocused on the defence of our own people. These concepts seem clearer and more specific than vague notions of a ‘right to difference’, ‘ethnopluralism’, or ‘humanitarian intervention’.

8. Intelligence versus intellectualism

Reasoners are not to be trusted. They are the masters of misconception. They adorn their speech with quotes, dress it up in references, develop their own jargon, and wrap their nonsense in chiselled sophistry. To think correctly and radically is to go straight to the point, straight towards what is real. One thus states things as they truly are. As affirmed by Boileau, ‘What is well-conceived is expressed clearly, the right words springing to mind with the greatest ease’.

The cult of abstract ideas is lethal because it demobilises. Intellectualism is actually the very opposite of intelligence and lucidity. Complicated ideas are generally false, while simple ideas, though not always endowed with the glitter of gold, are more likely to be correct.

Intellectualism does not seek to be truthful, but to come across as pompous. When it originates from the political Right, it is even worse, because it embellishes itself with garments of doubt and irony. All these humanitarian, ethnopluralistic, and universalistic arguments (the ‘global village’ of pan-communication, understood as the ‘new brain of humanity’), all the prophecies of bourgeois gurus ever so ignorant of our social reality, all these fancy ideas fascinate the elite among our youths and prevent them from clearly perceiving the blinding evidence that points to the endangerment of the European anthropological substrate, a substrate that is the foundation of every aspect of Europe, including politics, strategy, the economy, and so on. The symptom of intellectualism is that one never addresses the core issue, namely the colonisation of our continent. The latter is considered primal, vulgar, and trivial. One thus prefers to discuss various topics of secondary importance, in other words chic ones, and philosophise on the most frivolous issues.

The only words uttered by those in charge of the system are tolerance, fluidity, communication, and openness. As for intellectuals, they are content to parrot trendy ideas, which are however entirely unfashionable as a result of their being obsolete. Western intellectuals lack the capacity to think, discern, and analyse. They spend their lives in libraries and in front of their screens. What they are most concerned about is their notoriety and media career, just like TV starlets. Only one in a hundred will ever become renowned, yet all of them make sure that they court the system’s views in the hope of gaining recognition or achieving glory. And generally speaking, those who claim to be ‘politically incorrect’ and criticise the notion of a single line of thought are the very first to practice it through a perverted travesty that even Baudrillard never dared analyse. The intellectuals proclaiming themselves to be at odds with it all and feigning rebelliousness will make it a point to criticise ultra-liberalism or Americanisation, but are always careful to steer clear of the topic of Europe’s colonisation. They misuse ideas that are otherwise solid, masking the fact that they are collaborators with a semblance of resistance.

Intellectualism is guilty of having demobilised a large number of our militant youths, especially in France, Italy, Belgium, and Germany. It has done so by distracting young people from identifying our primary enemy and diverting its attention away from all that is obvious through mental mirror games of falsehood.

Whether Rightists or Leftists, Western intellectuals are pervaded by the bourgeois mentality, meaning by a shallowness that remains concealed behind a veil of pretentious scholarly knowledgeability. Never laughing, they always sneer instead. They squeal, but never speak, and prefer scribbling to writing. They dazzle, yet fail to convince and criticise without condemning. They ornament, but do not create. Intellectuals may well be the masters of speech, yet they lack any understanding of their own words. They believe themselves to be mentors, although they are nothing more than merchants of deceit. They long to awaken the masses while actually misleading their audience. There is a kind of imbecility that typifies today’s intellectuals. It is thus truly easy to recognise those stricken with the highest degree of stupidity: all the ones who, imitating Bernard-Henri Lévy, describe themselves as ‘philosophers’.

9. Courage

Among the most lucid and most courageous individuals, some voices are indeed heard denouncing the deadly threat of Europe’s colonisation. They are, however, very few.

Everyone keeps beating around the bush. Cowardice peaks when one is faced with what has been forbidden and tabooed by the system. Even within the political Left, many are aware of the danger, but talking about it is simply out of the question. As for Right-oriented politicians, they resort to such confounding arguments as, ‘We must not yield to provocation, as that’s the kind of slip-up the system expects. So let’s not speak a word about it!’ Consequently, everyone just gives in to the system’s logic, changes the topic, and then expands on inessential and foolish ideas. Comfort takes priority over courage, for cowardice is always glazed in seemingly legitimate yet specious arguments.

Within the political Right, one hears a great deal of criticism regarding immigration, but this critique is often accompanied by prejudice and excuses: ‘It is not the immigrants themselves we are fighting against, you see, but immigration. There’s a difference!’; or, ‘If they manage to integrate and become well-behaved Frenchmen, everything will work out fine!’ (the discourse of the sovereignists). Here are a few other examples: ‘Come on now, we all know that it is the US that represents a threat, not Islam’; and ‘We must, above all, keep our reactions moderate! Let us not attract attention to ourselves, shall we? I suggest talking about something else. Please, it’s too dangerous, someone might call the police!’. You fools, you have already been noticed, identified, and classified.

The political parties that have gone further than anyone else in denouncing the danger have been demonised by the media, and what is most extraordinary is that this endeavour has been crowned with success. Due to a mixture of cowardice and conformity, the electorate, even when confronted with the evidence, has not massively rallied in support of those who have sounded the alarm.

In actual fact, it is this lack of courage that accounts for the electorate’s reluctance, even if their reticence is adorned with sophisticated arguments that no one, not even those who preach such nonsense, could ever take seriously. Vilfredo Pareto has clearly demonstrated that feelings, interests, and fears often lie behind all ideas and behaviour that claim to be rational.

I do understand how Trotskyists and Left-oriented, pro-immigration prelates can be prone to supporting the colonisation of Europe. It is part of their mentality’s pure logic. I myself consider Muslim conquerors, in other terms the young Maghrebians driven by hatred and a sentiment of revenge, to be worthy of respect and interest. They are simply playing their game, as they would in poker.

What is unbearable to me, by contrast, is the attitude of all those Europeans who are well aware of our situation and yet choose to remain silent. Recently, an Iraqi friend told me, ‘You’re being invaded without any kind of response. You squander all your energy on denying the invasion rather than fighting it.’

Read Part I

Footnotes

The above text is an excerpt from Guillaume Faye’s The Colonisation of Europe (Arktos, 2016). If you liked this selection, be sure to check out the whole book.