Ethnic Diversity vs Transhuman Globalism

As a Frenchman with a critical eye, an enlightened spirit à la Voltaire and a liberal will à la Schiller, free of the ‘guilt complexes’ that plague most of the citizens of this country, I am not at all afraid to take sides, before anyone and before nothing, for a country that I admire and love for its philosophy, its music, its poetry, its scientific and technical achievements, without which this world as it is would not exist, for its virtues, and last but not least for its spirit: Germany. I am all the less afraid to take sides with this country on behalf of those who have forgotten how to see what is, and who fall silent when it comes to saying how it should be.

Of all things, to place our meta-political study community — tireless advocate of a ‘Charter of the Rights of Peoples’, whose proclaimed goal is the protection and preservation of the ethnocultural identity of all peoples of the world — under suspicion of sedition is already abstruse enough. But to make such an accusation in the name of a system whose egalitarian principle is based on the denial of natural diversity and which demonstrates its disregard for identities and the rights of peoples in an increasingly shameless and oppressive manner on a daily basis with the proclaimed will to establish a multicultural society, whose purpose is aimed at the abolition of peoples, is simply grotesque.

For this reason, it is an unsurpassable scurrility, if not a malicious insinuation, to accuse the identity preserver of inciting peoples. Curious or grotesque if one perceives the original tone of the Thule-Seminar: ‘Racial Surhumanism springs from the ethnic principle of Indo-Europeanism. Historically rooted in antiquity, spiritually springing from Indo-European metaphysics, philosophically and ethically located from Heraclites and Aristotle to Nietzsche and Heidegger. It connects the pre-Christian roots of the mental world and civilisation of the Indo-European peoples with a spiritual teaching that alone is capable of freeing us from the globalist death alley. In the midst of this race-destroying, because race-despising, society, we are the heralds of the true dignity of man, which only begins when respect for his otherness is guaranteed, and we are the ambassadors of a lasting peace, which is only possible when the otherness of peoples is protected in their respective homelands, the only basis of mutual respect and genuine tolerance in a world of natural polyphony.’¹ Clear language, clear words, clear confession.

However, inquisitors do not act according to reason, not according to a code of values, not with regard to truth. Instead they act according to the motto of all harassers à la Torquemada: ‘The end justifies the means.’ They have made the end sufficiently clear themselves: the destruction of all evolved peoples and cultures. All those who resist this are persecuted and fought with all means of arbitrariness.

That is why I feel compelled to add a short note about democracy at this point. After countless manipulations, falsifications and corruptions of all kinds, the Hellenic-Germanic or Celtic democracy, rooted in the archaic traditions of Europe, has not only lost its meaning, it has above all forgotten the memory of its origins. Why? Because the original meaning of this Athenian-born concept — the Thing among the Germanic peoples — is in absolute contradiction to the distorted interpretation in terms of cosmopolitanism, egalitarianism and universalism. Democracy in its original sense is inseparable from concepts like ‘people’, ‘community’, ‘identity’. That is why we speak today of an organic democracy, foreign to globalism. Demos and ethnos are closely related, they are interwoven.

The original Greek version of democracy even resembles a genocratic order of society, i.e. a state that preserves the integrity of its ethnos, its identitary survival, bearer and defender therefore of a genophilic humanism according to Plato and Aristotle in contrast to the corrupting and equalising humanitarianisms. Accordingly, the original Greek democracy understands itself as a community of autochthonous citizens — a communal organism, therefore — whereby political equality arises only from citizenship, and citizenship, in turn, derives only from the close affiliation with a people. Democracy, demos kratos², is in the true sense the power of the people, of a particular people, that of the Greeks, for one is, for example, an Athenian per jus sanguinis³; one does not become one per jus soli⁴.

It is also no coincidence that the later decadence and collapse of Greece happened step by step with the loss of a crucial parameter: that of ethnicity. In the meantime, the degenerated democratism of many Western states only reveals the grimace of a democracy in the midst of a now globally networked plutocracy of a so-called unipolar world under the rule of the USA and its vassals. The signs, however, point to the increasingly strong emergence of multipolar forces, whether in Eastern Europe, India, Asia or South America, which could soon put an end to this arbitrary construct.

But the heresy of transhuman globalism is the result of a decades-long war in the field of linguistics. The effect is undeniable: the consciousness of most Europeans is anaesthetised, their will to survive lulled to sleep, their instinct buried. It afflicts all dull spirits. It is called ethnomasochism and leads to ethnosuicide. For words are not only tools of communication; deeply hidden mental hereditary memories, inclinations and behaviours are reflected in words.

The word ethnos not only points to the perception of the inherent diversity of peoples. It also points to sacred apperceptions, to irreplaceable treasures of a spiritual, cultural, religious nature that weave a natural polyphony around the world and give the sign of uniqueness to the peoples whose diversity enriches the planet: and this is what is called identity. Identity awareness cannot be solely understood in a one-dimensional biological sense, but without feedback to the ethno-biological identity awareness, it remains a useless catchphrase. An identity without a biological frame of reference is a pipe dream!

The efficiency of the mind, however, depends on its mental cleanliness, and the latter requires naming a cat not as a four-legged creature but as a cat. Only then do we realise why Europe — dishonourable and self-loathing — is tottering down the wrong track of destructive and deconstructive nihilism. On the basis of this, we therefore pose four core questions that demand an unequivocal answer:

1. Is ethnic biology a sound science or merely a figment of the imagination? Are ethnic groups merely pure illusions and, consequently, the laws of heredity, anthropology and genetics one and the same folly and their most prominent representatives from all countries of the world, not infrequently Nobel Prize winners, dangerous crackpots?
2. Does that mean a mixture of peoples is desirable or not?
3. Are all human beings the same from an anatomical, physiological, phenotypical and genotypical point of view?
4. Is everything that constitutes culture learnable and interchangeable and is it therefore completely irrelevant who settles where and who mates with whom?

The system-immanent answer is: yes, all people are equal; all cultures are learnable and interchangeable: it is enough to learn Chinese to become Chinese. It is precisely at this point that the gap between political charlatanry and the achievements of science can be measured. And the depth of this gulf is terrifying. Modern population biology, the latest achievements in anthropology, genetics, paleogenetics, ethology, psychology, and last but not least the revolutionary decoding of DNA, respond with a unanimous voice of an irrefutable ‘no’. The world-renowned anthropologist Ilse Schwidetzky, former chair of anthropology at the University of Mainz, is categorical: each ethnic group ‘has its own biological structure and differs from others in this. It is therefore anything but indifferent for the development and for the essence of peoples which immigrant groups they are prepared to accept into their marriage and reproduction circle.’⁵ For the famous French ancient historian Camille Jullian, the ‘question of ethnicity, by whatever means one may arrive at its solution, is the most important question in the history of mankind.’⁶

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, reference to the biology of peoples remains indispensable. It alone can explain why simply learning the Chinese language, or even just being a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, can never, ever make one feel, understand and behave like a bio-Chinese. The laws of identity are neither a theory nor an assumption. They are. It is law, and there is nothing to shake it: one cannot become Chinese by learning or acquiring, but only by having the appropriate genetic make-up.

So we are witnesses and actors in a confrontation between the life or death of peoples: racial humanism versus the trans-humanism of the egalo-humanitarians. We advocate respect, preservation and protection of all ethnic groups in their respective ancestral geo-cultural space.

The trans-humanitarians yearn for the establishment of mixed societies and believe they can break the laws of nature with impunity. Therefore, the fronts are clarified: defenders of life on one side, adversaries of the laws of life on the other. For anyone who leaves ethnos aside as the main ethnobiological paradigm of identity goes down the wrong path of self-sacrifice and falls obligatorily into the egalitarian definitional grid of the system that reduces identity to a product of the environment. Those who agree that identity is merely environmental must consequently admit that population biology is an illusion and culture is learnable.

For us, therefore, there is not only no identity taboo, even no identity question, but only and simply an identity fact. Around the main planet ethnos — not just its satellites: language, culture, customs — is where the whole tragedy revolves. The inability to grasp the irrefutable foundations of the human sciences consequently forces one to abandon this main planet, thus taking off from reality and leading directly into the camp of transhuman globalism.

Globalism thus makes use of an ideological construct: contrary to nature in its essence and hostile to life in practice. The Thule-Seminar represents a worldview that, in radical contrast to the construct of ‘ideology’, is based on nature-given facts. We respect life, recognise its laws and humbly submit to the order of creation, author of the rich diversity on this planet.

What the globalists — sorcerer’s apprentices of pan-mixing and annihilators of homogeneous peoples — dare to call ‘colourful’ is heading inexorably towards the catastrophe of grey monotony. Colourful alone is and remains the natural diversity that demands respect and preservation.

Werner Sombart once warned that ‘in the very nature of the capitalist spirit lies a tendency that seeks to decompose and kill it from within’⁷. If the Federal Republic does not confine itself to the doomed ‘system’ of homo œconomicus, Germany, which continues to form a nation, is still capable at any time of regenerating itself through a spiritual and mental revaluation.

The banner of resistance of men and women fighting against the ‘eradication of their nationhood’ is unfurling again throughout Europe. It is the banner of ‘the awakening of Europeans determined to turn the deception back on the deceivers’⁸ — the banner of the right to diversity and identity of all the peoples of the world. It is also the banner of the Thule-Seminar, which unites all people in all European countries up to Russia who ‘reject Western materialism, mercantile utilitarianism, cultural Americanisation and bourgeois thinking’ (P. Rauti). By invoking the foundations of ethno-politics, our ‘New School’ heralds the return of a multiform world, borne by the everlasting pull of history and marked by the emergence of the ethnic-cultural affiliations of peoples.

The Europe of the Indo-European peoples is multiform-homogeneous: between Reykjavik and Vladivostok, the diversity of forms, peculiarities and ways of life never ends. The extremely rich diversity of the European world has come into being through the laws of life, stems from the same biological origin of peoples, draws and thrives from the same original source. It is precisely from this solid, multiform and homogeneous structure that the close kinship of Europeans in all areas of biology, culture, original religion, history and language results.

In contrast, the stray fellow travellers of multiculturalism expose themselves not only as the blatant despisers of the evolved peoples and their respective cultures. They are — viewed biologically-anthropologically — the incorrigible back rowers of evolution: they serve as image-obedient vassals of the deconstruction of peoples and are thus guilty of the planned homocide against world polyphony.

It has always been natural for most of us to feel, think and act primarily as Europeans, for we carried within us — like a devotion to the ancestors — the confessions of many of Europe’s rebellious masterminds. One could bundle all the others: ‘We Europeans have Minos and Lycurgus, the culture of Mycenae and of Corinth. We say Troy and Homer. We call Heraclitus and Athens. We look to the Capitol and the Gracchi. We praise Cato and Augustus. We laugh at the low-minded who claim to have leased the right and freedom of the world and whose entire symbolic “magic” consists of three letters of the alphabet (USA) or the materialistic slogan of the “Western hemisphere”. For the God of the gods loves us as he did in the myth of prehistoric times, and if one returns the law and order of the world, it will again be a son of Europe!’

It is not for nothing that we are the descendants of a 30,000-year unbroken, ethnically homogeneous long line of ancestors. The luminary of evolutionary biology and ethology, Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, never tired of emphasising: ‘Biologically-anthropologically, Europeans are a fairly uniform population. The common European cultural heritage also connects genetically close relatives.’⁹ We are the ethnic and spiritual children of Ulysses and Faust, Merlin and Siegfried, Leonidas and Hermann, Heraclitus and Marcus Aurelius, Athena and Penelope, Hypathia and Joan of Arc, Leif Eriksson and Charles Martel. This heritage is not so easily shattered. It has always been able to rise from within itself, contrary to the fatal errors of Oswald Spengler.

But one thing is certain: Europeans will suffer earthquake-like disasters, Dominique Venner warned, and indescribable challenges will hammer brutally at their gates. But we must be just as rock-solidly certain: Europeans will once again be able to unleash the forces of rebirth from what still resides in their spirit and ethnos: that rare bundle of inventiveness and willpower, mysticism and primordial wisdom, at the core of which Apollo and Dionysus still dwell.

This spirit is not limited to Europe; it is indeed universal, in the midst of the only universalism that exists: the universalism of universal diversities, which must be respected and protected — all the more so when one knows — to speak with Konrad Lorenz, the main representative of evolutionary epistemology — that ‘diversities have been decisive for the higher development of mankind’¹⁰. Those who plead for genuine, natural diversity should know that the heterogeneity of the world depends solely on the homogeneity of peoples.

I challenge anyone and everyone to find any text, statement or quotation that is not authentic, not substantiated or not verifiable, in other words, that would not correspond to facts, reality or truth.

This is the main reason why I feel particularly obliged to object. I here strenuously object to the infamous suggestions of the anonymous writer of the so-called ‘Verfassungsschutz’¹¹ to defame Mars Ultor¹² as a collection of scurrilous conspiracy theories or spiteful slogans. The very act of spelling out the term ‘metapolitics’, the foundation and venue of our studies and activities, already reveals the seemingly antipodean position of our stance towards politics in general, from the far right to the far left.

A further acquaintance with the philosophical, ethical and scientific pillars of the outlook on life we represent, namely that of a ‘New Culture of European Spirit’, should also be sufficient to establish that our thinking and actions, free and independent of any political or party affiliation, can be located neither on the right nor on the left. Anyone who claims otherwise is mistaken or lying.

The right to diversity that we advocate, i.e. the right to identity — a fundamental right for every people and culture on this planet — reveals the will to preserve and protect all ethnic communities, cultures and peoples within the natural world polyphony.

We vehemently take sides with this fundamental right, which is no more and no less than the basic prerequisite par excellence of tolerance, natural ethnocultural realities, freedom and life.

The European Pierre Eugène Drieu la Rochelle, always young at heart, emphatically confessed as early as the 1920s: ‘Between Calais and Nice I suffocate; I would like to stretch out to the Urals. My heart, full of Goethe and Dostoevsky, beguiles the customs offices, betrays the national flags, flouts the postmarks in its love letters. I want to be great and, for the greater glory of the world, to finish the European monument.’¹³

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, the brilliant author of The Little Prince, confessed: ‘A woman only has attraction for you if she is stable and solidly grounded, if her body has not emerged from a mixed dough, if she does not come from that wash of peoples in which everything has been mixed and which resembles a glacier melted in a swamp.’¹⁴

I am also a European free spirit from France à la Drieu la Rochelle and à la Saint-Exupéry and as such free from the numerous templates or guilt complexes that have infested the German mind and still hold it captive in their claws.

I claim for myself to breathe freely, to think freely and to research freely — far from all dogmas, foreign to all taboos. I repeat: no one, no party, no church, neither an institution nor an authority in the world can and will be able to forbid me to be and remain a free spirit and accordingly to continue to fight against the culture-destroying and anti-people excesses of the world enemy: globalism.