Toward Euro-Siberia

2,062 words

Portuguese translation here

Euro-Siberia is the idea of a racially homogenous, economically autarkic Imperial federation stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific and including all European lands in between.

The promoters of Euro-Siberia argue that long-term survival and flourishing of the European race is better served by such a federation than by the current mishmash of ethnically bastardized nation-states, subjected to economic globalization and Third World colonization by that malevolent technocratic nullity, the European Union.

The leading advocate of Euro-Siberia, Guillaume Faye, has stated that although Euro-Siberia is an imperative for our people, we do not yet know how it will come about. The aim of this article is to shed some light on this problem and explore paths that are clearer than positing a brutal catastrophe that destroys the old order but does not fully reveal what must be done to create a new one.

Steps can be taken to increase the odds of success. Broadly speaking, the best way to achieve this goal is by combining the identitarian forces with other political actors and by utilizing historical processes that unwittingly proceed towards that outcome. Hegel’s phrase about the cunning of reason certainly comes to mind.

The true right has unfortunately sought alliances, such as with the organized Jewish community or with non-white separatists, in which there is no true convergence of interests. It is clearly a mistake to think that positive results can be gained by working with peoples bearing virulent historical grudges. We should look instead to specific states, ideological factions, interest groups, etc. who, whatever our differences with them, at least belong to the same people as us. This is a proven strategy and was used by all radical right movements of the inter-war period. The crucial issue is to ensure that whatever may transpire, it is we and not they who are setting the agenda.

Any alliances and crises must relate to the following dimensions: the respective levels of authority within the European polity on the one hand (nation-states, regions, and supra-national or inter-governmental organizations) and on the other, the presence of forces impeding our goal, namely an intriguing and imperialistic US government, the colonizing masses of the Third World, and an anti-national elite subservient to the United States and finance capital more generally.

One must next consider the overall geopolitical situation (Euro-Siberia is fundamentally a geopolitical as well as bio-political project) and likely medium-term trends therein. What is occurring is less historical than supra-historical and a matter of destiny. I am convinced, that for the first time in centuries the rhythms of time are working to the favor of the true right, not against it. It is not difficult to deduce why; an era is ending before our very eyes and a new one being born.

Furthermore, our cause is fundamentally one concerning the survival of our people. This has inherent mass appeal because everybody would prefer to survive, even decadent people, who are simply unadventurous or unwilling to takes great risks or pursue grand projects. The pursuit of a continued existence for a people is arguably bio-politics in its purest form. Our present weakness is due solely to the masses’ general ignorance of the long-term dangers they face, while our true role is to unite our people, given that we are the only ones who resist the decadence and can grant our people’s future existence a firm foundation.

Despite the election of a neo-conservative as French President, the Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis, which is the geopolitical foundation of the future Euro-Siberia, remains a strong diplomatic alignment: geopolitical imperatives are more important than personal or ideological preferences.

Thus France is selling to Russia Mistral-class amphibious assault ships, while Germany has agreed to build the Russians a new military training center. Germany has also closely co-operated with Russia over issues such as Transdniestria and Belarus. Furthermore, the Nordstream pipeline, directly linking Russia and Germany, will soon be operational.

Finally at the recent annual NATO conference, Paris and Berlin jointly thwarted the efforts of the newly admitted Eastern European states to reorient NATO around an anti-Russian program, thereby effectively reducing the organization to disunited political irrelevance (current token troop deployments to Afghanistan notwithstanding). There has even been talk of a new European security architecture that will include Russia.

As to medium-term trends over the next decade: tensions between the United States and Russia are likely to be exacerbated by a Second Cold War. This conflict will be a product of the American desire to dominate Europe through division and rule and Eastern European fears of Russian resurgence. Thus in 2013, the US will deploy aviation assets to Poland, followed by ballistic missile defense components in 2018 and to Romania as well, in 2015. Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia have formed an alliance called the Visegrad Group to counter Russia. Its military component, a battle-group, will be activated in 2016. None of these actions will be in any way acceptable to Russia, and they will be highly disagreeable to Germany. Conversely, the United States and its allies/clients are unlikely to initially back down, i.e., not without protracted struggle. Thus a cold war of some sort is highly probable.

Germany and France seek to avoid this conflict, but if forced to choose sides, the iron logic of geopolitics dictates that they side with Russia. Germany is not threatened by Russia and would prefer to jointly dominate Eastern Europe with her, while France is bound to the hip with Germany, assuming she wishes to lead Europe, that is. Therefore even mainstream politicians hostile to our cause in France, Germany, and Russia, will have good reasons to intensify their co-operation and reduce American influence. They can accomplish this through diplomatic maneuvers that, while hardly revolutionary, will nonetheless lay further geopolitical groundwork for Euro-Siberia.

First of all Germany and France can leave NATO. If Germany leaves, then its Eurozone economic clients will probably leave with it, and if France also leaves, then regional powers such as Spain and Italy will be forced to follow suit.

Secondly all of NATO’s command, organization and training functions must be transferred to the EU. This would be the nucleus and “brain” for a genuine Pan-European military. It is about time that the EU took a serious interest in military power. It says it all that the EU has a dozen or so Commissioners for various economic matters, yet no Commissioner for Defense.

Thirdly the Russian federation should be admitted to the European Union. Insofar as the EU is a hybrid institution devoid of real sovereignty, it will not be sufficient to obtain our goal, but it will force people to think of Europe as including Russia, and as extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This will pose socio-economic problems for the EU, but other than the danger of increased non-white immigration, they are all of secondary importance compared to existing geopolitical imperatives and the monumental project we seek to impose on history.

Then there will only be three major problems to be overcome if Euro-Siberia is to be accomplished: the disparities in power between European states, the lack of Imperial symbolism and legitimacy, and finally, the continued presence of the foreign hordes squatting on the lands of our Fathers. Each is soluble.

These will be the only problems, because a decaying and increasingly mongrelized United States, beset by grave internal economic and political problems, will not have the resources or focus to defeat an assertive and unified Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis, not to mention an expansionist China and a regionally hegemonic Iran (Iraq, Syria and Lebanon are already de facto Iranian clients, so too are the Taliban and Hamas).

This is true despite the fact that France, Germany, and Russia face similar, albeit less severe internal problems, for if they were to undertake the measures suggested above, their economic and political weight would be sufficient to make it highly likely that the United States’ European clients will be pressured (internally and externally) into defecting or yielding to the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis, while a weakened US is unable to do anything but watch.

The disparity between European states can be accomplished by splitting them up into regions. Faye has engaged in polemics against these left-wing “civic nationalists” who advocate autonomy for their respective regions yet support for globalism and multiculturalism. The term ethno-nationalism is actually redundant because in truth there is no other kind, nasci and ethnos refer to the same reality, the same reality as does race: birth and ancestry.

Despite this, we should be willing to regard such left-wing nationalists as useful idiots, with all that entails in terms of party politics. If their PC “nationalism” leads to a Europe of a Hundred Flags, so much the better. Besides, once they have their little statelets, the ethnocentric instincts of their supporters will be directed away from the English, the Castilians etc. and towards the colored colonists. Even their party leaders will probably be forced to recognize the absurdity of engaging in a long political struggle for an independent nation only to hand it over to foreigners.

One should be quite clear that in terms of political forms, the EU lacks legitimacy not because it is not a nation-state, but because it has completely failed to draw upon Europe’s rich Imperial tradition stretching back to Rome and to act as the center of a higher European cultural and spiritual unity. It is ruled by deracinated technocrats, and that is why it is so widely loathed. Even if the EU were to abandon its open borders policy and economic micro-management it still would not be regarded as legitimate.

But perhaps there is hope that the existing European royal houses, which have considerable legitimacy with their peoples, could be swayed to support the idea of a European empire with a European Emperor at its apex.

As for the foreign hordes, this is the most important problem of all, and I do not propose a novel solution, because the solution is very simple, yet highly difficult to actualize. Nationalists must win power and deport them all. Case closed. How we are going to accomplish that cannot be answered here, because it is a huge issue in its own right.

Once all of these things are accomplished, there will still be much to be done: building a powerful pan-European military, strengthening the Emperor at the expense of the technocrats, spiritual and cultural regeneration of a radically traditional kind, stabilizing our population, economic restructuring, and aiding those of our people scattered across the New World. However the most essential tasks will have been accomplished, namely defeating our enemies and building the Great Homeland.

To accomplish this, though, we can use the French, German, and Russian states, the regionalists and the royal houses, but we cannot rely upon them. It is up to us, the New Right. The prime impetus towards Euro-Siberia must ultimately come from nationalist parties sympathetic to this goal, shaping foreign policy, and making the necessary decisions as to the appropriate forms of sovereignty for our people.

This essentially means that when nationalist parties have the necessary governmental power (and I suspect this will come sooner than our more pessimistic brethren think), they are to be relentlessly pressured into adopting the correct course of action. It will soon be clear to them however, that Euro-Siberia is the only solution. A Europe of fully independent nations, of variable sizes and power is not viable. They will be too small to possess genuine political or economic independence, always vulnerable to American division and rule, liable to face harsh sanctions, either for dealing with the immigration problem, or for attempting to halt globalism’s subversion of culture and its leveling economic dislocations.

What can the white men of North America do to aid this victory, given that I have been speaking mostly of Europeans in the Old World, not the New, and of the US government simply as a foe? They can of course offer their solidarity. More importantly, they can weaken the hated federal government, by at least imposing a general and pervasive political paralysis, or better still by dismembering the Union and carving out lands of their own.

Ultimately, the ethnostate and the Imperium are compatible. They represent the triumph over the US and the USSR; the two states which have most epitomized this dark age of matter and untruth. They must give way to the Septentrion.