Translated by Greg Johnson, with thanks to Michael O’Meara
To avoid repeating myself, I must first point out the statement that I made at the beginning of the manifesto Why We Fight. Now let us summarize, following this statement, some suggestions referred to in this manifesto. Because of our historically unprecedented situation, I recommend a strategy inspired by certain revolutionary leaders whose names need not be mentioned.
1. First off, it is important to unify, on a European scale, all the identitarian forces of resistance around a doctrine and a basic revolutionary program.
Ignoring the secondary ideological or emotional quarrels which are often merely the expressions of petty nationalisms and family or sectarian disputes, we should follow Lenin’s counsel to “settle our quarrels after the revolution.” For pity’s sake, it is necessary to cease the oh-so-delicious internal disputes (the rumors, excommunications, and paranoias) and to reserve our blows for the real enemy. We concentrate on the essential, on what brings us together, because we are confronted with an absolute emergency (the Erntsfall, theorized by Carl Schmitt). Look at the Moslems: they cease fighting one another as soon as it is a question of carrying out the Jihad against the infidel.
2. For us the common and main enemy (the one who invades concretely, physically) is the alien colonization and settlement under the banner of Islam; obviously, one can share certain common values with the enemy, but one should not fall into the trap of feeling any sympathy for him. The enemy, moreover, profits from collaborationists — from those good European ethnomasochists who are the most dangerous to us. As for the common adversary (which seeks to weaken and dominate us), it is the United States, the objective ally of the former.
3. Our movement — which is one of radical (and not “extremist”) thought — has a true monopoly on revolutionary dissidence, since we are the only ones who seek a total inversion of the dominant values and civilizational forms (Nietzsche’s Umwertung [transvaluation]).
4. 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.
5. As indicated in the excellent title of your magazine [Réfléchir & Agir], reflection is fundamental, but by the same token it is also necessary to act. But how to act? What is to be done? This is always the key question. We must form a European network of resistance, solidarity, and action around a common ideological program. This should not exclude, but include politics. It is too late now to win power by the ballot box and parliamentary democracy. It is necessary to make the following bet. It is risky like any bet, but it is our only chance in this twilight age: in the next ten to fifteen years there is likely to be a major crisis (“chaos”) which will take the form of an ethnic conflict of great magnitude, probably based on economic impoverishment; this could change the mentality of the masses, who are today force-fed like geese by our neo-totalitarian mass media.
It is a matter, then, of anticipating the “post-chaos,” of preparing for the coming storm by constituting a European network — horizontal, web-like, informal, polymorphic — of revolutionary minorities, a network of solidarity, a European international of resistance and propaganda. “The Network” should not take any name or institutional form. It is what I call the strategy of the cobra. It must stretch, in a clandestine but unshakeable manner, from Portugal to Russia, connecting cadres or elected officials of political parties, associations and circles of all natures, individuals, publishers, businessmen, financiers, net surfers, media people, etc. With three objectives: general agitprop, formation and recruitment, and the acquisition of media. In a word, it must prepare us for the inevitable confrontation. 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 also have to stop thinking that “the system is invincible.” It is strong only because of our current weakness and disorganization. Finally, it is necessary to forsake this psychopathic cult of defeat, of the “last stand.” The only people who win are those tragic optimists who think of themselves as the “first stand.”
When such a network exists, it will be time to pass to the next, properly political, stage, which is impossible to plan for today. Let us begin, then, by building our network with patience, determination, and professionalism. And let us cull from our ranks the incompetents, mediocrities, hotheads, and kooks. For such a network, united around a clear and common doctrine, must above all constitute a rigorous elite. From Resistance to Reconquest, from Reconquest to Revolution.
From Réfléchir & Agir, no. 9 (Summer 2001).
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 370 Greg Johnson, Mark Gullick, & Stephen Paul Foster Ponder The Deep Questions
La Seconde Venue païenne de Yeats
Breakfast with Deleuze
Toward A New Era of Nation-States, Part VI: The Will to Power as a Governing Principle
Nietzsche, Context, & the Islamic Assumption
Heidegger’s History of Metaphysics, Part Ten: Kant & the Metaphysics of Presence
Thomas Rohkrämer’s Martin Heidegger: A Political Biography
Toward A New Era of Nation-States, Part III: Challenging the Values of Universal Doctrines