In a recent editorial, New Right philosopher Guillaume Faye wrote of the need for a political order for youth to demand as a replacement for aged, calcified and dysfunctional Leftism.
His overall point is solid. Some aspects of his vision could use elaboration, and this post serves as a stimulus to that deeper uncovering. In particular, it becomes essential to identify both the methods used by the adversary and the principles we have that contrast it.
It is therefore imperative for us to engage in a simultaneous fight against Americanisation, ethnic colonisation, and Islam.
We might get more specific: what do all three of these have in common? Ethnic colonization and Islam are parts of the diversity initiative in the West which has emerged out of the Leftist desire to implant equality in our societies by destroying any values held by the population that are large than the individual: church, heritage, culture, family, language, values and customs.
Americanization on the other hand needs more inspection. At the surface, it is the presence of NATO and American military interests in Europe, which only make sense if one assumes that past enemies have totally given up their desire for domination despite the fact that it would make their own military and political interests more stable and lucrative.
Looking further, however, Americanization is the gradual takeover of European national cultures by an internationalist culture which seeks to further promote that diversity agenda. American military outreach, paternalistic during the Cold War, now seems to represent American political and economic interests instead — or at the expense — of Europe’s. In other words, “Americanization” is nothing more than one facet of globalism.
If we look into globalism, we see that its core idea is internationalism, or the French Revolutionary notion of extending equality past national borders in order to obliterate class distinctions and unify the proletariat of the world. Globalism makes itself work through commerce, but its actual goal is the unification of political systems through common economic goals and standards, so that equality can spread like a virus.
At this point, we know our enemy in all cases of diversity, Islam and Americanization: equality, and its champions, the Left.
The framework of French nationalism is insufficient, both because the very concept is exclusively political and because millions of aliens are already legally French.
Here it becomes essential to separate the nation-state from the nation. Nation states are “proposition nations,” or groups unified by political and economic concerns. Nations, on the other hand, are groups unified by common heritage and culture. Perhaps instead we should recapture the term “nation” from those who use it to mean nation-state, and in so doing explicitly reject the proposition nation.
For this reason, “legally French” is not a designation of being French, and the French can have nationalism for themselves while also defending the right of exclusion for all European-descended peoples worldwide. Right of exclusion is a basic property right and allows an individual or group to prevent others from entering, even if they are already there.
What we must maintain, rather, is that within a single political unit, a single nation, differences can only be minimal, and do not constitute a â€˜rightâ€™ in any way. Such differences must be completely subordinate to the principle of homogeneity, which preserves the unity of the whole, and which could only be conceived if secondary to the principle of hierarchy, always yielding to the central notion of belonging. The mandatory rule is that the duty to belong must prevail over the right to be different.
Here Faye hits on a point which needs further elaboration. Rights are a reflection of equality when vested solely in the individual; when granted to populations, they cease to become one-way rights such as the type that are popular in democratic systems, and instead become a form of role, place or function. Like an ecosystem, the healthy nation is not composed of equals doing the same thing at once in the democratic ideal, but of varied individuals doing what fits each in terms of ability and inclination.
For this reason, “rights” must be redefined and moved from the individual to the group, with the idea of duty — role — taking a forefront over defensive rights, or legal objections that individuals can raise in response to obligations imposed on them by social order.
He elaborates somewhat later:
Freedom must be balanced by effort and discipline, resulting in equilibristics. We are expected to figure out how to reconcile our freedom of thought with disciplined behaviour. Freedom of action, both in the case of our public authorities and that of our civil society, must end the moment it jeopardises the fate of our People.
Why not, as with rights, do away with or redefine the nature of “freedom”? Freedom is one of those words which only makes sense with an object, i.e. freedom from something. The only way it can be applied in a social context is in the same way that “rights” are, namely giving equal individuals a defense against having to fulfill obligations to society. Freedom is the opposite of duty.
His interesting concept here is “equilibristics.” This suggests that instead of singular categorical judgments, all assessments be made on terms of a balance, such that one cannot have “rights” but only “rights-with-duties.” At that point, however, we have moved into what was traditionally referred to as role, and with it came privileges, which emphasizes the nature that these, unlike rights, are not absolute.
Initially, humanitarianism (the modern version of charity) was inspired by a righteous sentiment, defined as the opposite of bourgeois egoism: finding oneâ€™s fulfilment in helping others. But in line with the constant failure of the European spirit, and under the influence of European Christianity, things have been pushed too far.
We can unravel this one further: altruism is an offshoot of equality, because when everyone is equal, the only way to gain power is to form a mob of equals willing to think well of you for symbolic acts. Symbolism is the root of altruism; where charity is silent and private, altruism is public and designed to make a single event represent the whole of behavior, which is only advantageous if there is behavior to hide.
He understands well the end result of a population trained in symbolic, appearance-driven behavior…
Due to a mixture of cowardice and conformity, the electorate, even when confronted with the evidence, has not massively rallied in support of those who have sounded the alarm.
Individualism means that nothing bigger than the individual is worth fighting for. That means that no risk to the individual is acceptable, except for individual gains. This attitude will corrupt any political outlook or system by replacing its goals with those of convenient, wealth and pleasant illusions — including moral pretense and “virtue signaling” — for the individual.
This is why the Alt Right has added to the New Right canon which talented writers like Faye have painstakingly built: democracy is a dead letter. Equality is the kiss of death. Diversity is genocide. Only the nation — the ethno-state — is legitimate. Everything else comes from the poisoned fruit of The Enlightenment,™ and will destroy us at any dose, no matter how small.