Louis XIV, 1655
1,070 words
Translated by Greg Johnson
A nation, a people can have deficient state institutions while continuing to produce a great creative civilization. The example of France — among others — is quite eloquent. In many periods of its history, this country has experienced an unstable political state organization which cannot master endemic crises. However, society continued to function and create in all domains despite the ongoing crisis of the state. Because the society was the fertile population of vital people, who were never discouraged.
Take the case of the period from 1815-1848 (the Restoration and July Monarchy ) and that of the Third Republic (1875-1940). State institutions (the “constitutions” in Tocqueville’s words) were particularly fragile, poorly supported, and challenged by permanent crises. But, at the same time, in the arts, sciences, industry, the quality of education, economic and cultural influence, etc. the country was creative and effective. How to explain this paradox?
First of all, the sustainability and genius of a nation depends on the relationship between a masculine and organizing principle, the State, and a feminine and vitalistic principle, which gives birth to forms, Society. Stateless, Society becomes sterile, since a people without a state sink into folklore and lethargy. And without a structured and homogeneous Society, a State (even if very well-organized) becomes powerless and ineffectual: this is happening today, to which I’ll come back later.
Second, in the past, during countless crises of the State and its institutions, France still had a State, however imperfect. Crises of the “regime” were superficial and superstructural, but it was still a state and political infrastructure that framed and aided the creativity of society.[1]
Third, roughly likening the State to the brain and Society to the organic body, as in an individual, if the former can suffer a headache while the latter remains perfectly healthy, the Nation as a whole may continue to function. However, if Society disintegrates in its organic foundation, the best state can neither govern nor save the Nation. State crises are much less severe than Societal crises. Similarly, an individual who has an excellent brain but whose body collapses will end up paralyzed and powerless.
The “historical capital” of a nation, that is to say, its creative accumulated production (cultural and material) depends on the interaction between the State and Society, but also the awareness that it is a ethno-historical unity.[2]
Now let’s deal with some shocking facts. Currently, we can not say that the French State apparatus functions poorly compared to everything we have experienced in the past. The problem is that French Society, the organic and productive force of the nation, is slowly disintegrating. The responsibility is partly — but only partly — the State’s, which has allowed it and failed to correct it. But the sickness of Society precedes that of the State, since the latter originates as a biological production of the organic body of Society, just as man is born of woman. From a holistic and interactive perspective, Society produces the state which, in turn, regulates, directs, and protects Society.
Today, the entire French Nation (like many others in Europe) suffers from extremely serious pathologies that put its survival in the medium term in question, and which have nothing to do with “institutions.” To enumerate: the aging of the indigenous population and its demographic decline, a massive immigration invasion from below (caused by or accepted with fatalism or hostility but in no way imposed by force from the outside), domestication (the psycho-behavioral source of egotism), refusal of effort (lethargy), criminal sentimentality, emasculation, passive hedonism, indifference to one’s ancestors and lineage (the germen), etc.
Some offer explanations based on external political or ideological causes: the long-term influence of Christian morality, the Freemasons, the “Jewish spirit” of Americanism, consumerism , etc. The internal explanation, which has the support of sociobiology, is that the peoples, biological groups, age just like individuals and lose their vital energy and their collective will. In the long term, they become less capable of withstanding their environment, ideological or otherwise. The external reasons are sources of irresponsibility, the internal ones of fatalism.
Nobody will ever decide. But one should not be deterministic. One must always act as if fate is surmountable and as if quiet desperation is stupid.
There are four principles (or conditions) that determine the health and creativity of a Society:
- Ethnic homogeneity in the broadest sense, with strong anthropological kinship.
- Values, a culture, a shared historical consciousness without inner communitarianism — that is to say, the unity of Society and the State .
- Internal solidarity beyond economic class differences, a sense of belonging more carnal than intellectual.
- Its own genius, that is to say, intrinsic qualities, innate creativity in a large proportion of members. This is not the prerogative of all peoples.
The political role of the state is thus to organize this ensemble and to plan for the future, that is to say, for history. But the French republican ideology (taken over by Soviet communism) imagines, from Robespierre to the hallucinating Terra nova leftists who inspire the Socialist Party, that the State, equipped with its idealism (“make France!”) can harmoniously organize a society composed of anyone from anywhere. Utopianism torpedoes all common sense. Aristotle explained that the body of a city (that is to say Society) cannot be based on chance. The State needs a well-chosen Society as the sculptor needs quality marble. Society and the State must assemble and resemble one another, and weaker of the two is the state. Why?[3]
Conclusion: If the disintegration, the ethnic chaos of French Society continues, the State, which is its projection, will eventually collapse in turn. France will disappear. But the sun will continue to shine.
Notes:
1. Montaigne believed that if the head of the State apparatus disappeared, the country would continue to operate normally. In other words, Society has its own autonomy.
2. The very original concept of “historical capital” has been formulated by the Breton nationalist movement Emsav and theorist Yann-Ber Tillenon. It describes the interaction of Society and state to build, over time, the heritage, both material and spiritual, of a Nation.
3. Because Society finances the State. Even the physical force of the state (law enforcement coercion) depends on the financial consent of Society. So the balance of power is complex. The collapse of a nation always comes from breaking the pact Society/State. And Society always generates a new State, while the State cannot create a Society.
4 Comments
Euro-Synergies needs an English-language version.
Guillaume Faye: “Society produces the state which, in turn, regulates, directs, and protects Society.”
Ideally, yes. But what we have now in France and in the United States is a Jewish state. It isn’t a creation of White people. It is the result of Jewish activism. Western institutions have been conquered by the Jews. We could also say the institutions have been conquered by “the left”, and the left has been conquered by the Jews, but it would be less accurate.
“extremely serious pathologies that (…) have nothing to do with “institutions.” To enumerate: the aging of the indigenous population and its demographic decline, a massive immigration invasion from below (caused by or accepted with fatalism or hostility but in no way imposed by force from the outside)…”
What makes the low birth rate dangerous is the third-world invasion. And the low birth rate is actually a result of the third-world invasion and of other policies enforced on White people by the Jewish dominated power. So, Guillaume Faye’s opinion isn’t helpful at all.
When we discuss an important question, we would like to be able to ask their opinions to recognized intellectuals in other countries, who may bring some light to the question. But on the most important question of all, White Nationalists are alone. When we try to get an outside opinion, we get rubbish. It’s even sadder in the case of Guillaume Faye, as he was supposed to be on our side.
Most White people are against race replacement, but do not spend their time thinking about it. Most of them have not realized that the cause of race replacement is Jewish. Those who know about the Jews don’t know what to do about it. Smart people who would be good organizers do not necessarily worry over race replacement. Conversely, people who worry over race replacement are not necessarily good organizers who can make public speeches and lead a political movement. But you do find smart people on the Internet who worry about the future of the White race and who are trying to organize things. They will be the saviors of the White race! What is funny is that I can send them an e-mail if I want to, even in another White country, and I may get a reply. It is as if I could send an e-mail to the White House or the Kremlin and expect a personal reply. There must be a mistake. In a normal world, Obama would be the one writing on Internet blogs, and White Nationalists would be in the White House.
Armor , It has been a long time since G. Faye is completely discredited in France , in fact since the publication of his books is more or less dependent on certain ” sponsors ” ( and auto-censured , of course ) . It would be good that our american friends being enlightned on the character .
( sorry for my english ) .
I like Guillaume Faye. He, along with Pierre Krebs and Alain de Benoist were the first New Right writers from Europe that I read. In a way they are my spiritual grandfathers. I have alot of respect for them.