Food for the European Mind – Part II

Do not be deceived about who the enemy is. The only true enemy is liberalism. Everything stems from it.

Continued (Read part I)

What is your vision of a better social and economic system?

Economically, I’m Keynesian, favourable to a strong state intervening proactively in the economy and organising a more even distribution of national wealth and well-being. I fully agree with what has been called in France an ‘authoritarian Colbertism’, in which ‘the State directs capitalism’.

For me, economic liberalism is the absolute evil. From it is derived everything that is undermining our societies.

What is your opinion of the alternative encyclopedia, Metapedia?

This is an excellent initiative which I helped to develop in France.

It is important that our history is written by ourselves and not by our enemies. Indeed, in the latter case, they distort it and, by that very fact, disturb the perception that we have of ourselves.

However, visiting the various versions of Metapedia, I have often been distressed by a tendency toward the politics of nostalgia and a focus on a very particular and very short period of European history. Yet the history of our continent and the nationalist movement is much more than that.

What is your analysis of Nicolas Sarkozy as a historical phenomenon?

Firstly, the election of Nicolas Sarkozy as President looked like a huge misunderstanding: while professionals, the upper middle class, and urban voters mainly voted socialist, it was the votes of the majority of the workers and the downgraded middle classes, typically far from the major urban centres of economic and cultural dynamism, that allowed Sarkozy to rise above 30% in the first round and win the second.

There is a paradox: the neo-liberal candidate was elected President thanks to the populist classes, but these same voters have in no way approved Sarkozy’s economic programme. Rather, they asked him to use his authority to save those social benefits which are derived from the Left.

If those voters chose Sarkozy because they expected him to fight crime, they also hoped that he would maintain the welfare system. They did not believe that Nicolas Sarkozy’s administration would depart from the Gaullist legacy, destroying its institutions, and sacrificing national independence.

On these three points, popular disappointment has been quick, and the disaffection of the electorate soon followed.

Nicolas Sarkozy was still considered an ally of Washington, even boasting of being nicknamed ‘Sarkozy the American’. He was supported by neo-conservative Yankees, not because they would support any candidate on the Right, but because they considered him to be the only major French politician who embodied their ideas. For them, it was their hope of ending once and for all the two-headed hydra, consisting of what remains of the French social system and the independent foreign policies of France. His victory represented a subservience of France to powers from abroad such as there has never been in the past, except as a result of military defeats.

What is your analysis of the Front National, and its potential for changing France?

Currently, according to the latest polls, if a presidential election was to be held next Sunday, Marine Le Pen would come in third, after Nicolas Sarkozy and the Socialist candidate.

Some analysts estimate that in 2012, it is not impossible that one will be faced with a situation where Marine Le Pen would appear in the second round as the challenger to a Liberal or Socialist candidate.

Since in France the legislative elections immediately follow the presidential one, if Marine Le Pen is in the second round, we can rely on a complete repositioning of the FN electorate. Even if she is in third position, the FN’s electoral future should improve significantly, and is expected to completely disrupt the balance of power in French politics.

That said, the elections will take place over a year from now, and a lot can change between now and then, for better or for worse, and I think that we should not underestimate the ability of the liberal system to defend itself.

Anyway, I think the French national movement as a whole is facing a historic opportunity such as it has never known. It has a new leader, a young, beautiful, dynamic, and modern woman, which serves very well in terms of public opinion, and at the same time the Right and the liberal Left which had dominated French politics are now in crisis.

I therefore believe that it is now possible to help this national revolution, which would have a very important influence at the European level. It is for this reason that I joined the Front National and why I fight for its victory.

What is your position on Islam, and the proper relationship between Europe and the Islamic world?

In this matter we must guard against essentialism and any irrational reaction.

Like any great religion, Islam has multiple forms, and we must take this into account. Denouncing Islam in its entirety, as I see many nationalists and identitarians doing, is just silly and worthy of an IQ in the double digits.

You can have a traditionalist approach, which is to oppose a ‘good’ Islam to an ‘evil’ one, namely the Shi’ite and Sufi branches versus the Sunni and Wahhabist factions. It is an analysis which, moreover, goes beyond the traditional outlook, and is also quite useful in terms of our understanding of international politics, since the Shi’ites are on the side of resistance to globalisation, while Sunnis have a tendency to get into bed with Uncle Sam…

Writing this, we must also consider that Europe is not the land of Islam and that the Muslims who live here are only latecomers… As such, it does not seem so shocking to me that they want to have decent places of worship and cemeteries in reserved places, for example. But at the same time, it is necessary to remind them that they live among us, and as such they must adapt to our customs – including in terms of architecture, cuisine, and manner of dress – and not require us to do otherwise. It is for them to assimilate if they wish, or to leave to go back to where their ancestors come from. It is not up to us to make efforts to adapt ourselves to them.

What is your position on the question of Zionism and its relevance for Europe?

I agree completely with the idea of Stanislas de Clermont-Tonnerre, who stated in 1789 that ‘we must refuse everything to the Jews as a nation and give everything to Jews as individuals’.

Clearly, I think we should clearly differentiate between two things: those practicing the Jewish religion and Zionism as such.

The former are entitled to respect, safety, and the exercise of their faith in complete freedom. But it seems strange that, as a community, they can invoke extraordinary benefits from common law, as is sometimes the case.

As for Zionism, it is for me me, a late nationalism without justification in terms of people or nation, unless one believes in the legend, so archaic that it is laughable, of God designating a people as his chosen ones and awarding them a particular land… As a result of the Zionist leaders who managed to embody their fantasies in the form of a state, we are facing a problem that is a potential source of regional or even world wars.

On the one hand, there is an illegitimate colonial state that has been in existence for over half a century – which is nothing when compared to history in its entirety. It seems to me that we must find a political solution, and the most sensible one is that of a single state, secular and democratic, encompassing the whole territory of historical Palestine. To some extent, it could be a solution such as there is in South Africa: a state and a democracy based on the principle of ‘one man, one vote’, and a truth and reconciliation commission to pardon the misdeeds of the two camps.

But Zionism is not only the State of Israel. To ensure its existence, its leaders have developed structures of influence in most foreign countries, from lobby groups to the use of sayanims [intelligence advisors]. But this is unacceptable. We can not tolerate a foreign country acting covertly on our soil in order to influence our foreign policy in its favour. We cannot tolerate it when French nationals, or nationals of other European countries, see themselves as being more closely connected to a country where they don’t even hold citizenship, let alone reside. For these reasons, I consider that Zionism must be fought in all its manifestations on European soil.

In addition to this, there is another problem which has appeared recently, namely nationalist Zionism, meaning aligning oneself with the interests of Israel as a part of the nationalist movement in European countries. There is the case of the Vlaams Belang in Belgium, the Bloc identitaire in France, Geert Wilders in Holland, and so on. These groups are fascinating because of their overall drift. Their love for Israel is only one element in something very much larger: they have become – if they were not originally, as in the case of Wilders – Westerners, ultra-liberal, neocons, and so on. And they now hold positions opposite to ours. They must therefore be denounced and combated as such, as they have become enemies.

The growth of national revolutionary, New Right, and National Left movements in Scandinavia is still in its infancy, especially in comparison with France. What would be your advice for us, both as movements and as individuals?

I think you need to read our great writers and translate them into your language. Similarly, you must give notice by means of publishing and other media – on paper or online – the history of our movement and its great figures. You should also study your own history. Because of the language barrier, I don’t know anything about it, but it may well be that a Swedish revolutionary nationalism existed at some point or another. The Nysvenska Rörelsen has long been in close contact with various movements in Southern Europe, some of which were oriented in a good direction. I do not know of anything that may have resulted from this in your country, but it would probably be good to look in this direction, and see if some translations have already been made.

I also think you need to develop your international connections. It’s always very useful for the development of ideas.

From a theoretical point of view, you should avoid all those who might try to make you mercenaries of reaction, of the Right, and of Zionism and the West like the plague… We must reject everyone who would have you accept ideologies lacking any consistency or rigour – such as as delusional National Anarchism – as well as those who confuse politics with nostalgia, and activism with a masquerade ball…

Finally, do not be deceived about who the enemy is. The only true enemy is liberalism. Everything stems from it.

Thank you very much for the interview, Mr. Bouchet.

Leave a Reply