Citater: Fascister i fåreklæder

Engelske oversættelser: Fascister i fåreklæder?

Dette er de engelske oversættelser, som er blevet oversat til dansk i bogen Fascister i Fåreklæder? I parentesen angives citatets placering i bogen.


”In cer­tain instances, sui­cide seems to grant a sort of ennobling grace in the sense that a vol­un­tary death is charged with mean­ing in a way that a nat­ur­al or acci­den­tal death is not”. (s. 18)

“A Lenin was need­ed to extract a clear body of doc­trine and to trans­form this enor­mous hotch­potch into an effec­tive weapon of polit­i­cal war”. (s. 25)

“It is always pos­si­ble to act, it is less easy to suc­ceed. This is even more so in a rev­o­lu­tion­ary strug­gle, a fight to the death against an all-pow­er­ful, cun­ning, and expe­ri­enced ene­my, which one must fight more by ideas and shrewd­ness than by force” (s. 25)

”I loved the elec­tric atmos­phere of the demon­stra­tions, the move­ments of the crowd, the way in which slo­gans and cries spread, the con­fronta­tions with the police, the smell of tear­gas”. (s. 26)

“Already on the inter­na­tion­al lev­el the major con­tra­dic­tion is no longer between Right and Left, lib­er­al­ism and social­ism, fas­cism and com­mu­nism, ‘total­i­tar­i­an­ism’ and ‘democ­ra­cy’. It is between those who want the world to be one-dimen­sion­al and those who sup­port a plur­al world ground­ed in the diver­si­ty of cul­tures”. (s. 30)

“If our com­mu­ni­tar­i­ans real­ly want to defend the cause des peu­ples, they might start with Euro­peans, who are now under assault by the demo­graph­ic, migra­to­ry, and cul­tur­al forces of an over­pop­u­lat­ed Third World. In face of such threats, you won’t find me sniv­el­ling like a priest or flee­ing like an intel­lec­tu­al to the ‘Other’s’ cause: ‘Our­selves alone’ will suf­fice”. (s. 35–36)

”And let us add that the small Arab shop­keep­er con­tributes more to main­tain, in a con­vivial way, the French iden­ti­ty than the Amer­i­canomor­phic park of attrac­tions or the ”shop­ping cen­ter” of a very French cap­i­tal”. (s. 36)

“Every­where in the West there pre­vails the unfound­ed belief that there’s a dif­fer­ence between Islam and ‘Islamism,’ and that a West­ern, sec­u­lar­ized, that is, mod­er­ate, Islam is pos­si­ble. There’s no such thing. Every Mus­lim is poten­tial­ly a jihadist”. (s. 37)

“As an eth­nic group, a peo­ple can super­fi­cial­ly adopt the civil­i­sa­tion of anoth­er group, but it can nev­er be inte­grat­ed into the cul­ture, since the lat­ter ulti­mate­ly rests on a hered­i­tary or bio­log­i­cal dis­po­si­tion (…) Cul­ture is the basis of civil­i­sa­tions, but cul­ture also rests on a peo­ple’s genet­ic capac­i­ty – that is, on its bio-anthro­po­log­i­cal sub­stra­ta, its ger­men”. (s. 38)

“More than ‘immi­gra­tion’, we need to speak of mass coloni­sa­tion by African, Islam is seek­ing to con­quer is the first step toward eth­nic civ­il war; that the inva­sion is as much about mater­ni­ty wards as it is about porous bor­ders; that, for demo­graph­ic rea­sons, Islam­ic pow­er is threat­en­ing to install itself in France, first at the munic­i­pal, then, per­haps, at the nation­al lev­el. (s. 38)

“For the cul­tur­al trans­mis­sion of a tra­di­tion and the con­tin­u­a­tion of a civil­i­sa­tion are impos­si­ble with­out main­tain­ing its bio­log­i­cal core, its orig­i­nal stock (…) If a cul­ture is lost, recov­ery is pos­si­ble. When the bio­log­i­cal ger­men is destroyed, noth­ing is pos­si­ble”. (s. 38)

“Man is a ter­ri­to­r­i­al ani­mal – one who defends his land or con­quers anoth­er (…) Com­pe­ti­tion, or the strug­gle for life, con­sti­tutes the prin­ci­pal motor force of evo­lu­tion in every­thing from bac­te­ria to humans, as well as his­to­ry (…) The ene­my is nev­er wrong, if he wins. A ‘supe­ri­or peo­ple’, a ‘supe­ri­or indi­vid­ual’, a ‘supe­ri­or group’ (whether mil­i­tary, eco­nom­ic, reli­gious, etc.) oper­ates not with abstract, onto­log­i­cal prin­ci­ples, but on the basis of the con­crete results that come from com­pe­ti­tion. This is the case for all liv­ing things. One is nev­er ‘intrin­si­cal­ly supe­ri­or’ to oth­ers. One is supe­ri­or only in suc­cess­ful­ly achiev­ing suprema­cy. It’s the law of the strongest, the most capa­ble, the most flex­i­ble that always dom­i­nates. Vae Vic­tis, death to the van­quished, such is the law of life; there has nev­er been born a philoso­pher who could prove oth­er­wise”.  (s. 39)

”Real spir­i­tu­al­i­ty, though, is pos­si­ble only in com­bat (…) As Sartre (who rarely under­stood the mea­sure of his words) once naive­ly observed, it is in adver­si­ty, in the urgency of bat­tle and war, that joy is born” (s. 39)

“On the oth­er hand, as fore­told by philoso­pher Ray­mond Ruy­er – some­one hat­ed by Left­ist intel­lec­tu­als – in his sem­i­nal works Les nui­sances idéologiques and Les cents prochains siè­cles, when the his­tor­i­cal peri­od of the Nine­teenth and Twen­ti­eth cen­turies will have come to a close, and its egal­i­tar­i­an hal­lu­ci­na­tions will have been sunk by cat­a­stro­phe, human­i­ty will revert to its archa­ic val­ues, which are pure­ly bio­log­i­cal and human (i.e. Anthro­po­log­i­cal): the sep­a­ra­tion of gen­der roles; the trans­mis­sion of eth­nic and folk tra­di­tions, spir­i­tu­al­i­ty and priest­ly organ­i­sa­tion; vis­i­ble and struc­tur­ing social hier­ar­chies; the wor­ship of ances­tors; rites and tests of ini­ti­a­tion; the re-estab­lish­ment of organ­ic com­mu­ni­ties (from fam­i­ly to the folk); the de-indi­vid­u­al­i­sa­tion of mar­riage (unions must be the con­cern of the whole com­mu­ni­ty and not mere­ly of the mar­ried cou­ple); and end of the con­fu­sion between eroti­cism and con­ju­gal­i­ty; the pres­tige of the war­rior caste; inequal­i­ty among social sta­tus­es (…)”. (s. 39)

“Men­tal AIDS is an infec­tion of a psy­cho­log­i­cal nature that affects vir­tu­al­ly all the ‘elites’ – the polit­i­cal class, the media class, show busi­ness, the ‘cul­tur­al’ com­mu­ni­ty, ‘artists’, film­mak­ers – inclin­ing them to oppose the inter­ests of their own peo­ple (…)” (s. 40)

“With bio­log­i­cal AIDS, T4 lym­pho­cytes, which are sup­posed to defend the organ­ism, fail to react to the HIV virus as a threat, and instead treat it as a ‘friend’, help­ing it in this way to repro­duce. The same holds true for men­tal AIDS (…) Men­tal AIDS con­fus­es, in effect, the ene­my with the friend”. (s. 40)

”To speak col­lo­qui­al­ly, men have become pussies” (s. 41)

“I am will­ing to bet that the year 2050 will resem­ble the year 500 much more than any­thing we believe we have been promised”. (s. 42)

“How can we not rejoice, how­ev­er, at the end of a world that is detestable on the eth­i­cal lev­el and erod­ed by its own con­tempt for life? (…) The end of the world is good news, even if it will occur soon with dis­tress and suf­fer­ing (…) The future is thrilling because it is cat­a­stroph­ic”. (s. 42)

“The soci­ety we know can’t be fixed, the sys­tem can’t be saved. This is the illu­sion of every con­ser­v­a­tive ten­den­cy. The sole solu­tion to the present sit­u­a­tion will come from chaos – from civ­il war, eco­nom­ic depres­sion, etc. – that over­throws estab­lished men­tal­i­ties and makes accept­able and indis­pens­able that which was pre­vi­ous­ly unimag­in­able. Only in sit­u­a­tions of chaos are the giv­en vari­ables changed and does it become pos­si­ble to estab­lish anoth­er order – the post-chaos. Only in cri­sis, then, will a solu­tion be found. To con­struct a new home, it’s first nec­es­sary that the old one col­laps­es. It’s not a pes­simist but a real­ist who sees this (…) It’s only when their backs are against the wall, faced with an unavoid­able emer­gency, that peo­ple find solu­tions that in oth­er times are unthink­able”. (s. 42)

“We are stand­ing face to face with the bar­bar­ians. The ene­my is no longer out­side but inside the City and the rul­ing ide­ol­o­gy, paral­ysed, is inca­pable of spot­ting him (…) By con­trast, the sit­u­a­tion our forces find them­selves in with respect to the sys­tem is sim­i­lar to that which exist­ed in the 1930s: no point of agree­ment is pos­si­ble (except on the part of the poten­tial trai­tors of the par­lia­men­tary Right, which form a rather sig­nif­i­cant por­tion of the rul­ing class): the only strat­e­gy is all-out war. In adopt­ing a rev­o­lu­tion­ary stance, aimed at the over­throw­ing of a civil­i­sa­tion, we must be ready to face total war – a fight with­out quar­ter”. (s. 43)

”Euro­peans need to form a land army, made up of native Euro­peans and ade­quate to fight­ing a pos­si­ble reli­gious-eth­nic civ­il war (…) Fifth imper­a­tive: in the long term, the birth of a rev­o­lu­tion­ary Euro­pean-iden­ti­tar­i­an par­ty is indis­pens­able. It needs to be pre­pared” (s. 43)

“The three pil­lars of an ide­ol­o­gy and project of Euro­pean uni­ty are (1) awak­en­ing an eth­nic con­scious­ness that makes defend­ing our com­mon bio­log­i­cal her­itage, our race, the top pri­or­i­ty; (2) the regen­er­a­tion of ances­tral val­ues, the for­get­ting of which is the main cause of today’s tragedies; and (3) the cre­ative asser­tion of an all-inclu­sive and rev­o­lu­tion­ary Euro­pean polit­i­cal doc­trine”.  (s. 43)

“It is a mat­ter of being ready and pow­er­ful for that day when the hur­ri­cane comes, the hur­ri­cane which is our only chance, our only lever to move the world”.

“We have to pre­pare our­selves for the com­ing tem­pest, to hard­en our­selves – for the sake of attack­ing, like a cobra, quick­ly and deci­sive­ly, once the moment of oppor­tu­ni­ty strikes. In antic­i­pat­ing this moment, we need now to start arm­ing our­selves – men­tal­ly and phys­i­cal­ly – we need to recruit, to pros­e­ly­tise, to edu­cate, to organ­ise in net­works of sol­i­dar­i­ty and action”. (s. 44)

“But some­thing even more seri­ous hap­pened: because of the trau­mas they expe­ri­enced and the rad­i­cal changes in their out­look, all the descen­dants of the great waves of extra-Euro­pean immi­gra­tion that had hit west­ern Europe, in par­tic­u­lar since the 1960s, were unfor­tu­nate­ly… well, deport­ed. We are talk­ing here of sev­er­al tens of mil­lions of peo­ple. You can well imag­ine how this oper­a­tion car­ried out by the ”Euro­pean Lib­er­a­tion Army” was no gen­tle busi­ness… This is what the his­to­ri­ans call the ”Recon­quista” (…) there were no mas­sacres. These root­less peo­ple with­out a home­land were trans­ferred en masse from Europe to the island of Mada­gas­car by boat. There were 23 mil­lion of them. Many were legal­ly ‘French’, ‘Bel­gian’, ‘Dutch’ and ‘British’. But this meant noth­ing now. The nation­al­i­ty rights of the old world had com­plete­ly dis­ap­peared… Archa­ic cri­te­ria had come to pre­vail”. (s. 44–45)

”All the prin­ci­ples of the old soci­ety are gone, and we’ve revert­ed to the archa­ic, nat­ur­al laws, with a dis­con­cert­ing ease” (s. 46)

”If the gen­er­a­tion of native Euro­peans which turns 20 between 2000 and 2010 does­n’t act, every­thing will be lost – for­ev­er – as the spir­it of those who built the great cathe­drals is final­ly extin­guished” (s. 52)

The war and col­lapse of the old order allowed nihilism – that had been present since the Enlight­en­ment, but remained hid­den behind the con­ser­v­a­tive back­drop – to step for­ward. Only a man with true con­ser­v­a­tive con­vic­tions, who saw through both the illu­sions of progress and the frail­ties of the old sys­tem, could counter this form of nihilism. What char­ac­ter­ized this type was a spe­cial men­tal­i­ty that could only be expressed in para­dox­es (…) The adher­ents of the Con­ser­v­a­tive Rev­o­lu­tion dif­fered from the old­er con­ser­vatism on the assump­tion that the bonds, in which the con­ser­v­a­tive man want­ed to live, were yet to be cre­at­ed”. (s. 145)

“These ideals tran­scend the polit­i­cal sphere; yet, when trans­lat­ed on the polit­i­cal lev­el, the nec­es­sar­i­ly lead to qual­i­ta­tive dif­fer­ences – which is to say: to hier­ar­chy, author­i­ty and imperi­um in the broad­er sense of the word’ as opposed to ‘all forms of demo­c­ra­t­ic and egal­i­tar­i­an tur­moil’”. (s. 154)

”The phrase is a Far East­ern say­ing, express­ing the idea that if one suc­ceeds in rid­ing a tiger, not only does one avoid hav­ing it leap on one, but if one can keep one’s seat and not fall off, one may even­tu­al­ly get the bet­ter of it”. (s. 156)

“When a cycle of civ­i­liza­tion is reach­ing its end, it is dif­fi­cult to achieve any­thing by resist­ing it and by direct­ly oppos­ing the forces in motion. The cur­rent is too strong; one would be over­whelmed. The essen­tial thing is not to let one­self be impressed by the omnipo­tence and appar­ent tri­umph of the forces of the epoch. These forces, devoid of con­nec­tion with any high­er prin­ci­ple, are in fact on a short chain. One should not become fix­at­ed on the present and on things at hand, but keep in view the con­di­tions that may come about in the future. Thus the prin­ci­ple to fol1ow could be that of let­ting the forces and process­es of this epoch take their own course, while keep­ing one­self firm and ready to inter­vene when “the tiger, which can­not leap the per­son rid­ing it, is tired run­ning”. (s. 157)

”Thus, moder­ni­ty has giv­en birth to the most emp­ty civil­i­sa­tion mankind has ever known” (s. 161)

”For those who share Niet­zsche’s belief that the con­ver­sion of Europe to Chris­tian­i­ty and the more or less com­plete inte­gra­tion of the Euro­pean mind into the Chris­t­ian men­tal­i­ty, was one of the most cat­a­stoph­ic events in world his­to­ry – a cat­a­stophe in the prop­er sense of the word – just what can the word ”pagan­ism” mean today?”  (s. 162)

“When it comes to spec­i­fy­ing the val­ues par­tic­u­lar to pagan­ism, peo­ple have gen­er­al­ly list­ed fea­tures such as these: an emi­nent­ly aris­to­crat­ic con­cep­tion of the human indi­vid­ual; an ethics found­ed on hon­or (”shame” rather than ”sin”); an hero­ic atti­tude towards life’s chal­lenges; the exal­ta­tion and sacral­iza­tion of the world, beau­ty, the body, strength, health; the rejec­tion of any ”worlds beyond”; the insep­a­ra­bil­i­ty of moral­i­ty and aes­thet­ics; and so on. From this per­spec­tive the high­est val­ue is undoubt­ed­ly not a form of ”jus­tice” whose pur­pose is essen­tial­ly inter­pret­ed as flat­ten­ing the social order in the name of equal­i­ty, but every­thing that can allow a man to sur­pass him­self. For pagan­ism, it is pure absur­di­ty to con­sid­er the results of the work­ings of life’s basic frame­work as unjust. In the pagan eth­ic of hon­or, the clas­sic antithe­ses noble vs. base, coura­geous vs. cow­ard­ly, hon­or­able vs. dis­hon­or­able, beau­ti­ful vs. deformed, sick vs. healthy, and so forth, replace the antithe­ses oper­a­tive in a moral­i­ty based on the con­cept of sin: good vs. evil, hum­ble vs. vain­glo­ri­ous, sub­mis­sive vs. proud, weak vs. arro­gant, mod­est vs. boast­ful, and so on”. (s. 164–165)

”Gen­er­a­tion Iden­ti­ty is a fight­ing com­mu­ni­ty in the ser­vice of our nation­al iden­ti­ty (…) A fight­ing com­mu­ni­ty because, for us, life is a strug­gle” (s. 165)

“The­o­ret­i­cal­ly, hier­ar­chy is reject­ed, but in prac­tice it’s accept­ed, since no soci­ety can do with­out it and since it’s inscribed in the genet­ic mem­o­ry” (s. 165)

“Egal­i­tar­i­an­ism is an insti­tu­tion­alised lie. It’s the most hum­ble, para­dox­i­cal­ly, who are hurt the most by its impos­ture, since every­where the right of excel­lence is denied and every­where medi­oc­ri­ties and scoundrels are favoured (…) As Spencer and Dar­win have shown, the human race is bound like every oth­er ani­mal species to the cen­tral fact of exis­tence: inequal­i­ty”. (s. 165–166)

“The caste sys­tem is one of the main expres­sions of the tra­di­tion­al sociopo­lit­i­cal order, a ”form” vic­to­ri­ous over chaos and the embod­i­ment of the meta­phys­i­cal ideas of sta­bil­i­ty and jus­tice. The divi­sion of indi­vid­u­als into castes or into equiv­a­lent groups accord­ing to their nature and to the dif­fer­ent rank of activ­i­ties they exer­cise with regard to pure spir­i­tu­al­i­ty is found with the same traits in all high­er forms of tra­di­tion­al civ­i­liza­tions, and it con­sti­tutes the essence of the pri­mor­dial leg­is­la­tion and of the social order accord­ing to ”jus­tice””. (s. 166)

”Con­front­ed by Islam’s con­quer­ing viril­i­ty, the Euro­pean feels moral­ly dis­armed and con­fused” (s. 168)

“DECADENCE: The weak­en­ing of a peo­ple or civil­i­sa­tion result­ing from inter­nal caus­es that leads it to lose its iden­ti­ty and cre­ativ­i­ty. The caus­es of deca­dence are usu­al­ly the same through­out his­to­ry: exces­sive indi­vid­u­al­ism and hedo­nism, the soft­en­ing of mores, social ego­ism, devir­il­i­sa­tion, con­tempt for hero­ic val­ues, the intel­lec­tu­al­i­sa­tion of elites, the decline of pop­u­lar edu­ca­tion, the aban­don­ment of or turn­ing away from spir­i­tu­al­i­ty and the sacred, etc”.  (s. 169)

“I quite agree that soci­eties per­ish because they are degen­er­ate, and for no oth­er rea­son. This is the evil con­di­tion that makes them whol­ly unable to with­stand the shock of the dis­as­ters that close in upon them (…) If it per­ish, it is because it has no longer the same vig­or as it had of old in bat­tling with the dan­gers of life; in a word, because it is degen­er­ate (…) The word degen­er­ate, when applied to a peo­ple, means (…) that the peo­ple has no longer the same intrin­sic val­ue as it had before, because it has no longer the same blood in its veins, con­tin­u­al adul­ter­ations hav­ing grad­u­al­ly affect­ed the qual­i­ty of that blood. (s. 170)

“This phe­nom­e­non leads every­where … to the fact that social­ly infe­ri­or human mate­r­i­al is enabled … to pen­e­trate and final­ly to anni­hi­late the healthy nation. The selec­tion for tough­ness, hero­ism, social util­i­ty … must be accom­plished by some human insti­tu­tion if mankind, in default of selec­tive fac­tors, is not to be ruined by domes­ti­ca­tion-induced degen­er­a­cy. The racial idea as the basis of our state has already accom­plished much in this respect. The most effec­tive race-pre­serv­ing mea­sure is … the great­est sup­port of the nat­ur­al defences … We must – and should – rely on the healthy feel­ings of our Best and charge them with the selec­tion which will deter­mine the pros­per­i­ty or the decay of our peo­ple … [that is, charge them with] the exter­mi­na­tion of ele­ments of the pop­u­la­tion loaded with dregs. Oth­er­wise, these dele­te­ri­ous muta­tions will per­me­ate the body of the peo­ple like the cells of a can­cer”.  (s. 172)

“Behind all this we find the implic­it, sui­ci­dal, and eth­no­masochis­tic idea that I have often men­tioned in oth­er writ­ings: the main goal of gen­der the­o­ry is to pro­mote homo­sex­u­al­i­ty (to White peo­ple, main­ly) and, by exten­sion, steril­i­ty, as well as to down­grade the sta­tus of the idea of the repro­duc­ing cou­ple. Beyond the work of homo­sex­u­al and fem­i­nist lob­bies, one always finds the implied imper­a­tive: Whites must not repro­duce. Please become homo­sex­u­al and ster­ile!”. (s. 174)

”The Renais­sance of the four­teenth and fif­teenth cen­turies was pre­cise­ly that: a rebirth (…) This rebirth was no jour­ney back­ward or a sim­ple resur­gence of the ”past,” but on the con­trary the point of depar­ture for a new spir­i­tu­al adven­ture (…)” (s. 176)

“In fact, it is not a ques­tion of going back to the past, but of con­nect­ing with it – and also, by that very fact, in a spher­i­cal con­cep­tion of his­to­ry, to con­nect to the eter­nal and cause it to surge back, to have con­so­nance in life, and to dis­en­tan­gle itself from the tyran­ny of the logos, the ter­ri­ble tyran­ny of the Law, so to estab­lish the school of the mythos and life (…)  In the same way it is a ques­tion of refer­ring to the ”mem­o­ry” of pagan­ism not in a chrono­log­i­cal way, so as to return to an “ear­li­er time,” but in a mytho­log­i­cal way, to seek for that which, through time, sur­pass­es time and still speaks to us today. It is a ques­tion of con­nect­ing to some­thing that can­not be sur­passed rather than to some­thing that has been ”sur­passed” (…) In the pagan per­spec­tive the past is always future”.  (s. 176)

“Let us imag­ine a sphere, a bil­liard ball mov­ing in dis­or­der­ly fash­ion across a sur­face, or moved by the (nec­es­sar­i­ly imper­fect) will of a play­er: after a num­ber of spins, the same point on the sur­face of the ball will inevitably touch the cloth. This is the ‘eter­nal return of the iden­ti­cal’, but not of the ‘same’. For the sphere is mov­ing and even if that very ‘same’ point is touch­ing the cloth, its posi­tion is not the same as before. The same image can be applied to the suc­ces­sion of the sea­sons and the his­tor­i­cal out­look of Arche­o­fu­tur­ism: the return to archa­ic val­ues should not be under­stood as a cycli­cal return to the past (a past that has failed, as it has engen­dered the cat­a­stro­phe of moder­ni­ty), but rather as the re-emer­gence of archa­ic social con­fig­u­ra­tions in a new con­text. In oth­er terms, this means apply­ing age-old solu­tions to com­plete­ly new prob­lems; it means the reap­pear­ance of a for­got­ten and trans­fig­ured order in a dif­fer­ent his­tor­i­cal con­text. (s. 177)

“Fac­ing an adver­sary who advances into bat­tle armed with a ful­ly flour­ish­ing ide­o­log­i­cal cor­pus, the man of the right is decid­ed­ly help­less. With­out pre­cise the­o­ry, no effec­tive action. We can­not cre­ate the econ­o­my with­out an idea. And above all, we can­not put the cart before the horse. All the great rev­o­lu­tions of his­to­ry have only served to trans­pose into facts an evo­lu­tion already realised, in an under­ly­ing way, in the spir­it. We can­not have a Lenin with­out hav­ing had a Marx. This is the revenge of the the­o­reti­cians – who are only the great losers of his­to­ry in appear­ance (…) The French right is ‘Lenin­ist’ – with­out hav­ing read Lenin. It has not grasped the sig­nif­i­cance of Gram­sci. It has not seen how cul­tur­al pow­er threat­ens the appa­ra­tus of the state; how this ‘cul­tur­al pow­er’ acts upon the implic­it val­ues around which the con­sen­sus indis­pens­able to the dura­tion of polit­i­cal pow­er crys­tallis­es”.  (s. 185)

“It should also be said that one of the hand­i­caps of the Nou­velle Droite has been a poor read­ing of Gram­scism, based on the adop­tion of the ‘all is cul­tur­al, all is intel­lec­tu­al’ strat­e­gy. In our metapo­lit­i­cal ‘Gram­s­cian’ strat­e­gy, we had sim­ply over­looked the fact that the cul­tur­al bat­tle Gram­sci pro­mot­ed was asso­ci­at­ed with the polit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic bat­tle of the Ital­ian Com­mu­nist par­ty, and as such did not take place ‘in the void’ (…) In order to prove effec­tive, ide­o­log­i­cal and cul­tur­al action must be sup­port­ed by con­crete polit­i­cal forces which it inte­grates and extends”. (s. 187–188)

“We, nation­al­ists, believe in no uni­ver­sal moral­i­ty. We do not believe in any human­i­ty as a col­lec­tive being with a cen­tral con­science and a uni­tary jus­tice. We believe instead that truth, jus­tice, and moral­i­ty are strong­ly con­di­tioned by time, place, and blood. We believe in the val­ue of the par­tic­u­lar”. (s. 206)

”Thus, human life is nec­es­sar­i­ly root­ed in a giv­en con­text, pri­or to the way indi­vid­u­als and groups see the world, even crit­i­cal­ly, and to the way they for­mu­late their aspi­ra­tions and goals. They do not exist in the real world oth­er than as con­crete­ly root­ed peo­ple”. (s. 206–207)

“Diver­si­ty is inher­ent in the very move­ment of life, which flour­ish­es as it becomes more com­plex. The plu­ral­i­ty and vari­ety of races, eth­nic groups, lan­guages, cus­toms, even reli­gions has char­ac­terised the devel­op­ment of human­i­ty since the very begin­ning (…) The French New Right is pro­found­ly opposed to the sup­pres­sion of dif­fer­ences. It believes that a good sys­tem is one that trans­mits at least as much diver­si­ty as it has received. The true wealth of the world is first and fore­most the diver­si­ty of its cul­tures and peo­ples (…) All cul­tures have their own ‘cen­tre of grav­i­ty’ (Herder): dif­fer­ent cul­tures pro­vide dif­fer­ent respons­es to essen­tial ques­tions. This is why all attempts to uni­fy them end up destroy­ing them”. (s. 207)

“Since the dawn of his­to­ry, humankind has been com­posed of innu­mer­able cul­tures, peo­ples and tribes. Each has devel­oped its own way of life, and an entire­ly unique way of see­ing the world (…) Pre­serv­ing cul­tur­al diver­si­ty and ensur­ing the most peace­ful pos­si­ble coex­is­tence has always been our gen­er­a­tion’s great task. Deep in our hearts burns the desire to leave the era of hatred behind us. We want to vis­it oth­er lands and peo­ples, get to know and love their unique char­ac­ter­is­tics, and avoid con­flicts through bet­ter insight into the per­spec­tives of oth­er cul­tures”. (s. 208)

”Just as every per­son requires his own pri­vate place, every cul­ture requires its own space in which to devel­op and struc­ture every­day life accord­ing to its own man­ner”. (s. 209)

”Third World­ists argue that the coun­tries of the North  have exploit­ed the Third World, while the reverse is true (…) Euro­pean colo­nial­ism (…) was harm­ful to Europe, though it ben­e­fit­ed the Third World, whose demog­ra­phy it vast­ly devel­oped”. (s. 226)

“Our ide­al is Recon­quest, and we will see it through to the end”. (s. 232)

”The biggest dan­ger is the cap­ture of White women by extra-Euro­pean for­eign­ers, or what might be called uterus theft”. (s. 282)

“Women want to be con­quered. The long­ing for the one who can win them over and make them his lies deep in them. Instead of hero­ic knights, you send them ‘good friends’ and fee­ble cow­ards. Men want to win a woman who is worth the effort and the tri­als they must endure, for whom the leap through the fire and the bat­tle with the drag­on are worth it. Today, instead of the beau­ti­ful princess, only a scowl­ing fem­i­nist or a jut­ting man­jaw awaits the hero at the end. We’ve recog­nised the true nature of the sex­es, and we want to live in har­mo­ny with it. We want to be real men and real women”. (s. 286–287)

”He who dri­ves all cul­tures and peo­ples togeth­er into one ter­ri­to­ry will cause the blood­i­est wars, in the long term”. (s. 318)

“Real­is­ti­cal­ly, if tomor­row an eth­nic con­flict were to break out in France – which we want to avoid at all costs by pur­su­ing the path of polit­i­cal engage­ment – obvi­ous­ly we would not sit around with our arms fold­ed. We would pro­tect our fam­i­lies. We reject vio­lence but we will use force if nec­es­sary. And if the French have fall­en asleep from con­sumerism and been ren­dered docile by the need to earn their liv­ing, nev­er­the­less, they remain a war­like peo­ple who, hav­ing long endured numer­ous out­rages with­out react­ing, have always end­ed by throw­ing off their tyrants in a way that serves as a les­son to all who might be tempt­ed to chain us again”. (s. 318)

“To the immi­grant invaders and the lob­bies of the cul­ture war which has been declared upon us, we say this: enough sub­mis­sion, enough com­pro­mise. We are aware that we are com­mit­ting our­selves to a bat­tle to the death. Glob­al­ism will kill iden­ti­ty, or iden­ti­ty will kill glob­al­ism. there is no oth­er pos­si­ble out­come (…) It will soon be 1,300 years since  Charles Mar­tel stopped the Arabs at Poitiers fol­low­ing a hero­ic bat­tle which saved our coun­try from Mus­lim inva­sion. It hap­pened on 25 Octo­ber 732. Today, we have reached 2012 and the choice is still the same: live free or die”. (s. 354)

“Strug­gle is at the ori­gin of all things (…) I believe that … if a peo­ple wish to live they should devel­op a will to pow­er, oth­er­wise they veg­e­tate, live mis­er­ably and become prey to a stronger peo­ple, in whom this will to pow­er is devel­oped to a high­er degree”. (s. 366)

”War alone keys up all the ener­gies of man to their great­est pitch and sets the mark of nobil­i­ty on those nations which have the brav­ery to face it. All oth­er tests are sub­sti­tutes which nev­er place a man face to face with him­self before the alter­na­tive of life and death (…) A doc­trine must there­fore be a vital act and not a ver­bal dis­play”.  (s. 366)

”The father­land is not sim­ply a ter­ri­to­ry, but a bio­log­i­cal lin­eage, the place where one’s ances­tors are buried” (s. 374–375)

“The city dies, the nation – with­out the vital lifeblood of new gen­er­a­tions – can no longer resist – com­posed as it is by now of a cor­rupt and aged peo­ple – against a younger pop­u­la­tion that will require the aban­don­ment of its fron­tiers. This has hap­pened. It can hap­pen again. It will hap­pen and not only between city and nation, but on an infi­nite­ly larg­er mag­ni­tude: the entire white race, the West­ern race, can be sub­merged by the oth­er races of colour that mul­ti­ply with a rhythm unknown to ours. Are the Blacks and the Yel­lows at the door? Yes, they are at the door”. (s. 375)

“Euro­peans as such are them­selves respon­si­ble for the ills afflict­ing them: the ills of the declin­ing birth rate, Third World and Islam­ic coloni­sa­tion, decul­tur­a­tion, Amer­i­can dom­i­na­tion, strate­gic fee­ble­mind­ed­ness, etc. They have, in effect, allowed their ene­mies to pol­lute their spir­it and cor­rupt their body”. (s. 375)

”Euro­peans as such are them­selves respon­si­ble for the ills afflict­ing them: the ills of the declin­ing birth rate, Third World and Islam­ic coloni­sa­tion, decul­tur­a­tion, Amer­i­can dom­i­na­tion, strate­gic fee­ble­mind­ed­ness, etc. They have, in effect, allowed their ene­mies to pol­lute their spir­it and cor­rupt their body”. (s. 375)

”But I’ll admit I have dis­pleased some in say­ing that immi­gra­tion is a fact, no longer an option, and that in engag­ing a bat­tle, one has to fight on its spe­cif­ic ter­rain, not on the one which we might pre­fer to fight (…) The com­fort­ing idea of a future Recon­quista [in which Euro­peans will mil­i­tar­i­ly recap­ture the lands now lost to Third World immi­grants] is no longer enter­tained, except by a hand­ful of spir­its who haven’t a clue as to what world they’re liv­ing in”. (s. 432)

”GERMEN: a peo­ple’s or civil­i­sa­tion’s bio­log­i­cal root – the core of eth­nic­i­ty – upon which every­thing else rests”. (s. 432)

”The White pop­u­la­tion is being dis­placed, a sort of geno­cide is being car­ried out against it”. (s. 432)

”Eth­nic civ­il war is the sole means of treat­ing a prob­lem ‘hot­ly’ that can nev­er be resolved ‘cold­ly’, with­in the state’s sys­tem of law or through its demo­c­ra­t­ic pro­ce­dures. Make no mis­take: I’m not call­ing for war, but I con­sid­er it inevitable, some­thing almost auto­mat­ic”. (s. 432)

”Only when on the brink of dis­as­ter – when eco­nom­ic hedo­nism will have come to an end – will the Euro­pean peo­ples find the strength to react against what awaits them. No effec­tive solu­tions can be expect­ed pri­or to the unleash­ing of the cat­a­stro­phe that will most like­ly take place. Peo­ple’s pow­er to resist has been sapped by con­sumerism , com­fort, and the count­less ‘com­modi­ties’ of the soci­ety of the spec­ta­cle (…) The cure can only be a rad­i­cal and painful one. We are head­ing towards a rev­o­lu­tion that will make the Russ­ian one seem like a brawl in com­par­i­son” (s. 432)

“It is well known where and under what sym­bols the forces for a pos­si­ble resis­tance tried to organ­ise. On one side, a nation that, since it had been uni­fied, had known noth­ing but the mediocre cli­mate of lib­er­al­ism, democ­ra­cy, and a con­sti­tu­tion­al monar­chy, dared to assume the sym­bol of Rome as the basis for a new polit­i­cal con­cep­tion and a new ide­al of viril­i­ty and dig­ni­ty. Anal­o­gous forces awoke in the nation that in the Mid­dle Ages had made the Roman sym­bol of imperi­um its own in order to reaf­firm the prin­ci­ple of author­i­ty and the pri­ma­cy of those val­ues that are root­ed in the blood, race, and the deep­est pow­ers of a stock. And while in oth­er Euro­pean nations, groups were already ori­ent­ing them­selves in the same direc­tion, a third force in Asia joined the ranks, the nation of the samu­rai, in which the adop­tion of the out­er forms of mod­ern civil­i­sa­tion had not prej­u­diced its fideli­ty to a war­rior tra­di­tion cen­tred upon the sym­bol of the solar empire of divine right”.  (s. 438)

“We need to pre­pare for the approach­ing chaos and start think­ing in post-chaos terms”. (s. 438)

”Husserl pro­posed to study time through the use of music. The con­scious­ness of hear­ing the music is not based on the strict iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of notes sound­ing in a con­crete, dis­crete moment. Hear­ing music is some­thing dif­fer­ent from hear­ing an indi­vid­ual note that sounds now, in the present. The con­scious­ness of music occurs by hear­ing an indi­vid­ual note that sounds now, in the present, as well as recall­ing the past notes that are dis­solv­ing lit­tle by lit­tle into  noth­ing­ness. How­ev­er, their res­o­nance per­sists in the con­scious­ness and gives music its aes­thet­ic sense. Husserl calls it ‘the con­tin­u­ous instance’. The past is present in the present. The present thus becomes con­tin­u­ous and includes the past as a van­ish­ing pres­ence. This is the method­olog­i­cal key for the under­stand­ing of his­to­ry. His­to­ry is aware­ness of the pres­ence of the past in the present (…) the soul should recall the hid­den past of its pre­vi­ous lives in order to recon­struct the whole­ness of the melody of des­tiny. Only thus could it be played har­mo­nious­ly”. (s. 439)

”When [GRECE-style] iden­ti­tar­i­ans took up the cause des peu­ples in the ear­ly 1980s, it was in the name of ethno­plu­ral­ism. This ’cause’, how­ev­er, was lit­tle more than a rhetor­i­cal ruse to jus­ti­fy the right of Euro­pean peo­ples to retain their iden­ti­ty in face of a world sys­tem that seeks to make every­one Amer­i­can. For in resist­ing the forces of decul­tur­a­tion, it was hoped that Euro­peans, like Third World peo­ples, would retain the right to their dif­fer­ences [la droit à la dif­férence] — and do so with­out hav­ing to suf­fer the accu­sa­tion of racism. As such, the slo­gan assumed that every peo­ple, even white peo­ple, pos­sessed such a right. But no soon­er was this argu­ment made than the cos­mopoli­tan P. A. Taguieff [a lead­ing aca­d­e­m­ic com­men­ta­tor on the far Right] began refer­ring to it as a ‘dif­fer­en­tial­ist racism’ [in which cul­tur­al dif­fer­ence, rather than skin col­or, became the cri­te­ri­on for exclu­sion]. In ret­ro­spect, the New Right’s strat­e­gy seems com­plete­ly con­trived, for la cause des peu­ples, la droit à la dif­férence, and ‘ethno­plu­ral­ism’ have all since been turned against iden­ti­tar­i­ans. It is, more­over, irrel­e­vant to Europe’s present sit­u­a­tion, threat­ened, as it is, by a mas­sive non-Euro­pean inva­sion and by a con­quer­ing Islam, abet­ted by our eth­no­maschois­tic elites”. (s. 440)

“Race-mix­ing is fatal to a people’s hered­i­ty and the pur­suit of its civil­i­sa­tion”.  (s. 447)

”GERMEN: A people’s or civilisation’s bio­log­i­cal root — the core of eth­nic­i­ty — upon which every­thing else rests (…) If a cul­ture is lost, recov­ery is pos­si­ble. When the bio­log­i­cal ger­men is destroyed, noth­ing is pos­si­ble”.  (s. 447)

Scroll til toppen