En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

vendredi, 28 novembre 2014

The European New Right & its Animus against Western Civ


The European New Right & its Animus against Western Civ

By Ricardo Duchesne 

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com

My knowledge of the European New Right (ENR) is very scarce, no more than a few short articles and three books: Guillaume Faye’s Why We Fight [2], Alexander Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory, and Pierre Krebs’ Fighting for the Essence, Western Ethnosuicide or European Renaissance? [3]. I found Faye’s metapolitical dictionary substantively insightful and Dugin’s dissection of liberalism penetrating.

But Krebs’ book finally clarified for me something about the ENR I had sensed but was not sure about: its belief that Western Civ stands for the rise of multiracial societies in Europe.

drkrebs.jpgI noticed this animus against the West in Dugin’s book. In the case of Dugin it was more his identification of American Neoconservatism, or Mainstream Liberalism, with Western Civ as such, his rejection of Western rationalism, his condemnation of the idea of progress, his use of cultural Marxists and postmodernists (Franz Boas, Michel Foucault, Levi Strauss, Jean Baudrillard) to paint a picture of the West as the sickest, most destructive civilization in human history. Everything hateful about the world — consumerism, environmental despoliation, egalitarianism, plutocratic manipulation, erosion of ethnic and traditional differences — was explained by him as a direct product of the metaphysical orientation of the West.

In order to adequately understand the essence of liberalism, we must recognize that it is not accidental, that its appearance in the political and economic ideologies is based on fundamental processes, proceeding in all Western civilization. Liberalism is not only a part of that history, but its purest and most refined expression, its result (Fourth Political Theory, p. 140).

It is as if the West was from the beginning oriented towards our present-day pro-immigration regimen, driven by a rationalist logic dedicated to the reduction of cultural qualities to measurable quantities, by a will to a universal language for humanity based on mental constructs existing a priori in all humans, by an individualizing logic that seeks to free all concrete persons from any collective identities, and by a progressive view of history that ranks cultures in terms of how close they approximate the liberal-democratic aims of a West envisioned as the master culture led by a superior race. According to Dugin, the “very ideology of [Western] progress is racist in its structure.”

But I thought that these were the prejudices of a Russian nationalist, a keen defender of Putin’s foreign policies in the face of American Neocon wishes for control of former Soviet territories. But upon reading Pierre Krebs’ book a few days ago, I am starting to realize that opposition to the West (and, by direct necessity, opposition to almost the entire history of Europeans) is quite prominent among members of the ENR. I feel confident in making this generalization about the ENR, having read, additionally, some articles by and about Alain de Benoist, noticing right away that he too holds the West responsible for all the main maladies of our times: individualization, massification, desacralization, rationalization, and universalization. He traces the roots of these destructive trends to the Christian concept of equality and the Christian idea of progress, and then explains how these concepts were secularized in modern times. But my focus here will be on Krebs’ Fighting for the Essence, originally published in 1997.

PierreKrebs [4]I will engage with Krebs’ ideas by citing passages from his books, and then offering my responses below. I view Krebs as an ideological friend with whom I have a major disagreement about the nature of the West. He offers an effective rhetorical critique of the relationship between the homogenization of humanity and the celebration of diversity through miscegenation.

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. (p. 89)

But the claim that the West has been the destroyer of racial identities is very simplistic and evinces a truncated understanding of the history of the most enriching and complex civilization. Krebs distinguishes an “authentic” West that is Greek, Faustian, and Indo-European from a “Judeo-Christian West that came after. But he condemns the West in its entirety once it became “Judeo-Christian.” And this argument is historically flawed, starting with the term “Judeo-Christian,” which is a recent invention reflecting trends that cannot be teleologically attributed to the ancient past. “Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights,” Hegel once wrote as he contemplated the history of Europe. Individualization, universalization, rationalization, and desacralization were inescapably connected to the rise of this civilization to world supremacy. They are part-expression of the tumultuous temperament and directional psyche of Europeans. You can’t condemn these world-historical processes without condemning Europeans as a people. These processes were not, historically for the longest time, and, therefore, in and of themselves, anti-White.

Pierre Krebs:

In the 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 which it purely and simply replaced with the vagabond and cosmopolitan institution of the parliament. (p. 18)

RD: Krebs is saying that the Greek polis which evolved gradually from the seventh century BC onward, a radically new form of governance based on laws, offices, and direct participation by members of the polis or city-state, in contrast to a form of rule based on the personal powers of a despot and his entourage, was not only a civic political community based on laws equally binding on all members, but was consciously grouped according to a shared sense of ethnic identity. The representative parliaments that emerged later were merely based on the civic identity of the members of the state, their shared political rights and responsibilities, which anyone regardless of ethnic identity could lay a claim to as long as he was or became a political member of the respective state.

I have heard this claim expressed in New Right circles, how Christians with their idea that we all have equal souls in the eyes of God were responsible for our current obsession with harmonizing all races inside the West, or how Romans with the granting of citizenship during the third century AD to inhabitants in the Empire of any race, started a new trans-racial concept of citizenship. My view is the opposite: racially conscious political communities were created only after the Enlightenment. Europeans were the first people in history to develop a science of race. Humans are ethnocentric by nature in showing a preference for their own linguistic, tribal, and ancestral groups, but this is not the same as being racially aware and having the intellectual wherewithal to articulate a rational argument about the existence of different races. Racial awareness began during the sixteenth century as Europeans were coming into contact with peoples in the Americas, Africa, and Asia with very different bodily attributes and customs. It was during the Enlightenment, however, that Europeans began to develop a scientific theory of race.

kampf.jpgThe same philosophers who announced that human nature was uniform everywhere, and united mankind as a subject capable of enlightenment, argued “in text after text . . . in the works of Hume, Diderot, Montesquieu, Kant, and many lesser lights” that men “are not uniform but are divided up into sexes, races, national characters . . . and many other categories,” so observes Aaron Garret in a book chapter titled “Human Nature” in The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-Century Philosophy [5] (2006). Eighteenth century talk about “human nature” and the “unity of mankind” was less a political program for a universal civilization than a scientific program for the study of man in a way that was systematic in intent and universal in scope. Enlightenment thinkers were not calling for the unity of humanity, the sameness of races, other than for a “federation of the peoples of Europe.” Garrett is stereotypically liberal and thus writes of “the eighteenth century’s dubious contributions to the discussion of race,” but what matters is that Enlightenment thinkers did engage in the scientific study of races in light of the evidence and the knowledge at the time. Most Enlightenment thinkers rejected polygenecism and asserted the fundamental (species) equality of humankind, but they also came to the conclusion that humanity was divided into different races with very different biological traits, behavioral dispositions and mental aptitudes.

One cannot speak of the suicide of Europeans in a racial way without the very “rationalism” Krebs condemns, which is presupposed in the scientific study of races. The Greeks were not yet rational in their understanding of races. Their concept of civic membership did presuppose membership of traditional kinship or tribal groupings, but it did not presuppose racial membership.The Greeks developed a Pan-Hellenic identity during the first century BC in the course of the Persian Wars (490-479 BC), but this was a cultural identity, easily fractured in the years ahead by the endemic wars between the city-states.

By contrast, in the nineteenth century, the age of full-blown individualization, universalization, and massification, the field of racial studies emerged, and it was in light of these studies that the United States, Australia, and Canada instituted in the twentieth century “white only” immigration policies. These policies were implemented in liberal democratic societies and accepted by the majority of citizens.

Pierre Krebs:

“[I]n 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 is in the process of attacking. Behind its multicultural alibi, Europe is invited to change its mentality — and so its skin — so that its lively identity may be silenced.” (p. 24)

Americans have been pushing multiculturalism and immigration in Europe for decades, and if the term “Western Civilization” is taken to mean that European nations should become as the US and Canada were in the 1960s, with multiple European ethnicities converging as members of one nation, then I am opposed to it. But the settler nations of America, Canada, and Australia (and New Zealand) are European creations and altogether they should be viewed as members of a Pan-European world we can conveniently label “Western Civilization” as a way of identifying common traits and common historical experiences in and outside Europe in North America and Australia, in contrast to that of other civilizations.

My book Uniqueness of Western Civilization emphasizes the roots of this civilization in the aristocratic culture of Indo-Europeans and the Faustian personality of Europeans. But it seems to me Krebs is making a mistake in assuming that the Faustian soul of the West was gradually eroded with the adoption of what he calls “the monster of Judaeo-Christianity” (p. 22). As I briefly argued in a prior essay [6], citing Spengler’s words:

Christianity, too, became a thoroughly Faustian moral ethic. “It was not Christianity that transformed Faustian man, but Faustian man who transformed Christianity — and he not only made it a new religion but also gave it a new moral direction.”

I will address in Part II Krebs’ erroneous understanding of Christianity. The point I like to make now is that the forces pushing for multiracialism inside the West are still imbued with a Faustian moral imperative, even as they seek to destroy this soul and are themselves already intermixed, in this late hour, with alien morals. The words cited about from Spengler come from Chapter X, “Soul-Image and Life-Feeling: Buddhism, Stoicism, Socialism.” I may write an essay exclusively on this magnificent chapter in the future. In it, Spengler specifically addresses the “morale” of Faustian man in the last stage of the West when it is about to exhaust itself, but before writing about this stage in particular, he notes that, for the Faustian morale in general,

everything is direction, claim to power, will to affect the distant. Here Luther is completely at one with Nietzsche, Popes with Darwinians, Socialists with Jesuits; for one and all, the beginning of morale is a claim to general and permanent validity. It is a necessity of the Faustian soul that this should be so. He who thinks or teaches “otherwise” is sinful, a backslider, a foe, and he is fought down without mercy. You “shall,” the State “shall,” society “shall — this form of morale is to us self-evident, it represents the only real meaning that we can attach to the word. (p. 341)

On the surface, or perhaps in a way that requires disentanglement, the socialists of Spengler’s day appeared to have rejected the Faustian aggressive will for overcoming all resistances when they spoke softly at conferences and at the ballot box about

the ideals of ‘welfare,’ ‘freedom,’ ‘humanity,’ the doctrine of the ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’.


[i]t is a shallow judgment, and one incapable of inwardly understanding history, that cannot distinguish the literary chatter of popular social-moralists and humanity-apostles from the deep ethical instincts of the West-European Civilization. (p. 351)

metapo.jpgKrebs has an inverted understanding of the Faustian soul. He grasps the aggressive moral certainty of globalists against the heterogeneity of cultures and ethnicities, but attributes this drive to Judeo-Christianity, mainly on the basis of its monotheism and egalitarian impulses, while picturing the Faustian morality of Europeans as if it were inherently inclined toward a life without directionality, repetitive cycles, co-existence with other morals in the world, ecological harmony, and polytheism. Krebs misreads the Faustian will to power of the West; he wants Europeans to “return” to their pre-Christian pagan past. But the problem is, first, that our Indo-European ancestors were a uniquely expansionary and directional people exhibiting a glorious expansive drive since prehistoric times across the Old World, spreading their “Kurgan [7]” lifestyle across Asia and Europe, leading eventually to a situation in which Indo-European languages are spoken today by almost 3 billion native speakers, the largest number of any language family. The problem is also that the immense creativity of the ancient Greeks, Romans, Catholics, Protestants, and Moderns I have written about in previous essays was driven by this Faustian energy — before and after Christianity.

We are facing an enemy — both the Neocon assimilationists and the Left multiculturalists –possessed by a Faustian morale (intermixed with alien demonic motifs) dedicated to the destruction of European ethnic identity “without mercy” and in complete conviction of its ideals. We should not be surprised by this. But just because the proponents of European ethnic dissolution are Faustian it does not follow that this is what the West was always (since the inception of Christianity) inclined to do. The Faustian soul has expressed itself in multiple, conflicting ways throughout history. Europeans have been the most bellicose people in human history. They almost self-destructed in two world wars. Many other alternative outlooks were defeated or unable to gather sufficient support. Now we have a huge conflict opening up. In the Western world “life means struggling, overcoming, winning through” (343), and waging a successful political war against the prevailing Faustian ethic can only be accomplished with a Faustian ethnocentric morale.

Pierre Krebs:

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.’ (p. 29)

The words cited by Krebs are from Julius Evola. Krebs sees how we are facing an ideology with which there can be no compromises, and yet he speaks of a “return to our pagan Indo-European tradition” without considering that this tradition welcomes the struggle for existence, overcoming limitations, mastering nature. Evola has a mythological understanding of European history, a preference for traditional cultures combined with an immense dislike for Western modernity. He writes of the “order of things” in traditional cultures without realizing that Faustian man refuses to be bounded by orders other than those he has subjected to rational investigation. I learned much from Evola’s Revolt Against the Modern World [8]; it offers fascinating ideas about the “higher world” of ancient cultures, how rulers, institutions, and laws were seen as divine in origin and how this divinity ensured spiritual stability with a clear sense of the proper ranking of classes and human activities, higher spiritual functions versus lower materialistic functions, giving purpose and meaning to life, uplifting everyone in the direction of the higher “invisible reality” and conferring a sacred dignity to leadership roles, rituals, and beliefs. His understanding of the meaning of “tradition” surpasses that of any sociologist.

But Evola is not a practical thinker in tune with the actualities of Western history, what is possible today in the modern world. Just as Spengler called for German conservatives to liberate themselves from Romantic, unrealistic goals based on “dead” programs, the New Right needs to accept and adapt to the realities of international finance, genetic engineering, and robotics. It must not let go of the Faustian ethos:

the Faustian technics, which with the full passion of the third dimension and, to sure, from the earliest days of the Gothic era thrusts itself upon Nature in order to hold sway over her (cited in Farrenkopf, p. 72).

Pierre Krebs:

. . . Judaeo-Christianity and its modern avatars, egalitarian democracy . . . and the mercantile ideologies of the Homo oeconomicus and all their variations. In fact, once the assumption that Europe and the West are synonymous, which was previously believed to be self-evident, has been turned on its head, the opposite idea becomes the rule: the West is then moved to the opposite pole as something absolutely alien, with the radical, exogenous character of a civilisation that must henceforth be perceived on the basis of the natural incompatibilities that separate it forever from the authentic European culture considered in all its aspects: ethnic, mental, and spiritual [ . . . ] Europe will be able to find itself, return to an obedience to its gods, purify the conscience of its being which has been adulterated for so long, and recreate in its liberated soul the vibrations of a forgotten transcendence and origin. (p. 39)

Homo oeconomicus was a unique creation of Europeans, authentic to them. Europeans were the first to develop a science of economics and to discover the laws behind the production and distribution of wealth. The first to separate analytically “economic man” and thereby understand the activities of this man without confounding these activities with religious and political motivations, and, in doing so, to apprehend the reality that a nation’s power is more efficiently sustained when a nation creates its own wealth through work rather that through conquest. This was another major step in redirecting the Faustian energies of European man into less destructive endeavors. This does not mean that one has to accept the principles of free market economics since there are other schools including the much neglected German school associated with the economics of Friedrich List’s National System of Political Economy (1841), which accepted the wealth-creating nature of capitalism based on the economic history and economic reality of nations.

The West is not alien to Europe but a creation of Europe’s incredible extension across the Atlantic in the modern era. Seeking a “return” to an “authentic” Europe of pagan gods, “transcendence and origin,” is Utopian. This Europe is nowhere to be found in the classical Greece Krebs cherishes. The ancient Greeks reinterpreted or limited the sphere of influence of their gods as they became self-conscious as distinctive personalities in possession of a faculty they called “mind” (in contradistinction to other bodily attributes and psychological drives) capable of self-grounding its own principles and criteria for truthful statements. The first step in the origins of self-awareness, or awareness of awareness, thinking about thinking, rather than thinking in terms of prescribed norms and mandated religious ordinances, came with the uniquely Indo-European fight to the death for the sake of pure prestige by aristocratic peers in the state of nature. I write about this in Chapter Eight of Uniqueness.

The liberation of Europe has to be grounded in its peculiar history rather than in some static “origin” disconnected from what came after.

Source: http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2014/09/the-european-new-right-and-its-animus.html [9]


Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/the-european-new-right-and-its-animus-against-western-civ/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MichaelandDragon.jpg

[2] Why We Fight: http://www.arktos.com/guillaume-faye-why-we-fight.html

[3] Fighting for the Essence, Western Ethnosuicide or European Renaissance?: http://www.arktos.com/pierre-krebs-fighting-for-the-essence.html

[4] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/PierreKrebs.jpg

[5] The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-Century Philosophy: http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-History-Eighteenth-Century-Philosophy-Haakonssen/dp/0521418542

[6] prior essay: http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2014/09/oswald-spengler-and-faustian-soul-of_4.html

[7] Kurgan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis

[8] Revolt Against the Modern World: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Revolt_Against_the_Modern_World

[9] http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2014/09/the-european-new-right-and-its-animus.html: http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2014/09/the-european-new-right-and-its-animus.html

mercredi, 27 mars 2013

P. Krebs: l'avènement de l'ethno-socialisme

L'avènement de l'ethno-socialisme


Dr. Pierre Krebs

Genève, 20 Janvier, 2013

Ex: http://fierteseuropeennes.hautetfort.com/ 


meunierdsc03910.jpgQuand la vérité n’est pas libre, la liberté n’est pas vraie, disait Jacques Prévert. Et il clignait de l’œil. Mais notre peuple à qui on a désappris les valeurs essentielles de la vérité et les règles élémentaires de la liberté ne comprend même plus les clins d’oeil et il se laisse hacher menu, chaque matin, dans la machine-à-mentir du Système quand il ne se couche pas à plat ventre, le visage dans la poussière, devant les idoles en matière plastique de Mammon.

Que faire alors? interroge l’homme révolté.

Et le sage de lui répondre : Traque le mensonge et laisse éclater la vérité sur la place publique! – Fort bien. Seulement, lorsque la vérité a été dite et les mensonges oubliés, il reste encore les menteurs, rétorque l’homme révolté.

Mais l’homme sage se tait. Le rebelle, alors, de lui dire : Écrase l’échine des pleutres de tes bottes et marche droit quand tous se couchent! – Excellente idée. Mais la rébellion d’un desperado ne transforme pas pour autant les lâches en héros, ni une société de cloportes en un peuple brave et fier ni une capitulation en victoire, riposte l’homme révolté!

Mais le rebelle se tait. Le révolutionnaire, alors, prend la parole : Ne perds pas de temps à traquer le mensonge. Laisse les cloportes pourrir dans les poubelles de leur destin. Crée un ordre hiérarchisé de cadres. Délimite les buts. Mets les idées et les valeurs au-dessus des hommes. Pose les jalons de la nouvelle époque!


Révolution! Le mot est lâché. Il résonne du cliquetis des armes et de l’entrechoc des idées, les idées qui sont au monde ce que la musique est à l’orchestre. Les révolutions, qui sont les forceps de l’histoire, accouchent, elles, les idées. Leur dénouement n’est jamais que l’aboutissement d’une longue période préparatoire, rebelle par nature au dilettantisme.

De fait : une révolution ne s’improvise pas.

Les révolutionnaires sont des gens sérieux, rigoureux, conséquents et disciplinés. Les charlots finissent vite dans les poubelles! Car une révolution, "il faut la gagner! Une révolution ne se fait qu’une seule fois" prévient Moeller van den Bruck. Le révolutionnaire, préfiguration de l’homme nouveau, a effacé en lui-même tous les stigmates de l’homme ancien.

Il réunit la foi du missionnaire, semeur d’idées et le pragmatisme de l’homme d’action, qui les applique. Son parcours est difficile, laborieux, périlleux. Aucune pression ne peut le faire plier, aucune intrigue le diviser, aucun opportunisme ne peut lui faire changer de cap. Pour l’unique raison qu’il ne cesse, un seul instant, de croire à l’unité incorruptible de sa communauté, à la force rédemptrice de ses idées et à leur accomplissement dans la révolution!


Quant à nous, ce n’est ni à Rome, ni à Berlin, et encore moins à Moscou que ce cheminement a commencé, mais sous le soleil torride de l’Algérie enfiévrée et ensanglantée des années 50.

C’est en effet dans le chaudron de la passionaria algérienne, rempli à ras bord d’une mixture explosive s’il en fut, brassage innommable d’espérances trahies et de trahisons décorées, de courage inutile et de lâchetés récompensées, de fidélités trompées et d’injustices impunies que devaient poindre les premiers ébats d’un révolte immature, prise au piège de sa passion, si latine et de sa jactance, si méditerranéenne. L’arbre de l’utopie coloniale lui cachait encore toute la forêt de la logique racialiste que Terre et Peuple a résumée dans un slogan qui claque aux vents de l’évidence sa vérité tellement simple : À chaque peuple, sa terre !

ABC du droit des peuples, ABC du respect envers le peuples, ABC de la paix entre les peuples.  


Ces rebelles étaient sans le savoir des révoltés d’arrière-garde qui se battaient pour une cause sans avenir parce qu’il manquait à la revendication du sol la légitimité supérieure : le droit du sang. Et cependant : ces révoltés de l’Algérie française, victorieux sur le terrain mais défaits par la politique, ignoraient encore que ce traumatisme les aiderait à transformer une défaite passagère en victoire intérieure, celle-là capitale pour l’avenir.

Les plus intelligents, rescapés du Front Nationaliste, allaient en effet passer sans transition à une vitesse supérieure de la réflexion. Un manuel de réflexion, Pour une Critique Positive, pose dès 1964 les bases de la théorie et de l’action pré-révolutionnaires. Ce sera le Que faire? Des Nationalistes. Une analyse sévère et précise des causes de l’échec algérien, la mise à nu des tares de l’opposition nationale, la dissection du mécanisme des événements et des rouages de la société métamorphose d’un coup les motifs d’une révolte contre un régime en principes d’action contre un Système. C’est le premier cocon révolutionnaire. 

Dans l’approche qu’elle porte sur les événements, les idées et les hommes, la critique positive applique le paramètre du réalisme biologique entrevu à la dimension du monde blanc, autrement dit de la conscience raciale. Ce nouveau paramètre qui transcende dorénavant toute la démarche critique, bouleverse les frontières nationales arbitraires qu’il replace sur leurs lignes de front naturelles : celles du sang, deuxième cocon révolutionnaire.

Le réalisme biologique détient en effet la clé déterminante qui permet de saisir et de comprendre tous les points d’appui idéologiques du puzzle religieux, culturel et politique du Système, ses tenants et aboutissants. La conscience révolutionnaire identitaire européenne vient d’éclore, troisième cocon révolutionnaire.

La théorie a désormais trouvé ses assises. Merci Dominique Venner!


Le sacrifice aura été lourd : une défaite, des victimes et des tragédies par milliers, des condamnations, des remises en question et des revirements doctrinaux radicaux. Mais la métamorphose est un succès : les rebelles désordonnés, parfois burlesques d’une Algérie française désormais incompatible avec les nouveaux axiomes, ont mué en révolutionnaires d’avant-garde, en une élite capable de juger et d’expliquer les événements parce que maître d’une doctrine de la connaissance, c’est-à-dire maître d’une vue-du-monde.

Et c’est cela, désormais, qui comptera.


C’est à cette époque que beaucoup parmi nous sont entrés dans le combat révolutionnaire, comme d'autres, il faut bien le dire, entrent dans un ordre. La foi en la révolution, la vision d’un monde nouveau, la certitude d’incarner une idée juste et nécessaire devenaient le moteur de tout ce à quoi, désormais, nous aspirions : abattre dès que possible un Système qui condamne l’idéal européen d’un type humain supérieur qui voue les masses ahuries au culte suicidaire du métissage, qui déclare hors-la-loi les valeurs les plus élémentaires de l’esprit européen classique : le culte des valeurs viriles, le courage, le goût du risque, l’esprit de discipline et de maîtrise de soi, la loyauté, la fidélité au serment, la soumission au devoir, la noblesse du travail, le mépris du lucre.

Rongée par les métastases du Système l’Europe a dégringolé, en un temps record, les marches de l’Olympe et elle n’en finit plus de végéter dans quelques sous-sols Monoprix de la société marchande, tandis que les grands mythes conducteurs de notre culture s’évanouissent dans la mémoire des nouvelles générations à proportion égale des ahurissements multiformes qui les broient, à l’âge judéo-américain qui a troqué Périclès, Faust ou Mozart contre les pitres shootés du show-business, les zombies en matière plastique repeints en blanc à la Michael Jackson. Puis, au fil du temps, la notion de Révolution s’est encore métamorphosée dans une idée enchanteresse, un peu comme si Merlin l’avait enfouie dans quelque tréfonds de notre conscience, aussi insaisissable et aussi mystérieuse qu'un archétype, à cheval sur la prise de conscience intolérable d'une réalité humaine, politique, sociale, culturelle de plus en plus abjecte – et une vision du monde qui nous emplit, comme un empire intérieur, nous guide et nous oriente à travers les déchets biologiques d’une société moribonde effondrée au milieu de ses ruines que l’on évalue à leur pesant de surconsumérisme adipeux, d’individualisme termitophile, de couardise épidermique, de soumission mécanique, de bêtise cultivée, à force de pousser les ténèbres dans les catacombes d'une Europe qui s'éloigne à pas de métis de son sang, de son esprit et de ses dieux.


La révolution, ironise Dominique Venner, n’est ni un bal costumé ni un exutoire pour mythomanes. Depuis maintenant un demi-siècle que nous ruminons ce mot, nous avons appris à mesurer l’importance qu’il faut donner aux idées, l’efficacité qu’il faut donner à l’organisation et le sérieux qu’il faut consacrer à la tactique et à la stratégie, toutes choses déjà écrites dans Critique Positive, plus actuelle que jamais depuis que des nationaux de carton à la Poujade ou de plastique à la Le Pen n’ont cessé d’illustrer et de confirmer les tares de ce qu’il faut bien appeler la maladie infantile du nationalisme. Mais Révolution n’est encore que le prénom de la révolution identitaire encore à l’affût de l’étincelle qui fera s’embraser le volcan.

L’Action Européenne veut être précisément la synergie des ateliers révolutionnaires pour nous équiper de concepts et d’idées qui sont à la Résistance ce que les munitions sont aux armes, pour mieux organiser les moyens de la Résistance, pour mieux renforcer l’efficacité de cette Résistance. Elle veut rassembler tous ceux qui savent que si la nation s’est transformée en fonds de boutique ou en bazar d’Anatolie, l’âme du peuple, son histoire, sa conscience, sa pensée, continuent de palpiter, de battre, de vivre dans l’âme, dans la conscience et dans la volonté de celles et de ceux qui en sont devenus les gardiens et les éveilleurs!


Nous sommes mes amis les éveilleurs de l’âme de notre race et les gardiens de son sang! A ceux qui l'auraient peut-être oublié, rappelons-le : nous sommes en guerre!

Une guerre à mort, la guerre du globalisme contre les Peuples, la guerre de l’arbitraire contre le droit, la guerre du nomadisme contre l'enracinement, la guerre de l'or et de la marchandise contre le Sang et le Sol, la guerre des planétariens contre les identitaires. La même guerre, deux fois millénaire, qui commença entre Athènes et Jérusalem et qui se poursuit avec des moyens autrement efficaces et décuplés entre une Jerusalem washingtonisée et une Athènes élargie au monde blanc tout entier.

Une guerre de tous les instants, de tous les lieux, de tous les pays qui soumet nos peuples au harcèlement permanent d'un ennemi pluriforme qui parle toutes les langues et porte toutes les peaux, qui colporte tous les mensonges, même les plus invraisemblables, qui s’adonne à toutes les perfidies, même les plus inimaginables, et qui mène, d'un bout à l'autre du globe, la guerre la plus dangereuse, la plus barbare, la plus totale que de mémoire d’homme on n’ait jamais connue.

Une guerre qui laisse abdiquer la raison des plus faibles, fait vaciller leurs consciences, endort leurs instincts, leur fait oublier les racines, empoisonne leurs organismes.

Guerre politique, par le biais des gouvernements au pouvoir et des partis à la laisse du pouvoir ; guerre juridique, par le biais de magistrats métamorphosés en inquisiteurs ; guerre répressive, par le vote de lois de plus en plus arbitraires ; guerre professionnelle, par le biais des dénonciations qui mettent en péril les salaires ; guerre publicitaire généralisée qui fait la promotion du métissage à tous les degrés et à tous les endroits, sur l'affiche du métro comme dans la salle d'attente de la gare, dans le catalogue de la Redoute ou le prospectus du supermarché, le commentaire du musée ou la lettre pastorale du village ; guerre nutritionnelle et énergétique, que mènent des sociétés criminelles à la Monsanto, qui pillent les ressources pour imposer des aliments manipulés ; guerre médiatique de la presse écrite, parlée, télévisée ; guerre culturelle, par le biais du cinéma, du théâtre, de la peinture, de l'architecture ou des arts en général, lesquels ne sont plus valorisés pour leur qualité intrinsèque mais admis ou refusés selon qu'ils sont ou non "politiquement corrects" ; guerre pédagogique, qui soumet les enfants au pilonnage des éducateurs du Système ; je vous ferai grâce du sermon du dimanche auquel, vous avez, j’espère, militants identitaires, le privilège insigne d'échapper!


1. La révolution identitaire – son nom l’indique – sera d’abord une révolution du Sang et du Sol. Le Sang est l'alpha de la vie d'un Peuple et de sa culture mais il peut devenu aussi l'omega de sa dégénérescence et de sa mort si le peuple ne respecte plus les lois naturelles de son homogénéité. Le sol est le corps spatial du Sang dont il importe de circonscrire les frontières et d'assurer la protection. L’éthologue de pointe Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt le dit clairement : les ethnies obéissent, pour se développer et pour survivre, à des mécanismes d’auto-protection identitaire et territoriale qui sont le moteur de l’évolution. La révolution identitaire sera une révolution ethnopolitique qui bouleversera les données habituelles de la géopolitique. Car nous sommes conscients d'appartenir au même phylum génétique, quelles que soient ses variantes germaniques, celtiques, grecques, romaines ou slaves. Eibl-Eibesfeldt est là aussi catégorique : la population européenne est encore, aux plan biologique et anthropologique, homogène et parfaitement bien caractérisée.


2. La révolution identitaire sera une révolution religieuse, parce que fidèle à la plus longue mémoire indo-européenne, et culturelle, parce que organique et enracinée par opposition à la civilisation planétaire égalitariste américano-occidentale, civilisation cosmopolite du capitalisme apatride et sauvage, de l’économie et du matérialisme érigés en valeur absolue. Une civilisation qui a décrété, ignominie suprême, par un retournement spectaculaire des valeurs européennes, que le destin des hommes, dorénavant, serait assujetti à celui des marchands!


3. La révolution identitaire sera une révolution écologique qui mettra fin au mythe mortifère de la croissance continue qui fait courir le monde à la catastrophe et qui est, pour reprendre une phrase de Gustave Thibon le propre des chutes plus que des ascensions. Favorable à la théorie de la décroissance, elle s’emploiera à mettre un frein radical aussi bien à la surconsommation absurde qu’au néo-barbarisme de l’exploitation inconsidérée qui saccagent et polluent l’environnement, épuisent les ressources, menacent la santé. L’environnement n’est pas seulement un espace de vie, l’environnement donne un sens à notre vie. Il est à notre corps, à notre esprit et à notre âme ce que sont les arbres pour la forêt.


4. La révolution identitaire sera une révolution économique : nous sommes tous conscients que le capitalisme apatride et marchand est une des têtes du Mal absolu. Il faut trancher impérativement cette tête monstrueuse si l’on veut rendre justice aux hommes et à la terre. Nous déclarons la guerre à l'évangile du Profit et nous condamnons le veau d'Or à l'abattage. Le socialisme "qui est pour nous l'enracinement, la hiérarchie, l'organisation" commence, là où finit le marxisme, constatait Moeller van den Bruck. Pour ajouter qu’il "ne peut être compris qu’en se plaçant à un point de vue juif. Ce n’est pas par hasard que tous les traits de Marx sont mosaïques, macchabéiques, talmudique". Le libéralisme qui "a miné les civilisations, détruit les religions, ruiné des patries" a pris la relève du marxisme. Le cosmopolitisme continue l'internationale, les technocrates ont pris la place des bureaucrates et ce sont, encore et toujours, les mêmes lobbies macchabéiques qui continuent d’exploiter la planète et d’assujettir les peuples. La révolution identitaire saura s’inspirer du socialisme français dans la tradition de Proudhon et de Sorel et du socialisme allemand organique. Ce socialisme identitaire, sera, mes amis, le principe du nouvel Empire européen, fondé sur une définition de l’homme dans laquelle l’éthique de l’honneur, le courage, l’énergie, la loyauté, le civisme retrouveront les rôles naturels qu’ils ont perdus. Le socialisme identitaire, au service exclusif de la Communauté du Peuple, sera consubstantiel de l'économie organique, elle-même conçue comme un organisme vivant et hiérarchisé, soumis à la volonté du Politique. Voilà pourquoi notre révolution sera une révolution ethno-socialiste! C’est à Pierre Vial que nous devons cette définition.


Je décèle dans l’immédiat 3 priorités majeures :


1. La création d’une Académie Identitaire.

2. La coordination d’actions communes dans tous les pays où notre mouvance a pris pied. Eugène Krampon propose aussi la création d’un Komintern identitaire.

3. Pour être opératifs demain, il est impératif que les Lois du nouvel État soient déjà formulées. Des spécialistes du Droit Constitutionnel peuvent déjà formuler les axiomes et les lois du nouveau Droit identitaire. Y compris les chefs d’accusation qui permettraient d’assigner devant les nouveaux tribunaux les apprentis sorciers du métissage organisé.


Sachons être donc la minorité agissante qui a compris, comme le disait Maurice Bardèche, que "cette tâche immense nécessite un vaste outil de travail de préparation et de formation", qui a su forger une conscience révolutionnaire, qui sait que "rien ne sera fait tant que les germes du régime ne seront pas extirpés jusqu’à la dernière racine", tant que l’on n’aura pas expliqué "au peuple combien on l’a trompé", et comment on le mène sur le bûcher de son éradication raciale ; la minorité agissante "pénétrée d’une nouvelle conception du monde", maîtresse d’une doctrine claire qui réussit à convaincre les plus incrédules par "sa mystique, son exemple, sa sincérité", qui enseigne "un ordre politique fondé sur la hiérarchie du mérite et de la valeur et qui apporte une solution universelle aux problèmes posés à l’homme par la révolution technique" (critique positive).

Devenons pour cela les nouveaux corps francs de la Révolution, soyons les éveilleurs de notre peuple, forgé par le même sang, soudé dans la même volonté, uni autour du même destin! Le défi est immense, certes, à la limite de la raison, mais qu’importe, mes amis, car c’est de cette folie que la sagesse accouche, c’est de cette volonté que la vie se garde et c’est de ce désespoir que rejaillit l’espérance!


À condition de le savoir, à condition d’y croire, à condition de le vouloir.


Aussi : debout mes frères,

il faut agir, aujourd’hui si nous voulons,

demain, la victoire de la Reconquista !


>>> http://www.europaeische-aktion.org/Artikel/fr/Lavenement-...

jeudi, 08 mars 2012

Europe vs. the West

Europe vs. the West

Posted By F. Roger Devlin

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

Pierre Krebs
Fighting for the Essence: Western Ethnosuicide or European Renaissance?
London: Arktos Media, 2012

This newest 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 translation 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, of course, 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 not only than I can give here but 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, of course, 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.

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/02/europe-vs-the-west/

00:05 Publié dans Livre, Nouvelle Droite | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : livre, nouvelle droite, pierre krebs | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook