Preface to Fighting for the Essence
Pierre Krebs
It is useless to deny it: the epoch that we are going through, debilitated by all the advanced symptoms of decadence, is an abject epoch. Under its structures that are decomposing like a corpse in the sun, the social, political and cultural disintegration, in gradually laying bare the porous bones of an egalitarian civilisation condemned to death, thereby reveals the magnitude of a disaster that has befallen Europe and that threatens to sweep it away like a shipwreck. Once this observation is established, one understands then, in one stroke, why that which is ugly, weak or frankly pathological has, in the world of art, gradually replaced all that is beautiful, strong and harmonious; why, in politics, the creatures that sit on the benches of parliament are paid so dearly to daily betray the people who have naively elected them; why, in the media, the newsrooms are filled with professional lying creatures who, in turn, would no longer understand the world if, tomorrow, they were to stop exaggerating the words, sounds or images of their lies; why, in the age of nuclear fission, cybernetics and genetics, the obscuring dogmas of a vision that is increasingly reductive of human diversity, and increasingly levelling the diversity of values; in short, increasingly economic, materialistic, mechanistic and, consequently, increasingly less political, spiritual, and organic, progressively wrap up the planet in the grey, monotonous and desperate banality of uniformity, mediocrity, the repetition of the same and endless tedium.
Granted: all healthy minds are going to yawn upon reading our reflections concerning the validity of human differentiation, and they will be surprised that there are those dedicated to the ancestral right to difference; they will even, perhaps, be irritated that they could be asked, even today, about the variety of cultures, about the existence of races or the biological laws that explain them, or that one could reflect on the cultural imperatives that demand their sustenance or even, further, the ethical principles that legitimise it. All the banal and apodictic things which Plato had, long before modern anthropology and genetics, more or less codified in his Republic and on which, at another moment in history and in better health, one would have refrained from insisting for the simple reason that one would have already learnt them in primary school.
The necessity of this re-questioning regarding our roots corresponds in fact to an urgent need to restore to order ideas and certain facts, a prophylactic measure that the mind adopts when the discussions of the age, on account of being burdened with taboos and obscured by dogmas, have ended up completely falsifying the etymology of words, distorting their meaning and perverting reason. For this age is not only vile, it is mad. We wish to say thereby that egalitarian reasoning, by walking on its head, has indeed turned the world upside down. Evola[2] had already luminously predicted it: ‘Western civilisation needs a complete overhaul or it will fall apart one day or another. It has realised the most complete perversion of any rational order of things. Reign of matter, of gold, of machine, of number, it no longer possesses breath, or liberty, or light.’[3]
In a first stage which corresponds to its political phase, the egalitarian lie first turned the democratic integrity of the state on its head by progressively emptying the Greek model of the ethno-cultural organic principles of the demos (people) which it purely and simply replaced with the vagabond and cosmopolitan institution of the parliament. Then, in the second, its institutional and juridical phase, it caused the constitutional integrity of the state to topple by demanding that all the nations of the world progressively align their constitutions to the planetary model of a ‘New World Order’ inspired, organised and manipulated by the United States of America. Finally, in a third, ideological stage which is ending its long progress through the institutions, the egalitarian lie has turned on their heads the last two ways in which states retained their integrity; the most essential and, therefore, the most difficult to constrain: territorial integrity and the ethnic integrity that depends on it. To suppress the first, it was sufficient to proclaim that the state was ‘open to immigration,’[4] this declaration automatically annulled the second. Robbed of its freedom to remain itself in the continuity of its ethno-cultural particularism – in short, deprived of its basic right to difference and to life – the people find themselves henceforth condemned to disintegrate and then die out through mixture, fused into a multiracial society, which is a prelude to the global society and the omega point of Western civilisation.
The cycle of egalitarian madness consequently ends exactly where it started: from the political eradication of the values of the demos and as such, of the key principles of organic democracy – by turning on its head of the original Greek understanding of democracy – to its biological eradication, pure and simple. Heralded by the political denaturing of democracy, prepared by the juridical subversion of its institutions, identitarian suicide will henceforth be encouraged, protected and, worse, legalised by the constitutions in their plan of a multiracial society, which is a subtle machine to kill peoples.
*
First revaluation: the notion of ‘multiracialism’ is, to start with, a mystifying term: for the society qualified wrongly as multiracial is no more tolerant of races or ethnic groups – on the contrary, it encourages their biological eradication, through panmixia – than it is respectful of the different cultural paradigms that it forces to disappear into the egalitarian and uniformising mould of identitarian deracination. This society is in reality raciophobic by nature and culturicidal by vocation.[5]
Second revaluation: one must stop, once and for all, abstracting peoples and cultures through the illusory concept of ‘humanity’ for the simple reason that ‘humanity’ does not exist any more than ‘man’ in himself. Humanity is the supposition made by coarse intellects that are enamoured of impoverishing simplifications and generalizations. On the contrary, the planet teems with particular men who one can observe at leisure in the realities of the organic social and cultural life of the race, peoples or nations, fleshly incarnations of all the contradictory and multicoloured ethno-cultural humanities of which the human species is composed. Joseph de Maistre,[6] who was one of the first to have proclaimed it, said finely that there is no man in the world: ‘During my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, and so on; thanks to Montesquieu, I even know that one can be a Persian; but I must say, as for man, I have never come across him anywhere.’[7] Those who act or speak in the name of ‘humanity’ would do well to remember these words in each of their solemn petitions or marches. They should bear in mind that the protection of the human species depends essentially on the preservation of the different peoples that constitute it, whereas the ideologies that more or less encourage ethnic thanatos[8] are, on the contrary, the most suited to destroy it!
We have to repeat it to all the gravediggers of the diversity of the world: every time that a people finds themselves in danger of death it is, in the furrows of their tomb, a real, fleshly, historical humanity, an irreplaceable memory of the history of men – a unique expression in itself of art, music, philosophy, in short, of culture – that is in danger of being extinguished forever.
Third revaluation: there is no being-in-himself, but only and everywhere human beings formed and rooted in their ethno-cultural significances. This holds true to the point that a ‘racial diagnostic,’ says Nicolas Lahovary,[9] is ‘to a certain point a horoscope. More than in situations, it is in oneself that a man and, above all, nations carry their destiny. Fate is not really historical, but ethnological. Tell me who you are and I will tell you what you will do!’[10] It is because we are conscious of these irreducible realities that we call for the drafting of a Charter of Peoples’ Rights,[11] radically antinomical to the Declaration of Human Rights, because peoples, unlike man, who is made up of an intangible humanity, exist; they are biologically definable, sociologically identifiable and geographically localisable. They each express themselves in the singularity of their culture and they each manifest themselves in the rhythm of a well-defined political will and historical project.[12]
Fourth revaluation: it is men who make history, never history that makes men. It is men – their hesitations, their choices, their decisions, their refusals, their quests, their experiments, their strengths and their weaknesses – who are invariably the origin of events and the cause of history. And the history of the world, in turn, relate only the odyssey of the peoples who have made history, polyphonic histories, multiple and markedly contradictory histories, each with the imprint of the ethnocultural identity that gives them face, forms a mind and breathes a soul into them.[13]
*
In accusing Christianity of being ‘the one immortal blot on humanity,’[14] Nietzsche has taken as his target especially the egalitarian, monocentric and monotheistic premise of a religion which incontestably takes the lion’s share of the unhealthy forces at the origin of the upheaval that has turned Europe on its head. In The Gay Science, he says clearly, ‘Monotheism, in contrast [to polytheism], this rigid consequence of the teachings of a normal human type – that is, the belief in a normal god next to whom there are only false pseudo-gods – was perhaps the greatest danger to humanity so far…’[15] This plague is transmitted today by the monster of Judeao-Christianity, ‘Western civilisation,’ whose increasingly dire consequences rigorously follow the descending curve of a crisis that has been transformed in the last several years into a veritable decadence. The monotheistic ‘Unique’ and the egalitarian ‘Same’ are, in fact, the front and reverse side of the same coin of the same egalitarianism, of the same devaluation of the soul of peoples and of the being of their culture in the collectivity of the mass, of the same degradation of the single and singular person into the equal and interchangeable individual, of the same reduction of heterogeneous diversity into the standard and uniform ‘One,’ the zero degree of the levelling catastrophe towards which a one-dimensional planetary civilisation is ineluctably leading.
*
Decadence. Rarely spectacular, this plague that infiltrates slowly into the organism of peoples erodes them sharply. In fact, when a people no longer find in themselves their own reasons to live and believe or, in other words, when a people is no longer satisfied with themselves, they are assuredly ripe for slavery – and there begins their decline. When a people think that they find in other peoples their reasons to live and believe, they have already fallen into slavery – and then their decadence is rife and complete. But when a people, unsatisfied with the contempt that they inflict on themselves in submissively assimilating the culture, language and gods of another people further submerge their biological identity, then, henceforth incapable of maintaining themselves in the ethno-cultural authenticity of their uniqueness, they sign their death sentence for all eternity – and then their destruction occurs immediately.
The decadence of a people therefore remains a transitory phenomenon – a veritable political and cultural status quo – as long as its genotype has not been artificially modified, or, more accurately, has not been genetically manipulated. Voltaire,[16] who did not know anything of genetics, had already had a presentiment of this when he observed in his An Essay on Universal History: The Manners and Spirit of Nations that ‘into whatever regions these various races are transplanted, their complexions never change unless they mingle with the natives of the country.’[17] Whereas Professor Eugène Pittard,[18] anticipating the findings of modern anthropology and genetics, issued his famous book already in 1924 with the major warning which politicians of all persuasions, actively encouraged by all the churches, continue to arrogantly ignore: ‘Where mixture takes places between two very different races, a veritable peril may commence.’[19] Cultural slavery, as long as it is restricted to the mimesis of the other, thus does not seal the fate of a people either necessarily or automatically.
A cultural slave is a puppet parodying the stranger. But his puppet is free to recover its identity the moment it drops its clown suit. A people, however, that have biologically imploded through miscegenation cannot change their skin as one changes clothes. In modifying their morphology, they have changed their appearance, soul and spirit. ‘Mixture with foreign races is the reason that peoples change in appearance and character. The foreign hereditary stock which now circulates in the new organism acts henceforth on the genotype of the mongrelised people at the physical and psychological levels. This influence is exercised not only on the most elementary distinctive signs of physical appearance, but it also acts on the most subtle traits of character, as well as on intellectual aptitudes.’[20] Unlike a colonised people who can return to their roots as soon as they free themselves from the foreign yoke, a mongrelised people are a genetically manipulated people that no longer have any roots. Forced to nourish themselves upon the culture of others, they have alienated their own by sacrificing their originality and authenticity, selling off their political will and flouting their historical destiny; by cutting themselves off from their roots, they have alienated their identity, scattering to the four winds of oblivion their personality and their uniqueness. Worse: in ceasing to be the singular and original people that they were originally, the hybridised people have not, however, become the people whose culture they thought they could plagiarise and, just as they have become strangers to all, they have first and above all become strangers to themselves.[21]
A puppet of America, at any moment Europe can change its dress back to European style in the changing-rooms of its politics and culture. A new political class of decision-makers inspired by a new historical project, by a new vision of the world and of the future, could lead it to this change very rapidly. This new class is urgently needed, for, in the American-style ‘carnival’ multiculturalism, it is in fact the naturally aristocratic soul of Europe, its deeply individualist style, its essentially rebellious, Faustian and Promethean spirit that the globalist vulgate[22] is in the process of attacking. Behind its multicultural alibi, Europe is invited to change its mentality[23] – and also its skin – so that its lively identity may be silenced, so that the polytheist look in the bright eyes of Athena[24] may be extinguished, so that this will to excel which has never ceased nourishing and inspiring the authentic being of the Indo-European worldview may fade, in an egalitarian regression, into memory.
*
Identity: what is it about, really? A myth, a taste, a whim? This two-faced word which reconciles contraries (the identical and the different) designates, in reality, an instinct. In fact, it is especially since modern ethology clearly established the innate tendency of man to identify with individuals who resemble him that we have better understood why peoples experience this instinctive need to live according to their rhythm, within a cultural heritage well-demarcated from all the others.
But what science has understood, the egalitarian Vulgate chooses to ignore or deny. Entangled in its fantasies, it continues to pretend that identitarian consciousness would erect insurmountable ramparts between peoples who would be seized with mutual distrust because of their differences. Reality belies these inanities. In fact, just as the self-defined individual who differentiates himself from the surrounding masses does not isolate himself from society, but on the contrary enriches it with his uniqueness, so also a people conscious of their difference do not isolate themselves any more from the human species, but come closer to it every time they endow it with their singularities and their peculiarities.
Besides, this goes without saying: the more a people becomes conscious of their difference, the more they refine their differences and the more their opening up to the world has a chance of profiting others. The more a people become conscious of their difference, the more they are in a situation to open up to the world in order to endow other peoples with their singularity and their differences. The more a people are aware of the diversity that surrounds them, the more they show themselves adroit in seizing and appreciating that which does not resemble them even in its slightest nuances, that which does not belong to them, and the more they are inclined to tolerate the distinguishing qualities of others.
The wealth of the world derives from its diversity and its heterogeneity. And the world owes this diversity primarily to peoples conscious and jealous of their difference.[25] It is clear besides that the perception of the diversity of a group is always proportional to the awareness of its different parts. Thus, the heterogeneity of the world results also from the interactions – from the communication – between the living ethno-cultural identities that comprise it: in fact, the more the differences confront one another, the more they compare themselves to one another – the closer they come together, the more the diversity is reinforced. The more the differences are isolated, the more they are separated from one another; in other words, the more they move away from one another, the more the diversity is destroyed. A people that entrench themselves in their ethno-cultural phalanstery[26] are no more courageous than a people which detach themselves from their roots and cross-breed: in the first case, we witness the retreat into seclusion of a powerless people that retreat because they do not feel strong enough in their identity to confront the Other in its differences; in the second case we witness a headlong rush into the assimilation of a disarmed people who capitulate before the difference of the Other in order not to be conscious any more of their own identity. Conclusion: it is not the identitarian consciousness that awakens fear of the foreigner but, quite the contrary, in the first case one’s weakness and in the second one’s shortcomings.
The egalitarian Vulgate thus finds itself trapped: peoples of a strong identitarian consciousness are precisely those who, in search of movement and relationships, increase differences, activate diversity, and, in so doing, keep the world moving. And it is, on the contrary, the peoples of a weak identitarian consciousness who, in fleeing into withdrawal and isolation, make history vegetate.[27]
*
Identity: the Ariadne thread[28] of the history of peoples and their cultures. An instinct as beautiful and as strong as life is beautiful and strong when it bursts out from its original and primordial organic springs, but also as old as the world can remember being a world. An archaic instinct that survives ideologies because it possesses the longest memory; a rebellious instinct that does not allow itself to be smoothed out either by laws or by doctrines, no matter how oppressive the first may be and no matter how captious the second; an irreducible instinct that reappears in the confines of Africa, in the tribe that casts off the last miasmas of Western civilization; or in the heart of Europe, in the Swiss canton which reconquers with the audacity of William Tell the ancestral rights of its organic democracy.
Whether it is affirmed or contested, the identitarian tradition henceforth orients the new divides that are already being established at the crossroads of destiny, where everything may die or be reborn at the place where history is digging a definitive cleft between two understandings of the world, between two visions of the future, between two conceptions of man: on the one side, the statist masses, members of the universal egalitarian technocosmos – the cold monster that Nietzsche warned us about;[29] on the other, the ethnic communities, the political and cultural idiosyncrasies mirroring the natural planetary polyphony – the ‘hereditary homelands’ of which Saint-Loup[30] speaks. In the first, drawn from the rule of uniformity, the repetition of the Same has definitely Westernised the planet into the totalitarian straitjacket of egalitarianism. In this world of ethno-cultural amnesia delivered to the totalitarian yoke of economics, man, stripped of his distinctive traits, is no longer either the being of interdependent and cooperative culture of the historical project of his people, nor the historical being who accomplishes himself within his destined community. Reduced to the status of an acultural and ahistorical object-individual, this individual has lost the key to his humanity. In the second, the man with an identitarian consciousness defines himself as the perception of his roots and his differences grows. In this world, man, a cultured being, acquires his humanity as he realises himself: he experiments, creates, evolves, transforms himself without ceasing to be himself, profiting from all the creative potentialities that nature – his heredity – has poured into him. Supporting his people, involved in its projects, he participates in its history and in its destiny.
The parties, the lodges, the unions, the schools, the churches – in short, all who fatten themselves on the fodder of the System resent the identitarian argument from the outset as an intolerable threat. This hypersensitive reaction will not surprise the lucid minds that have known for a long time that the bio-cultural reality is, in fact, the only one that may instantly threaten all the confused minds of the universalist dogma: the messianic Judeo-Christian head; the ideologically liberal head; and the individualistic, technocratic and plutocratic economic head. And it will not surprise attentive minds, either, that the identitarian dream has always entailed the collapse of all the empires that were not organic, the last to date being the Soviet empire. And finally, it will not surprise those who know perfectly well that the next one is Uncle Sam’s. Keeping pace with Nature and the gains of science, the basic expression of organic life and ethno-cultural reality defies all prohibitions, be they political, religious or ideological. Egalitarianism may well postulate that races do not exist, but anyone taken at random can recognise a White from a Black, and a Black from a Yellow. To be sure, everything would be much easier if it were possible to prohibit races, a vow difficult to realise because it comes down to prohibiting Nature de facto. Being unable to constrain the latter, the followers of Jesus Christ, Karl Marx and Big Brother are therefore going to try to destroy it. And indeed, the only discreet and effective way of prohibiting an African, an Asiatic or a European from being as such is going to consist in submerging the Black, Yellow and White together into a grey, in annihilating them progressively in a soft panmixia which is disguised in the most pernicious possible masks: a carnival humanism in the Brazilian style, consisting of unremitting appeals to a pseudo-fraternity that leads, in reality, to the worst promiscuities, and hysterical invocations to a pseudo-tolerance that reveals itself to be the most dangerous of cowardices.
Once the dangers have been perceived and the choices have been offered, we must then move to action, first refusing ‘compromise, weakness, and indulgence towards everything which, being derived from the Judaeo-Christian root, has infected our blood and our intelligence.’ Then, secondly, return to our pagan Indo-European tradition without which ‘there will be no liberation and no true restoration, and conversion to the true values of spirit, power, hierarchy, and empire will not be possible.’ There sleeps a ‘truth upon which no doubt whatsoever can be cast.'[31] Finally, awaken minds by setting the world on its feet again, and by setting the ideas aright once again. But what method is more appropriate to set the world aright than to set that which many still feel to be an inevitable fate on the feet of a voluntary destiny? The multiracial/raciophobic society can never be transformed into a fate as long as bio-cultural identity is perceived by peoples as a voluntary destiny. All life worthy of being lived has been and will be that, always, only at this price. To the horizontal and culturicidal society with a robot grimace that threatens to strangle the world in a linear uniformity, we must brandish, in brighter colors than ever before, the vertical rainbows of peoples with human faces, whose language, history, culture and appearance emerge from living identities which are to peoples and cultures what the spring is to the mountains and forests.
Egalitarianism constrains peoples to shuffle their feet in the dead-end of Christian, social or liberal parliamentary democracy before demoting them to the neo-primitive age of the fast-food societies in the American style. Let us swim against the current of a world that is already exploding into a thousand pieces, carried away by the winds of its political, religious, economic, social or cultural crises. Let us bear ourselves to the wide sea of the world and of life through the deep waters of identity. Let us continue forward to assume our humanity, each one in the rhythm of his individuality, each in obedience to his origins. The future of this world will never stop being many-voiced, multicoloured, multicultural, and multihistorical as long as the human species that bears it remains permanently multiracial, that is to say , as long as it continues to deploy, in the firmament of history, the rainbow of its colors, its faces, its languages, its arts and its cultures, as long as the difference of one is perceived as a source of enrichment for all, as long as the respect for natural diversity continues to generate an echo of tolerance for contraries. In other words: as long as the homogeneity of the peoples remains a guarantee of the heterogeneity of the world.
Let us therefore lend to our ideas the same seriousness that a child does to his game – to paraphrase Nietzsche[32] – and we will feel them fill with that conquering joy from whence emerge new worlds.
As for the Europeans, their renaissance will have already commenced the moment that they cease to perceive the egalitarian raciophobic society as an inevitable destiny, and finally being to feel it as a necessary challenge.
All victories are born of struggle; all elevations are born of conquest.
Kassel, Winter Solstice, 1999/2000.
__________________TERRITORY AND ETHNO-CULTURAL STABILITY
(Excerpt from Fighting for the Essence)
The Key Idea of Territory
Any talk about people and culture boils down to dealing with the fundamental question of territory. It is a cardinal question that is impossible to avoid, since it opens and closes every debate on identity. In effect, territory is to a people what air is to our lungs. If it happens to disappear, the cultural and biological life of an ethnic group is threatened with asphyxiation (in a very real sense) in a short span. All the discussions that relate to identity cannot ignore the notion of territory if they do not wish to sink into the ridiculous. [29] ‘The human being is a territorial being,’ reminds Professor Otto Koenig. [30] The preservation of territorial integrity is the condition sine qua non [31] of ethnic existence, as Eibl-Eibesfeldt has persistently explained. The cohabitation of different communities within a state is possible only when the territorial integrity of each community is clearly defined and its sovereignty strongly guaranteed, as in the case of Switzerland, a model of ethnic cooperation which evidently has nothing to do with the multiracial society ‘that Heiner Geissler imagines.’ [32]
The Maintenance of Peace is Closely Dependent upon the Maintenance of Territorial Integrity
In his most recent work, the ethologist Eibl-Eibesfeldt returns to this major point: ‘The best way to maintain peaceful cooperation between peoples consists in guaranteeing to each of them a territory that each people has the right to administer in its own way, and in which it is permitted to develop itself culturally as it sees fit.’ [33] The multicultural society, de facto, creates the conditions of a permanent state of conflict as soon as the different ethno-cultural groups engage in the (legitimate) defence of their interests, needs, and aspirations, as soon as they are naturally led to affirm their identity in order to escape the cultural or ethnic suicide of assimilation. Any state of peace in society is inevitably overturned in a state of crisis provoked by ethnic rivalries: ‘To the degree that a people accept the implantation of minorities in their territories, they open the door to inter-ethnic competition in their own house.’ [34]
It clearly emerges from the empirical observations of modern ethology that the demarcation of a territorial border does not come about through chance, but purely and simply from genetically programmed dispositions: ‘It is imperative to know that human beings are hereditarily endowed with programmes of behaviour that determine their perceptions, reflections and actions in a decisive manner.’ [35] Territorial demarcation equally responds to a need dictated by evolution: ‘In the case of competitions with other individuals, the entrance en bloc of a closed group is as important as its number… Another advantage consists in the fact that the formation of well-defined groups that are mutually demarcated in relation to other foreign groups favours evolution, insofar as mutation emerge only in small groups and develop only through the competitive struggles that oppose on group to another.’ [36] Erlung Kohl refers to Konrad Lorenz to demonstrate that the cultural life of an ethnic group is tightly bound to the territorial demarcation of a space that guarantees it a separate development that it imperatively needs to know and affirm itself: ‘Relatively compact barriers… that are erected between two cultural cores which are divergent in development are characteristic of all cultures, and are clearly indispensable to their evolution.’ [37] Respect for territorial integrity quite simply demands the maintenance of peace: ‘Peaceful collaboration between different peoples is possible on the condition that each ethnic group possesses its own territory and can regulate its own affairs without exposing itself to any repressive domination or to territorial amputations.’ [38]
All these observations allow one to measure to what degree of stupidity and blindness the militants of multiracialism have sunk, as their model of society leads inevitably to war! Immigrants ‘who settle permanently take possession of the most precious resource that a people possess – namely, their territory. It is for this reason that they are perceived as invaders, and this situation then automatically triggers a desire for territorial defence among the natives… Taking into account our hereditary reflexes, the multicultural model that Geissler wants to introduce in Central Europe would automatically lead to conflicts.’ [39] Heiner Geissler himself warns of the danger of a civil war (even if he places the responsibility for it on the shoulders of his compatriots!), which he believes can be defused through social measures. This reduction of the human paradigm to the economic paradigm reveals to what extent the current political discourse is linked to the models of liberal thought and to its archetype, the Homo occidentalis: ‘I predict civil wars in Germany if we do not grant immigrants who lives among us full citizenship – even if they have a different skin colour and are not of Germanic origin.’ This famous ‘equality of rights’ naturally supposes strict conformity to the principles defined by human rights. These foreigners will become ‘German citizens… who recognise our Constitution.’ [40] Apart from the fact that the appellation ‘German’ is absurd insofar as multiracial discourse empties it of its real ethno-cultural significance, human nature does not allow itself to be locked within techno-commercial thought. The humanity of a human being does not allow itself to be reduced to its basest needs – unfortunately for Geissler (but what was true here of a Geissler is also exactly true of the present, completely brainless President, Christian Wulff)[41] – and fortunately for men – human nature does not allow itself to be locked within techno-commercial thought, the humanity of the human being does not allow itself to be reduced to its needs. The aesthetic sense, the historical sense and the religious sense are other paradigms of human infinitely richer and more complex than the liberal theoreticians wish to admit.
Fighting for the Essence
The originality and the richness of the human heritages of this world are nourished by their differences and their deviations, which surprise and fascinate as soon as one passes from the culture of one people to another. These originalities can find protection, in turn, only in the homogeneous ethno-cultural space that is proper to them. The defenders of multiracialism are the primary destroyers, consciously or unconsciously, of this elementary right. To resist the aggressive ideology of human rights, the doctrinal alibi of the totalitarian Western society, it is urgent to draw up a new Declaration of the Rights of Peoples in concert with all the movements that fight on this Earth for the respect of their ethno-cultural identities. The sensibly will of the identitarian being should be able to thwart the senseless will of its eulogists and the will of a blind egalitarianism which is the source of the totalitarian levelling of things and persons: ‘The unconditional uniformity of all kinds of humanity of the Earth,’ further observes Heidegger, ‘under the rule of the will to will makes clear the meaninglessness of human action which has been posited absolutely.’ [42]
It is certain that the actions of the politicians today – whether they are absurd or criminal – are not at all reflective of any responsibility by those who decide on them! Their political responsibility last (if at all) only for the period of the parliamentary mandate. It is therefore useless to hope to see them one day before tribunals – to make them answer for their acts – politicians who are today planning of the chaos and wars of tomorrow through their decisions. As Professor Koening bitterly affirmed, ‘no political man bears the responsibility of his when there are no immediate consequences. He has nothing to fear and is responsible for nothing.’ [43]
To pose the question of identity again is to appeal to the wisdom of Knowledge. It is to take into consideration once again the benefits of the life-sciences (which have fallen into discredit, and for a reason) if one wishes to put an end to the ideological blindness of egalitarianism. ‘The biological sciences have revealed to us the most previous of secrets – the laws of the development of our body and of our consciousness. This knowledge has brought to humanity the means of renovating itself.’ [44] What is at stake are peoples and the life of their cultures, of a life of which the living peoples are still the conscience and locus, of a life of which the people are also shepherd. Europe will be reborn from itself, ‘from the re-appropriation of its own origins,’ [45] or it will not be reborn. Julien Freund shares the same opinion: ‘It is not from others that the Europeans can expect their civilisation, but from themselves, on the condition that they wish it, and put into effect the necessary means to ensure it.’ [46] For Sigrid Hunke, too, there is no doubt ‘Europe will unveil its truth when it becomes itself once again, when it determines itself once again, when it is able to reaffirm itself as itself, and to protect itself from foreign pretensions, and when it has found again the strength to realise itself in its own renewed history.’ [47] The spirit that inhabits the being of our people still comes from the same source, from the same blood. [48] So, everything can be born again, everything can begin again for the Europeans ‘as long as the hereditary qualities of the race remain present, the strength and the audicity of his forefathers can be resurrected in modern man by his own will.’ [49]
Let us make sure that the peoples remain the protectors of their values and their truth, in order to continue to gift to the world their singular genius, each in the mysterious expression of their style, their manner, their pride – we who, like Nietzsche, know today much than yesterday, that the writing that springs from a mind always bears the signature of its blood, which is unalterable for all eternity.
Notes
[29] We shall take as a characteristic sample of certain approaches that glimpse an awakener of identities in the multiracial in Stefan Ulbrich (ed.), Multikultopia (Vilbiburg: Arun, 1991). Alongside excellent texts (Rolf Kosiek, ‘Die Wirklichkeit des Volkes in der modernen Welt,’ Robert Steuckers, ‘Verortung in Raum und Zeit,’ etc.), those of the editor of the publication, sprinkled with contradictions, attest to a regrettable dilettantism. One will also notice the lowbrow character that the editor demonstrates in the interview that Mrs. Martiny gave him, or lese this declared adept of the New Right has not understood of the New Culture (to begin with, the label ‘New Right,’ which was invented by the System), or lese he has, perhaps, deliberately chosen to bury himself in an ideological dead-end to please the censors of the System. At best, if we can forgive a certain childishness, we still cannot easily excuse a cheap opportunism. Moreover, the reception of the book seems to have proven the old truth: one who wishes to get into his enemy’s good graces mostly reaps nothing but his contempt.
[30] ‘Wir stehen am Beginn einer Völkerwanderung,’ ‘Gespräch mit Prof. Otto Koenig,’ in R. Eder and A. Mölzer (eds.), Enwanderungsland Europa?, p. 82.
[31] Latin: ‘essential element.’ -Ed.
[32] Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, ‘Zukunft multikultureller Gesellschaft,’ in ibid., pp. 136-137.
[33] Wider die Mißtrauensgesellschaft, p. 157.
[34] Ibid., p. 158.
[35] Eder and Mölzer (eds.), Einwanderungsland Europa?, p. 130.
[36] Ibid., p. 134.
[37] Erlung Kohl, ‘Vom Wert der Mannifaltigkeit: Ethnologische Grundlagen jeder Bevölkerungspolitik,’ p. 16.
[38] Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Wider die Mißtrauensgesellschaft, p. 157.
[39] Ibid., p. 130.
[40] Heiner Geissler, ‘Kein Grund zur Angst,’ in Der Spiegel 41, 1991, p. 23. This former student of the Jesuits is a past-master in the art of distorting responsibilities. If a conflict should break out in the multiracial society that is in progress, the responsibility does not fall upon the politicians who initiated this process. It falls upon the victims, who are incapable of understanding quickly enough the advantages of rejuvenation through miscegenation: ‘It is not the influx of foreigners but is, on the contrary, the incapacity for rejuvenation and adaptation of the Germans, combined with their aversion to immigration, that represents the real danger for our future’ (in Der Spiegel, art. cit.). But instead of fulfilling the role for which he has been elected – to prevent and remove the danger that threaten his community – it is for the exacerbation of these dangers that Heiner Geissler quietly works when he quite calmly announces an escalation of the immigration process: ‘In the future, the Germans will not have to live with just five million foreigners – as today – but with seven, perhaps ten million’ (ibid.). These words will at least have the advantage of reinforcing the plans of the former leader of the Turkish state, Süleyman Demirel. In fact, during a reception given at the Zentrum für Türkeistudien (TAM), Demirel made no secret of the strategic aims of Turkish immigration into Germany. Calling on his emigrant compatriots to demand double nationality, he added: ‘I have been responsible for immigration into Europe, in the 1960s and ’70s, of around 60 to 70 percent of three million Turks, for I have always been a supporter of the establishment of a lobby in Europe’ (in Junge Freiheit, 29 Apirl 1994).
[41] Christian Wulff (b. 1959) was elected President of Germany in 2010 and is a member of the Christian Democratic Union party. Wulff famously charactertised Islam as a ‘part of Germany’ and has called for greater tolerance for Muslim immigrants. -Ed.
[42] Martin Heidegger, ‘Overcoming Metaphysics,’ p. 110.
[43] Otto Koenig, ‘Wir stehen am Beginn ekiner Völkerwanderung,’ in Einwanderungsland Europa?, p. 98. Eibl-Eibesfeldt also issues a serious warning to the politicians forgetful of their duties and their commitments: ‘….I think that the politicians and journalists – whose actions and speeches influence opinion – give evidence of irresponsibility when they attempt to persuade their people that the important thing is not to perpetuate oneself through one’s own descendants. I think that these attempts at persuasion are similar to those that suggest an ethnic suicide… The politicians who act in this way, at least in Germany, violate the oath that they have made to defend the interests of their people. On the other hand, it would be really superfluous to enter into long debates to understand that the suppression of an ethnic group by another is always done at the expense of the first, even when this so-called peaceful process is considered to have taken place through immigration,’ in Wider die Mißtrauensgesellschaft, p. 136.
[44]Carrel, Man, the Unknown, p. 273.
[45] Jean Parvulesco, Le soleil rouge de Raymond Abellio, p. 79.
[46] Julien Freund, La décadence, p. 384.
[47] Sigrid Hunke, Vom Untergang des Abendlandes zum Aufgang Europas, p. 321.
[48] ‘Observed from a biological and anthropological angle, there is no doubt that the Europeans of today constitute a very homogenous population… The common cultural history of the Europeans also links peoples who are genetically very close,’ again affirms Eibl-Eibesfeldt unequivocally, in ‘Zukunft multikultureller Gesellschaft?’, in Eder and Mölzer (eds.), Einwanderungsland Europa?, p. 138. And besides: ‘The European nations are characterised by a language and customs, in short, by a common culture and history, and, to conclude, the Europeans belong to a biological and anthropological type which is also uniquely characteristic,’ in Wider die Mißtrauensgesellschaft, p. 162.
[49] Carrel, Man, the Unknown, p. 273.
——————————-
https://neweuropeanconservative.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/europe-vs-the-west-devlin/
Europe vs. the West
By F. Roger Devlin
Pierre Krebs
Fighting for the Essence: Western Ethnosuicide or European Renaissance?
London: Arktos Media, 2012
This offering from Arktos is the first translation into English from the works of Pierre Krebs, a leading figure in the European New Right. Born in French Algeria (1946), Krebs studied law, journalism, sociology and political science in France, taking an active role in right-wing politics during the late 1960s. Later settling in Germany, he founded the Thule Seminar, a self-described “research society for Indo-European Culture,” in Kassel in 1980. The German Verfassungsschutz (Office for the Protection of the Constitution) appears to take considerable interest in his activities.
Besides the book under review, Dr. Krebs is the author of The European Rebirth, The Imperishable Inheritance: Alternatives to the Principle of Equality* and a study on Valéry and Wagner. Fighting for the Essence was first published in German in 1996, with a revised French edition appearing in 2000.**
Krebs’ nomenclature, original with him so far as I know, draws a sharp contrast between “Europe” and “the West.” “Europe” refers to the great racial and cultural tradition he wishes to defend; “the West” means today’s “Western community of values” that engages in humanitarian bombing campaigns, enforces tolerance at gunpoint on its subject populations, prefers the stranger to the kinsman, and wishes to erase even the distinction between men and women.
Prof. Krebs is good at pointing up the antinomies of this modern ideological abortion: its homogenization in the name of diversity and suppression of particularity in the name of tolerance. Multiculturalism and multiracialism, as he observes, are mystifying terms which function to conceal a culturicidal and raciophobic program of deracination and panmixia. “The doctrine of human rights should be seen for what it really is: the ideological alibi of the West in a battle to the death that it has declared on all the peoples of the world.”
Apologists for Western ideology rest their case upon a false dichotomy between assimilation and fearful isolation:
In fact, just as the self-defined individual who differentiates himself from the surrounding masses does not isolate himself from society, but on the contrary enriches it with his uniqueness, so also a people conscious of their difference do not isolate themselves any more from the human species, but come closer to it every time they endow it with their singularities and their peculiarities. The more a people becomes conscious of their difference, the more their opening up to the world has a chance of profiting others . . . and the more they are inclined to tolerate the differences of others.The author distinguishes three stages in the development of “the egalitarian lie.” The first, political stage replaces organic democracy with a parliamentary procedure emptied of ethno-cultural content; the second, juridical phase, demands that all nations align their constitutions to this same model; the third, ideological stage breaks down the territorial integrity of nations through open immigration, which leads directly to the final biological abolition of human differences in universal panmixia.
All of this sounds consistent with what might be called the orthodox conservative narrative of Western decline since the Enlightenment. Nor does Krebs depart from that narrative in tracing the origin of egalitarianism to Christianity. In the view of many on the Christian right, modernism is a practical form of the Pelagian heresy, an attempt to bring heaven down to earth—“immanentizing the eschaton,” in Voegelin’s mellifluous words.
But Krebs names the heresiarch Pelagius as one of his heroes. In his view, the egalitarian lie is to be blamed not on any perversion of Christianity, but on Christianity itself—or, as he invariably writes, “Judeochristianity.” He cites Nietzsche’s observation that
Christianity, which has sprung from Jewish roots and can only be understood as a plant that has come from that soil, represents the counter-movement to every morality of breeding, race or privilege—it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence.
From this Krebs infers that
every discourse which calls for a European Renaissance without separating itself from Judeo-Christian civilization, its dogmas and its rituals, is condemned to failure in advance, since it is enclosed within the very matrix of decline. . . . The monotheistic “Unique” and the egalitarian “Same” are, in fact, the front and reverse side of the same coin. . . . [The] continuity is flagrant between the Jewish will to reduce the polymorphic and polysemic figures of the divine to the univocal figure of the only God, an autocratic being, the absolute ‘I’ of the universe on the one hand; and the secularized monotheism of human rights on the other, informed by the same will to reduce all the racial and cultural polymorphism of the world to univocal figure of a globalized Homo occidentalis, a serial repetition of a Same detached from its identitarian affiliations.
The author also cites Nietzsche’s suggestion that monotheism, “the belief in a normal god next to whom there are only false pseudo-gods,” was a “consequence of the teaching of a normal human type.” Indo-European polytheism, on the other hand, “is fundamentally alien to the notion of messianism or proselytism, the natural sources of the intolerance and fanaticism that are characteristic of the three monotheistic religions.”
Finally, the author accuses “Judeochristianism” of “breaking the bond of friendship between men and nature” through its command to subdue the earth. Anyone with a genuinely European mentality, he says, would find incomprehensible the promise to Noah and his sons that “the fear and dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air: into your hand are they delivered.”
The look which [Westernized Europe] bestows on Nature is no longer the look of the living man who discovers and feels himself a partner of the world. It is the essentially venal, anonymous and cold look of techno-scientific inspection, a utilitarian look that no longer conceives the world as a dwelling in which man is the inhabitant, but as an object that men, endowed with the power of appropriation by Jehovah, have the duty to exploit.
The rejection of Christianity does not commit the author to reject all of post-classical European civilization, or even all of its religious life. He emphasizes that Christianity never truly eradicated the pagan heritage, and claims to find the native spirit of Europe in many great figures of the Christian era, including Pelagius, John Scotus Eriugena, Meister Eckhart, Nicholas of Cusa, Giordano Bruno, Jacob Böhme, Goethe, Hölderlin, Beethoven, the dramatist Friedrich Hebbel, Theodor Storm, Rilke, Teilhard de Chardin, Saint-Exupéry and Heidegger. He also claims that Gothic architecture owed nothing to “Judeochristianity.”
Dr. Krebs’ treatment of Christianity and Western decline deserves a fuller treatment than I can give here and also than he himself offers in his slender volume. The issue is of the utmost practical importance, for it represents a rejection of the great majority of his potential political allies.
This reviewer is happy to agree that the rise of Christianity, with its promise of salvation to the world-weary, was closely bound up with the decline of Graeco-Roman civilization. Indeed, I suspect this historical context better accounts for what Krebs finds decadent in Christianity than does its racially alien origin. But does it make sense to blame Christianity also for the decadence of modern civilization?
There is surely considerable temerity in reducing the thirteen or fourteen centuries of European civilization between the conversion of Constantine and the Enlightenment to a list of fifteen personal favorite figures. And the temerity is increased by the implied claim to have understood several of these figures better than they understood themselves.
It is a familiar observation that enlightenment thought amounts to a secularized version of Christian doctrine, a displacement of its eschatology into the realm of politics. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn is just one example of a Christian conservative who stressed this connection, citing the Latin proverb corruptio optimi pessima: “the corruption of the best is the worst.”
But Krebs the admirer of Pelagius cannot mean this; his explicit positions would force him to deny that the secularization of Christianity is the essential misstep. Instead he must hold that (1) Christianity itself is responsible for the specific way in which it was negated by the Enlightenment, and that (2) Europe has been in a state of decadence since at least the fourth century AD. This bold interpretation of European history may deserve consideration, but the author has hardly made a case for it in the brief manifesto under review.
Next to “Judeochristianity,” Krebs’ greatest scorn is reserved for “the putrid swamps of America,” with their fast food restaurants and comic-book literature. This is a common trope of European intellectuals across the political spectrum, easily made plausible by comparing American low culture with European high culture. As a long-time American expatriate in Europe, I often had cause to lament mindless lowbrow Americanization myself, but it is hardly a reflection on America that Europeans prefer McDonald’s to Melville. Wilsonian democratic messianism would also have got nowhere without striking a chord in other lands.
Dr. Krebs closes his work with some far more plausible reflections on culture, immigration and territory. He cites Heiner Geissler of Germany’s Christian Democratic Union party as a representative of contemporary elite opinion:
It is not the influx of foreigners but the incapacity for rejuvenation and adaptation of the Germans, combined with their aversion to immigration, that represents the real danger for our future. . . . In the future, Germans will not have to live with just five million foreigners—as today—but with seven, perhaps ten million.
The danger in such a mindset stems from its unfalsifiability. We have no reason to think Herr Geissler unacquainted with the problems connected to immigration; he may well have to deal with them every day. But he has a ready-made explanation for all of them, as well as any that may arise in the future: the “xenophobia” of his fellow countrymen. As long as he clings to this notion, no empirical evidence of immigration’s failure will ever give him cause to reconsider his commitment to it—not even a full-scale ethnic civil war. Such observations, writes Dr. Krebs, “allow one to measure to what a degree of stupidity and blindness the militants of multiracialism have sunk.”
All culture is regional, expressing the beliefs and sensibility of the people of a particular place and time. As such, it necessarily involves an element of exclusion, namely, the exclusion of what is foreign to those beliefs and sensibilities and to the way of life in accordance with them. For this reason, any serious defense of culture boils down to a defense of territory. Let us close with a fine observation Krebs takes from Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, the Austrian founder of the discipline of human ethology:
The best way to maintain peaceful cooperation between peoples consists in guaranteeing to each of them a territory that each people has the right to administer in its own way, and in which it is permitted to develop itself culturally as it sees fit. . . . To the degree that people accept the implantation of minorities in their territories, they open the door to inter-ethnic competition in their own house.
———————-
Added Notes:
* These two titles refer to Die europäische Wiedergeburt: Aufruf zur Selbstbesinnung (Tübingen: Grabert-Verlag, 1982) and Das unvergängliche Erbe: Alternativen zum Prinzip der Gleichheit (Tübingen: Grabert-Verlag, 1981). Krebs had also published a second complementary volume to the latter known as Mut zur Identität: Alternativen zum Prinzip der Gleichheit (Struckum: Verlag für ganzheitliche Forschung und Kultur, 1988). Also worth mentioning is his later book, Das Thule-Seminar: Geistesgegenwart der Zukunft in der Morgenröte des Ethnos (Horn, Kassel & Wien: Weecke, 1994).
** The original German version was Im Kampf um das Wesen (Horn: Weecke, 1997), and the most recent French translation is Combat pour l’essentiel (Madrid: Paneuropa, 2002). There is also a Spanish translation known as La lucha por lo esencial (Valencia: Los Libros de Aimirgin, 2006).
—————-
F. Roger Devlin. “Europe vs. the West.” Counter-Currents, 29 February 2012.
http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/02/europe-vs-the-west/.
Pierre Krebs, Political Philosophy, Racial Theory
https://neweuropeanconservative.wordpress.com/tag/pierre-krebs/