Why We Fight: Manifesto of the European Resistance - Best Quotes
One never revolts when the shopping carts are full.
Metapolitics is the occupation of culture, politics is the occupation of a territory.
Order is the basis of every creative civilisation, because it disciplines man's anarchistic animal nature through its political and cultural harmonies. Order is unacceptable if it's not disciplinary, educative, selective — if it's purely repressive in service to a frozen elite. ... There is no order without a project, without enthusiasm, without a movement. Order is not simply repressive (the American syndrome), but a form of support, an attraction, a disciplined constitution of a common ideal.
The Western globalist 'system' will never threaten strong peoples. Are Arabs, Chinese, or Indians threatened? On the contrary. It reinforces their identity and their desire to conquer, by provoking their reaction to it.
The essence of the political is aesthetic, poetic, and historical. According to the Greek verb poeisis — to create, to make. In effect, the ultimate vocation of the political is to create — to make — a people in history. It follows that the essence of the political is not solely about economics, justice, social equilibrium, civil peace, and international security, but also architecture, ecology, the fine arts, culture, demography, biopolitics, etc.
The state itself has ceased to possess either a monopoly of power or a political will. It has ceased being a political authority in order to be a technobureaucratic authority. In either Brussels or Paris, it's nothing but an administration, a corporation with short-term schedules. Functionaries or politicians — the two often being confused — act like salaried employees or corporate executives, but not like the people's servants.
There's no determined course to history — or rather its course is determined by the idealism of the will — in tandem with brutal changes brought on by crises or civil wars.
The future is full of both hope and tragedy. Hope because all the facts, and the general course of developments, are occurring in ways that validate our analysis and that, even if there's no reaction yet, more and more people share the analyses, values, and objectives presented here. It's tragic because we have to await the escalation of perils, persecutions — war.
Identity / Peoplehood
Identity is inconceivable without the complementary notion of continuity.
Identity is inconceivable without continuity and the latter must be willed.
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.
Like every anthropological notion, 'people' lacks mathematical rigour. A people doesn't define itself as a homogeneous biocultural totality, but as a relationship. It's the product of an organic alchemy that brings various 'subpeoples' together. The Bretons, Catalans, Scots, etc., can be seen thus as the sub-peoples of a larger people — the Europeans.
'The people' — the very term is suspect to the cosmopolitan Left, which sees it as bordering on the politically incorrect — is not any statistical 'population'; it's an organic community embracing a transcendent body made up of ancestors, the living, and their heirs. Though marked with a certain spirituality, a people is diachronically rooted in the past and projects itself into the future — it's submerged in biological and genetic matter, but at the same time it's a historical, and spiritual, reality.
It's belonging to a specific people that distinguishes a man and makes him human.
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.
The idea of identity has to be linked to the notion of continuity (in Robert Steuckers' formulation). Identity is never fixed or frozen. It remains itself in changing, reconciling being and becoming. Identity is dynamic, never static or purely conservative. Identity should be seen as the foundation of a movement that endures through history — the generational continuity of a people.
Ethnicity is the sole stable basis of human community.
The notion of race doesn't exhaust that of ethnicity. Race is the biological constituent of ethnicity.
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.
For Aristotle, democracy is possible only within homogeneous ethnic groups, while despots have always reigned over highly fragmented societies.
A multi-ethnic society is thus necessarily anti-democratic and chaotic, for it lacks philia, this profound, flesh-and-blood fraternity of citizens. Tyrants and despots divide and rule, they want the City divided by ethnic rivalries. The indispensable condition for ensuring a people's sovereignty accordingly resides in its unity.
Communitarianism (Multiculturalism) [is] the very negation of the idea of a people — it's a variant of apartheid.
Modernist gurus have long claimed that the future belongs not to peoples, but to humanity conceived as a single people. Again, there'll be nothing of the kind. Despite globalisation and in reaction to it, the Twenty-first century will more than ever be a century of distinct peoples. Only Europeans, submerged in the illusions of their decadence, imagine that blood-based peoples will disappear, to be replaced by a miscegenated 'world citizen'. In reality what is at risk of disappearing are Europeans. Tomorrow will be no twilight of peoples.
On the other hand, the twilight of several peoples is already possible. One often forgets that Amerindians or Egyptians have disappeared — hollowed out internally and overrun. For history is a cemetery of peoples — of weak peoples — exhausted and resigned.
The political and social harmony of a country supposes a minimum of ethnic and cultural unity. Said differently, the right to difference [diversity] is a concept valid at the geopolitical level (each in his own home, each within his own boundaries), but invalid domestically, within a specific political unity. ... In its own land, a healthy people demands an ethnocultural monopoly.
Economism / Nihilism / Modernity
It's not a matter of rejecting the market, the productive-economic sphere, and techno-scientific power in the name of some anti-utilitarian utopia, but of subordinating market functions to the sovereign function and thus putting them in service to the people, to its welfare, and to Grand Politics. ... Those who seek to abolish the market, like those who see it as the pinnacle of all things, are inclined to reductionism. The market is nevertheless indispensable: it's a weapon in the hand of sovereignty — a means, not an end.
With Vatican II, the Church also sought to modernise itself: the result, a seventy percent loss of parishioners. In triumphing, Islam has never for a second thought of 'modernising'! Indeed, everything decadent and declining assumes the guise of the 'modern'. It thus adorns itself with the degradation of mores, the confusion of sexual roles, social permissiveness, the abdication of discipline, cosmopolitanism, unbridled free trade (after having made the proper sacrifice to the Marxist god), etc., portraying these pathological trends as 'novelties', in the sense that 'everything new is positive', even the nothing, the regressive, anything. It has indeed succumbed to historical fatalism, without the slightest understanding that history is no longer following it.
The concept of 'modernity' is inherently suicidal, since, from the beginning, it denies a people and civilisation longevity, it denies the unity of past and future.
Pierre-Émile Blairon writes, 'Modernity is a totalitarianism of nothingness: globalisation, indifferentiation, homogenisation . . . Modernity isn't in crisis, modernity is a crisis'.
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.
'Western civilisation' is not actually a civilisation at all, but rather a technical mode of life, lacking depth, based exclusively on a quasi-Pavlovian domestication of material habits; and, as such, it's ephemeral, for it rests on no memory, no tradition, no cultural substance, but rather on modes as fleeting as a cumulonimbus cloud, on the most superficial forms of conditioning.
The principal aim of contemporary politics is to make man happy through economics, as if his well-being were strictly a matter of wealth.
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.
Defined strictly in terms of economic and materialistic well-being, these small pleasures falsely presume that all human beings aspire to the same ideal of quantitative consumption. This purely passive objective, entailing a people's domestication, despises the spiritual, historical, and cultural requirements of an individual's inner sense of well-being. It destroys communal solidarity. It excludes everything that cannot be attained through a certain 'material level of life'. Its massified individual knows, as such, only anguish and insecurity in a society promising heaven on Earth. The frenzied search for material well-being, socially sanctioned but never attained, is leading to what Konrad Lorenz called the 'warm death', which softens and undermines a civilisation.
Similarly, in defining the notion of a people, territorial or geopolitical considerations must also be taken into account. A people is not a diaspora: the Jews felt obliged to reconquer Palestine as their 'promised land' because, as Theodor Herzl argued, 'without a promised land, the Jews are just a religious diaspora, a culture, a union, but not a people'.
Etymologically, a 'nation' is a popular and political community made up of those of the same ethnic origins, of the same 'birth'.
The nation ought not to be confused with the nation-state. 'Nation' and 'ethnos' are the same word, designating a community whose members are of the same origin.
Nationalism ought not to be associated with a defence of the Jacobin and cosmopolitan nation-state. As a concept, nationalism needs to change its meaning: first, it needs to acquire an ethnic association and no longer a strictly abstract political one. It should return to its original etymological sense.
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.
Democracy is real only among an ethnically homogeneous people, conscious of its ethnic identity. Ethnic consciousness is the democratic foundation for justice and social solidarity between members of the same people, as the Greek tradition understood it.
European enrootment is never an attachment to the past or to immobility. Instead, it links the ancestral heritage with creation. It shouldn't be understood, then, in the way a museum has us understand it, which neutralises a people's identity by freezing it in nostalgic memory.
Enrootment is the preservation of roots, based on the knowledge that the tree must continue to grow. Roots are what live: they engender the tree and permit its growth.
Enrootment is above all based on loyalty to values and to blood. The most dangerous form of enrootment, or pseudo-enrootment, occurs in the regionalist and separatist milieu of the Left — in Provence, the Basque country, and Brittany, for example — where the region's linguistic and cultural distinctions are forcibly asserted, but on the basis of a multiracial model. Hence, the frequently heard and astonishing litany, 'Our immigrants are Bretons, Basques, or Occitans like us'. The contradiction is total: in the name of opposing the 'tradition' of Jacobin homogenisation, strangers to our soil and traditions are admitted to the country — in the name of Jacobin universalism!
If limited solely to culture, enrootment becomes a sterile folklorism. For however necessary, in itself cultural enrootment is insufficient.
The modern world lives the assumption of the homeless and the accession of the deracinated. A nomadic métis (a person of racially mixed parentage), 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.
Contemporary elites are 'recruited' according to criteria that have nothing to do with excellence or character. These criteria are now nepotism, connection, membership in a lobby, a clique, a mafia, a clan (sociological or ethnic); or else these criteria relate to the ability to make money. The elites of contemporary society are no longer selected, but recruited on the basis of corporate or market principles.
Egalitarianism, on the other hand, makes us believe that hierarchy is inherently unjust, though it can't get rid of it, since it's part of the nature of things; instead, it denies it, creating in its place even more savage forms of inequality. Egalitarianism is an institutionalised lie. It's the most humble, paradoxically, who are hurt the most by its imposture, since everywhere the right of excellence is denied and everywhere mediocrities and scoundrels are favoured.
Egalitarianism is the source of all the evils and the illusions of the modern world. Its perverse, metaphysical, anthropocentric core deifies man and separates him from the animal realm (anthropocentrism). As Spencer and Darwin have shown, the human race is bound like every other animal species to the central fact of existence: inequality.
[Economism's] central objective is a policy of 'economic development', quantitative production, pursued without regard to cultural, ecological, ethnic, etc., imperatives. It reduces human happiness to a matter of living standards; it pursues economic 'growth' for the sake of short-term interests; and it neglects, among many other things, the conditions necessary for demographic renewal. It believes a country's health is measured solely by its economic performance.
From the viewpoint of economism, history is explainable solely in terms of economic factors, which are seen as facets of a civilisation's infrastructure, while cultural, demographic, and other factors are ignored or treated as secondary.
The causes of decadence are usually the same throughout history: excessive individualism and hedonism, the softening of mores, social egoism, devirilisation, contempt for heroic values, the intellectualisation of elites, the decline of popular education, the abandonment of or turning away from spirituality and the sacred, etc.
Decadence ensues whenever concern for the community-of-people in history fades, whenever the communal lines of solidarity and lineage slacken.
What's wrong with today
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.
We propose that European peoples become historical subjects again and cease being historical objects.
Despite national, linguistic, or tribal differences, haven't African Blacks, even in Europe, been called on by Nelson Mandela or the Senegalese Mamadou Diop to 'think like one people'? From Nasser to al-Qadhafi, by way of Arafat, haven't Arabs been urged to see themselves as an Arab people? Why don't Europeans have the same right to see themselves as a people?
It's not for a sect, a party, a denomination (except, if at all, in a provisional and temporary way) that we fight. It's not for petty personal ambitions or intellectual vanity. We're fighting not for the Right or the Left or the Centre — not for socialism or liberalism. These are only instruments, they don't represent the essential.
A similarly ambiguous and dangerous formula is to proclaim: 'I fight for my ideas'. No! One doesn't fight for 'ideas', one fights for a people — ideas are only the struggle's instruments, not its goal. A conception-of-the-world has to be incarnated in the real, as an expression of a historical will, and not as an exposition of a savant's 'ideas', which almost always remain dead letters. ... one doesn't fight for ideas, but, among other things, one fights with ideas. Conversely: one well and truly fights the enemy's ideas. One fights at the same time to maintain a certain number of key values in the people — values indispensable to its survival.
Either Europeans will unite in self-defence, expel the colonisers, throw off the American yoke, and regenerate themselves biologically and morally — or else their civilisation will disappear — forever.
This generation will offer but the most minimal resistance to active minorities, whoever they may be. What could such a mass of slaves — these 'last men' of whom Nietzsche spoke — do in face of a resolute aristocratic minority?
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.
The dominant ideology now rejects all idea of a people's heredity. Based on the dogmas of assimilation and integration, it holds that identity is not transmitted, but acquired. Any human group can therefore adapt itself to any culture. The taboo science of ethnopsychology has demonstrated, though, that the behaviour of peoples and nations depends to a significant degree on their collective genetic disposition. Put in identical circumstances, different peoples produce different results. Those not favoured by their natural environment can often thus produce more than those who are. The Dutch, for example, whose natural environment is atrocious, far out-produce African populations situated in lands that are naturally rich.
Cosmopolitanism is nothing but a failed differentialism. Its ideal of mixing cultures for the sake of creating a single world culture is essentially totalitarian.
In reality, Europe's cultural wealth owes little to extra-European contributions, despite the claims of the official vulgate. Today, cosmopolitanism seeks to dissolve European originality and specificity into a jumble of world cultures. It has no future. There's never been a 'world culture'. Europe is the sole victim of cosmopolitan propaganda for a future 'mixed world'; everywhere else there's been a reinforcement of identity and ethnic blocs.
Competition, or the struggle for life, constitutes the principal motor force of evolution in everything from bacteria to humans, as well as history. Even the most fanatical pacifists acknowledge it.
Competition affects every domain of existence; it's observable between individuals and between groups. Communal solidarity is the sole element mitigating its harshness. In blunting the individual's egoism, its goal is to ensure the superiority of the community over other communities.
The notion of community opposes that of 'society', whose essence is mechanical, heterogeneous, and based on a social contract. Community is the most natural way to group humans, since it's based on ethnic and spiritual kinship — which establishes a harmonious equilibrium between its members and serves as the most propitious expression of their culture.
Community pre-exists its specific forms of organisation and institution, for its essence is historical, innate, and non-contractual, unlike society.
An ethnically heterogeneous population — a kaleidoscope of communities — becomes an anonymous society, without soul, without solidarity, prone to incessant conflicts for domination, to an endemic racism ('every multi-racial society is a multi-racist society') — ungovernable because there's no shared vision of the world. Ethnic chaos is an open door to tyranny.
Assimilationism is, at root, a disguised form of racism. It's also a utopia. The doctrine of assimilation was born from the quasi-religious and universalist ideals of the American and French Revolutions, as well as the Russian Revolution. It supposes that there are no peoples, that ethnic realities are a fantasy, and that the only thing that counts is the individual as consumer.
Only small minorities can be assimilated. Never in the history of mass immigration has a people been assimilated by those among whom they've settled. Faced with the present failure of assimilation, the public powers have adopted a strategy of 'integration' [melting pot] and 'communitarianism' [multiculturalism]. But here too they have failed.
Worse: Muslim and alien 'minorities' have ceased, in many areas where they live, to be minorities and have turned the tables on Europeans, who are compelled to assimilate the culture and mores of the colonisers! All assimilation is equivalent to cultural genocide, for the assimilator or the assimilated.
Today, the mere idea of aristocracy is incompatible with the dominant ideology. But every people needs an aristocracy. It's an integral part of human nature and can't be dispensed with. The question then is not 'For or against aristocracy?' but 'What kind of aristocracy?'
The rejection of aesthetics is crucial to the dominant ideology. For aesthetics, at root, is aristocratic, opposed to massification and fake elites.
In its historical essence, the political is a declension [decline] of aesthetics. 'Grand Politics' aims, in effect, at forming a people in history, making civilisation a creator of great works, turning civilisation itself into a work — a work of art.
Thanks to the Internet, start-ups, data processing, globalisation, etc., it's imagined that the economy has freed itself of crises. But this is a religious — a redemptive — vision of the economy. The 'economic cycle' is alive and well, for the economy is human, purely psychological, and not something simply 'technological'.
There's a distinct logic to the Left's struggle: weaken the European devil, censure her traditions and ancestral memories, defuse her technological and military power, smother her independence, corrupt her mores, and destroy her ethnic germen through immigration.
I've always been a 'nationalist' — never a 'French nationalist', but rather a 'European nationalist'. Despite dreams of grandeur (which have eluded her), France is too small. To exist, to defend ourselves, to assert ourselves in an increasingly hard world, it's necessary to regroup at a larger level, as a continental bloc.
It is a fact: decadence is far more expensive than prosperity. The peak of absurdity, however, is the fact that the riches acquired through the labour of our people serve as, so to speak, credit cards for the multi-racialist political mafias. To put it in another way: the victims finance the culprits, and voluntarily pay their executioners the highest salary for their march to the scaffold. Europe squanders her goods to cover the costs of her own extinction. Thus economic collapse precedes genetic ruin.
In economics, we have combined the disadvantages of both capitalism and socialism, without receiving the advantages of either. From capitalism, we've retained free trade and open borders without the benefits of free enterprise; from socialism, we've retained only statism, trade union corporatism, high taxation, and bureaucracy, without social justice, solidarity, and full employment.
Bourgeoisism designates the negative traits of the bourgeois spirit, minus the entrepreneurial mentality of the great bourgeoisie, which today is in decline. Opposing the popular spirit, like it opposes the aristocratic spirit, bourgeoisism dominates our market society, with its morality of self-interest, its individualist pursuit of security and immediate well-being, its susceptibility to ephemeral fashions, its refusal of risks, its passive and conspicuous consumption, its conformity to the reigning doctrines, its concern with maintaining politically correct appearances, its total lack of patriotism and ethnic consciousness, its cultural snobbery, its spirit of calculation, its compromising conception of human relations, its narcissism, the preponderance of money in its scale of values, its indifference to communal solidarity, its superficial humanitarianism, its insensibility to the sacred and poetic sentiments, and its aesthetic inaptitude, etc. Bourgeoisism has even abandoned its earlier familial spirit, with its sense of generational continuity.
We have nothing but our ideas, our convictions and our will — certainly not much, compared to the usurpers of power who daily confuse minds, poison souls and take all imaginable measures to initiate the destruction of all identities. We possess, however, the highest trump — the trump of trumps, which those who are attempting to erase all traces of their own blood do not possess and never can possess. We know where we are going because we know where we came from. We possess the memory of the history that is also the memory of the mythos of our ethnos, the consciousness of an unbroken line of ancestors from whom we have inherited the most valuable of all privileges: namely, the privilege to be like them.
Europe is the sick man of the world. It's obvious in her demographic decline, in her physiological devirilisation, and in the reigning ideology of ethnomasochism, imposed by politically correct censors and the controlled media. We are gnawed at from within and attacked from without. We are set upon by assailants, occupiers, and collaborators, who make up the majority of the political, media, and intellectual classes, whether of the Right or the Left. The people have yet to see it because their shopping carts are still full. And though everyone may secretly suspect that the war has begun, the majority denies it, because for the moment no one has the courage to fight it.
What matters most at this point is a unifying ideological platform that goes beyond sectarianism in the sincerity and lucidity of its reflections. When the house is on fire, domestic disputes are put on hold.
Far from becoming a 'planetary civilisation', a global village, the planet is today being organised into competing ethnic/identitarian blocs. The mixing of cultures and the abolition of identities are not part of the Twenty-first-century's project. India, China, Black Africa, the Arab-Muslim or Turkish-Muslim world, etc., are affirming their identities, tolerating neither a colonising immigration nor a cultural mélange on their soil. Only our pseudo-European elites defend the dogma of a 'mixed planet', which is pure illusion.
Natural selection privileges the survival of the fittest and thus the perpetuation of the species. This is the case in biology, as well as sociology. Every organisation, every system, that neglects selection is bound to disappear. Selection rarely assumes the form of a direct struggle. But it's truly the central principle of all life and of every civilisation. The 'superiority' of a people, a species, or a civilisation rests, in the last instance, on its capacity for long-term survival, on its ability to overcome the snares thrown up by selection and to win the competition. In this sense, a 'static racism' that judges one phylogenetic group superior to another is absurd. ... And though egalitarianism rejects the principle of selection, it cannot eliminate it. It instead replaces a socially organised selection with an unjust, primitive selection based on nepotism, money, violence, etc.
The sovereign function cannot be simply an offshoot of 'democracy'. It has to have a sacral dimension if it is to assume and assure a people's longevity.
Ideas have no legitimacy unless they correspond to values lived as practical engagements. Values depend not on fashions or technological progress or social avatars; they represent an unbreakable bond between generations — the basis for maintaining a people in history. Many values translate the imperatives of biological survival into cultural terms.