and imperial or it will not be. She can’t long remain content
with the present wobbly assemblage of cooperative but unequal states lacking a common international policy, led by an uncomprehending and uncontrollable technocracy, with everything feebly held together by the rhetorical swish of free trade, democratism, and humanitarian ‘values’, and undergirded by bureaucratic regulations and financial mechanisms. Europe will exist in the long run only as a large
federation of ethnically related regions.
3. Western and Central Europe, whose future is now uncertain, needs to ally with Russia to ward off their common enemies. 4. In such a prospective Imperial Federation, every national
member would be free, at whatever time, to quit it if it so desires.
That said, the edification of such a Europe would emerge not through the gentle evolution of the present EU, whose present political form is hardly viable, but rather through the dramatic force of already foreseeable circumstances.
(see convergence of catastrophes; empire; Eurosiberia) * * *
EUROSIBERIA
The destined space in which European peoples will finally regroup, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, sealing the historic alliance between the European peninsula, Central Europe, and Russia.
The term is preferable to ‘Eurasia’.[140] Europe here reappropriates
all of northern Asia for Russian domination. Beware, though: the
concept of Eurosiberia is a ‘paradigm’, that is, an ideal, a model, an objective, one of whose dimensions is a concrete, agitating, and mobilising myth.
Eurosiberia will be an ‘Empire of the Sun’, across whose fourteen time zones the sun will never set. Eurosiberia is the common fortress, the common home, the maximum extension and natural expression of the notion of ‘European Empire’. It will be a veritable ‘Third Rome’, which Russia alone never was.
The notion of Eurosiberia supposes the decoupling of Western Europe from the American West, and Europe’s solidarity and alliance with Russia. De Gaulle intuitively sensed the need for this. We have the same enemies, the same ethnic/racial competitors. We — we future Eurosiberians — are a nightmare for the Pentagon, as well as for Islam. If it should ever be constructed, Eurosiberia
would regroup all White, Indo-European peoples in the great regions into which they have spread, becoming — from far off and for long to come — not solely the world’s foremost power, but the first hyper-power in history.
*
The great spatial expanses of Eurosiberia — ‘from the land of the steppes to the fjords to the bush’ — would be economically independent of North America. It would neither be aggressive nor imperialist, but identitarian. China, India, the Muslim-Arab world,
Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America, even North America, have an interest in managing the Blue Planet (Earth), to cooperate with a future Eurosiberian Federation — on the condition that everyone stays in their own lands.
It will of course be objected that that this is utopian. No. It’s only
an idea thrown at history in the Hegelian sense. The great ideas
always find their way. As Pierre Vial says, it’s toward a ‘self- governed ethnocentric Eurosiberia’ that future European elites will turn their energies, once the era of world-changing tragedies arrives.
(see idea, ideal, historical idealism)
FATHERLAND, GREAT FATHERLAND, NATIVE LAND
The land of one’s fathers, ancestors, and lineage. The notion of fatherland (patrie) links a ‘people’ with a ‘land’.
The need for a ‘native land’ (patrie charnelle) is ethologically and biologically rooted in the human spirit — and no form of globalisation can abolish it. Identification with a fatherland is one of the pillars of human psychology — a fatherland in which the
crystallisation of the territorial imperative and the ethnic imperative coincide.
The history of European peoples is so complicated and entangled that the choice of a fatherland is difficult to make in a ‘rational’ or ‘mechanical’ manner. Will it be Brittany, Lombardy, or Flanders? Will it be France, Italy, Germany, or some other nation-state? Will it be America, to which European elites continue to emigrate? The French ideology of the nation-state, like the German ideology of Fichte’s ‘fatherland as language and culture’,[141] has diminished the
idea of fatherland, basic to all anthropological relations.
In revealing a certain European schizophrenia, this question can only be answered from above: to each European his own
fatherland, national or regional (chosen on the basis of intimate,
emotive affinities) — and to all Europeans the Great
Fatherland, this land of intimately related peoples. The
consciousness of belonging to both a ‘small native land’ and a ‘great fatherland’ is very difficult for contemporaries to grasp. The future, though, will likely compel them to understand it. The Great
Fatherland organically encompasses and federates the native lands of Europe. This is what I call the New Nationalism.
*
accession of the deracinated. A nomadic métis,[142] modern Western man is a passer-by in a world that has become a Global Village — organised into networks, with universalism and global capitalism constituting its virtual fatherland. This, though, is an illusion, a remnant of a modernism already out of date. There’s no doing away with the notion of a fatherland, for it’s archaic and atemporal, inscribed in our genes, and, in this sense, it’s futurist —
archeofuturist.
Even the Third World immigrant colonisers of Europe remain attached to their fatherland — to the land from which they came. But for them, especially Muslims, Europe is a new fatherland, a conquered land (Dar al Islam).[143] But beware: as a constant feature
of human history, resting on the permanent conflict-cooperation dialectic governing the relations between different peoples, there will always be a temptation to occupy other people’s land. In a rather unique boomerang of history, Europe today is a victim of this alien inversion.
*
Essential to the idea of fatherland is not just an identity with a particular land, but an identity with a particular ethno-spiritual community. The fatherland is not simply a territory, but a
biological lineage, the place where one’s ancestors are buried.
Hence the tragedy of the pieds-noirs[144] who settled Algeria, where
their family tombs have since been profaned — where they once lived and worked and from which they were forcibly expelled. To
survive today, Europeans no longer need to search for other countries to conquer, but to defend the Great Fatherland that comprises all the native lands of which they are the sole rightful occupants.
dialectical dynamic. The new horizon of European man — following the failure of European colonisation, the tragedy of the present Third World colonisation, and the fantasy of a ‘Western world civilisation’ — is now shaped by the need both to
reconstruct their native lands and to construct an imperial Great Fatherland, Eurosiberia, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Words, of course, are always a bit imprecise. They are not mathematical concepts, but things expressive of the spirit’s subtleties. The fatherland, as a notion, has a meaning related to that of the ‘nation’, which etymologically refers to those who are closely related. The essential, however, is that all these notions possess an unshakeable popular basis. Let me give Éric Delcroix[145]
the last word here: ‘Where is the real native land, in which our contemporaries still recognise themselves as being within Europe, where they can make their life worth living and thus eventually worth sacrificing? There needs to be a people, though, before there can be such a land — however legitimate their attachment to all that they have historically and sentimentally invested.’ In his view, this people is the French, who are presently being disfigured by mass immigration, to such a degree that they risk becoming strangers in their own land, given that their new ‘compatriots’ are non-European.
The issue here is to define the term ‘patriotic’ on the basis of ethnic and historical criteria rather than according to the cosmopolitan ideology of the French Revolution. As Corneille wrote in his Horace, ‘To die for one’s country is such a worthy act / Men should contend to gain its glorious prize’.[146] Again, it’s
necessary that a fatherland corresponds to a single homogeneous people, for in American-style multi-racial society it’s even denied that its soldiers are sacrificed for the nation’s sake.