“In the final instance civilization is always saved by a platoon of soldiers.”

–Spengler

We are soldiers who serve the cause of Europe’s Renaissance — a cause as pure, hard, and imperious as our banners.

We are soldiers because we refuse the reformist tinkering of the dominant system, which — through its electoral and party committees, its partisan venalities, and its parliamentary charade — endeavors to ensure the self-regulation and recycling of the corrupt elites controlling the existing plutocratic system.

We are soldiers because we believe that the salvation of Europe’s family of nations depends on the destruction of the present system.

We are soldiers who serve and not merely talk, we reflect and we act.

We serve the cause of politics in the sense of Julien Freund [France's leading Schmittian scholar], knowing that the essence of action is action itself.

Our trifold praxeological, destining, and eschatological understanding of politics transcends the purely operational, pragmatic, and secular policies of modern politics. Going further, we think that propaganda by ideas is a chimera and that ideas come from action and not the reverse.

This is why we embrace the revolutionary dialectic of Carlo Pisacane, Enrico Malatesta, Carlo Cafiero, Paul Brousse, and José Antonio, who advocated the propaganda of the deed — the deed pregnant with ideas.

Our soldierly faith and duty is wedded to the national-revolutionary ideal that seeks a new political, aristocratic, hierarchical, anti-democratic, and anti-egalitarian order, situated within a European continental frame, geopolitically self-centered, disconnected from the global economy, independent of our present Atlanticist servitude, and rooted in a Eurocultural concept of civilization based on the values of blood and soil.

We are soldiers because we see history as a clashing dialectic between antagonistic forces, whose constituent elements are peoples and nations.

For conflict and struggle, as the work of Stéphane Lupasco and Max Planck demonstrates, are inherent to every system.

History is thus an endless battle between peoples organized around their distinct cultures and communities, each, consciously or unconsciously, motivated by a desire to expand and dominate.

As soldiers, we fight for the restoration of the poltical principle in the noble sense of politea, imperium, and auctoritas, and in function of Evola’s anagogy, which is capable of impregnating peoples with those specific metapolitical, spiritual, and anti-materialist values that ensure the masses’ spontaneous adhesion.

For us, as for Carl Schmitt, politics is that privileged arena in which the enemy and the friend is clearly designated.

This is why we reject the administrative or managerial concept favored by party politicians, who promote a state sustained by hedonistic frenzies — a state whose subjects are cretinized and emasculated, manipulated by consumer society and the media — subjected in this way to a whoring enterprise which organizes, directs, and patronizes them in order to dissolve all revolutionary effort in the solvent of a fake, hyper-festive order of permanent entertainment.

As soldiers, we advocate the ideal of a “polemological” state charged, above all else, with defending the survival and growth of Europe’s power from assaults by American hegemonism, radical Islam, and the extra-European colonization of our ancient lands.  In this sense, we categorically reject the social-contractual conception of the nation and seek to restore it as that mystical body passed from one generation to another.

The nation for us remains a determinism, a necessity, a force, and a will.

We are soldiers because we believe that war-like activity is the highest degree by which civilizations become complex and by which history’s primordial lever raises motherlands and city-states.

War in this Heraclitian sense has animated international relations from the time of Thucydides and from that of Machiavelli.

War is the highest expression of the state, as Hegel shows; it evokes its greatest consciousness and its greatest efficacy.

The state is and remains above all a war machine and all its other functions are subordinate to it, even if the bourgeois and managerial conception of the dominant democratic state has patched together a certain order from the ruling delinquency and its corrupting prosperity.

The international authority of the state is as great as its ability to inflict harm, and history shows that only those attached to mos majorum (ancestral law) and to a conservative opposition to the centrifugal forces succeed in attaining the aureole sovereignty of military glory.

This is the way it was in the Rome of Augustus and Diocletian, in the Russia of Peter the Great and Lenin, in the Islam of Mehmet Ali and Mustapha Kemal, in the China of Huang-di and Mao Zedong, each of whom won domestic and foreign victories before daring to impose the profound revolutionary transformation in which they believed.

As political soldiers, we seek to restore the ideal of a political vocation that transcends contemporary economism and to re-legitimate the ideal of those exceptional men who articulate and embody an ethic of conviction, responsibility, and duty.

Within the bourgeois democracies governing and offending us, there thrives a class of professional politicians and bureaucrats, of demagogues and opportunists of all sorts, whose mercenary use of high political office is motivated solely by reasons of personal gain or career.

As soldiers, we will make the necessary sweep that sends these impostors, these betrayers of our great European political ideals, to the devil.  And in this we aspire to see emperor and proletarian, animated by the same revolutionary faith, marching shoulder to shoulder: paradigm of a new heroism.

We uphold that there is an essential contingency between the state of exception and the essence of political sovereignty, constituting the point of disequilibrium separating public law from political fact.

We advocate a state of exception in order to establish the state as the emanation of a new order, as a means of terminating the general anomie and the reigning disorder.

The syntagma “force of law” rests on a long tradition of Roman and medieval law constituted for efficacy and loyalty.

We would like to restore an operational perspective invested with the archetype of the Roman juridical institution — the iustitium – enacted whenever the Roman Senate was informed of a situation that might compromise the Republic — a senatus consultum ultimum dictating measures necessary to ensure the state’s security.

This way of dealing with states of emergency harped back to the ancient concept of sol-stitium: to those instances when the law came to a stop, like the sun at its solstice, [and where the question of sovereignty -- the question of who holds ultimate authority -- was forthrightly posed].

Above all, we are political soldiers because we are militants.

Etymologically, “militants” refer to the theological distinction between the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant.

An analogy can be made between the political militant and the believer, whose truths inform all aspects of his being, especially in its essence and totality

The militant fights, attacks, and pays with his person for the triumph of his ideals.

The verb “to militate” comes from the Latin militari, which means “soldiers” (in the plural), to whom belonged a Church (an army) that required a spirit of discipline, self-sacrifice, and abnegation.

This is why militancy is at the heart of our political struggle.

The ideal militant for us must be a revolutionary, capable of dialectically linking his theoretical and practical knowledge to a global understanding of the society in which he lives.  He thus voluntarily submits himself to a disciplined routine, realizing in it a unity of theory and practice.

As political soldiers, we do not believe that evolution is automatic or that revolutions are spontaneous, because there are no fatalities in politics or in economics; the dominant, liberal, capitalist order well knows how to regenerate itself and how to overcome contradictions in order to survive.

The masses too are not solely exploited, they are mentally manipulated and alienated.

There is no revolutionary advance without a process of development, culminating in a struggle between warring peoples (lutte des peuples).

These struggles are manifested in many forms, in sectional or local struggles (at the level of the enterprise, the region, etc.)

They may appear spontaneous but they are linked to a changing consciousness and to the effort of militants who rise from below as they are directed from above.

Rank and file struggles, however exemplary, cannot accomplish a global change of the system, because such struggles address only certain lived particulars, products of the larger social complex, [not the system itself].

Instead, they need to be linked and coordinated in the form of a global, ideological vanguardist action, capable of posing issues from a system-wide perspective. It is necessary, then, to avoid an overly rigid elitism and an unserious reformism — in order to ensure a dialectical liaison between the global struggle and the local struggle, between the political action of the vanguard and the mass movement.

As political soldiers we advocate a revolution that brings about not merely structural change in the economy and the state, but also in the spirit, an ontological change that will lead to the formation a new man, free of bourgeois individualism and egoism.

This “total revolution” will affect the relations and ethics regulating the larger significance of our quotidian life.

The revolution we advocate will be a return to origins, a revolving back, that establishes an authoritarian state-order, a managed economy, and an exclusive conception of identity — a revolution carried out in harmony with the distinct mentality of European peoples and in accord with a principle of homology that purges institutions and mentalities of alien, distorting elements.

As political soldiers, we are irredeemably imbued with a tragic conception of life, knowing, with Alfred Weber, that every superior order ends up perpetuating a certain chaos as it enhances its power.

Tragic because we are conscious of the imponderable grandeur of the universe and the world and of the imperfection and finitude of human nature.

In face of this constant and paradoxical metaphysics, we advocate a re-enchantment of the world and an aestheticization of the state, as envisaged by German romantics like Goethe, Novalis, Schlegel, and Müller — conscious, as we are, that the illuminist ideas of the French Revolution [the liberal revolution of 1789], along with the general process of secularization, has since disenchanted the world in Max Weber’s sense.

We want, like Novalis, our revolution to become an organic, poetical totality in which the new state is the existential and aesthetic embodiment of our ideal of human perfection.

And once we complete this task, we will go somewhere else, farther away, always farther, way over there near our gods.

Source: “Pourquoi sommes-nous des soldats politiques?” (2003)

http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/tag/soldats%20politiques

Translated by Greg Johnson

Réfléchir et Agir: You have published a fourth book on Judaism, a volume of 400 pages. Why another? Haven’t you said all there is to say?

Hervé Ryssen: I thought so too! But Judaism is a very closed world, very secret, thus after all these years of study, one still learns new things. This time, I explored the criminal world operating within the international Jewish community, and what one discovers there is, strictly speaking, incredible. The fact is that the Jewish Mafia is the main Mafia that exists today on this planet: racketeering, prostitution, drug trafficking, arms trading, contraband diamond smuggling, traffic in works of art, murder for hire, organized swindles, armed robberies, etc. Pornography, casinos, and discotheques are also largely held by Jewish gangsters.

R&A: You claim that international drug trafficking is mainly in the hands of the Jewish Mafia. Are you quite certain you are not overstating your case?

H. R.: I do not claim that the Jewish mafia controls most of the international illegal drug trade, since there are no statistics on the subject, but it does not appear incredible to me, judging by all information I could gather. The fact is that from the Chinese opium traffic of the nineteenth century to the present day, this mafia has been quite active in this field. In the traffic of ecstasy, one can say for certain that the Jewish mafia holds a monopoly. Today, ecstasy is the drug that is most harmful to European young people. A pill of ecstasy gives a feeling of strength and well-being for a few hours, but it is above all a veritable chemical garbage bin. Its long-term effects are alarming because irreversible: memory loss; behavioral, sleep, and concentration problems; brain lesions in the children of druggie mother. The premier producer is Holland, but the big traffickers who were arrested ten years ago in France, Belgium, the United States, or Australia, all have Israeli passports. The business of ecstasy is 100% in the hands of Jewish gangsters, not all of whom come from Russia, since there are Sephardic traffickers as well. If you buy a pill of ecstasy, in every instance, you can be certain you are financing the Jewish mafia. Certain big ecstasy traffickers are also deeply involved in the heroin and cocaine trade.

R&A: Is the Jewish mafia connected with the famous Colombian drug cartels?

H. R.: There is no doubt. Here is just one example: on February 16th, 1993, the Russian police of Viborg, close to the Russo-Finnish border, near Saint Petersburg, seized more than a ton of Colombian cocaine disguised as cans of corned beef. It was an Israeli resident in Bogota, Elias Cohen, married to a Colombian in cahoots with one of the clans related to the Cali cartel, who managed the network along with one Yuval Shemesh. The final destination of the cocaine was a group of Israeli traffickers established in the Netherlands, headed by one Jacob Korakin, a kippa-wearing religious Jew from the diamond district of Antwerp.

R&A: Certain diamond traders of Antwerp, New York, and Tel-Aviv play a large role in the Jewish mafia, particularly in money laundering.

H. R.: Diamond traders are at the heart of money-laundering operations for the Colombian cartels. In Manhattan, 47th Street, which is the heart of their activity, is also the largest drug money laundry. A Rabbi Yosef Crozer was arrested in February 1990 while going to Brooklyn with suitcases and bags stuffed with small-denomination banknotes. He carried $300,000 every day. His co-operation with police made it possible the following month to arrest around 30 people in the Orthodox Jewish community. One of them was Avraham Sharir, another pious Jew who owned a gold shop on 47th Street and who proved to be one of the key characters in drug money laundering in New York. Sharir, an Israeli citizen of 45 years, confessed to laundering $200 million on behalf of the Cali cartel. His employees, who counted banknotes, were regularly obliged to go our for fresh air, because so many of the small bills had been rolled for use in snorting cocaine.

R&A: Certain religious Jews do not seem to have too many scruples, one might say . . .

H. R.: Even Hassidic Jews are deeply implicated in drug trafficking. In 2001, the police broke up a ring directed by Sean Erez, a Hassidic Jew who trafficked in ecstasy. The drug had been smuggled in the hats and prayer scrolls of these pious Jews, whom customs officers were not supposed to suspect.

In July 1998, the small diamond cutting community of Antwerp was strongly shaken by a series of arrests of Lubavitchers. It had been discovered that the diamond business in the Flemish city was a cover for the international heroin traffic. Fifteen kilos had been seized. An Orthodox Jew, Dror Hazenfratz, was the head of the network. Born in Haïfa, Hazenfratz had an Israeli passport as well as a Belgian identity card. Before the court, he appeared in traditional black garb—caftan, cap, and curls—which did not prevent him from being condemned to eleven years in prison. There are many other examples.

R&A: You go back to the “American” gangsters of the Thirties . . .

H. R.: Yes, I was also interested in these mythical gangsters who had worked with the Sicilian mafia. The Jewish gangsters were particularly involved in “Murder Incorporated,” a kind of mutual insurance company of assassination thanks to which a local leader could profit from the services of killers coming from another locality and thus avoid blame. Murder Incorporated was a gang made up of mainly Jewish gangsters, who took care of the crime syndicate’s dirty work. It is estimated that from 1933 to 1940 the organization was responsible of more than 700 assassinations, but some speak of 2000. Because firearms are too easily traceable, they preferred to kill their victims with drowning, knives, bats, piano wire, and especially ice picks. All this is also part of the history of the Jewish people.

R&A: Why don’t people talk about this?

H. R.: It is always the famous reflex of “projection” about which I spoke in my two preceding books. Jewish intellectuals always project on others that about which they feel guilty. They say they were victims of Communism, for example, when in fact they were the main instigators. In the same way, Freud projected a problem specific to the Jewish people—rampant incest—on a universal level, and everyone fell into the trap.

In the 1990s, the media spoke about the terrible “Russian Mafia.” But truth to tell, all the “Russian” gangsters who were arrested had Israeli passports. The biggest one, Semion Mogilevitch, a major trafficker of weapons who also prostituted hundreds of Russian and Ukrainian girls in Prague and Budapest, was stopped in Moscow in January 2008. In France, the Courrierinternational was the only newspaper that reported it, but obviously his Jewishness was not mentioned: he was “Russian”!

Likewise, in Hollywood cinema, the drug traffickers, gangsters, “bad guys,” if they are not Sicilian, are very often Nordic white men: never Jews! The cosmopolitan directors undoubtedly have something to do with this sleight of hand.

Source: http://storage.canalblog.com/21/91/516490/47626766.pdf

Translated by Greg Johnson

The Jewish people have a plan for humanity; a grandiose plan that they have pursued on all fronts for centuries: universal peace on earth. The concept of “peace” is, indeed, at the heart of Judaism, and it is not just chance that this word (shalom, in Hebrew), is frequently used by Jews the world over.

In this perfect world that they would build, all conflicts will have disappeared from the face of the earth, especially conflicts between nations. This is why the Jews militate incessantly for the removal of borders and the dissolution of national identities. Nations being the causes of wars and disorder, it is thus necessary to weaken them and, in the long term, to abolish them in favor of a world government that can only make happiness and prosperity reign on earth.

Whether they are leftists or rightists, Marxists or liberals, believers or atheists, Zionists or “perfectly assimilated,” the Jews are always the most fervent supporters of the multicultural society, planetary miscegenation, and global Empire. When all other identities disappear, only the Jewish people will remain, recognized by all as the “chosen people” of God.

Jewish Fanaticism, first off, is the thirty million deaths, Russians and Ukrainians liquidated in the Communist adventure of 1917 to 1947. One can never say enough about the appalling role of Jewish ideologues, Jewish bureaucrats, and Jewish torturers in this story.

Jewish Fanaticism, it is this systematic eagerness to make Europeans feel guilty, to make them hang their heads and fall to their knees for crimes they did not commit, or for crimes for which Jews themselves might feel a little guilty but prefer “to transfer” to others. One thinks here of the leaders of the black slave trade, for example, or the shameless exploitation of the wealth and raw materials of the Third World.

Jewish Fanaticism, it is this unrestrained propaganda, conveyed through all the media, in favor of immigration and the multicultural society. Jewish intellectuals, Jewish politicians, and Jewish financiers bear most of the responsibility for the immigration invasion that has disfigured France in only 30 years. It is necessary to say it again and again: immigration is not a natural phenomenon but the result of a tireless campaign of cosmopolitan propaganda which is part of the politico-religious plan of the Jewish people.

Jewish Fanaticism, it is also warmongering politics that ultimately amounts to whipping up the hatred of the Western masses against any nation that still refuses democratic domination and the hegemony of Israel. Today they are preparing us for a war against Iran, as they once stirred up wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, and Germany.

Jewish Fanaticism, it is also this “great intolerance of frustration,” to give it a medical diagnosis. Anyone who has the audacity to say one word against the “Jewish lobby,” Israeli policy, or Jewish “over-representation” in the media immediately finds himself dragged through the mud by the whole media system, covered in spit, calumniated, vilified, delivered to the feet and fists of a hysterical mob hypnotized by the buzzwords of Big Brother.

In this new book of 400 pages, I base my case once again primarily on the writings of Jewish intellectuals, ancient and modern. Thus my conclusions are incontestable. If I speak about “Israeli hegemony,” it is because explicit documents allow us to say that the Jews seek to establish world domination. And if I write “the Jews” and not “certain Jews,” it is because my sources are now sufficiently many and varied to support such generality.

September 2007

Source: http://storage.canalblog.com/29/53/516490/47626715.pdf

Judaism is not merely a “religion,” as many Jews are overt atheists or agnostics, and they do not consider themselves less Jewish for all that. Jewry is also not a race even if it is true that a “trained eye,” most of the time, can recognize a Jewish appearance, that is to say, a characteristic pattern which is the result of their strict observance of endogamy for centuries. Jews see themselves as the “chosen ones” of God, and marriage outside the community is strictly frowned upon. However, mixed marriages do exist and have also helped to renew the blood of Israel during all the centuries spent in the various ghettos where the Jews preferred to live, separately and apart from the rest of the population. The essential condition for such mixed marriages is that the mother be Jewish, since Orthodox Rabbis recognize as Jewish only the child born of a Jewish mother. However, having just a Jewish father or grandparent can suffice for a person to identify completely with Judaism. Jewishness is therefore a “mental race” that has been shaped over the centuries by the Hebrew religion and the universalist project of Judaism.

Judaism is a Political Project

Judaism is essentially a political project. It is important for Jews to work toward the emergence of a world at “peace,” a peace meant to be universal and permanent. It is therefore not a coincidence that this word “peace” (shalom in Hebrew) is found frequently in Jewish discourse worldwide. In the perfect world that they are building, all conflicts will disappear between the nations. This is why Jews have been militating tirelessly for many years for the abolition of all borders, the dissolution of national identities and the establishment of a global empire of “peace.” The very existence of separate nations is considered to be responsible for the triggering of wars and turmoil. so they must be weakened and eventually replaced by a world government, a “one world government,” a “New World Order,” one single world-ruling authority that will permit happiness and prosperity to reign, Jewish-style, on earth.

We find this idea more or less developed both in the writings of certain intellectual Marxists such as Karl Marx himself and the Jewish-French philosopher Jacques Derrida and also in the discourse of liberal thinkers such as Karl Popper, Milton Friedman and France’s Alain Minc. The idea is to unify the world by all means necessary and to generate cultural conflicts that will weaken nation-states. It is for this One World that intellectuals Jews labor tirelessly all over the world. Whether they call themselves left- or right-wing, liberal or Marxist, believers or atheists, they are the most ardent propagandists of the pluralistic society and of universal miscegenation, that is of racial mixture.

Thus, all their strength the Jews – basically, ALL the vocal Jews in the world – encourage non-white immigration into every country in which they are located, not only because the multicultural society is their fundamental political aim, but also because the disintegration of national identity in each nation and the massive presence of anti-white immigrants is designed to prevent the original white population from succeeding in any nationalistic outbursts against the Jewish sway over finance, politics, and the media. All Jewish intellectuals, without any exception, are focused on this question of building the “pluralistic society” and for this they practice constant “vigilance against racism.” In France, influential writers and journalists such as Bernard-Henri Levy, Jacques Attali, Jean Daniel, Guy Sorman, and Guy Konopniki agree on pluralism and anti-racism despite their political divergences in other areas. This obsession, which is very characteristic of Judaism, is also manifested in movies, where many producers and directors are influential Jews. As soon as a film starts defending and promoting interbreeding, “tolerance” and pluralism, we can be sure that the producer of it is Jewish.

Now we can understand better why the former communists and leftists of the 1970s did not have to make such a big leap to become today’s “neoconservatives.” They have merely switched to a different strategy to achieve the same goal: the rule by racially pure Jews over a racially mixed society.

The fact is that after the Palestinian intifada began in October 2000, the Jews in France and the rest of the Western world have realized that nowadays the danger to their interests and their project comes primarily from Islam and from young African immigrants, both Arabic and black. Their aim is to strengthen the modern race-mixing and race-blending society, which they have contributed so much to establish in our country of France. But this mosaic now threatens to break up into separate communities, and this the Jews do not want. They want no separate identities or separateness at all, except a separate Jewish identity and Jewish separateness. Former Marxists in France such as Alexandre Adler, André Glucksmann, and Pascal Bruckner thus support nowadays, along with Alain Finkielkraut, the right-wing, pro-Washington, pro-Zionist party of Nicolas Sarkozy. And yet they have not become French patriots. They react only for the exclusive benefit of Jewry, asking, as American Jews proverbially do on every issue: “Is it good for the Jews ?”

“Tolerance” as a Weapon

The members of the Jewish sect are the most proselytizing people on earth, but unlike Christians or Muslims, who dream of converting all peoples of all races to their faith, the Jews have no plan to convert the world to their own faith, Judaism, but simply to encourage other nationalities to give up their national and religious identities – and live only for the goal of “tolerance.” The unceasing campaigns to blame all Whites for slavery, colonialism, the plundering of the Third World or for Auschwitz have no other purpose than putting the opponent on the defensive, and getting him on his knees not by violence but via guilt. When the Jews are the only people left on earth who are keeping their faith and their traditions, they will finally be recognized by everyone as God’s “chosen people.”

Their “mission” (and Jews frequently use this term “mission”) is to disarm the other peoples, to dissolve anything which is not Jewish or Jewish-controlled, to grind the people down to a powder for making a new identity-free work force, and thus to favor a universal “peace” among the peoples who have no more “divisive” identities.

As their prophet Isaiah said: “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the tiger will rest with the kid, the lion and the ram shall live together, and a young child will lead them” (Isaiah 11: 6-9). The Messiah, coming from Israel, and awaited for three thousands years, will establish anew the kingdom of David and will give the Jews an empire over all the earth. And certain Jewish texts explicitly call for this.

Jews are therefore continuously encouraged to campaign, in whatever society they inhabit, in order to promote the unification of the world – and thus to also hasten the arrival of their promised and cherished Messiah. Propaganda is a Jewish specialty, and it is no coincidence that Jews become so influential in all the media. In their hands, the concepts of “tolerance” and “human rights” have become incredibly efficient weapons of white guilt and accusation against the majority culture. In fact, it is not through Jewish-sounding names or a Jewish physical appearance that we can best recognize Jews, but rather from what they write and say wherever they are on earth.

Selective Amnesia and Fabulation

Many Jews, as we know, played an absolutely huge role in the Soviet tragedy 1917-1991 and the thirty million deaths that marked this era. Let us remember that Karl Marx was born into a Jewish family and that Lenin himself had a Jewish maternal grandfather, that Leon Trotsky, the Bolshevik founder and head of the Red Army, was born a Bronstein, while Kamenev (real name: Rosenfeld) and Zinoviev (real name: Apfelbaum) were running the two Bolshevik-conquered capitals of Moscow and St. Petersburg. But the list of Jews who stood out in the mega-crimes of Communism is endless. It must be said and it must be repeated: Jewish officials and Jewish torturers bore a very heavy responsibility in this tragedy. The “perfect” world they concocted and which was supposedly “historically inevitable” turned out from the very beginning to be a nightmare for the Russian population. It was not until 1948 when the Jewish intellectual elite Jewish began distancing itself from the Stalinist government, and this was only because Stalin had launched his “anti-Zionist” campaign, meant to purge pro-Israel Jews from senior leadership positions.

This indisputable Jewish guilt for the gigantic crimes of Bolshevism is now systematically being shoved down the Memory Hole (the phrase from George Orwell’s 1984). In Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s 2002 book Two Centuries Together, the Nobel Laureate and 11-year veteran of the Bolshevik gulag expresses outrage that Jewish intellectuals were still refusing to recognize their ethnic responsibility in the slaughter of millions of Christians. Solzhenitsyn also denounces modern Jews who pose as victims of an “antisemitic” Bolshevik government when that government was in fact heavily Jewish and Jews were among the worst perpetrators.

This selective amnesia is necessary for a people who ceaselessly proclaim their “innocence” of any provocative acts, as we regularly note in their writings, for example in an editorial in Israel magazine of April 2003, “the first Israeli monthly magazine in the French language” written under the name of a certain André Darmon.

He wrote: “To kill a Jew or a child makes God cry, for we are exterminating [in the Jew] the bearer of universal ethics and innocence.”

No less!

With this mindset of absolute innocence Jews cannot conceive bearing any responsibility for their atrocities. Jews are only victims, only “scapegoats” in an evil and hostile world. But very soon the Messiah will punish the “wicked” and will restore the victimized sons of Israel to their full rights.

Nevertheless, in this same Israel magazine editorial, a certain Frederick Stroussi asserted that the Nazi government was worse than the Stalin regime. He quoted the cruelties he claimed were perpetrated by certain SS men. For example, we learn from Stroussi that the Latvian SS man Cukur’s hobby was to toss Jewish babies in the air to shoot them in their head as in skeet shooting. He also writes of other episodes, such as the rape of children by the SS before they killed them. The Second World War has certainly stimulated the fertile imagination of the children of Israel.

Or perhaps this imagination is once again a case of the Jews’ own “projection” syndrome, that is, accusing others systematically of one’s very own crimes as a matter of consistent PR policy: always attack. We know in fact – even if the media never speak about it – that many Jews and their rabbis are involved in the felony crime of pedophilia (see Psychanalyse du Judaisme, 2007).

And murdering a child would seem to be more a Jewish specialty than a characteristic of the SS mind. The revelations of tenured professor Ariel Toaff of Bar Eilan University in Israel – the son of the former Grand Rabbi of Rome – and buttressed in February 2007 by his 147-page, heavily footnoted, scholarly work Pasqua di Sangue [ Blood Passover] – reveals proof of ritual murder among some Ashkenazi Jews (Jews of Eastern European origin).

Emotional Fragility

We outsiders are thus supposed to understand that the sufferings of Jews cannot be compared to those of any others. As a consequence, we are supposed to get as indignant as they do when a serious historian such as Stephane Courtois states (in the preface of his famous Black Book of Communism): “The death of a Ukrainian child of Kulak origin [ from the independent farmer class] who is deliberately forced to starve to death by the Stalinist government is as significant as the death of a Jewish child in the Warsaw ghetto.” These simple words were enough to provoke the ire of Frederic Stroussi who declares he was “stunned” by such an affront. Such a remark, according to him, was “despicable” and represented a vulgar attack against Israel: “What does this comparison have to do here?” he writes. “Why do we have to use the slaughter of a Jewish child to transmit this underlying, false and hateful rumor that the Jews overshadow all other victims of totalitarianism and monopolize all the attention on themselves?”

The author of the article, as we can notice, reacts in a outraged and totally disproportionate way to the modest and certainly justified intentions of the level-headed historian Stephane Courtois. Stroussi demonstrates here the “great intolerance to the frustration” which are so characteristic of the Jewish intellectual. Such reactions are clearly not “normal.”

We note that Israel magazine is a monthly magazine designed for the Jewish community and that, consequently, one can hardly accuse Frederick Sroussi of lying to goyish readers, or hiding from the goyim the true nature of Bolshevism and the supposedly malefic cruelty of the SS. His discourse here does not correspond to any false dialectic, as anti-Semites claim, but here, in this magazine by and for Jews, he is reflecting, as a Jew among Jews, writing to Jews, the very essence of their soul: 1) We are always innocent – and 2) Jewish lives are more valuable than those of others.

There is an “attack anti-Semitism” that stems from a failure to understand the Jewish identity and only sees deliberate perfidy where there is in reality a genuine existential anxiety, one generated by a deep psychological dysfunction.

Hysterical People

The Jews have never dared to collectively approach the mirror on their inner lives represented by Freudian psychoanalysis, a prism through which the Jews claim to see all humanity, but which, on closer analysis, sheds far more light on the specific neuroses of Judaism. Psychoanalysis, like Marxism, is a “Jewish science” and a product of the Jewish mind. It was therefore logical to wonder how this Freudian “discovery” corresponds to Jewish specificities.

The answer was not initially obvious to the author, and it took the reading and analysis of hundreds of books of all kinds, mostly written by Jews themselves, for him to realize that the searing question of incest stands at the throbbing heart of the Jewish question, and not theoretically either.

Jewish mothers do love their sons, as is well known, but outright incest is at the origin of a well-known mental illness – one that especially afflicts Jews – called “hysteria.” Incest attracted early the attentions of Freud while he was developing his theories. The parallels between Judaism and hysterical pathology are quite natural.

Jewry is well-known for these syndromes: Hysteria, depression, introspection, amnesia, manipulation, pathological lying, ambivalent identity, prophetic deception, sexual ambiguity, and so on. Every Jewish symptom is found in hysteria.

Freud, as a loyal Jew, merely projected the traits of a specific community onto the rest of humanity. In reality, there is no “Oedipus complex” but rather an Israel complex (all Jews together technically being Israel, not just the Near Eastern state). In fact, Jews do not seem to really wish to discuss the topic of incest within their families. On the other hand, all the psychiatrists mention: “The hysterical woman so much wants a child from her father or her doctor that she can persuade herself that she is pregnant by one of them and thus develops a ‘nervous pregnancy.’”

It is interesting that all Jewish writers use the same term to refer to the coming of their Messiah, namely, the “delivery” of the Messiah. The whole Jewish community, we must understand, is “the wife of God” (the Shekhinah of the Kabbalist) who is some day supposed to give birth to the Messiah, and thus the whole of Jewry is indeed suffering from a “nervous pregnancy” not unlike that found in nervous, hysterical women.

Karl Kraus, the Austrian Jewish journalist who did not agree with Freud, wrote sarcastically: “Psychoanalysis is the mental illness of which it claims to be the cure.” But the right and the best formula can be stated in ten words: “Judaism is the disease that psychoanalysis is meant to cure.”

The Sexual Revolution

After Freud, other Jewish thinkers came along who produced a symbiosis between Freudian doctrine and Marxism. Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse preached sexual revolution in order to break down the patriarchal family and unleash “free sex.” Their theories largely inspired the student riots of May ’68. The 1970s saw a new wave of Freudo-Marxism and Jewish women were in the forefront (such as Gisele Halimi and Elisabeth Badinter in France and Bella Abzug, Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem in the USA). As time passed, a series of Jewish-inspired laws appeared, one after the other, designed to dissolve the family. In France, a Neuwirth-promoted law legalized the contraceptive pill (1967), then came the challenge to the authority of the father as head of the household (1970), then divorce by mutual consent (1974) and the “right” to abortion promoted by “Holocaust survivor” Simone Veil (1975). A great wave of movie porn accompanied this “liberation” from traditional family values. Here we are compelled to note that Jewish producers and film directors play a very important role in the sex film industry. (See my La Mafia Juive [The Jewish Mafia], 400 pages, 2008). Parallel to this, the Freudian concept of bisexuality favored the acceptance of overt “gay pride” and homosexuality.

A War Machine against Humanity

In fact, the only tangible results of this moral “liberation” was the systematic demoralization and criminalization of the white man, who is denounced tirelessly in movies, literature and history as the cause of all the planet’s ills and of the collapse of the West. The appeal of egalitarianism – as intended by Jewry – tends to level all ethnic differences and identities and brings about their slow destruction.

Yitzhak Attia, director of French-language seminars at the Yad Vashem Holocaust institute in Tel Aviv wrote this himself in the same issue of Israel magazine:

Even if reason tells us, even shouts with all its force the very absurdity of this confrontation between the small and insignificant people of Israel [i.e, all Jewry worldwide, not just “the State of Israel”] and the rest of humanity… as absurd, as incoherent and as monstrous as it may seem, we are engaged in close combat between Israel and the Nations – and it can only be genocidal and total because it is about our and their identities.

You read it right : Between the Jewish people and the rest of humanity the struggle can only be “genocidal and total.” The “peace” which Israel intends to confer is no more and no less than “genocide,” the warrant for the execution of all humanity – except for those allowed to live as cultureless slaves.

The Neutralization of the Devil

The question is whether the aggressiveness of Judaism can be neutralized in order to save humanity from its evils, evils that could prove even more serious than Marxism such as psychoanalysis and the ideology of globalism. First of all, we must face the facts: After all these centuries of mutual misunderstanding, the antisemitic Christians, the Muslims, and Hitler have all failed to resolve the Jewish question. The fact is that the Jews feed on and grow off the hatred they have engendered among all the peoples of this world. This hatred, it must be said, is vital for their survival and for their spiritual genetics. It has allowed them for many centuries now to close ranks within their community against an external enemy, while other civilizations have disappeared.

For their part, the rabbis spare no efforts to keep their gene pool Jewish. And so even a renegade Jew remains a Jew, and therefore it is perfectly useless to attempt to leave the Jewish prison community. Judaism is indeed a prison. Claiming that a Jew cannot ever stop being Jewish works in favor of Jewry’s survival.

Our mission must be to accommodate these sick among us, because the Jews are not “perfidious” people as much as they are sick people to be cured.

Jews are to be loved individually and sincerely in order to free them from the prison in which they are locked. Only then will they become free from the cult’s grip – and from the threat they pose to themselves and to all humanity.

Only then we will become free from this grip, and at the same time, they will free themselves from the evil inside them that threatens all mankind.

Autumn 2007
Source: http://storage.canalblog.com/88/46/516490/47626479.pdf

“Socialisme fasciste” is the title of an essay by Drieu La Rochelle. Fascist socialism, though, has been largely symbolic, since it is more an idea than a record of actual achievement.

At certain points, all fascist movements had to come to terms with socialism. And all took inspiration from it: Hitler’s party was the National Socialist German Workers Party, Mussolini was a socialist school teacher, José-Antonio Primo de Rivera was a symbol of national-syndicalist socialism, Codreanu’s Iron Guard was a movement of students and peasants, Mosley in England had been a Labour Minister, Doriot in France was a former Communist and his PPF emerged from a Communist cell in Saint-Denis.

Historically, fascist movements were liberation movements opposing the confiscation of power by cosmopolitan capitalism and by the inherent dishonesty of democratic regimes, which systematically deprive the people of their right to participate [in government].

With the exception of Peron’s Argentina, circumstances have always been such as to prevent the realization of fascism’s socialist vocation.

Those fascist movements that succeeded in taking power were compelled, thus, to reconstitute an economy ruined by demagogues, to re-establish an order undermined by anarchy, to create ways of overcoming the chaos besetting their lands or to repel external threats. These urgent and indispensable tasks required a total national mobilization and dictated certain priorities.

Circumstances, in a word, everywhere prevented fascists from realizing the synthesis of socialism and nationalism, for their socialist project was necessarily subordinated to the imperative of ensuring the nation’s survival.

These circumstances were further exacerbated by another difficulty: Fascist movements were generally reluctant to destroy the structure of capitalist society.

Given that their enemy was plutocracy, foreign capital, and the usurpers of national sovereignty, the immediate objective of these movements was to put the national interest above capitalist interest and to establish a regalian state capable of protecting the nation, as kings had once done against the feudal powers.

This [fascist] policy of conserving ancient structures may have transformed the prevailing consciousness and shifted power, but it did not entail a revolutionary destruction of the old order.

Fascist nostalgia for the old regime has, indeed, been so profound that it routinely reappears [today] in neo-fascist movements that are national-revolutionary more in word than in deed.

This phenomenon is evident throughout Europe, in Italy and Germany, in Spain, in France . . .

Is it, then, a contradiction distinct to neo-fascism that it has been unable to combine the conservation of hierarchical structures upon which Western Civilization rests with measures specifically socialist?  Or do neo-fascists simply — unconsciously — express the impossibility of grafting measures of social justice onto a civilization profoundly foreign to their ideal . . . ?

We need at this point to turn to [first] principles.

Every new vision of social relations rejecting Marxism rests on a certain number of postulates, which, I believe, are common to all radical oppositional movements.

1. The first of these condemns political and economic liberalism, which is the instrument of plutocratic domination. Only an authoritarian regime can ensure that the nation’s interest is respected.

2. The second postulate rejects class struggle. Class struggle is native to Marxism and [inevitably] leads to the sabotage of the nation’s economy and to a bureaucratic dictatorship, while true prosperity benefits everyone and can be obtained only through a loyal collaboration and a fair distribution.

3. The third protects the nation’s “capital” (understood as the union of capital and labor) and represents all who participate in the productive process . . . It is a function of the [fascist] state, thus to promote labor-capital collaboration and to do so in a way that does not put labor at the mercies of capital.

4. Given that the nation’s economy is a factor crucial to the nation’s independence, it, along with the Army and other national institutions, are to be protected from all forms of foreign interference.

5. Since modern nations have become political-economic enterprises whose power resides in those who control the economy as much as it does in those who make political decisions, the nation must play a leading role in the economic as well as the political systems. The instrument appropriate to such participation in the nation’s life have, however, yet to be invented. . . .

6. Above all, the nation’s interest must take priority over every particular interest. . . .

There is nothing specifically “socialist,” as this term is understood today, in these principles, since contemporary socialism is nothing other than a form of social war whose inevitable culmination is the rule of those bureaucratic entities claiming to represent the workers [i.e., national union federations].

Nevertheless, these principles accord with another conception of socialism — one that favors a fair distribution to all who participate in the productive process. This is not the underlying idea, but the consequence thereof, inspiring our postulates.

A fair distribution, however, will never result from sporadic, recurring struggles challenging the present degradations of money. Instead, it is obtainable only through the authority of a strong state able to impose conditions it considers equitable.

1. Yggdrasil’s review essay on Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: Белоснежка и семь гномов

2. Our translation of Guillaume Faye’s “Mars and Hephaestus: The Return of History”: Марс и Гефест: возвращение истории

3. Our translation of Dominique Venner’s “Secret Aristocracies”: Тайные аристократии”

4. Edmund Connelly’s “Decapitation“: Обезглавливание

5. Lasha Darkmoon’s “The Plot Against Art, Part 1“: Заговор против искусства, часть 1

6. Richard Hoste’s review of Sir Francis Galton’s Hereditary Genius: Обзор монографии Фрэнсиса Гальтона “Наследственность таланта, ее законы и последствия”

Congratulations to the authors, and our thanks to the translator and to the editor of Ethnopolitics and Nationalism.

"Ares Ludovisi," Roman copy of Greek original by Skopas (Palazzo Altemps, Museo Romano Nazionale)

Translated by Greg Johnson

Allow me an “archeofuturist” parable based on the eternal symbol of the tree, which I will compare to that the rocket. But before that, let us contemplate the grim face of the coming century.

The twenty-first century will be a century of iron and storms. It will not resemble those harmonious futures predicted up to the 1970s. It will not be the global village prophesied by Marshall MacLuhan in 1966, or Bill Gates’ planetary network, or Francis Fukuyama’s end of history: a liberal global civilization directed by a universal state. It will be a century of competing peoples and ethnic identities. And paradoxically, the victorious peoples will be those that remain faithful to, or return to, ancestral values and realities—which are biological, cultural, ethical, social, and spiritual—and that at the same time will master technoscience. The twenty-first century will be the one in which European civilization, Promethean and tragic but eminently fragile, will undergo a metamorphosis or enter its irremediable twilight. It will be a decisive century.

In the West, the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were a time of belief in emancipation from the laws of life, belief that it was possible to continue on indefinitely after having gone to the moon. The twenty-first century will probably set the record straight and we will “return to reality,” probably through suffering.

The nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw the apogee of the bourgeois spirit, that mental small pox, that monstrous and deformed simulacrum of the idea of an elite. The twenty-first century, a time of storms, will see the joint renewal of the concepts of a people and an aristocracy. The bourgeois dream will crumble from the putrefaction of its fundamental principles and petty promises: happiness does not come from materialism and consumerism, triumphant transnational capitalism, and individualism. Nor from safety, peace, or social justice.

Let us cultivate the pessimistic optimism of Nietzsche. As Drieu La Rochelle wrote: “There is no more order to conserve; it is necessary to create a new one.” Will the beginning of the twenty-first century be difficult? Are all the indicators in the red? So much the better. They predicted the end of history after the collapse of the USSR? We wish to speed its return: thunderous, bellicose, and archaic. Islam resumes its wars of conquest. American imperialism is unleashed. China and India wish to become superpowers. And so forth. The twenty-first century will be placed under the double sign of Mars, the god of war, and of Hephaestus, the god who forges swords, the master of technology and the chthonic fires.

Towards the Fourth Age of European Civilization

European civilization—one should not hesitate to call it higher civilization, despite the mealy-mouthed ethnomasochist xenophiles—will survive the twenty-first century only through an agonizing reappraisal of some of its principles. It will be able if it remains anchored in its eternal metamorphic personality: to change while remaining itself, to cultivate rootedness and transcendence, fidelity to its identity and grand historical ambitions.

The First Age of European civilization includes antiquity and the medieval period: a time of gestation and growth. The Second Age goes from the Age of Discovery to the First World War: it is the Assumption. European civilization conquers the world. But like Rome or Alexander’s Empire, it was devoured by its own prodigal children, the West and America, and by the very peoples it (superficially) colonized. The Third Age of European Civilization commences, in a tragic acceleration of the historical process, with the Treaty of Versailles and end of the civil war of 1914-18: the catastrophic twentieth century. Four generations were enough to undo the labor of more than forty. History resembles the trigonometrical asymptotes of the “theory of catastrophe”: it is at the peak of its splendor that the rose withers; it is after a time of sunshine and calm that the cyclone bursts. The Tarpeian Rock is close to the Capitol!

Cornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem, "Venus and Vulcan," 1590

Europe fell victim to its own tragic Prometheanism, its own opening to the world. Victim of the excess of any imperial expansion: universalism, oblivious of all ethnic solidarity, thus also the victim of petty nationalism.

The Fourth Age of European civilization begins today. It will be the Age of rebirth or perdition. The twenty-first century will be for this civilization, the heir of the fraternal Indo-European peoples, the fateful century, the century of life or death. But destiny is not simply fate. Contrary to the religions of the desert, the European people know at the bottom of their hearts that destiny and divinities are not all-powerful in relation to the human will. Like Achilles, like Ulysses, the original European man does not prostrate himself or kneel before the gods, but stands upright. There is no inevitability in history.

The Parable of the Tree

A Tree has roots, a trunk, and leaves. That is to say, the principle, the body, and the soul.

1) The roots represent the “principle,” the biological footing of a people and its territory, its motherland. They do not belong to us; one passes them on. They belong to the people, to the ancestral soul, and come from the people, what the Greeks called ethnos and the Germans Volk. They come from the ancestors; they are intended for new generations. (This is why any interbreeding is an undue appropriation of a good that is to be passed on and thus a betrayal.) If the principle disappears, nothing is possible any longer. If one cuts the tree trunk, it might well grow back. Even wounded, the Tree can continue to grow, provided that it recovers fidelity with its own roots, with its own ancestral foundation, the soil that nourishes its sap. But if the roots are torn up or the soil polluted, the tree is finished. This is why territorial colonization and racial amalgamation are infinitely more serious and deadly than cultural or political enslavement, from which a people can recover.

The roots, the Dionysian principle, grow and penetrate the soil in new ramifications: demographic vitality and territorial protection of the Tree against weeds. The roots, the “principle,” are never fixed. They deepen their essence, as Heidegger saw. The roots are at the same time “tradition” (what is handed down) and “arche” (life source, eternal renewal). The roots are thus manifestation of the deepest memory of the ancestral and of eternal Dionysian youthfulness. The latter refers back to the fundamental concept of deepening.

2) The trunk is its “soma,” the body, the cultural and psychic expression of the people, always innovating but nourished by sap from the roots. It is not solidified, not gelled. It grows in concentric layers and it rises towards the sky. Today, those who want to neutralize and abolish European culture try to “preserve” it in the form of monuments of the past, as in formaldehyde, for “neutral” scholars, or to just abolish the historical memory of the young generations. They do the work of lumberjacks. The trunk, on the earth that bears it, is, age after age, growth and metamorphosis. The Tree of old European culture is both uprooted and removed. A ten year old oak does not resemble a thousand year old oak. But it is the same oak. The trunk, which stands up to the lightning, obeys the Jupiterian principle.

3) The foliage is most fragile and most beautiful. It dies, withers, and reappears like the sun. It grows in all directions. The foliage represents psyche, i.e., civilization, the production and the profusion of new forms of creation. It is the raison d’être of the Tree, its assumption. In addition, which law does the growth of leaves obey? Photosynthesis. That is to say, “the utilization of the force of light.” The sun nourishes the leaves which, in exchange, produce vital oxygen. The efflorescent foliage thus follows the Apollonian principle. But watch out: if it grows inordinately and anarchically (like European civilization, which wanted to become the global Occident and extend to the whole planet), it will be caught by the storm, like a badly carded sail, and it will pull down and uproot the Tree that carries it. The foliage must be pruned, disciplined. If European civilization wishes to survive, it should not extend itself to the whole Earth, nor practice the strategy of open arms . . . as foliage that is too intrepid overextends itself, or allows itself to be smothered by vines. It will have to concentrate on its vital space, i.e., Eurosiberia. Hence the importance of the imperative of ethnocentrism, a term that is politically incorrect, but that is to be preferred to the “ethnopluralist” and in fact multiethnic model that dupes or schemers put forth to confuse the spirit of resistance of the rebellious elite of the youth.

One can compare the tripartite metaphor of the Tree with that of that extraordinary European invention the Rocket. The burning engines correspond to the roots, with chthonic fire. The cylindrical body is like the tree’s trunk. And the capsule, from which satellites or vessels powered by solar panels are deployed, brings to mind foliage.

Is it really an accident that the five great space rocket series built by Europeans—including expatriates in the USA—were respectively called Apollo, Atlas, Mercury, Thor, and Ariadne? The Tree is the people. Like the rocket, it rises towards the sky, but it starts from a land, a fertile soil where no other parasitic root can be allowed. On a spatial basis, one ensures a perfect protection, a total clearing of the launching site. In the same way, the good gardener knows that if the tree is to grow tall and strong, he must clear its base of the weeds that drain its roots, free its trunk of the grip of parasitic plants, and also prune the sagging and prolix branches.

From Dusk to Dawn

This century will be that of the metamorphic rebirth of Europe, like the Phoenix, or of its disappearance as a historical civilization and its transformation into a cosmopolitan and sterile Luna Park, while the other peoples will preserve their identities and develop their power. Europe is threatened by two related viruses: that of forgetting oneself, of interior desiccation and of excessive “opening to the other.” In the twenty-first century, Europe, to survive, will have to both regroup, i.e., return to its memory, and pursue its Faustian and Promethean aspirations. Such is the requirement of the coincidentia oppositorum, the convergence of opposites, or the double need for memory and will for power, contemplation and innovative creation, rootedness and transcendence. Heidegger and Nietzsche . . .

The beginning of twenty-first century will be the despairing midnight of the world of which Hölderlin spoke. But it is always darkest before the dawn. One knows that the sun will return, sol invictus. After the twilight of the gods: the dawn of the gods. Our enemies always believed in the Great Evening, and their flags bear the stars of the night. Our flags, on the contrary, are emblazoned with the star of the Great Morning, with branching rays; with the wheel, the flower of the sun at Midday.

Great civilizations can pass from the darkness of decline to rebirth: Islam and China prove it. The United States is not a civilization, but a society, the global materialization of bourgeois society, a comet, with a power as insolent as it is transitory. It does not have roots. It is not our true competitor on the stage of history, merely a parasite.

The time of conquest is over. Now is the time of reconquest, inner and outer: the reappropriation of our memory and our space: and what a space! Fourteen time zones on which the sun never sets. From Brest to the Bering Straits, it is truly the Empire of the Sun, the very space of the birth and expansion of the Indo-European people. To the south-east are our Indian cousins. To the east is the great Chinese civilization, which could decide to be our enemy or our ally. To the west, on the other side of the ocean: America whose desire will always be to prevent continental union. But will it always be able to stop it?

And then, to the south: the main threat, resurging from the depths of the ages, the one with which we cannot compromise.

Loggers try to cut down the Tree, among them many traitors and collaborators. Let us defend our land, preserve our people. The countdown has begun. We have time, but only a little.

And then, even if they cut the trunk or the storm knocks it down, the roots will remain, always fertile. Only one ember is enough to reignite a fire.

Obviously, they may cut down the Tree and dismember its corpse, in a twilight song, and anaesthetized Europeans may not feel the pain. But the earth is fertile, and only one seed is enough to begin the growth again. In the twenty-first century, let us prepare our children for war. Let us educate our youth, be it only a minority, as a new aristocracy.

Today we need more than morality. We need hypermorality, i.e., the Nietzschean ethics of difficult times. When one defends one’s people, i.e., one’s own children, one defends the essential. Then one follows the rule of Agamemnon and Leonidas but also of Charles Martel: what prevails is the law of the sword, whose bronze or steel reflects the glare of the sun. The tree, the rocket, the sword: three vertical symbols thrust from the ground towards the light, from the Earth to the Sun, animated by sap, fire, and blood.

William Holman Hunt's "The Scapegoat" (1854 - 1856) (detail)

From Mechanopolis, February 24, 2009

Translated by Greg Johnson

Read Part 1 here.
Read Part 2 here.
Read Part 3 here.
Read Part 4 here.

Mechanopolis: Isn’t the desire to found a world government one of the delusions of the “enlightened,” as Taguieff would say?

Hervé Ryssen: It is quite clear that all this is being done to make us disavow our roots, our traditions, our history, our families, and our fatherlands, in order to make us more receptive to the “open” society dear to cosmopolitan hearts and to the idea of a world government. Alain Finkielkraut insists on this point: “Evil,” he writes, “enters the world with fatherlands and patronyms [par les patries et par les patronymes]”(Alain Finkielkraut, L’Humanité perdue [Lost Humanity], p.154.). The post-modern man must cease “pursuing traces of the past in himself as in others.” His claim to fame “is to be cosmopolitan, and to make war on parochialism” (Alain Finkielkraut, Le Mécontemporain [Paris: Gallimard, 1991], pp. 174-77).  From there, one can finally admit the idea of a “planetary confederation,” as advocated by the sociologist Edgar “Morin” in all his books, or better yet, to work for the introduction of world government, as Jacques Attali expresses it: “After the installation of European continental institutions, the urgent need for a world government will appear” (Dictionnaire du XXIe siècle [Dictionary of the Twenty-First Century]). All that, obviously, will still not prevent the famous anti-fascist trapper Pierre-André Taguieff from being indignant at the wild imaginings of anti-Semites and to claim that the idea of world domination is an aberration or a “deception.”

Mechanopolis: One cannot deny however that the Jews experienced atrocious persecutions down through the centuries. How do they themselves explain their misfortunes?

Hervé Ryssen: It is probably the most stunning question of all. On this point as well, the explanations are all concordant and are usually based on the theory of the “scapegoat”: in difficult times the government or the people turn against a specially designated victim who is charged with “all” faults “past, present, or future.”

Those who should be most concerned to understand anti-Semitism often express a total incomprehension of the phenomenon. Thus for Clara Malraux (the wife of the writer) anti-Semitic hatred “is less hard to bear when one knows that it is totally and absolutely unjustified and that, by this fact, the enemy is transformed into the enemy of humanity” (Clara Malraux, Rahel, Ma grande sœur . . . [Rahel, My big sister . . .] [Paris: Editions Ramsay, 1980], p. 15.). The enemy of the Jews is the enemy of all humanity. This is also what Elie Wiesel means when he writes in volume 2 of his Memories: “Thus it is and cannot be otherwise: the enemy of the Jews is the enemy of humanity. . . . By killing the Jews, the killers undertook to assassinate all of humanity” (Elie Wiesel, Mémoires, vol. 2, [Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1996], pp. 72, 319). Indeed, to kill a Jew who is, so to speak, innocent by nature, is inevitably to attack every innocent person and every other community. Thus one is correctly defined as the enemy of humanity. But there is also another interpretation, more classical, which is based on the idea that the Jews alone are defined as humanity, the other nations deriving, according to a so-called formula of the Talmud, from “the seed of cattle.”

In his  2004 book Le Discours de la haine [Hate Speech], the philosopher André Glucksmann maintains that “hatred of the Jews is the enigma among all enigmas. . . . Jews are not at all the source of anti-Semitism; it is necessary to consider this passion in itself and by itself, as if the Jews which it hounds . . . did not exist.” (André Glucksmann, Le Discours de la haine [Paris: Plon, 2004], pp. 73, 86, 88.).  You have to understand:  “the Jew” is always innocent. These too are not isolated testimonies, and this attitude seems to be that of a majority of the Jewish intellectuals. Emmanuel Lévinas also expressed this opinion, just like another Jewish philosopher, Shmuel Trigano for whom the phenomenon of anti-Semitism “remained unexplained in spite of an immense library on the subject” (Shmuel Trigano, L’Idéal démocratique… à l’épreuve de la shoah [The Democratic Ideal . . . the Test of the Shoah] [Paris: Editions Odile Jacob, 1999], p. 17).

Mechanopolis: One also often hears that anti-Semitism is a mental illness.

Hervé Ryssen: Since anti-Semitism is unexplained, and the Jews are innocent, logically the problem can come only from the goys. Consider the testimony of Yeshayahu Leibowitz, philosopher of religions, found in the book entitled Portraits juifs: “It is a phenomenon which is historically incomprehensible. Anti-Semitism for me is not a problem of the Jews but of the goyim” (Herlinde Loelbl, Portraits juifs, 2003). In the first volume of his Mémoires, Elie Wiesel writes: “It is their problem, not ours” (Elie Wiesel, Mémoires, vol. I [Paris: Le Seuil, 1994], pp. 30, 31).

The explanation of anti-Semitism as mental derangement is very frequently found in the writings of Jewish intellectuals. Le livre de Raphaël Draï, Identité juive, identité humaine, publié en 1995, reprend cette idée : The 1995 book of Raphaël Draï, Identité juive, identité humaine [Jewish Identity, Human Identity], takes up this idea: “The anti-Semite attributes to the Jew the intentions that he himself nourishes. . . . The psychopathological dimension of such a construction cannot be ignored. . . . The presented Jews are really projected Jews; the “Judaized” image belongs to the delusions of anti-Semites” (Raphaël Draï, Identité juive, identité humaine [Paris: Armand Colin, 1995], pp. 390-92).

The Russian writer Vassili Grossman expresses the same idea: “Anti-Semitism,” he says, “is the mirror of the defects of a man taken individually, of civil society, of official systems. Tell me what you accuse the Jews of, and I will tell you what you yourself are guilty of. National Socialism, when it attributed to the Jewish people traits that it itelf had invented, like racism, the will to dominate the world, or the cosmopolitan indifference to the German fatherland, had in fact given the Jews its own characteristics” (Vassili Grossman, Vie et destin [Paris: Ed. Julliard, 1960], pp. 456-58). In sum, the anti-semite rejects in the Jews his own tares. On this level, it does indeed fall into the realm of psychotherapy. But it remains to be seen whether it is really the goyim who need it most!

The End

Read Michael O’Meara’s review of Ryssen’s Les Espérances planétariennes.

Emilio Sala Frances, "The Expulsion of the Jews from Spain" (1889, Museo de Bellas Artes de Granada) The figure in the foreground is either Don Isaac Abravanel or Don Abraham Senior.

From Mechanopolis, February 24, 2009

Translated by Greg Johnson

Read Part 1 here.
Read Part 2 here.
Read Part 3 here.

Mechanopolis: How do you explain this obvious lust for vengeance in [Jewish] religious texts that profess universal peace? What is the source of this vengefulness?

Hervé Ryssen: The spirit of revenge is found in quite a few texts. It appears in novels like Albert Cohen’s Frères humains or Patrick Modiano’s La Place de l’Etoile. The current American guru of Afrocentrism, Martin Bernal, who is “white,” also evokes this sentiment: “My goal is to reduce the intellectual arrogance of Europeans.” Now, if one plunges into the remote past, one realizes that these attitudes have traversed the centuries without so much as a wrinkle.

At the beginning of the 16th century, for example, Rabbi Shlomo Molkho, who was regarded by many Jews as a Messianic figure, wrote his very revealing prophetic visions in which one finds the idea of a “revenge against the gentiles” which will be achieved. He also assures us that “the foreigners will be broken” and that “the nations will tremble” (Moshe Idel, Messianisme et mystique, 1994, pp. 65-66). Moshe Idel comments: “the poem of Molkho clearly refers to the advent of a double revenge: against Edom and Ishmael,” i.e., against Christendom and Islam, then he adds furthermore: “God reveals not only how to fight against Christianity . . . but still how to break the force of Christianity so that the Redemption occurs” (p. 48). Isn’t it clear?

One can find this type of delirious prophecy in many other Jewish historical characters, such as Isaac Abravanel, who was the chief of the Jewish community of Spain before the expulsion of 1492, and who became one of the mythical heroes of the Jews of Iberian origin. He also quite explicitly calls for the revenge of the people of Israel against Christendom and invited “all the nations to go to war against the land of Edom” (the vision of Obadia, in Genesis 20:13, quoted in John-Christoph Attias, Isaac Abravanel: La mémoire et l’espérance [Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1992], p. 256).

For those who still wonder about the reasons for this secular hatred, here is a small explanation: “It is close the day when the eternal will take revenge on all the nations that destroyed the First Temple and which controlled Israel in the exile. And with you also, Edom, as you made at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple, you will know the sword and revenge (Obadia). . . . Any deliverance promised to Israel is associated with the fall of Edom” (Lamentations 4:22; p. 276).

This vengeful hatred, nursed for twenty centuries, was also expressed by the philosopher Jacob Talmon, who wrote in 1965: “The Jews have very old blood feuds to settle with the Christian West” (J.-L. Talmon, Destin d’Israël, [Paris: Calmann-Lévy 1965, 1967], p. 18). Pierre Paraf, the former President of the LICA (League against Anti-Semitism), writes, in the voice of a character of his novel republished in 2000: “So many of our brothers marked by circumcision groan under the whip of the Christians. Glory to God! Jerusalem will gather them together one day; they will have their revenge!” (Quand Israël aima [Paris: Les belles letters, 1929, 2000, p. 19). These people are tenacious in their resentment.

Mechanopolis: We really are far from the cinematic stereotype of the “poor little persecuted Jew.” In the end, can one take seriously the widespread idea, or “prejudice,” that “the Jews want to dominate the world”?

Hervé Ryssen: I do not have any personal ideas on this subject, and I am content to analyze what is written. Consequently, I cannot say that it is a general disposition of all Jewish intellectuals. But this idea was expressed by some of them. The book on Abravanel confirms this interpretation, on the basis of biblical texts: “At the time of the Messiah,” he writes, “Samuel thought that all the nations would be subjects of Israel, in accordance with what is written: ‘His empire will extend from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth’” (Zechariah 9: 10, p. 181). “During the deliverance to come, a king of the house of David will reign” (Attias, Isaac Abravanel, p. 228). In fact “the great peace would reign on earth at the time of the King-Messiah” (Attias, Isaac Abravanel, p. 198). Here we have confirmation that Israel militates for “peace”!

Camille Marbo, in her novel Flammes juives (Paris: Les Belles Lettres 1936, 1999) tells the story of young Moroccan Jews who leave their mellah and settle in France in the 1920s. One explicitly speaks about the “conquest of the world by Israel” (p. 10). One also finds such passages: “‘Israel must control the world,’ said Daniel. . . . ‘They fear us,’ repeated the old man Benatar, ‘because we are the race of the Prophets’” (p. 18); “Our generation which can conquer Christendom has not yet come. You yourselves will lay the foundations, and your children will carry out the task. They will confound the Christians. Israel will lead the world as it must” (p. 126). There are many other texts on this subject.

Read Part 5 here.

Bernd Rabehl is an academic sociologist and a veteran of the German student movement of the 1960s led by Rudy Dutschke. Pace our conservatives, the oppositional movements of the period were not monolithic in their subversion. Not a few of its participants were like myself (I was a 68er at Berkeley) in seeking not the further actualization of the nihilism inherent in the post-1945 System, but rather an active resistance to the toll it had already taken on American life in the decade leading up to the Sixties.

Here, in this slightly abridged translation, an ex-oppositionist reflects on the complete loss of German values since the break-up of the Soviet Empire and the East German Democratic Republic (the Deutsche Demokratische Republik or DDR). –Michael O’Meara

Question (Bernhard Tomaschitz): Professor Rabehl, twenty years ago the Berlin Wall fell. In what ways has Germany changed since then?

Rabehl: It has been completely transformed. First, the DDR was totally dismantled. Its industry was deliberately destroyed, creating vast swaths of de-industrialization in the East. Then, a third of the DDR’s population, above all those with college degrees and skills, were resettled in West Germany, and in some cases in the US and Australia. The little industry remaining in the East was in no way comparable to that of West Germany, so it’s impossible to speak of any parity now between the new Länder (provinces) of the East and those of the West.

Question: Was any aspect of the DDR heritage carried over into the newly reunified Federal Republic?

Rabehl: This is an interesting question because the politics of the SED [the ruling East German Communist party] always took its references from the German, especially the Prussian, political tradition. In this optic, the DDR’s politics remained German, while West Germany [under the heal of the Judeo-American powers] was founded on a rejection of that tradition.

Question: Given that West Germany had severed its links with the German past, ought German Reunification [after 1989] be considered “a historical accident”?

Rabehl: The West German political Establishment had no interest in reunification. Helmut Kohl’s Christian Democrats [then the ruling party] was committed to the postwar division of Germany. No one in the West imagined that East Germany might possibly collapse (it was simply accepted that there should be two states) and no one wanted anything to do with a state still rooted in the German political tradition. It was the Soviet Union that initiated the reunification process because it feared the complete collapse of Eastern Europe. The KGB elites around Gorbachev knew that such a collapse would bring war and revolution, threatening thus the very existence of the Red Army and the Russian state. This is why two or three years before 1989, the Russians began developing plans to ensure a peaceful reunification. The American president at the time, Bush Senior, and Gorbachev then negotiated the reunification and presented it to Kohl. Following the massive demonstrations in Leipzig, East Berlin, and Rostock [which undermined the DDR's legitimacy in 1989], it was clear that the German Communist state could no longer be preserved, since the Russians were no longer prepared or able to support such a state.

Question: To what degree did “the Basic Antifascist Consensus (Antifaschistische Grundkonsensens), which was the founding ideology of the West German Federal Republic, become the prevailing dogma of reunified Germany?

Rabehl: Antifascism in the former DDR was use to designate “the enemy,” all enemies. A “fascist,” accordingly, was anyone who didn’t support the [East German Communist] system. Included in this category were Social Democrats, liberals, leftists, and, of course, conservatives and reactionaries. “Fascism,” as such, was a concept of struggle, extendable to virtually anyone or anything.

Once the Federal Republic lost its enemy in the East, there was a certain [ideological] shift. Previously, it wasn’t fascism that was the enemy, but rather Communism, whose subversions were resisted. Then, as the German Communist state disappeared in the East, the reunified German state embrace the antifascist cause for its own uses, this time against the German state tradition — and against all who sought to change the new Germany, especially its relationship to the European Union. In this context, it’s pertinent to note that well before 1989 West German parties had privileged the American ideology of “human rights” and “individual liberties” and assigned no value to maintaining the German heritage, the German language, German values — having abandoned every specifically German political and social tradition.

Question: If German values are no longer of any importance, what was it that was celebrated during the anniversary of German Reunification?

Rabehl: Essentially, what was celebrated was the fact that there had been no revolution in either the East or the West. In the East, in 1989, those who had descended into the street, chanting “We are one people,” were bought off with a monetary reform and a gift of several hundred marks to welcome them to the West. They were then shorn of their political identity. This was easily accomplished, given the weak organization and lack of continuity of the East German protest movement.

That which is celebrated now, twenty years later, is the fact that the constitution, “the Basic Law,” and the former political structures of the West have been imposed on the Länder of the East — that there is nothing left of the DDR. In effect, what is celebrated is the total Americanization of all Germans.

Question: Isn’t it remarkable that twenty years after the Wall’s collapse the [recently passed] Treaty of Lisbon calls for the “de-state-ification” of Germany and other EU member states?

Rabehl: All of Europe’s states have been effectively “de-state-ified.” In the process, the EU has acquired a supra-state sovereignty and become a super-state. But for all that Europe in no sense is a great power. It can’t be because it remains tied to the United States — by treaties regulating NATO and by other accords related to matters of security. There were certain timid measures taken to give Europe the stature of a great power, but since 2003, the US has intervened to prevent it, informing Europeans that only the United States can decide matters of war and peace for them. So much for the European super-state — for the question of war and peace is what makes a state sovereign.

Question: What forces have profited from the “de-state-ification” of the European states?

Rabehl: Obviously, it’s the United States, which, since 1945, has systematically endeavored to impose its own political model on Europe . . . This political system, which I call “liberal materialism,” has completely taken over Germany.

In the past, the state was always primary: This was the case with the monarchical state and the administrative state and the independent political forces which once opposed the “party-cratic” state perverted by machine politicians and partisan interests.

It’s often said today that the state has degenerated into a sort of country inn, without any real structure, where partisan interests maneuver for maximum advantage and for state hand-outs. Isn’t this typically American?

Question: What do you think Germany will look like twenty years from now, when we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Wall’s fall?

Rabehl: That depends on how the political life of the nation is affected by our pseudoelites, who favor the existing parties and recruit an increasingly ever more mediocre personnel.

If corruption becomes everywhere prevalent, if private interests and lobbies end up dominating the parties themselves and the state machinery, then we are likely to sink deeper into political paralysis. States and governments will then no longer be able to act — which was already evident under Kohl is even more so under Angela Merkel.

Every government affected by such paralysis, in avoiding problems and reacting only on the spur of the moment, will find itself incapable of resolving the crises besetting it.

They will consequentially fail to resolve social conflicts or navigate the turbulent storms affecting the larger social order.

In such a case, it’s possible to imagine that Europe’s peoples and nations will begin at last to resist, even to rise in insurrection, as they confront the state’s inaction, feeling that “it can no longer go on like this.”

If Merkel, for example, doesn’t find a solution for [the financially-troubled car manufacturer] Opel, its workers are likely to take to the streets, banging the table and demanding that a solution be found.

When other European nations discover that they too have been swindled, they, in turn, will also begin to resist.

Daniel Cohn-Bendit

From Mechanopolis, February 24, 2009

Translated by Greg Johnson

Read Part 1 here.
Read Part 2 here.

Mechanopolis: Is there unanimity among Jewish intellectuals on the question of immigration?

Hervé Ryssen: Jewish intellectuals can be liberals, Marxists, Zionists, religious, or atheists. But all these divergences do not at all invalidate the messianic foundation of their aspirations. And on immigration, I can assure you that they are unanimous. Here for example is what Daniel Cohn-Bendit, former leader of May ’68 and assistant mayor of Frankfurt says: “In Frankfurt on the Mainz, the population is more than 25% foreign, but one can say that Frankfurt would not crumble if the percentage from abroad one day reached one third of the whole” (Xénophobies, 1998, p. 14).

This is perfectly in sync with the socialist Jacques Attali writing about Germany’s aging population: “It is indeed necessary that the naturalized foreign population reaches a third of the entire population, and half of that of the cities” (Dictionnaire du XXIe siècle, 1998). One could, of course, encourage the German birthrate. But Jacques Attali does not consider it, because only a multiracial society guarantees the realization of the planetarian project. For France, Attali suggests the same solution: “It will also have to pursue the means to rejuvenate its population, to accept the entrance of a great number from abroad” (L’Homme nomade, 2003, p. 436).

A November 2005 report of the World Bank also encourages Russia to open its borders and to undertake a large-scale immigration policy, which would be “one of the main conditions of a stable economic growth” and would make it possible to face the ageing of the population. Let us note all the same that Paul Wolfowitz, the President of the World Bank, has never encouraged Arab immigration to Israel to support the wavering population of this country.

Jacques Attali

Remarks of this sort are found systematically in almost all Jewish intellectuals, be they Marxists like Jacques Derrida, socialists like Guy Konopnicki, or liberals like Guy Sorman or Alain Minc. Moreover, they all show an annoying tendency to treat us like morons, by telling us, for example, that immigration has not increased for twenty years or that insecurity would not in any case be related to this phenomenon. Cohn-Bendit ensures us straightforwardly that “to stop racism, it  would be best to further increase the number from abroad”! Their remarks on this subject are staggeringly brazen. For instance, Guy Sorman flatly states that the France of yesteryear, with its dialects and patois, was altogether “more multicultural than it is it today” (En attendant les barbares, pp. 174-79). It is one example among many of this invincible brazenness, of which they are very proud, and which they call “chutzpah.”

The objective is to destroy the white world, and, in a more general way, all rooted societies. All these intellectuals assure us that this development is inescapable, and that consequently, there is no use opposing it. Note that in the Marxist schema, it was the classless society which was to be “inescapable.” According to Jean “Daniel”: “Nothing will stop the movement of impoverished populations towards an old and rich Occident. . . . This is why wisdom, reason, consists in from now on preparing to receive more and more immigrants” (Le Nouvel Observateur, October 13, 2005). You must understand that they seek to prohibit the very idea of defending oneself. The unanimity of cosmopolitan discourse on this subject is really astonishing.

Mechanopolis: One often hears that the Jews were regarded by the Nazis as an “inferior race.” Your research, I believe, tends to show that they regard themselves as “the superior race.” Please explain.

Bernard-Henri Lévy

Hervé Ryssen: I can assure you that there is an immense pride in belonging to the “chosen people.” And among intellectuals this pride combines with a no less great contempt for the sedentary nations, considered to be very definitely inferior. Remarks on this subject are innumerable. For example Bernard-Henri Levy wrote, in the first number of the journal Globe in 1985: “Of course we are resolutely cosmopolitan. Of course all that is earthy, bourrées, bagpipes, in short typically French or chauvinist, is foreign, even odious to us.” “Fatherlands of any kind and their processions of old-fashioned things” disgust him utterly: all that is nothing but a “timid and exasperated retreat to the most impoverished identities.” “To speak patois, to dance bourrées, to march to the sound of bagpipes . . . such stupidity is nauseating” (L’Idéologie française, 1981, pp. 212-16).

The philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas has also expressed his faith in the virtues of rootlessness and nomadism. For him, the greatest backwardness, undoubtedly, was represented by the pagan civilizations of antiquity: “Paganism,” he writes, “is the local spirit: a cruel and pitiless nationalism. A forest humanity, a pre-human humanity.” Certainly all that is unworthy of the genius of the Bedouins of the desert: “It is on the arid ground of the desert where nothing is fixed, where the true spirit descended in a text to achieve itself universally. . . . The faith in the liberation of man can only be a shock to sedentary civilizations, crumbling away the heavy layers of the past. . . . It is necessary to be underdeveloped to take up their cause and fight on their behalf for a place in the modern world” (Difficile liberté, p. 299).

Emanuel Lévinas

It is not enough for these intellectuals to talk nonsense, to lull us with “human rights,” to bind us with repressive laws, and to inject us with alien cultural poisons. They also have to pour into our ears their contempt for our old cultures. But this contempt does not seem to fully satisfy their thirst for revenge. They must also insult us and spit in our faces: “ignoramuses, xenophobes, paranoiacs, morons, lunatics, etc.” That is what we are. In La Vengeance des Nations (1990), Alain Minc, who explains to us the benefits of immigration, ensures us that it is “ignorance which feeds xenophobia” (p. 154), that it is thus necessary “to fight against the crazy xenophobes, and be done with this “French paranoia” (pp. 208). Toward this end, Alain Minc proposes systematically to favor immigrants over the native French, on the American model. As media sensation Michael Moore proclaims in his 2002 book Stupid White Men, in the United States it is no longer really necessary to treat stupid white men with kid gloves, since they do not understand anything that is happening to them.

And I will not recount the innumerable films in which the cosmopolitan scriptwriters take their revenge against Christian civilization and the white man in general. It seems obvious to me, regarding all this logorrhea, that these people hate us. It could not be any more obvious if they wore flashing neon signs on their heads.

Read Part 4 here.

Read Michael O’Meara’s review of Ryssen’s Les Espérances planétariennes.

From Mechanopolis, February 24, 2009

Translated by Greg Johnson

Read Part I here.

Mechanopolis: Judging by the policy of US President George W. Bush, it does not appear that his numerous Zionist advisers are promoting the world of “peace” about which you speak. How do you explain this?

Hervé Ryssen: It is undeniable that the leaders of the American Jewish community bear a good part of the blame for the war in Iraq. One would have to be blind not to see it; one would have to be insincere to deny it. Their political weight has been important in each successive US government since the beginning of the 20th century. American nationalists like the famous aviator Charles Lindbergh denounced the pressures of the “Jewish lobby” (in the United States, it is a lobby among others) to push his strongly isolationist people into the war against Nazi Germany. Already in the 1920s, the manufacturer Henry Ford had grasped the magnitude of the problem and widely publicized it in a newspaper created for this purpose. One should also note that Madeleine “Albright” and the hawks of the American State Department threw their whole weight behind the war against Serbia in 1999. You are thus perfectly right to stress this contradiction between Messianic faith and “terrestrial operations,” so to speak.

But people will state in all sincerity that these wars are works of “peace”! Just listen to  Elie Wiesel, winner of the Nobel Prize for “Peace,” who was naturally an ultra-warmonger in 1991, when he agitated for war against Iraq: “It is not only a question of helping Kuwait,” he said then, “but of protecting the entire Arab world.” Thus all Westerners were to be mobilized against the “butcher of Baghdad,” guilty because he threatened the state of Israel: “Against war,” Elie Wiesel writes, “it is imperative to make war. Against destructive force employed against humanity, it is necessary to oppose a greater force, so that humanity can survive. For the sake of the safety of the civilized world, its right to peace, and not only for the future of Israel. . . . A thirst for vengeance? No: a thirst for justice. And for peace” (Elie Wiesel, Mémoires 2, [Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1996], pp. 144, 146, 152).

Note that he does not hesitate to drape himself in the grand ideals of peace and love when it is a question of destroying his enemy. But it is of course out of the question that the Jewish state itself should deal with this military grunt work. It is the task of the West, which must be convinced by “sensitivity” campaigns, to go to oust the dictator. Once your enemy is vanquished, your tireless combat for democracy and “peace” can be resuscitated whenever politically convenient. Indeed, after having crushed one’s enemies, one is always for “peace.”

Mechanopolis: You speak about “democracy.” What kind of relationship can there be between a political system and Messianic faith? Is democracy necessary for the arrival of the Messiah?

Hervé Ryssen: Democracy was not always the sole vehicle of planetarian hopes. For a long time, the Marxist ideal also played this role. It is well-known that Marx himself, and the great majority of the main Marxist ideologues and leaders, were Jewish: Lenin had Jewish origins, Leon Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Georg Lukacs, Ernest Mandel, etc., just as were almost all of the leaders of May ’68. It is not an accident, and every Communist militant knows it. Marxism aspires to the establishment of a perfect world, where religions, like nations, will have disappeared along with social conflicts. This schema, we note, fits perfectly within the messianic framework. The thought of Marx is ultimately only the secularization of traditional Jewish eschatology.

George Steiner has presented Marxism from the point of view of biblical prophecies: “Marxism,” he says, “is at bottom merely Judaism in a hurry. The Messiah was too long in coming or, more precisely, in not coming. It is man himself who will found the kingdom of justice, on this earth, here and now . . . preached Karl Marx in his manuscripts of 1844, where one recognizes the transparent echo of the phraseology of the Psalms and the prophets” (George Steiner, De la Bible à Kafka [Bayard, 2002]).

Neither Marx, nor Lenin, nor Trotsky believed in a God, and yet their Jewish origins appear in full light within the framework of Jewish messianism. Political Marxism was nevertheless marginalized in Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The fact is that, in the projects of planetary unification, democracy triumphed everywhere that Communism failed. It is obvious, however, that the groups of the extreme left continue to profit from all the media attention in Western society: it is because they represent the spearhead of the project of a leveling and multiracial society and channel in a globalist direction the radical oppositions aroused by the liberal system. This mobilizing Utopia is always necessary for a despairing democratic system, which offers nothing to its youth but trips to the mall. Thus Marxism ultimately renders its best services when it is nested inside democracy. Marxism and democracy are two absolutely complementary and mutually indispensable forces in the project of constructing  a global Empire. Without Communism, the opposition would inevitably move towards nationalist currents, and the system would not survive it.

Mechanopolis: After the failure of state Communism, are multiracial democracy and “human rights” now the absolute weapon of the “planetarian”  forces?

Hervé Ryssen: The objective of the globalists is to destroy rooted, traditional cultures to create a uniform world. This aspiration to unity was expressed by the Hasidic philosopher Martin Buber, who does not appear to realize that he is giving us an exact definition of totalitarianism: “Everywhere,” he writes, “one will find [in Judaism] the aspiration towards unity. Towards unity within the individual. Towards unity between the divided members of the people, and between the nations. Towards the unity of man and all living things, towards the unity of God and of the world” (Judaïsme, 1982, p. 35). To arrive to this perfect world, it is thus necessary to mix, crush, dissolve all national resistances and ethnic or religious identities. “Unity” can be created only from human powder and the residues of great civilizations, and in this enterprise of destroying traditional civilizations, immigration plays a crucial role. The doctrines of “human rights” are here a weapon of war of a terrible effectiveness.

Here is what grand rabbi Kaplan says: “The advent of an era without menaces to  mankind will depend largely upon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. . . . Respect for the Universal declaration of human rights is an obligation so pressing that it is the duty of everyone to contribute to all the projects tending toward its universal and complete application. ” The whole of humanity must submit to it. This amounts to saying that “human rights” are the tool privileged for carrying out the promises of Yahweh. Thus it is no accident that René Cassin, the inspirer of the 1948 declaration, was also the general secretary of the Alliance israélite universelle. In 1945, General de Gaulle appointed him the head of the Council of State. His body rests in the Pantheon, in the temple of the great men of the republic.

Read Part 3 here.

Read Michael O’Meara’s review of Ryssen’s Les Espérances planétariennes.

Translated by Greg Johnson

Mechanopolis: Hervé Ryssen, you have just published a book, Les Espérances planétariennes [Planetarian Hopes] (Levallois-Perret: Éditions Baskerville, 2005) which finally exposes the logic of globalism and its religious foundations. For far too long, intellectuals of the nationalist movement have shied away from such controversial topics and avoided denouncing cosmopolitan propaganda. Could you first of all clarify the title of your book for our readers?

Hervé Ryssen: I considered the writings of Jewish intellectuals to attempt to understand their vision of the world. After having read dozens of political essays, novels, and narratives of all sorts, I noticed that the word “hope” appeared regularly in these texts. Of course for them it stands for expectations of a better world, the Messiah, and the “promised land.” Let us recall that although the Christians have accepted their Messiah, the Jews still await theirs. This Messianic expectation is the heart of the Hebraic religion and the Jewish mentality in general, including that of atheistic Jews. This is the fundamental point. As for the term “planetarian,” it is a neologism which simply means the desire for a world without borders.

My work is exclusively focused on Jewish intellectuals. Contrary to what most people think, the use of the word “Jew” is not yet against the law. I know that many in the nationalist milieu begin sweating at the simple mention of the word, probably because they fear hearing anti-Semitic remarks which are indeed strongly punished today. Personally, I am not afraid of this, since my work is exclusively based on researching Jewish sources. Let us say that I have a rational and I daresay completely dispassionate approach to the subject.

Mechanopolis: One often hears Jews speak of the “promised land” and the “messiah,” but we have always misunderstood what these concepts mean. Isn’t the “promised land” the state of Israel?

Hervé Ryssen: Historically, it is the land of Canaan, which Yahweh gave to Abraham, as one reads Genesis, the first book of the Torah. But even before the destruction of the second Temple by the Roman legions of Titus and the dispersion of the Jews, many Jews already lived in the diaspora. There they remained until 1917, when the Balfour declaration created a “Jewish homeland in Palestine,” and certain Jews thought that by recovering the “promised land,” Messianic times were finally at hand. But it should not be forgotten that other Jews, far more numerous, thought at the same time that the promised land was located more to the North, in the immense Soviet Union where, after the revolution of October 1917, so many Jews appeared at the highest levels of power. However, if one reads slightly older texts, in the 19th century, it was France—the land of human rights—that raised Jewish hopes and constituted, in the eyes of Jews around the world, the “promised land.” Vienna at the beginning of the 20th century, or Weimar Germany between the wars, also could be regarded as “promised lands,” since culture and finance, in particular, were very largely influenced by bankers, intellectuals, and artists of Jewish origin.

This hope always ends in cruel disillusion. The state of Israel is no “haven of peace,” to say the least. As for Judeo-Bolshevik Russia, it turned against the Jews who were evicted from power after the Second World War. The France of “human rights” is today in the process of Third-Worldization, and since 2001 some Jews have decided to flee this “anti-Semitic” country where Jews increasingly suffer the anger of young Arabs. In short, for the Jews, it always seems to end badly, no matter where they go, no matter what they do.

For a long time, the “promised land” was incarnated in the American dream. In the 1880s, millions of Jews left Central Europe for the United States where they hoped for a better life, far from the Cossacks, the pogroms, and the hated Tsar. But the most recent “promised land” was obviously Russia after the collapse of the USSR. In a few years, a handful of “oligarchs” had their hooks in most of the privatized Russian wealth. Best known among them, the billionaire Khodorkovski, sleeps today in the prisons of the new Russia of Vladimir Putin. Obviously, this new “promised land” did not work out either! In short, one must understand that since their departure from the ghetto, the Jews have never ceased changing “promised lands,” and their wandering ends systematically in disappointment. Only the United States still represents in their eyes this Eldorado and still nourishes their hopes. But for how long?

Mechanopolis: You speak of history and geography, but aren’t messianism and the idea of the promised land religious concepts instead?

Hervé Ryssen: Here we come back to the heart of the matter. If you talk with a rabbi in the rue des Rosiers, he will immediately tell you that the Jews aspire above all to the creation of a world of peace, a world in which all conflicts will have disappeared, whether they are social conflicts or conflicts between races or nations. It is necessary to arrive at this world of universal peace, since they identify the world of peace with Messianic times. The authors are rather clear here. Here is what the philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas writes on this subject: “One can group the promises of the prophets in two categories: political and social. The alienation which introduces arbitrary political power into the whole human enterprise will disappear; but social injustice, the hold of the rich person on the poor, will disappear at the same time as political violence. . . .” As for the future world, our text goes on to define it as “humanity linked in a collective destiny” (Difficile liberté [Difficult Freedom] [Paris: Albin Michel, 1963], pp. 85-86.).

In Le vrai Visage du judaïsme [The True Face of Judaism] (Paris: Stock, 1987), Jacob Kaplan, the Chief rabbi of the central Consistory, points out the famous passage which is one of the sources of the Jewish messianism: “the wolf will live with the ewe; the tiger will rest with the kid; calf, lion cub, ram will live together, and a young child will lead them” (Isaiah, xi, 6-9). Kaplan adds: “It is obviously an image of the relations which will be established between the nations, happy to maintain unity and concord between them.”

In his book on messianism, David Banon confirms this vision of the world: “The Messianic era such as it was described by the whole of the prophets consists of the suppression of political violence and social injustice” (David Banon, Le Messianisme [Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1998], pp. 15-16.).

Hebraic prophecies thus promise the progression of humanity towards a unified world, and parallel to that, the suppression of social inequalities. Here one can see the primitive sources of Marxism as well as the inspiration of our planetarian ideology at the beginning of third millennium, which, propagated by the media, is the dream of so many of our fellow citizens. Here is the heart of the Jewish vision of the world. One must start here if one wants to understand the mental universe of the Jews. This is what explains why the Jews always mouth the word “peace.” Their “combat for peace” is ceaseless.

For example, in March 2000, Chirac inaugurated a “Wall for Peace” on the Champ de Mars, conceived by Clara Halter, the wife of the writer Marek Halter. It is a kind of hall of glass, where little Clara wrote the word “Peace” in thirty-two languages, to deride, one imagines, the cadets of the military academy just opposite. These works have a religious significance that very few goyim can detect.

One can thus argue that the concept of “promised land” means nothing less than a hope of planetary dimensions, where all the nations will have disappeared. It is just what the philosopher Edgar Morin tells us, when he writes: “We do not have the Promised land, but we have an aspiration, a wish, a myth, a dream: to realize a global fatherland” (Edgar Morin, Un nouveau commencement [Paris: Seuil, 1991], p. 9). And it is also what Jacques Attali speaks about in L’Homme nomade: “to make world a promised land” (Paris: Fayard, 2003, p. 34).  It is thus this unified, pacified world that will be the “promised land.” Sometimes these texts lend the impression that in the minds of certain intellectuals, the idea is taken in the literal sense: that is would be good if the whole Earth were promised to them! Which sometimes leads to behaviors that are a bit invasive . . .

Read Part 2 here.

Read Michael O’Meara’s review of Les Espérances planétariennes.

Europeans, naive defenders of Islam, fail to comprehend it and interpret the Koran as a sincere whole, as a single unified text with a consistent logic, whereas in fact it is rich in prevarication, a text with multiple gears.

Islam can propose “tolerance and fraternity among religions” and “the freedom of the believer’s preferred faith” on the basis of a Koranic precept: “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Sura 2.256); it can insistently reject any fundamentalism and fanaticism: “Islam is the community of the just balance” (Sura 2.143) or “no violence in matters of religion! Truth stands out clearly from error” (Sura 2.257). Islam can commit itself to compassion and forgiveness of offenses: “evil must be requited by good” (Sura 41.34; 22.96); Islam can even commit itself to humane treatment of an enemy and the Islamic obligation to offer him aid (Sura 9.6).

Yet these verses are absolutely contradicted by fourteen centuries of Islamic behavior, for Islam has always preferred violence whenever the balance of power is in its favor, ignoring forgiveness and compassion, eradicating or subjecting in ghettos other religions in the territories that it has conquered, and tolerating in the latter neither pagan polytheists nor atheists.

These peaceful Koranic verses are a ruse. Theologically they have been annulled by the bellicose verses written later, in particular those of Sura 4.

Almsgiving (zakat), which constitutes the third “pillar of Islam,” is completely different in character from Christian charity. The latter is universalist and altruistic — which seems quite naive to a Muslim. Although Muslims and their allies, by a pure propaganda trick, attempt to convince us that Islamic almsgiving is a philanthropic requirement that demonstrates the humane and peaceful spirit of Islam, reality is very different.

Zakat concerns only the umma, the community of Muslim believers. A Muslim is by no means held responsible for giving alms to impoverished Jews and Christians, nor to succor them in any way; as for acts of charity toward the pagan or the atheist, they are deemed blasphemous. Charity is not based on commiseration or love of one’s neighbor in this conquering, intolerant and warlike religion. It is motivated, according to the Koran, by two considerations: first, to practice solidarity toward indigent members of the umma, in order to foster cohesion within the community; second, to teach any Muslim that he is not the real owner of the goods at his disposal, which are merely a loan authorized by Allah in order to illustrate his power and to spread Islam everywhere, by conversion or the sword.

There is thus no question of a Muslim indiscriminately coming to assistance of other human beings. For this implacable revealed monotheism, the Infidel is unworthy. Some may have noticed, though the media largely ignored it, that the Muslim Red Crescent during the wars in the Balkans only aided Bosnian refugees or Muslim Kosovars, completely indifferent to the fate of the Orthodox Serbs or the Croatian Catholics afflicted by war. The Red Cross, on the other hand, did not make any ethnic or religious distinctions.

Generally, Islam practices a policy of peace and apparent tolerance only when it is weak and remains in the minority.

Many Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, absolutely proscribe the construction of churches in their territory. Christian worship is prohibited to foreigners stationed in these countries. In the majority of Muslim countries, the entry or residence of Christian priests is almost impossible; any proselytism is prohibited, under penalty of immediate expulsion. In Europe, however, Muslim proselytism is encouraged and financed (e.g., the construction of mosques) by the authorities, whose secularism is tantamount to naivety. The rule of reciprocity that governs international law is completely scorned; to their discredit Europeans readily accept this double-standard, which in the eyes of Muslims betrays a sign of weakness and resignation that encourages and legitimates, as though justified by divine will, their movement of ethno-religious conquest in Europe.

For the Islamic mind, the fact that Europeans do not demand from Muslim countries the same secular neutrality, the same freedom of worship that we extend to Muslims, means this: “Europeans know that they are in error, they recognize the superiority of Islam and the superiority of Allah; they prostrate themselves before us and acknowledge themselves to be Infidels, and thus it is just that they should become a land for our conquest.” These remarks were made by an Egyptian imam in the Cairo newspaper Al Ahram.

Europeans are unaware of the very foundations of Islam, notably the cynical imperative of the three stages of conquest. Initially a Muslim community established in a foreign land and still forming a minority practices Dar Al-Sulh, “temporary peace,” because the Infidel, in his blindness and naivety, permits Islamic proselytism in his country, without demanding any reciprocity on Muslim soil. This is the stage that Europe is currently experiencing, which makes many believe that a “secular and Europeanized Islam” is possible.

Only in the second stage, after the settlement of an Islamic community has been established, does the requirement of conquest and violence become apparent. This is Dar Al-Harb, in which the Infidel’s soil becomes a “zone of war,” either because of resistance to the establishment of Islam, resistance that must be broken, or because Muslims, now in sufficient numbers, no longer need peace and can abandon the prudence that marked the first stage of their conquest. This phase will soon be upon us: We can already see its premises.

In the third stage Muslims end up dominating. This is Dar Al-Islam, the “reign of Islam.” The Jew and the Christian are tolerated but reduced in status, enjoying at best an inferior position, that of dhimmis (”protected”) paying a special poll-tax and deprived of most of their rights; pagan polytheists (”idolaters”) and atheists are persecuted; and the whole population must submit to Islam’s social regulations. Under this “reign of Islam” the non-Muslim has no chance of occupying any leading social position. In Morocco, where Christians and Jews were the most tolerated and protected, they were nevertheless compelled to leave at the end of the French protectorate, even though there had been no war, as was the case in Algeria.

For many of the leaders of international Islamic networks today, the ultimate objective is to impose on Europe the law of Dar Al-Islam. It is a consequent project, propelled by an unwavering political will, which has already been set in motion. Because God has so ordained.

From Guillaume Faye, La Colonisation de l’Europe: Discours vrai sur l’immigration et l’islam (Paris: L’Aencre, 2000).

Kdo by měl vládnout?

Každý den, když si prohlížím internetové zpravodajství a diskusní servery, vidím, že otázka, jak by se měla rekrutovat skutečná vládnoucí elita, je ostrým bodem sváru mezi politickými komentátory. Až dosud jsem neměl osobně k problematice příliš co říci. Nechci ostatním vnucovat svůj názor. Být politikem by nevyhovovalo mé spíše introvertní povaze, je to úkol, který radši přenechám jiným. Bude lepší se tedy skutečně podívat na podstatu věci, než pokračovat v kypění debat bez znalosti patřičných souvislostí.

Zastánci Nietzscheho

Jak zde jistě každý bude vědět, zastánci a příznivci filosofa Friedricha Nietzscheho jsou jeho zanícenými obdivovateli a poněkud nezvykle interpretují teorie svého vzoru. Věří v kastovní systém kněží, válečníků a rolníků (dělníků), sami sebe jako součást úzké skupinky vyvolených, kteří by tvořili vládnoucí elity ve vysněném etnicky homogenním státě. Každý z nich věří, že každý člověk má svou niternou podstatu, panskou nebo otrockou, dominantní, či submisivní a od tohoto základu odvozují morální systém, korespondující s prvotním rozdělením lidí na silné a slabé. Tak jako Nietzsche hlásal „panskou morálku“, jeho zastánci chtějí o tom, kdo bude vládnout, rozhodovat „vyšší typ člověka“ a skoncovat s liberální demokracií.

Zastánci Thomase Jeffersona

Ve Spojených státech představují tito lidé nejpočetnější část konzervativních a národních kruhů. Z jejich pohledu je nejlepší vláda ta, která má nejmenší moc. Na americkém systému nespatřují apriorně nic špatného. Věří ve stát a lokální vládu a instinktivně oponují shromažďování moci ve Washingtonu. Jeffersonovi zastánci by rádi přičetli úpadek porodnosti a civilizační pokles korumpujícími tlaku vnějších sil, jmenovitě Židů (či Izraeli) a argumentují, že rozumná rasová politika (založená na odmítnutí imigrace, pozn. překl.) by například mohla po odstranění této rakoviny vyvést Ameriku ze společenských potíží. V jeffersoniánském systému by byla vládnoucí elita delegována lokálními volby a hromaděním národního bohatství.

Zastánci Alexandra Hamiltona

Podobně jako zastánci Jeffersona, tak i zastánci pojetí AlexanderaHamiltona stále věří v republikánskou (samo)vládu, ale na rozdíl od prvně jmenovaných preferují silný, centralizovaný stát, oslabující lidský individualismus. Namísto volného obchodu, požadují „America First“, tedy víceméně soběstačnou obchodní politiku. Zastánci Hamiltona podporují silný veřejný sektor a regulovaný trh s cílem zabezpečit rovnocennou distribuci bohatství. Věří, že ústavní reformy mohou zbrzdit, nebo zastavit kulturní a etnický úpadek západní civilizace. Vládnoucí elitu by formovaly volby a akumulace bohatství v soukromé sféře.

Libertariáni

Libertariáni jsou podmnožinou zastánců Jeffersona, kteří věří v minimální stát. Tvrdí, že jediná funkce státu, která by měla příslušet státu, je ochrana práv jednotlivce: čili policie, armáda a soudy. Libertariáni odmítají veškeré pokrokářství devatenáctého století ve jménu individuální svobody. V ideálním libertariánském státě by se vládnoucí elita legitimizovala skrze participaci na tržní ekonomice a jako vládnoucí moc by byla omezena striktní Ústavou.

Fašisté

Fašisté (zahrnující nacionální socialisty a další různorodé odrůdy fašismu) požadují autoritativní stát v čele s mocným vůdcem s pokud možno absolutní mocí. Rádi by se zřekli liberální demokracie a nahradili ji vládou hierarchizované, režimu věrné byrokracie. Tato koncentrace moci a síly by byla užita ke zbavení se pro fašistický stát nežádoucích elementů (různých politických odpůrců, etnických skupin – Židů, atp.). Vládnoucí stav by se delegoval z vládnoucí strany, jejíž představitelé by zároveň tvořili lídry establishementu.

Platonisté

Nemohu najít lepšího slova, ale „Platonisté“ jsou v zásadě ti, kdo obhajují pravidla, stanovená Vládcem. Vládci budou vybírání na základě svého chování a morální hodnoty.

Konzervativní nacionalisté

Konzervativní nacionalisté věří v silnou, obrozenou vládu Christianitas. V podstatě to znamená, že požadují stát, postavený na hodnotách Evangelia. Někteří konzervativní nacionalisté preferují republiku, jiní monarchii, někteří teokratickou diktaturu. Ve všech případech je vládnoucí vrstva úzce spjata se zbožností.

Monarchisté

Požadují vládu krále a dědičné aristokracie. Vládnoucí vrstva je odvozena z královské krve.

Anarchisté

Chtějí zcela odstranit jakoukoli vládu. V jimi navrhovaném stavu není žádná vláda, politika neexistuje a stejně tak žádný mechanismus pro selekci elit. V beztřídní společnosti jsou si všichni teoreticky rovni.

Kde stojím já?

Po tomto výčtu nezbývá než zformulovat vlastní odpověď na vytyčenou otázku.
Politicky někde mezi Hamiltoniány a Platonisty. Domnívám se, že vláda může být dobrým silovým prostředkem v situaci, kdy potřebujeme mít silný stát k odvrácení invaze masového přistěhovalectví. Republikánský systém je osvědčený model pro zajištění kontinuity a mírovou výměnu moci. Myslím, že bychom nebyli moudří, kdybychom se těchto jistot vzdávali ve jménu některých vratkých idejí, vyjmenovaných výše.

Nejhorší aspekty republikanismu však spočívají v obchodovatelnosti s ústavními principy. Osobně například nevěřím v rovnost volebního práva. V mé osobní, hypotetické, ideální republice, by bylo případnému rozšíření volebního práva vyhověno jen za určitých podmínek. Volič by musel být inteligentní, kompetentní a mít určité morální minimum, postačující k tomu, aby využil privilegia generovat svou volbou vládnoucí elitu. Také vládnoucí vrstva by měla více moci než „lid“.

Z morálního (nikoli tedy politického) hlediska mě v těchto otázkách ovlivnil Alasdair MacIntyre. Stejně jako on, i já věřím, že morálka má smysl vždy pouze v určitém kontextu etablovaných tradic. Na světě máme celou řadu morálních řádů, každý z nich má vlastní historii, každý z nich vzešel z odlišných předpokladů a odlišných počátků. Je nemožné snažit se najít společný jmenovatel ideální vlády mezi nesouměřitelnými tradicemi a sdílenými morálkami jednotlivých společností.

Myslím, že současný stav západní morálky se stal obětí katastrofy, popsané MacIntyrem v předmluvě knihy „After Virtue“: ovládáme pouze malé části našeho koherentního morálního systému, termíny, které ztratily svůj kontext, když se jednou stali hodnověrnými a že racionálně uvažující jedinci jsou odkloněni do nihilismu tímto zmatkem. Nejsou zde žádné univerzální, objektivně platné morální principy analogické zákonům vědy. Namísto toho se morální filosofie stala praktickou vědou a popřela tak své poslání, o kterém hovořil Aristoteles: je to návod k tomu, jak realizovat daný ideál dobra. Jinými slovy, věřím tomu, že morálka (na jakémkoli stupni a v jakékoli společnosti), je redukovatelná na dobro. To je ale pro jinou diskusi.

To byly mé odpovědi. A jaké jsou vaše?

Ernst Jünger, 1895 - 1998

Translated by Greg Johnson

Jean-Paul Sartre once said of Ernst Jünger: “I hate him, not as a German, but as an aristocrat . . .”

Sartre had some grave defects. In his political impulses, he was mistaken with a rare obstinacy. Fairly cowardly during the Occupation, he turned into an Ayatollah of denunciations once the danger had passed, castigating his colleagues who did not commit themselves with all necessary blindness to Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot. Along with an infallible instinct for error, he had a keen sense for any elevation of spirit, which horrified him, and, conversely, for any baseness, which attracted him.

He was not wrong about Jünger: “I hate him, not as a German, but as an aristocrat . . .” Jünger was not an aristocrat by birth. His family belonged to the cultivated middle-class of Northern Germany. If he was an “aristocrat”—in other words, if he continually showed nobility and poise, moral and physical—it was not because he was born with a “von,” for that alone does not shelter one from baseness in one’s heart or deeds. If he was an “aristocrat,” it was not a matter of rank, but of nature.

Heroic warrior in his youth, sensational writer of the “conservative revolution,” who then became a contemplative sage of sorts, Jünger had an exceptional life, traversing all the dangers of a dark century and remaining free of any stain. If he is a model, it is because of his constant “poise.” But his physical poise did nothing more than manifest a spiritual poise. To have poise is to hold oneself apart. Apart from base passions and the baseness of passion. What was superior in him always repelled the sordid, infamous, or mediocre. His transformation at the time of On the Marble Cliffs might be surprising, but there is nothing vile about it.  Later, the warrior-botanist reinvented himself, writing in his Treatise on the Rebel that the age required recourse other than the schools of yoga. These are the sweet temptations that he now kept at bay.

Jean-Paul Sartre, 1905 - 1980: An infallible instinct for error. A keen revulsion for every elevation of spirit.

I have just written that Jünger was not an aristocrat by birth. I was wrong. He was. Not by family origin, but by a mysterious inner alchemy. In the manner of the little girl and the concierge in Muriel Barbery’s novel The Elegance of the Hedgehog (L’élégance du hérisson, Gallimard, 2006). Or in the manner of Martin Eden in Jack London’s novel of the same name. Born in the depths of poverty, Martin Eden had a noble nature. Mere chance puts any young person in a refined and cultivated milieu. He fell in love with a young woman who belonged to that world. The discovery of literature awoke in him the vocation of writer and a fantastic will to overcome himself, to completely leave his past behind, which he accomplished through tremendous ordeals. Having become a famous writer, he discovered simultaneously the vanity of success and the mediocrity of the young bourgeois woman whom he thought he loved. Thus he committed suicide. But that does not affect my point.  There are Martin Edens who survive their disillusionment, and there always will be. They are noble, energetic, and “aristocratic” souls. But for such souls to “break out of the pack,” as one says of good hunting dogs, and rise to the top, role models are absolutely necessary. Living exemplars of inner heroism and authentic nobility down through the ages constitute a kind of secret knighthood, a hidden Order. Hector of Troy was their forerunner. Ernst Jünger was an incarnation in our time. Sartre was not wrong about that.

From Nouvelle Revue d’Histoire, no. 45

From Réfléchir & Agir, no. 9 (Summer 2001).

To avoid repeating myself, I must first point out the statement that I made at the beginning of the manifesto Why We Fight. Now let us summarize, following this statement, some suggestions referred to in this manifesto. Because of our historically unprecedented situation, I recommend a strategy inspired by certain revolutionary leaders whose names need not be mentioned.

1. First off, it is important to unify, on a European scale, all the identitarian forces of resistance around a doctrine and a basic revolutionary program.

Ignoring the secondary ideological or emotional quarrels which are often merely the expressions of petty nationalisms and family or sectarian disputes, we should follow Lenin’s counsel to “settle our quarrels after the revolution.” For pity’s sake, it is necessary to cease the oh-so-delicious internal disputes (the rumors, excommunications, and paranoias) and to reserve our blows for the real enemy. We concentrate on the essential, on what brings us together, because we are confronted with an absolute emergency (the Erntsfall, theorized by Carl Schmitt). Look at the Moslems: they cease fighting one another as soon as it is a question of carrying out the Jihad against the infidel.

2. For us the common and main enemy (the one who invades concretely, physically) is the alien colonization and settlement under the banner of Islam; obviously, one can share certain common values with the enemy, but one should not fall into the trap of feeling any sympathy for him. The enemy, moreover, profits from collaborationists — from those good European ethnomasochists who are the most dangerous to us. As for the common adversary (which seeks to weaken and dominate us), it is the United States, the objective ally of the former.

3. Our movement — which is one of radical (and not “extremist”) thought — has a true monopoly on revolutionary dissidence, since we are the only ones who seek a total inversion of the dominant values and civilizational forms (Nietzsche’s Umwertung [transvaluation]).

4. The three pillars of an ideology and project of European unity are (1) awakening an ethnic consciousness that makes defending our common biological heritage, our race, the top priority; (2) the regeneration of ancestral values, the forgetting of which is the main cause of today’s tragedies; and (3) the creative assertion of an all-inclusive and revolutionary European political doctrine.

5. As indicated in the excellent title of your magazine [Réfléchir & Agir], reflection is fundamental, but by the same token it is also necessary to act. But how to act? What is to be done? This is always the key question. We must form a European network of resistance, solidarity, and action around a common ideological program. This should not exclude, but include politics. It is too late now to win power by the ballot box and parliamentary democracy. It is necessary to make the following bet. It is risky like any bet, but it is our only chance in this twilight age: in the next ten to fifteen years there is likely to be a major crisis (“chaos”) which will take the form of an ethnic conflict of great magnitude, probably based on economic impoverishment; this could change the mentality of the masses, who are today force-fed like geese by our neo-totalitarian mass media.

It is a matter, then, of anticipating the “post-chaos,” of preparing for the coming storm by constituting a European network — horizontal, web-like, informal, polymorphic — of revolutionary minorities, a network of solidarity, a European international of resistance and propaganda. “The Network” should not take any name or institutional form. It is what I call the strategy of the cobra. It must stretch, in a clandestine but unshakeable manner, from Portugal to Russia, connecting cadres or elected officials of political parties, associations and circles of all natures, individuals, publishers, businessmen, financiers, net surfers, media people, etc. With three objectives: general agitprop, formation and recruitment, and the acquisition of media. In a word, it must prepare us for the inevitable confrontation. It is a matter of being ready and powerful for that day when the hurricane comes, the hurricane which is our only chance, our only lever to move the world. We also have to stop thinking that “the system is invincible.” It is strong only because of our current weakness and disorganization. Finally, it is necessary to forsake this psychopathic cult of defeat, of the “last stand.” The only people who win are those tragic optimists who think of themselves as the “first stand.”

When such a network exists, it will be time to pass to the next, properly political, stage, which is impossible to plan for today. Let us begin, then, by building our network with patience, determination, and professionalism. And let us cull from our ranks the incompetents, mediocrities, hotheads, and  kooks. For such a network, united around a clear and common doctrine, must above all constitute a rigorous elite. From Resistance to Reconquest, from Reconquest to Revolution.

Guillaume Faye

Question: We will begin by quoting you. In the review Études et recherches, fifteen years ago, you wrote that one can arrive at the point where “a world civilization desirous to stabilize history opposes its conservative will to the forces which it had itself released.” According to you, are we there? The Occident, longtime passive witness of the ethnic invasion, America longtime imprudent accomplice of the Islamists — do they still have the moral strength “to stop the course of history” when the clash of civilizations has passed from the stage of the “cold war” to that of the “hot war”?

Guillaume Faye: One epoch terminates, another commences. One cannot foresee what will occur: what we know is that we are at a crossroads; we live the end of an age of European civilization. This civilization has known three great epochs: the ancient, the medieval, then the modern which commenced about the 1850s. Currently we live at the end of this last epoch because Europe is invaded by the very ones it had conquered when it is in full demographic decline. On the moral, mental, psychological level, all the European values have reached their conclusion, diluted in humanism and total egalitarianism. The Hegelian “enough” thesis that I defend is that this situation is provoking a world catastrophe which can in the end regenerate us. One does not regenerate oneself cold: one can metamorphose oneself only hot. The central question that one can pose in a dialectical manner is to know if this ethnic, ecological, ethical, etc., catastrophe that European civilization caused by its own decline will be the occasion of a regeneration or a disappearance.

Currently we are colonized, and this invasion is coupled with an incredible masochism on the part of Europeans themselves. Thus, only a terrifying crisis –­ that I welcome, in this respect -­- can change collective mentalities, awake Europeans. In my new book, Avant-Guerre [Before the War], I develop my thesis of “the Colonization of Europe,” while going beyond, by transcending the European context. Because for me, now that we have come right to the clash of civilizations, we go towards the third world war!

Question: The shock of September 2001 seemed to awaken the capacity of analysis of certain media. Then, quite quickly, Bush specified that he did not make war on Islam, and the big media — Le Monde or Télérama in France, Repubblica in Italy — devoted all their energy to make Islam known to us, this religion of tolerance and culture, so near and so remote. Has censorship already returned?

Guillaume Faye: This awakening was a shuddering, a flapping of wings. When Bush and Blair say that they do not make war on Islam, it is risible. Maybe we do not make war on Islam, but Islam makes war on us! It is not you who designate the enemy; it is the enemy who designates you! They knew very well that they declared the war on Islam, which besides is designated in Arabic by the same word as “Islamism”: islamiya. There was thus a small awakening, but it is not very important. The war which Islam makes on us did not begin on September 11, 2001, but in the ’60s. What is positive, it’s that the Islamists went too far, too fast: it’s the Arab mentality which wants that. They passed too quickly from the time of peace to the time of war, whereas they were underway to invade consciousness. If they had been less impatient, nobody would have seen anything. No doubt, so that the eyes really open, there a giant attack will be necessary: but I do not believe that this will take place immediately; it is not in their interest to realize too much of it in the immediate future.

It is possible that there will be a period of calm. We are faced with a terrorism which does not depend on a true terrorist organization, but deploys itself according to the logic of a transnational war, in networks, and which goes beyond the sole capacities of a group like Al-Qaïda: Islam is multinational; the war is not territorialized, nor reducible to the misdeeds of a single organization! The end of bin Laden will not solve anything at all because this last, simple sponsor of the jihad in spite of his posture of Prophet, had only applauded some acts that he undoubtedly had followed and financed, but certainly not organized directly himself!

Question: Which strategy do you recommend for citizens who would like to prepare for the future conflicts? Some have said that you want to found your own political party.

Guillaume Faye: It’s idiotic! That would limit my audience. That goes completely against my current analysis, because I recommend creating and working through a network. It is certainly necessary that there be parties to make agitprop. But the important thing is the network, on a European scale, without a guru or bigwig! To found one more petty sect is completely counterproductive. My “party” is my secretariat and the many friends with whom I collaborate in all Europe. I do not want a label!

Question: In the review Réfléchir et Agir, you recommended a “withdrawal” from associative action, following the example of that which the extreme-Left made. Could you develop this point?

Guillaume Faye: It is not a “withdrawal,” but a general-purpose strategy. One needs parties, publishers, associations, trade unions. It is necessary that our ideas be present in civil society. But all the forms of action are necessary: we should not oppose metapolitics to politics. All action, political, cultural, should be connected by the same vision of the world. It is not a strategy of withdrawal, but of spreading out, comparable that of the Trotskyists — who are today at the head of the State and of the Catholic Church! –­ from the ’60s. The French national Right is undermined by the culture of defeat, petty bosses, gossip: the different groups of Muslims and Leftists can detest one other, but they have each and all the same enemies against whom they unite. Whereas for many people of our ideas, the enemy is at first his own political friend, for simple reasons of jealousy!

I am stunned to see that associative action has so little been used. There is no association which defends Europeans! Well, there is AGRIF, but they do few things, and they belong too openly to the National Front, which undermines their credibility: S.O.S Racism knew to more or less camouflage  its connection to the Socialist Party!

At least, the Left moves: look at Act against Unemployment, ATTAC or Right to Housing, which represent 5,000 people in France! People in our circles are for order, but they are disorganized and inactive, whereas the Trotskyists, in spite of their ideology, are organized people. It is necessary to move! I am struck by the poverty of the associative activity in our camp. I repeat it, there is anti-European racism and no association really stirs itself to get it talked about!

Question: What do you think of this pro-Islamist drift that one observes in the French national Right, a drift often aroused by an anti-Americanism fed on ill-digested antisemitism?

Guillaume Faye: This drift is recognized. They confound the enemy and the adversary: the adversary is that which weakens us, that is to say the United States, the enemy is that which invades us concretely: Islam and the Third World. The funniest thing is that it is I, among others, who, in the ’70s, convinced this circle that one did not have to be deeply pro-American. All the obsessional anti-Americans of today were then pro-Americans! Giorgio Locchi and I, notably with my book Le Système à tuer les peuples [The System Against the Peoples], made Alain de Benoist topple over into anti-Americanism, who was an Americanophile before; to realize it, it is enough to re-read the numbers from before 1975 of the review Nouvelle École! Some suffer from an obsessional antisemitism, coupled with a kind of Stockholm Syndrome which makes them love the true enemy. The Muslims will not hold any liking of them for it: the French “identitarians” who perhaps admired the actions attributed to bin Laden will have their throats cut like the others! Islam is a religion of force which leads certain nationalist militants to prostrate in front of the conquering religion with the fascination of a colonized people. But even if they convert, which is already the case for some, they are always, as Occidentals, only second-class Muslims. Pro-Islamism in the nationalist Right is common enough. Plus these people are “nazis” in the most primary sense of the word, anti-Americans in the most idiotic sense of the term, and plus they are pro-Muslims, without knowing either America or Islam besides. They are fascinated by the neo-romantic illusions which they have of Islam. In circles which claim to be radical, there is an infantile reaction: these people are perhaps extremists, but not radical, because the radicals are those who go to the root of things. It is easy to tag “US go home” or “Long live bin Laden” in the subway; they risk less than if they were going to write “Islam out” in the projects.

Question: As a journalist, which judgment do you give to the sociology of the current media? Does the “politically correct” find its roots in the Third-Worldism of the ’50s and ’60s, in communist engagement, or rather in May ’68 and the years which followed?

Guillaume Faye: It is a sequence; but I believe that it is the post-’68 period which weighed the most. Those who hold the media are people 50 years old, of my generation, who grew up in a neo-Marxist atmosphere. But one needs to know that there reigns among journalists a true Stalinian single thought: Marxism has ceded in this respect its place to Third-Worldism, then to immigrationism. To succeed socially, it is necessary to have a position which goes in the direction of the anti-[White] racist, immigrationist, and egalitarian software-ideology (as at the time of the USSR, where it was necessary to be pro-Soviet). Knowing that even people disapproving of it participate in this vulgar affair.

Everyone sees the truth in the street, everyone except the current elites, who play ostrich. Some great journalists, totally [in spite] of my ideas, signed the petitions for the “undocumented:” they explained to me that if they had refused, their career was screwed. It does not suffice not to speak of it: one must claim to be anti-[White] racist, as it was necessary to be Stalinophile in the ’50s. Charlie-Hebdo attacked Gérard Depardieu because he refused to sign! That did him no harm, because he is at the top. But a young actor would have seen his career cut short. One must know that many do not speak by conviction, but from fear: they want to be on the side of the whip hand. One must proclaim oneself anti-[white] racist, for immigration, etc. as in the nineteenth century one must go to Mass every Sunday! That means Charlie-Hebdo, directed by “old schmucks,” is the classic example of the “Stalinist rag and informer,” a “media of thought-police and collaborators,” the “freezing point of journalism.” For Europeans to have a true awakening from the conformism and ethno-masochistic blindness of our self-styled “opinion leaders,” we have need of a terrible crisis, which alone can give us the energy to defend ourselves.

From the Guillaume Faye Archive, interviewer and translator not credited.

Guillaume Faye

Editor’s Note: The idea of the “cause of the peoples” is associated primarily with Alain de Benoist. It is an attempt to fuse European ethnonationalism with a kind of liberal universalism by asserting that European ethnonationalists are not merely fighting for their own cause, but for the cause of all peoples to preserve their distinctness — that they are not merely defending their own rights to ethnic self-preservation, but also the equal rights of all other nations to the same. See also Michael O’Meara’s “Benoist’s Pluriversum: An Ethnonationalist Critique,” TOQ vol. 5, no. 3 (Fall 2005) and Michael J. Polignano’s “The Ethics of Racial Preservation” on Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests, TOQ vol. 7, no. 3 (Fall 2007).

The “cause des peuples” is an ambiguous slogan. It was initially conceived in a polytheistic spirit to defend ethnocultural heterogeneity. But it has since been reclaimed by egalitarian and human rights ideologies which, while extolling a utopian, rainbow-colored world order, seek to inculpate Europeans for having “victimized” the Third World.

Failure of a Strategy

When [GRECE-style] identitarians took up the “cause des peuples” in the early 1980s, it was in the name of ethnopluralism. This “cause,” however, was little more than a rhetorical ruse to justify the right of European peoples to retain their identity in face of a world system that sought to make everyone American. For in resisting the forces of deculturation, it was hoped that Europeans, like Third World peoples, would retain the right to their differences — and do so without having to suffer the accusation of racism. As such, the slogan assumed that every people, even White people, possessed such a right. But no sooner was this argument made than the cosmopolitan P.-A. Taguieff [a leading academic commentator on the far Right] began referring to it as a “differentialist racism.”

In retrospect, the New Right’s strategy seems completely contrived, for “la cause des peuples,” “la droit à la différence,” and “ethnopluralism” have all since been turned against identitarians. Moreover, its irrelevant to Europe’s present condition, threatened, as it is, by a massive non-European invasion and by a conquering Islam abetted by our ethnomaschoistic elites.

Reclaimed by the dominant ideology, turned against identitarians, and tangential to current concerns, the GRECE’s ethnopluralist strategy is a metapolitical disaster. It also retains something of the old Marxist and Christian-Left prejudice about Europe’s ‘exploitation” of the Third World. As [the French Africanist] Bernard Lugan shows in respect to Black Africa,this prejudice is based on little more than economic ignorance. The “cause des peuples” is nevertheless associated with a Christian-like altruism that demonizes our civilization, accuses it of having destroyed all the others, and does so at the very moment when these others are busily preparing the destruction of our own civilization.

The “right to difference” . . . What right? Haven’t we had enough Kantian snivelling? There exists only a capacity to be different. In the selective process of History and Life, everyone has to make it on his own. There are no benevolent protectors. This right, moreover, is reserved for everyone but Europeans, who are summoned to discard their own biological and cultural identity.

This slogan poses another danger: it threatens to degenerate into a doctrine — an ethnic communitarianism — sanctioning the existence of non-European enclaves in our own lands. For in the Europe it envisages, communities of foreigners, particularly Muslim ones, will, for obvious demographic reasons, play an ever-greater role in our lives. This affront to our identity is accompanied by sophistic arguments that ridicule the “fantasy” of a reconquista. In this spirit, we are told that we will have to make do [with a multiracial Europe]. But I, for one, refuse to make do. Nor am I prepared to retreat before an alleged historical determinism.

Life Is Perpetual Struggle

The “cause des peuples” has now become part of the “human rights” vulgate. By contrast, the neo-Darwinian thesis of conflict and competition, which assumes that only the fittest survive, seems to our bleeding-heart communitarians a vestige of barbarism — even if this vestige corresponds with life’s organic laws. This thesis, though, in recognizing the forces of selection and competition, is alone able to guarantee the diversity of life’s varied forms.

The “cause des peuples” is collectivist, homogenizing, and egalitarian, while the “combat of peoples” is subjectivist and heterogeneous, conforming to life’s entropic properties. In this sense, only nationalism and clashing wills-to-power are capable of sustaining the life affirming principle of subjectivity. Given its egalitarian assumption that every people has a “right to live,” the “cause des peuples” prefers to ignore obvious historical realities for an objectivism that seeks to transform the world’s peoples into objects suitable for a museum display. As such, it implies the equivalence of all peoples and civilizations.

This sort of egalitarianism takes two basic forms: one is expressed in a homogenizing but metissé concept of what it means to be human (the ‘human race’), the other endeavors to preserve people and cultures in a way a curator might. Both forms refuse to accept that peoples and civilizations are qualitatively different. Hence, the absurd idea that one has to save endangered peoples and civilizations (at least if they are Third World) in the same way one might save an endangered seal. History’s turbulent selection process has, though, no room for preservation — only for competing subjectivities. In its tribunal, salvationist doctrines are simply inadmissible.

The “cause des peuples” also assumes an underlying solidarity between European and Third World peoples. Again, this is nothing but a dubious ideological construct, which Grécistes invented in the early Eighties to avoid the accusation of racism. I don’t have the space here to expose the myth of Third World “exploitation.” However, to explain its misfortunes in crude, neo-Marxist terms, as if it were due to the machinations of the IMF, the Trilaterals, the Bilderberg group, or some other Beelzebub, is hardly worthy of a response.

According to media or academic pundits, the “culture of the other” is now under siege in France — even though “Afromania” is all the rage. I, on the other hand, think it is not at all exaggerated to claim that America’s deculturating influences no longer threaten Europe, for its dangers have been surpassed by another.

Europe First!

I respect the destiny of the sometimes afflicted Inuits, Tibetans, Amazonians, Pygmies, Kanaks, Aborigines, Berbers, Saharians, Indians, Nubians, the inevitable Palestinians, and the little green men from outer space. But don’t expect crocodile tears from me. When the flooding threatens my own house, I can think only of my own predicament and haven’t time to help or plead for others. Besides, when have these others ever cared about us? In any case, the dangers threatening them are greatly exaggerated, especially in view of their demographic vigor, which, incidentally, is owed to Western medicine and material aid — for the same Western forces that have allegedly exploited them also seems to have made them prosper (or, at least, to reproduce in unprecedented numbers).

If our communitarians really want to defend the “cause des peuples,” they might start with Europeans, who are now under assault by the demographic, migratory, and cultural forces of an overpopulated Third World. In face of these threats, you won’t find us sniveling (like a priest) or fleeing (like an intellectual) to the “other’s” cause. “Ourselves alone” will suffice.

From Terre et Peuple, no. 18, Winter Solstice 2003, trans. anonymous.

Dr. Pendleton’s fans will be interested to hear that he is also working on review essays about David E. Williams, Jerome Deppe, and Der Blutharsch.