The Biological Catastrophe of the Two World Wars
Ethologists such as Konrad Lorenz and Robert Ardrey have demonstrated that war is one of man’s main special features. War can be defined as aggressiveness and a clashing between different groups within the framework of a single species. It is the extension and complexification — by means of collective conflicts — of the individual intermale aggressiveness that phylogenesis has established among higher mammals.
Peace is a dreamlike ideal of compensation and consolation that stems from one’s awareness that war is an insurmountable fact of life. There would be no poetry, no philosophy, no history, and even no literature without the crimson backdrop of war. The latter is at the very centre of all religious thought, the Koran, the Bible and the Iliad. It cannot be uprooted and is inseparable from human nature. Only war gives death significance. To die of old age or disease has no meaning worth mentioning and relates to the absurd. Our dying in battle allows the tears of those that outlive us to dry.
In a healthy civilisation, a mother whose sons perish while fighting for their fatherland does not surrender to despair. And warriors that die in battle have always been held in greater reverence than any man that dies of natural causes. Whereas war is synonymous with sanctification, all ideologies of perpetual peace are creeds that breed dissolution, enslavement, entropy and loss of energy.
Only profoundly decadent civilisations could ever seek peace as their final objective, for to do so is to go against human nature and to strive to attain ultimate peace, a ‘paradise’ on earth, one that could never be anything but death. Peace, cooperation and friendship are but means, temporary tools put at the service of a specific triumph, and not imperative objectives of human existence, as written by Emmanuel Lévinas.
Although war is unavoidable, one must, of course, attempt to restrict its magnitude and limit its harmful effects. In the past 5,000 years, however, wars have been far less lethal from our human perspective than, for example, epidemics.
History has only one criterion — that of survival and the continuance of life, using any means necessary, whether force or cunning. But woe unto them that only cultivate sheer force, pure heroism, and lion-like strategies (Tamerlane, Napoleon, Hitler, etc.) and are never as sly as a fox. Relentless force and violence are indeed necessary, yet they remain insufficient in the never-ending war of life, with its groups, peoples, civilisations and individuals. Woe unto him that neglects cunning! And woe unto those that only chant ‘Peace! Peace! Peace!’, as today’s Christians do, for they shall be whipped with metal chains. Providence only rewards cunning people that never resort to the use of force unless it is absolutely necessary, but also those who are well aware of the fact that war is of a protean nature, and not merely a military one: cultural war, birth-rate war, migrational war, etc. Victory, which acts as the specific and practical purpose of all healthy life and is free from contemplative doctrines, constant questioning and the suicidal fanaticism of mere braggarts, is always founded upon a subtle dosage of both force and cunning, of calculated heroism and cynicism.
War is the force and the red sun that restores the vigour of peoples. Without it, there would be neither friendship nor love, no dynamism, no creativity, no collective emotions, and no meaning to the lives of peoples and men. War, the sibling of hunts, is at the very source of aesthetics, much more so than religious doctrines.
War does, of course, involve unspeakable horrors, but is by no means worse than epidemics, famine, natural catastrophes and heinous crimes.
Aristocracies Can Only Be Born of War
Aristocrats, aristocrats… I have met some despicable ones — that I can tell you! Haughty ‘noble’ families that enjoy all the attention and fanfare! Admittedly, their accent is the complete opposite of the Browns’ ziva, with some mannerisms added. Physically, however, they are miles away from their warrior ancestors. Scrawny, doddery and sickly. What a vile race! Just look at their photos in Gala magazine — it’s like being at the zoo. I can’t wait for a new people’s aristocracy to emerge!
Tradition! Tradition! That’s all you ever hear them talk about, yet they are the ones who have done away with it. For three centuries, they have been piling up misalliance upon misalliance. They have allowed their blood to mix with that of the worst kind of scum — not even decent French peasants characterised by a commoner’s honesty, but the lousiest and stupidest financiers. Complacently, without making waves. All that they have retained is their slightly refined and ‘polite’ dialect. And what restraint! They never discuss essential topics, contenting themselves with gossiping, dabbling in trivial matters, formulating hollow ideas and indulging in idle talk. Always remain superficial! Remain superficial at all costs!
There are some, however, that are decent. Very decent indeed. I myself have met them, and they have retained the qualities of their own ancestors. They are, admittedly, few and far between; but they are still here, so there’s no reason to complain, right? They are in charge of some small castles and vote in a merciless and fearless manner. If one digs deep enough, in fact, the best aristocrats are rarely found in great noble families, but achtung, one does unearth a couple every now and then! Many degenerate members of these ‘great families’ are completely lobotomised and limelight-hogging potheads, beyond debate! On the other hand, one does sometimes encounter some provincial petty nobles (very real ones, in fact) or ennobled upper-class families that are truly beyond reproach. They do not content themselves with perpetuating a given tradition, but willingly fund worthy causes and take social risks.
In every people, genuine aristocrats are those that are not only intelligent, but also physically strong and brave.
I know a chap that has risen to the rank of general in the French Legion. Although I will not reveal his name, I can say that he is a true warrior whose father died in the Battle of Dien Bien Phu and who comes from a Prussian aristocratic family. Some of his ancestors were Teutonic Knights. The problem is that such aristocrats are no longer in charge of anything. They follow the orders of petty bourgeois social climbers and ascending proletarians, of meaningless buffoons that have risen above their own level by sprouting banknote wings. With war now in sight, it is thus urgent to once again consider designating a new European aristocracy, as was the case more than a thousand years ago. Indeed, the latter is to be rebuilt. And it is only on the basis of belligerent qualities that it can be re-established.
In Favour of Tragic Optimism — a Dialectical Philosophy of War
War gives our lives meaning. We only experience regeneration through conflict, by immersing ourselves in tragedy and casting the die. All aggression is a source of awakening and ultimately proves beneficial. It forces us to be our own selves, to react and assert ourselves over and over again. Happiness and regeneration are only encountered in combat, and not in the miasmas of leisure activities and bourgeois ideals.
Nothing would have been worse than a lukewarm death or mass conquest at the hands of prolific, intelligent and collected populations such as the Chinese. Has everything gone to the dogs? Yes and no. All is well! We are being colonised, aggressed and pressured by Islam and the Third World, aren’t we? All the better! Let us then react! No more tearful lamentations, bouts of nostalgia, foetid baroque-like decadence, whining, excuses and equivocations.
At last, the enemy is in front of us! He has torn off his mask. One must admit that he does have an estimable side, since he fights very ardently for his cause. He is much more worthy of respect than the collaborationists and traitors in our own camp. The latter’s strength, that of the Iliad, stems from a belief that life is a tragic yet necessary game; that ‘salvation’ as part of an end to history and the advent of eternal peace is only a delusion; that the will to power and its practical and specific potential to impose itself are the only law; that cunning defines power; and, most of all, that theology, metaphysics and ontology will never be able to replace a threatened people’s physical and biological will to self-defence. To descend into the streets and fight, to have children, and to set up genuine European households — that is what truly matters. ‘Culture’ and ‘cultural struggle’ are important as well, of course, but they remain secondary. Genuine culture is reborn and reinstated automatically when a people’s biological foundations are strong enough.
This imperative applies to all peoples, as all of them are involved in a struggle against one another to ensure their own survival and that of mankind, whose very essence is one of confrontation, in which everyone is pitted against everyone else, a fact that acts as a biological key to the perpetuation of the best, the most resistant and the strongest. Indeed, it is by clashing with others and asserting themselves, and through both war and rivalry, that humans have defied time. It is a dialectical and contradictory reality that belies all irenic outlooks. For it is from death, the daughter of battle, that life springs and new abilities emerge. The twenty-first century shall not give rise to a policed and authoritarian ‘new order’, but shall, instead, be a century of war and of surprising and merciless selection.
The fact of seeking peace at all times is a sickness that burdens all ageing peoples. And here is an interesting paradox: through their refusal to resist at the right time, pacifists are the ones that actually cause wars of aggression against their own people. Because we Europeans have refused to close our gates as a result of our pacifism and humanitarianism, we shall be faced with an ethnic civil war against Islam and some colonisers from the Third-World on our own soil. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
When one hears the Pope recite endless litanies of peace at a time when the members of his own flock are being persecuted by Muslims all around the world, one cannot help feeling confused. For one should be aware that, psychologically speaking, and especially among Third-World populations as a whole, weakness arouses aggressiveness and humanitarian pacifism encourages predation.
Primary Military Strength Lies in Demographic Dynamism
Reproduction is the principal law of war. Indeed, it is demography that decides everything. A people’s possession of nuclear missiles is useless if they no longer have enough children and allow prolific foreign populations to gently seep into their land like a water leak. The most important military policy is the family policy. Africa’s only hope, for instance, lies in its demographic fertility.
Our age, however, is ruled by presentism, and one never thinks about the future, nor about the past for that matter. The notion of ‘posterity’ has been abolished, and ethnic awareness has all but vanished. This goes for both the demographic domain and the cultural one — one neglects the transmission of their ancestral heritage from generation to generation.
People imagine that the ‘security’ of a nation is rooted in its military means (even when one does not actually have any!) and that its survival depends on its GNP. The fact is, however, that what it rests on more than anything else is its own germen and reproductive fertility.
If Macedonia is now in the throes of a civil war caused by Albanian Muslims, it is only because the latter have managed to take control of a country that was not theirs by reproducing five times faster than the natives. In Kosovo, peace would have continued to prevail if the Serbs had not allowed Albanian immigrant-colonisers, whose fertility is far greater than theirs, to settle there for the past fifty years.
Unless things change, we, in France, must prepare ourselves for the undeniable territorial conquest of entire areas of our country at the hands of Afro-Maghrebi masses as a result of the ceaseless migrational inflows and a foreign reproductive rate that is twice as high as that of our French natives. Some have deemed it ‘delusional’ to state that within a period of less than twenty years, France may become an Islamic republic without a single gunshot being fired. At the current pace of things, however, some areas of Western Europe (and not just any areas), will, by 2015:
- no longer be home to an ethnically European majority;
- be predominantly Muslim.
In no way does the completely secondary fact that those people acquire the nationality of the lands that welcome them prevent them from considering themselves to be plain and simple ‘foreign colonisers’ in the privacy of their own minds.
Here is a list of some of those zones: Greater London, Brussels, the Parisian suburbs, the agglomerations of Lille, Marseille and Strasbourg, as well as a number of larger cities such as Toulon, Mulhouse, Béziers, and others. Already today, Roubaix, Saint-Denis, Mantes and Dreux are on the point of becoming cities with a Muslim-Arab majority. And as for the entrance gates of this ongoing conquest, they are found at the airports of Roissy and Orly and at the maternity wards of public welfare.
The Importance of Cultural War as an Affirmation of European Identity
What I have previously stated must not be interpreted in an extremist and absolute way — it is not a matter of denying the importance of ‘cultural struggle’, which is indispensable yet still insufficient. One can only commend the efforts of those who, almost everywhere, do their cultural bit in a most painstaking manner and embrace the obstinate and proficient resistance of the few, so as to keep the flame of European identity burning. For none can wage war if they are unaware of their own identity, and one cannot decide on any direction to take unless they know where they have actually come from.
There are, of course, many people in this army of shadows, this army of anonymous resisters defending Europe, who cannot allow themselves to openly designate the enemy. No one could blame them for it. Their task is to enable the rebirth of our identity, traditions and ancestral spirit. Let us not despise them, nor accuse them of cowardice. In an army, everyone has their own place and combat role. It is unthinkable (and ill-advised) for everyone to mount a direct attack, even if some do have to choose such an action.
Let us also praise those who could have opted for betrayal and used their talent to occupy prominent positions in the system and who, in a display of obstinacy and loyalty, continue to feed the flame of genuine European culture by keeping our traditions alive and showing great creativity in the fields of music, literature, cinema, etc.
This cultural resistance must also have ‘cultural war’ and creative cultural combativeness as its corollaries (to use the expression coined by Henri Gobard). Taking this into account, this offensive, or counter-offensive, rather, could never be limited to fighting against the American model, but must also or especially involve our denunciation of the Africanisation and Arabisation of our culture. The current cultural war is underway on two different fronts: against Coca-Cola and McWorld, of course, but also and most urgently against the mass presence of all that originates from the Third World on our radio shows, school premises and television screens. Although Americanisation is indeed the phase that precedes Africanisation, the fact remains that it is merely the first stage of this viral disease. The construction of a mosque is a much more serious matter than that of a McDonald’s. José Bové, who acts as the standard-bearer of the prevailing Trotskyite and pseudo-anti-globalist ideology, has been targeting McDonald’s establishments with sharp criticism — you can, however, be certain that he only rejoices at the presence of 2,000 mosques on French soil.
Cultural warfare is also synonymous with creation and attack, with countering all American, Arab and African influences and infiltrations. Our European identity must not only be involved in preservation, but also in tireless creation. War always presupposes a combination of defence and attack. It is not enough for us to ‘defend our traditions’, as if they were nothing but embalmed cadavers, and to ‘keep our roots alive’ — for we must also envision our future. And most importantly, our task is to do as our ancestors did and enable the emergence of new structures and styles that would neither be anonymous nor degenerate, especially in the domain of architecture and arts.
War, the Matrix of History and Foundation of Life
Anyone that rejects war shall perish. Widespread, global, terrorist, local, familial, clan-based, tribal, civil, economic, IT, mob-related, hushed-up and concealed, or any other kind of warfare is nothing but the human norm, as well-understood by both geneticists and ethologists. Man is, by nature, a political animal (zoon politicon) and therefore a belligerent one. Peace is but temporary respite, a truce, a mere spot on a canvas of general conflict. And it is entropy and death that permeate the world of the living. What is peace? Peace is the interval during which wars are prepared, during which one regains one’s strength.
The hypocrisy pervading today’s world lies in its development of an ideology of peace, one that was inherited from the calamitous Immanuel Kant, while simultaneously continuing to engage in warfare, whose cruelty and intensity are far greater than anything experienced in the past. Such is the case of the United States. One of its theoreticians, Galbraith, actually admitted that perpetual war waged under the pretext of ‘keeping peace’ was an imperative economic necessity. What makes sincere pacifists so stupid is their belief in a possible state of ‘global peace’: this universal peace for all mankind, along with the ‘end of history’ foolishly predicted by Fukuyama, whose thoughts are a mixture of Christian-like eschatology and Buddhism, would, in fact, be synonymous with police-like totalitarianism on a worldwide scale. With keeping peace at all costs! This would mark the end of all freedom and usher in the reign of Big Brother, Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World.
We are constantly told that with the outbreak of mass terrorism, war becomes ‘full scale’, since it targets civil society. War thus allegedly acquires a new meaning and dimension, becomes ‘total’ and is said to be at odds with the laws of war defined by the Jus Publicum Europeanum.
Our modernity is in love with itself. Its thinkers believe themselves to have made the great discovery that war ‘has become polymorphous’ and that it is no longer, for instance, of a mere military nature, but also relates to other aspects, such as information technology, the media, etc. This, however, has always been the case! The city of Athens also engaged in economic warfare, as well as information warfare through the spreading of rumours. In antiquity, one even experienced bacteriological warfare: indeed, armies resorted to trebuchets to catapult plague-infested corpses above enemy walls, thus spreading the epidemic among the local inhabitants.
The massacring of civilians and the notion of ‘total war’ have both remained a constant among all peoples, with or without the hypocrisy of ‘collateral damage’.
Let us, however, not forget one crucial thing that I previously outlined in my book entitled Archeofuturism: no excessive sophistication and technologisation of war could ever result in the disappearance of a type of war that is completely archaic, yet has a very promising future in the Europe of the twenty-first century — civil warfare on the basis of coloniser fertility and street conquest.
A nation that is in possession of hundreds of nuclear warheads but no longer has children, leaves its borders wide open and allows its inner vital space to be conquered by foreign ethnic groups is not only far from being a ‘great power’, but is actually losing a war despite the size of its weapons arsenal, which is thus rendered entirely useless.
The Lion and the Fox — a Machiavellian Strategy
One must, of course, proceed with prudence, but not excessively so! One must master the ability to use it and the necessity to attack in just the right amounts. Such was the major lesson taught to us by Machiavelli — to find the perfect balance between the strategy of the lion and that of the fox. Hiding behind a tree for centuries on end is absolutely pointless. ‘One must avoid being noticed’ — wow, what a great sentence! Really? And why is that, gentlemen? Are you frightened? Do you want to wage war without others knowing about it? There comes a time when one has to take up arms and tear off one’s mask.
One must be very wary of those eternally ‘prudent’ advocates of metapolitics, who, having begun with the good idea of resorting to cunning, using secret influence, masking one’s intentions and allowing the venom to slowly spread across civil society, end up:
- wallowing in insignificant ‘cultural’, pseudo-identitarian and ‘museological’ discourse;
- trapped in the indifference of apathetic sects that do not dare to utter their own names;
- surrendering to the plain and simple betrayal of their own initial ideas.
There are, of course, some cases where one encounters a combination of all three aspects.
It is, however, just as stupid for one to put on their red military pants and charge one’s enemy only to have oneself killed; to indulge in romantic provocation in accordance with the suicidal logic of desperados, i.e. eternal losers; and to neglect level-headed calculations. Regardless of whether the battle is of a military, cultural, metapolitical, political and electoral, economic or any other nature, a real warrior must never be a hothead and a troublemaker, but a rational assailant that keeps his convictions and ultimate purpose etched into his heart.
It is truly difficult to strike a balance and hold the line between cunning and conviction (i.e. reason and passion, as classical writers used to say), between disguising one’s intentions and asserting them, and between (anything but selfish and individual) calculations and solutions. For the former must lead to the latter. It is all akin to a manoeuvre executed by the captain of a sailing boat, who times his tacks in order to reach harbour. Yes, the end does justify the means! Under the absolute condition, of course, that one does not betray the end by resorting to means that contradict its very essence.
War and Archeofuturism
The 9/11 attacks by means of suicide-planes were carried out using nothing more than cutters. An incredible combination of rudimentary weapons and modern technology (a plane filled with kerosene) that involved minimal means and was characterised by great military effectiveness. For the price of one single Tomahawk cruise missile, they resulted in destruction a hundred times superior to the latter’s capacity. Such is the new face of the now brewing war — an archeofuturistic face. In no way is it necessary to possess sophisticated weapons in order to cause a maximal amount of damage. Cunning, will, imagination and old-fashioned weapons are enough. What also heralds the true face of the twenty-first century is the ancestral fanaticism of Osama bin Laden, who, wearing traditional clothes (in imitation of Mohammed, who had been driven out of Mecca), addressed viewers all over the world from the depths of his cave. It shall be a century marked by the intrusion of the archaic into the very heart of a world rendered artificial by the triumph of technology.
Non-sophisticated weapons are the most effective, because they are the least expensive. Technology alone is not enough to win a war, hence the mistake made by the Americans whenever they bombard other countries using cruise missiles and precision-guided bombs that are extremely expensive and do not destroy almost anything on the enemy’s side, only resulting in the deaths of unfortunate civilians and the strengthening of their enemy’s resolve. Even if they make use of rudimentary means, which they skilfully combine with sophisticated ones (the manipulated media, nuclear terrorism, etc.) and the presence of entire swarms of kamikazes, such new combatants will prove much more effective than ‘modern soldiers’.
Furthermore, who would have thought, back in the 1960s, that World War III would not involve a clash between the West and the East, but a conflict between Europe and Islam, as part of an extraordinary repetition of the geopolitical situation that dominated the sixth and seventh centuries? Alas, such is the fabric of history, and we now face the return of the Titans, who everyone thought would remain dead and buried forever.
The superiority of the partisan and the terrorist over the common state-dependent combatant lies in the fact that there is no burdening chain of command above him, no bureaucratic decisions to be made. Akin to a shark in water, he strikes wherever and whenever he pleases. Islamic terrorism is completely archeofuturistic in the sense that it takes advantage of both globalisation and ancientness (i.e. the old immutability of jihad and the umma) when giving battle. Such globalisation is, in fact, an inherent aspect of the universalism characterising Islamic objectives and formulated as early as the eighth century CE (and this also applies to Catholicism, whose very etymology means ‘universal’). The notion of a global ‘clash of civilisations’ has been part of Islam since its very beginnings!
In War, Innocence No Longer Exists
In times of war, the only purpose is to claim victory. The destruction of one’s enemy is the only absolute imperative. An ‘adversary’, on the other hand, which, from the French perspective, means the USA, is not subject to destruction but to containment. Historically, those that involve themselves in Byzantine calculations and overcomplicated strategies are always on the losing side. When Bush declares that he does not wish to wage war on Islam, but only on terror(ism) and radical Islamism, and attempts to make a subtle differentiation between Muslims and his Islamic enemies, he is not only mistaken in his attitude, but also asking to be defeated in this war.
Admittedly, one must be cynical yet lucid in war. In order to be victorious, however, one must embrace the logical consequences, namely the presence of massive losses among one’s own ranks — which the Americans are incapable of, unlike Islam. This includes the hypocritical governments of so-called ‘moderate’ Muslim countries, all of which are merely deceiving everyone. To reject the notion of a ‘clash of civilisations’ and to designate ‘terrorism’ as one’s abstract enemy is to be predestined to lose as a result of not mobilising one’s own camp.
Democratic and humanistic methods are hopelessly inefficient with regard to winning wars. The Allies were well aware of this during World War II. They thus had no qualms about committing actual war crimes against civilian populations by resorting to massive bombardments against France, Germany and Japan. It does not really matter who is morally ‘right’ and who is ‘wrong’. Everything is a question of tactics, strategy, cunning and strength. All means are acceptable to those that are intent on winning. Once victory has been secured, one can revert to their ‘values’, their oh-so-dear values, and take them into consideration… The self-righteous ones who claim that ‘the end does not justify the means’ do not think twice about implementing the very opposite principle when fighting a war. The USA is the perfect example of such behaviour, since it has sacrificed far more than one million innocent civilian lives to its aims during the past six decades. In times of war, the concept of innocence is no longer applicable. Warring countries and nations have always committed ‘war crimes’, and this will never change, no matter the era or the side one is fighting for.
War Is Often Akin to a Poker Game — Four Players and a Joker
To wage a political, ideological or military war, all of which are similar situations, is to be able to distinguish four categories of players:
- Player number one: you. You are fighting for your own safety and existence, trying to save your own skin and, in short, safeguard your future. Understand that, regardless of whether you are an individual, a country or a people, you have no unconditional allies, only temporary ones. For you are alone, completely alone.
- Player number two: the traitor, who belongs to your camp; the ‘family man’, the collaborationist, to state things more clearly. He is the one who colludes with the enemy, wears an infinite number of different masks and manifests endless deceit.
- Player number three: the adversary. Despite his attempts to weaken you and humiliate you, he does not necessarily strive to actually (physically) colonise you. He can always undergo a change of attitude and become your temporary ally. He may, furthermore, prove to be clumsy and fickle at times.
- Player number four: the enemy. Now that’s another kettle of fish! His purpose is to kill you, colonise you, and eliminate you. He is also intent on killing player number three.
- Last but not least, we have the joker, i.e. the unpredictable ‘fifth player’ who, at the very last moment, systematically sides with the winner, but who is initially not supportive of anyone and claims to be neutral.
And now, here is your task: give each of the four players, as well as the joker, a specific name. And you will see how much sense things will make!
The Greek Notion of Coalition and That of Priority
As soon as war begins, ideological, philosophical, intellectual, theological and chauvinistic subtleties become insignificant. One must be able to summarise things and simplify their understanding of the sides involved. Doing so is a matter of survival. In the identitarian camp, for instance, the disagreements between ‘Christians’ and ‘pagans’ are based on mere philosophical differences and are rendered pointless in the face of a specific enemy. The same goes for chauvinistic intra-European tensions (Walloons vs Flemings, Irish Catholics vs Protestants, Serbs vs Croats, etc.) and, in France, the quarrels between Europeanists and sovereigntists, which can be overcome and dealt with at a later point if only one joined forces to focus on one’s common enemy.
The logic of war that characterises emergency situations makes it necessary for people to embrace federal unity around fundamental values — the protection of the general identity of European peoples and the establishment of shared sovereignty. Even though my personal tendency is definitely a Euro-Siberian and pagan one, I respect French nationalists and Christians of all denominations. Today, however, we Europeans must realise that we are the sons of the same civilisation, just like the coalition of Greek cities against threats that originated from other continents.
This notion of coalition is a crucial one, as it transcends and reaches beyond ideological and national rivalries, futile philosophical disagreements, and obsolete theological debates, all for the benefit of a shared and very well-defined defence line.
In times of war, one must put an end to the rather insignificant debates that one holds in times of peace, no longer discussing anything but what truly matters! War refocuses attentions and brings people together, since it re-channels life (in relation to death, of course), strength and tensions towards one single purpose: victory. It eliminates all useless and non-vital concerns by means of natural selection. And, most of all, it historicises existence and gives us an overview of it. Even in the domain of science, it is war that plays the most stimulating role, far more so than profit-oriented undertakings in times of peace. The greatest scientific breakthroughs (antibiotics, the atom, reactors, computer sciences, etc.) have stemmed from military research, since the latter consolidates the energy of human brains and forces them to hone in on what is essential and deserves to be given priority.
Towards the ‘Hyper-Wars’ of the Twenty-First Century
The most important type of hunt, as understood by Robert Ardrey in The Hunting Hypothesis, is that of warriors, the one that targets the most demanding, the most dangerous and the most interesting of all preys — man himself. It reaches deep into the imagination of all peoples. In several different wars, the world thus witnessed the emergence of elite troops known as ‘hunting commandos’.1 Just like game hunts, manhunts condition the human psyche, since they are characterised by the presence of an intraspecific type of hatred, which, in complete contrast with friendship, is one of the main strengths of our human nature.
Hunting animals is no longer a necessity and has become a mere pastime. On the other hand, hunting men is still necessary, as clearly demonstrated by the hunt for Osama bin Laden. The ever-virtuous Americans put a price on his head (‘dead or alive’) and promised he would be tried by a court martial, with no guarantees. Such pursuing of ‘terrorists’ acts is a sensational manifestation of this very need. In this specific case, however, it may well prove to be useless.
The real and ultimate kind of warfare, where one fights for survival, is dehumanised, involving no feelings whatsoever. The enemy is neither demonised nor envied, nor even respected. Instead, he is objectified and reified. The colonisers that one must drive back or counter-conquer can be equated to insects or harmful rodents, or to a deadly disease that one must urgently rid oneself of. One feels neither hatred nor sympathy, nor anything else for the cockroaches or rats that pollute one’s home with their presence. One simply hunts them down.
To demonise and criminalise one’s enemy is to basically bestow upon him a human dimension. To treat him as a plague that one must protect oneself against is, by contrast, the path to victory in the Asian mentality.
In situations of extreme urgency, the enemy is neither a human being nor a devil, but a thing, a mechanical animal, an evil that must be warded off as quickly as possible, just as one would deal with a mudflow. Contempt does not come into play. One must simply neutralise the virus so as to avoid being killed.
Cruelty and pity are truly very similar. In a traditional or classic type of conflict, they are both shown to people that one hates. As soon as one finds oneself in a situation of ultimate urgency, however, when it is a matter of saving one’s own skin in extremis, all interactions with the enemy are purged and stripped of all feelings.
Throughout history, this is how peoples have responded whenever pushed to the limit and playing the last survival card. The twenty-first century shall witness the peak of such warfare, and in all camps at that. As a result of the increasing number of deadly and formidably efficient weapons, technoscience opens up immense possibilities in this regard. This development shall simultaneously mark the end of war and its rebirth in a different form — a type of ‘cleaning’ operation, so to speak.
‘My country, right or wrong’ is an excellent proverb used by British nationalists.2 Victorious peoples have always been the ones that abide by this maxim. It is of little importance whether they were in the wrong in relation to some ‘universal morality’ or cartesian-like ‘objectivity’. The laws of life only advantage those whose conscience is clear, and not those that are ridden with guilt and strive to put everything into perspective.
In these times of brewing war, we must do away with all notions of determining whether we ‘are right or wrong’, whether ‘truth is on our side’ and whether ‘our cause is a just one or not’. All such thoughts are insignificant in the eyes of global rivalry. The only thing that matters is one’s belief in the legitimacy of one’s own supremacy and will to survive.
Cloning; the transplantation of human brain cells into the bodies of monkeys that are thus rendered more intelligent; incubators that enable entirely extrauterine births; ‘bionic’ men; and electro-biological symbioses — all of these developments are already underway. We have not seen anything yet, believe me. The combination of computer sciences and genetic engineering will propel us into an uncharted era, a Promethean one, a century of Titans which the twenty-first century shall undoubtedly be. Computers shall impact things most! Genetic engineering will only affect a limited number of people from a therapeutic point of view. Indeed, its promising aspects lie elsewhere, namely in the construction of almost human or supra-human robots.
I have already mentioned this problematic in my previous works, and many readers seemed frightened by the prospect where man basically replaces God and becomes a demiurge. Science fiction was not mistaken in this respect. As predicted by the great English physicist Hopkins, artificial intelligence may well end up surpassing our natural one. Some may target the idea with ridicule, but remember — he who laughs last laughs best.
In a tragic and risky manner, human ingenuity — or, in fact, that of European man, the heir of the Hellenic civilisation, our mother — strives to free itself from the clutches of nature. The sole purpose of technoscience is to usher in the reign of the superman.
In the twenty-first century, we shall bear witness to both the emergence of robots, including warrior ones, and a return to mediaeval warfare; the globalisation of our species and an outbreak of racism, with the latter becoming the central political policy on all continents; and a combined reign of technoscience and primitivism. In connection to this, I can only reiterate the theories I outlined in one of my previous books, namely Archeofuturism. The twenty-first century shall be characterised by the presence of all conceivable dangers and possibilities, an age when the comedy shall transform into a tragedy.
It may also be the case that this Promethean technoscience will come to the rescue of our demographically declining populations and grant those elites and minorities that now find themselves cornered by urgency the opportunity to arduously resolve problems which, for the time being, remain unsolvable. I shall say no more and leave it up to my readers — who, with horror or gladness, will now have understood in their imaginations that the religion of human rights will soon experience the collapse that follows every apotheosis — to follow my intuitions. The latter may prove to be mere daydreams, but who knows? The war will decide.
The Two Philosophies of War
There are two philosophies of warfare — that of pacifists and that of warriors. The former desire a final, merciless, massacring and hypocritical war waged in the name of Good in an effort to eradicate Evil and inequity, so as to bring about the advent of an ultimate paradise, the reign of salvation, the end of history, and the triumph of Big Brother. This is the case of Islam and Judeo-Protestant Americanism, which are not just enemies, but enemy brothers. And Communism was no different.
For their part, real warriors realise that war is eternal and that the reason why it needs to be regulated is that it constitutes a regular norm. They know that, since war is a necessary aspect of life, it can never be brought to an end and there is no such thing as a ‘final victory’. This position is realistic, pagan and devoid of any and all barbarity.
In the name of Good and ultimate peace, pacifists commit massacre upon massacre. As for warriors, they are well aware of the fact that the law of conflict will always be present, that final peace is a mathematical impossibility and that it is thus suitable to describe war — which is a fundamental human activity — as life’s selection contest. In the eyes of those who abide by this philosophy, there are three prevailing principles that remain beyond the understanding of both Muslims and American Judeo-Protestants:
- One must fight against one’s enemy without surrendering to weakness or, alternatively, demonisation. The enemy’s death is not the result of his ontological inferiority, but of a specific inability to vanquish others. Vae Victis.
- When one must eliminate their enemy, ones does so out of duty, with efficacy and not as a result of hatred. Needless suffering is to be avoided.
- One must not strive to pacify an enemy so as to turn him into a friend and transform others into a copy of oneself, but acknowledge the fact that the impossibility to reach an agreement and the necessity to fight represent an indispensable dialectical movement of life.
War is not very deadly and claims far fewer lives than epidemics. What it does, however, is impress, becoming anchored in people’s biological atavism. And what is more, it represents a show, the supreme human show. Just think of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York and how, on the morning of the 11 September 2001, in the middle of the Indian summer, they were struck with full force by those crazy planes, leaving Manhattan stunned — what a spectacle that was! It awakened America and allowed its imperialism to gather fresh momentum. Peace is a source of boredom. In the absence of conflict, nothing happens anymore, nothing but ‘happiness’ and the endless litany of stock market prices and takeover bids. Artists have always wanted to depict battles in their paintings, and so do filmmakers. The great European battles are part of our literary, pictorial and cinematographic heritage. Our European tradition is founded upon the Iliad, which tells the story of a war and its heroes. The Jewish tradition is rooted in the military conquest of the Promised Land, and the Muslim one in the military expeditions undertaken by Mohammed, who was as much a warlord as he was a prophet. The identity of every people is based on the historical accounts of the wars they waged, wars that sanctify their existence through blood. And there is no single counterexample to this.
Owing to his innermost genetic configuration, man prefers war to peace. Yet people still clumsily deny and compensate for this atavism using an entire host of pacifistic ideologies or religions. War is the law that governs the world; it is the law of man, and it shall endure forever. As for life, what it comes down to is a choice between one’s enemy and ally, whether individually or collectively.
I fear that the Muslims have already won, for the most part. Germany, in particular, has no future.
You make an interesting point about the Muslims and Judeo Protestants. Another thing that they have in common is a hatred of the German people, as such. Also, part of the problem with Islamophobia is, absurdly enough, that many of the criticisms made against the Muslims are true of another religious worldview: Namely, the Christian Zionists, or as the author had put it, the Judeo Protestants. What is even more humorous, in my view, is that although they hate the Muslim, they love the Jews!
Moreover, those who hate Germans in particular, tend to hate Whites in general; those who hate Whites in general hate Germans in particular. The Germans, as a Nation and a People, have been the brunt of efforts at vilification by the US Media. Still, once the Germans are no more, will (((the US Media))) turn on that other great, Teutonic Nation, the English? For, ever since the 1990’s, there the US Media has been steadily becoming too Irish Nationalist for my taste. The very Jews who cry and cry about The Holocaust, soon begin to shed tears for the Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland in addition.