America Is Not Immutable
One must not believe America to be immutable, as those obsessed with anti-Americanism do. On the contrary, this comet-like nation may well be experiencing a complete metamorphosis affecting its innermost nature. In this regard, the NAI could be considered the ultimate expression of Americanism, the final blossoming of the American rose. America’s accelerating Hispanicisation will result in turmoil that one can scarcely imagine. The days of America’s Manifest Destiny, a uniquely puritan characteristic and the very foundation of US imperialism, may well be numbered. The same goes for the American patriotic attitude surrounding the US flag (with its Stars and Stripes), a patriotism that is growing ever weaker and is in dire need of shocks — such as the one caused by the 9/11 attacks — in order to be resurrected. Can one truly be certain of the fact that a part of America’s White public opinion will not end up experiencing an increasing feeling of solidarity towards Europe and Russia?
In the end, History is the one that allows events to unfold and evades any and all human predictions. No one could ever foresee what it has in store for us. In spite of the civilisational rupture between the USA and the Euro-Siberian continent, and regardless of the constant anti-European policies implemented by the various American administrations, there is an undeniable basic fact, an unavoidable ethnic reality that historical developments could drag into their unforeseeable currents.
This fact is the following one: even though European and North American populations comprise an ever-growing percentage of ‘coloured’ minorities, the common anthropological stem uniting Europe and North America (in addition to Argentina, Australia, etc.) is still that of the White race; this Europoid compost of Germanic, Latin, Slavic and other Caucasoid populations is endowed with a common atavistic mentality and predisposition.
This bio-anthropological kinship is obvious and thus creates an opposition between the European ethno-civilisation (including its global extensions) and all other ones. Hence the novel conception that I am now proposing, one that completes the notion of Euro-Siberia: Septentrion.
The war waged by the Bush clan is but an epiphenomenon that only those intellectuals who lack any vision of the future and all historical intuition focus on (through the small end of their spy glass). The act of confusing the North American ethno-biological germen with the corrupt administration and financial forces that govern the USA is a sign of utter ignorance regarding the long-term developments and underlying movements that guide different peoples. One thus stupidly neglects both our world’s ethnic dimension and its profound cultural connivances, reasoning as if White Americans were complete strangers to us and we had closer bonds to the Iraqis or the Algerians than to Iowan farmers or Texan entrepreneurs.
‘Francophony’ is prone to maintaining the very same delusion: even if they do speak French, there are numerous African or Maghrebian peoples that do not form a single civilisational unit with ours at all, and this mental chasm can never be bridged. The simultaneously abstract and moralising fabrication of a complicity between Europe and the Third World (a fabrication that reflects its purely Evangelic origin, with Chirac acting as its self-declared herald) does not correspond in any way to Europe’s interests and actually represents the greatest threat to our continent’s identity. As for the view that Europe must rely on the Third World, and especially the Muslim world, in its struggle against the Great Yankee Satan (as is fashionable to believe in numerous delirious intellectual circles), it relates to sheer political oneirism.
The American government will not endure in its current shape forever, and the neoconservatives will not remain in power indefinitely. Islam, on the other hand, will never change in any way, and neither will the Third World and the South, displaying a common will to occupy our lands both physically and demographically. Is the USA driven by such a will too?
I apologise most sincerely for subjecting Islamophiles, Third-Worldists, ethnopluralists and OHAA supporters to such a shock, but let us suppose that a cataclysm were to compel millions of Americans of European descent to return to Europe: as far as I am concerned, this would be infinitely preferable to the non-native immigratory fluxes that have been pouring down upon our unfortunate continent. I would even consider such a development to be a favourable one for the regeneration of our germen.
Since the beginning of the 20th century, the relentless anti-Europeanism displayed by American governments (for essentially geo-economic reasons) must not lead us to forget the presence of American populations whose members are of European origin, a presence that is still massive nowadays.
Who knows if, in the course of the 21st century (a century that promises to be a terrible one, wreaking the greatest devastation upon our planet since the fall of the Roman Empire), the world will not end up undergoing a re-composition in accordance with an inexorable North-South logic, as hinted by several current events? Such a development would topple several dogmas. When it comes down to it, anti-Americanists abide by the American dream of inhabiting a unified and pacified planet. Washington and the NAI would like this to occur under their own leadership, while Islam envisions this outcome as part of its global caliphate. These two utopias are kindred in essence, since they both stem from the same monotheistic attitude.
We must do Islam justice by being realistic and placing warfare at the centre of its worldview, for jihad is the temporary war that precedes the great Islamic unification. Just like the US, however, Islamism has failed to comprehend that war is an eternal strife and that no unification, whether liberal, Islamic or communist (or UN-based, for that matter), could ever come to pass, since no victory can ever be final. History cannot simply come to an end.
The Stupid Dream of a European-Islamic-Third-Worldist Alliance against the USA
As emphasised by the director of the Foundation for Strategic Research, François Heisbourg (in the image of many others who preceded him), it is very likely that the Occident will experience a ‘major schism’ between Europe and the US. Indeed, back in the 1980s, I myself wrote about this issue in several books, recusing the very notion of an ‘Occident’.
However, one must be entirely blinded to write what Alain de Benoist, an advocate of OHAA, did in his internet communiqué. De Benoist is the author of a book entitled Europe and the Third World — United by the Same Struggle:
A clash of civilisations will definitely take place; unlike what many people believe, however, it is quite likely to involve a confrontation between Europe and the United States, instead of a conflict between “Islam” and the “Occident”.
Talk about mistaking one’s desires for reality…
First of all, it is clear that the clash between Islam and Europe (or perhaps even between Islam and the rest of the world) has already begun, as a result of the will displayed by this warmongering religious civilisation, which is as fanatical and expansionistic as it is ‘de-civilising’. Some people’s inability to realise this, or the fact that they pretend not to be aware of it, is either a matter of partisan deceit or one of intellectual idiocy. Furthermore, as demonstrated by A. Del Valle, there is an implicit and subtle US-Islamic collusion against Europe and Russia. Thirdly, the reveries to which anti-American hysterics surrender regarding an admittedly possible cold or hot ‘war’ opposing Europe to America (for none can predict the future) are utterly suicidal. For nothing would please Islam and the Third World forces that march under its banner more than a Euro-American confrontation, as this would weaken their common foe; and they do see us as one, whether we like it or not.
Nevertheless, I suspect that, owing to a mixture of masochism, hatred and cowardliness, the people who write the kind of nonsense quoted above harbour an inner desire for an Islamised, Third-Worldised and therefore disfigured Europe, one that would act as America’s adversary. Such is the explicit position embraced by the peripheral movement within the ‘New’ Parisian Right, whose members have converted to Islam (including Tahir de la Nive, Bouchet, Mutti, etc.). In their eyes, hatred towards the USA takes complete priority over the defence of Europe and its identity. The sort of ‘civilisational clash’ they long for would have Europe ally itself to Islam (after being invaded by the Third World) and enter into a military conflict with the Great Satan.
As might be expected, my standpoint is diametrically different. For one should, on the contrary, hope that the Americans (or the American government in Washington, to be precise) will become aware of the inanity pervading their current policy and take heed of the fact that their interests do not lie in weakening Europe. One must hope for a reversal in the American position. This endeavour is a far more promising one than the rather unhealthy reveries regarding an unnatural alliance between Europe, Islam and the Third World. In future, Euro-Siberia and the US may well become adversaries and competitors, but they might still form an alliance against their common enemy. Such a development is obviously far from being in line with today’s global geostrategic configuration, but I, personally, wish for it to come to pass. And I am not the only one to feel this way, as all the facts point to such a new global evolution.
Solidarity with ‘White America’?
I am driven by a certain solidarity, an ethnic kinship, so to speak, with all Americans of European descent (and with all the subjects of the British commonwealth who belong to the same category). I do not harbour the same feelings towards the francophone populations located overseas. This has, of course, no bearing at all upon the necessary struggle against the American policy and, in particular, Washington’s current political approach. Unlike certain members of our Identitarian milieus, I do not rejoice at the sight of the demographic diminishment afflicting the White (and especially WASP) populations in the USA, as I share the feelings expressed by Georges Suffert and Claude Chaunu in their premonitory book entitled The White Plague, which was published back in 1976. I, too, find a global solidarity with all populations of European origin to be more crucial during the 21st century than the geopolitical rivalries that divide Whites.
I know that my attitude is a sin in the eyes of the prevailing ideology. Forgive me not, Father. I am culturally closer to the Anglo-Saxon civilisation than to the Muslim-Arab one and the African continent’s ‘early arts’. I would rather visit the Museum of Astronautics in Washington than explore the future ‘primitive arts’ museum that Third-Worldist Jacques Chirac intends to establish. I would also prefer to send my children to an American university than to have them study in an Islamic one. I would, of course, favour French universities, but taking into account what they have become…
Enough delirium: the claim that we are ‘very distant’ from our kindred American civilisation (I deliberately chose not to use the word ‘sibling’) does not stand up to scrutiny, even if it is indeed possible to detect major differences between our European values and those espoused by Americans. The fact is, however, that these differences are very minor in essence compared to the precipice that separates us from the Arab-Islamic and Asian spheres. Should anyone intend to write a thesis on the topic of European history (stretching from Mycenae to our era), I would advise them to base it on the information holdings available at American universities, rather than on any documents provided by Islamic or Third World universities. There are, however, many thinkers and sophistic scholars who remain utterly deaf to the voice of common sense. Indeed, all these professional anti-American hysterics are but arrant hypocrites. Given the choice, they would rather live in Boston or San Francisco than inhabit Algiers or even Barbès.
The 21st century will be a Spenglerian one and will involve clashes between the different civilisations and races, as inherently understood by Samuel Huntington in his Clash of Civilisations. Even if this vision is a caricature (and yet, every caricature does reflect reality, simplifying it without actually betraying it), we shall witness a confrontation between Whites and all others, as part of a process that has already begun and that intensifies year by year, even if it does take on distorted and extremely diverse shapes. When I say ‘Whites’, I am obviously referring to all the peoples who have, ethnically speaking, inherited the European civilisational matrix.
Even if, from a historical perspective, the American approach has been one of rejecting Europe, and regardless of the fact that strategically, economically and geopolitically, the American government has embraced the temporary role of Europe’s fearsome adversary, I am convinced that White America and White Europe are bound to draw closer to one another (they are both, after all, experiencing a decline on their own soil). Is there any genuine reason for the current situation to persist? Washington’s NAI will perhaps be swept away by the new historical circumstance of a geo-ethnic confrontation; I prefer the latter expression to that of a ‘civilisational clash’. The current geostrategic divide must not be allowed to conceal tomorrow’s ethnic reality, the reality of a world in which Whites will find themselves ever more threatened and in a minority position, and will thus be compelled to regroup. The great majority of our Western elites is of course completely blind to such predictions, however easy they are to formulate, since they only see short-term developments and are paralysed by their own cosmopolitan ideology.
Let us, at this stage, return to the initial issue: would it not be possible to combine the admittedly mythical notion of Euro-Siberia, which I have expanded on elsewhere, with the conception of Septentrion, a conception that is very vague, of course, but may still come true, even if we cannot yet predict what historical shape it might take?
Although we cannot imagine its exact form (unlike us, however, History has all the necessary imagination for this to happen), Septentrion can be defined as the regrouping of all peoples of albo-European descent located in the northern hemisphere, spanning from North America to Europe and the Russian Federation, in addition to two crucial septentrional extensions: Argentina and Australia.
I am well aware of the fact that such a myth may well turn out to be fallacious and inapplicable and that it would shock all those who abide by the prevailing ideological hegemony, as well as all anti-Americans, pro-Americans (since American domination would no longer be possible) and, of course, all universalists and globalists who identify with Christianity, Leftism, liberalism, Islam, and so on. Undoubtedly, this prediction regarding the possible (and desirable) birth of a Septentrion presupposes the disappearance of the USA as we know it, which will probably occur in the aftermath of a territorial partition and the relinquishment of a number of States.
A dream and a utopia, you say? Is there anyone who, at the beginning of the 20th century, would have predicted the Islamic rise to power, the outbreak of religious wars, the brutal collapse of Communism, Europe’s rapid Third-Worldisation, etc.? Despite all the revelatory indications, the answer is: no one at all, which is particularly true of intellectuals. Spengler was alone to have detected some of those premonitory signs back in the 1920s. And in the 21st century, History will progress at an even faster pace.
White American mentality may yet change, and change it shall as a result of the tempests that are bound to rage (regardless of whether the latter are of an ethnic, economic, religious or any other nature). The current American administration is of little importance and its presence highly temporary. The same goes for ‘capitalist globalisation’, a liberal dream whose stupidity is equal to that of universal ‘alter-globalist’ Communism. Who’s to say that mentalities will not pivot and current ideologies collapse under the impact of the rising storms? We must not perceive the world through the narrow, small end of our spy glass, but through its large end, which allows us to catch sight of all incoming asteroids.
Strangely enough, those who are most convinced of the veracity of such theories (while simultaneously fearing them, of course) are none other than the representatives and elites of the Third World (regardless of whether they are Muslims or not), who have initiated their attack against the White world. This is because these southern countries and the prolific populations that have been settling into Europe and America share a view of history that is considered abominable by our Western elites: the long-term infrastructure surrounding the destinies of different peoples reflects the ethnic and demographic power relations.
Never since Ptolemy has any multi-ethnic or even multiracial society been able to function on a long-term basis. How could one ever change this fact? Through some kind of ideological miracle, perhaps? Following the daydream of universal miscegenation and the delusion of European and American ‘communitarianism’ under the authority of a federating and integrating nation-state that was predestined to fail, we are now inevitably entering a time of ethnic consolidation, as if through a swing of the pendulum. There are none yet who can predict the exact manner in which this worldwide native European solidarity will take place, and none can be sure of whether it will occur on separate micro-levels or take on global proportions. One thing is certain, however: the idea is already lurking behind the corner, just like a vagabond. It begins by infiltrating people’s minds in the shape of a roguish thought, before exploding like a bomb and imposing its presence as a vital sort of necessity once everyone is urgently called to order.
Allow me to reiterate, once again, that Septentrion is but a myth, one that does not mirror the current state of affairs, but espouses the future developments whose outlines can nowadays be discerned. Account taken of the ever-increasing pace at which our planet is being reshaped, I personally think that the US-European confrontational model, which can still be observed today, will come to an end as a result of evolutionary pressure. The Septentrion vs Aliens model seems more likely to me, although I could be wrong. And yet, I was not mistaken when, at the start of the 1980s, I predicted the fall of the USSR and the Islamic breaking wave.
I will now proceed to reassure some people, especially the anti-Americans amongst them: in no way is the notion of Septentrion incompatible with that of Euro-Siberia, since its centre can only be located on our own continent and motherland, acting as the physical, spiritual and geopolitical midpoint of what must be termed the White race. Furthermore, this Septentrion presupposes not only America’s demise (for it will not subsist in its current form), but also the possible homecoming of some Americans of European descent into the sphere of a new ethnocentric and Euro-centric empire. Septentrion shall mark the end of the American dream and coincide with the return of the prodigal child to its European, parental bosom.
Let is now summarise the important points that we have touched upon in this book:
The adequate response to the New American Imperialism could never stem from hollow moralising discourse, but must be rooted in a wilful reacquisition of power conducted by the Europeans themselves. Current American leaders are without qualms: their morality and democratic messianism are but a façade ridden with holes, one that can hardly conceal their desire for global economic predation. Historically speaking, such an attitude is nothing new. In contrast to the delusions embraced by obsessive and hysterical anti-Americans, the USA does not embody any sort of novelty in the saga of successive imperialisms that the world has known since the days of the Pharaohs.
The greatest service that one could render America lies in demonising it, which is actually synonymous with the fact of worshipping it. Current anti-Americanism has produced a mythical notion of what America is by fashioning it into a global historical exception. The NAI is, however, doomed in advance, since it is founded upon a principle claiming that American domination is virtually eternal in essence, when, in actual fact, all hegemony is of an ephemeral nature. Likewise, the fact of presenting the American society as a social reign of terror, lowliness, oppression, poverty, uncultured behaviour and decadence does not relate to any observable reality, but rather to the kind of ideological exaggeration that laid the clumsy communistic propaganda to waste.
What hardly any observer or commentator focusing on the NAI’s adventurism has ever pointed out is that, ultimately, all decisive events take place in the ethnic and demographic arena. Every people and historical power is but the embodiment of a specific, biological and cultural strength and form that characterises its own population. Everything, from geopolitics to economics, is basically determined by this factor.
This is why the American threat against Europe, although admittedly real, is infinitely less important and critical than our demographic decline and rapid submersion at the hands of southern masses and Islam. It is we ourselves who are exclusively responsible for both these developments, which American imperialism takes advantage of, even though it did not actually cause either of them. This imperialism is not the source but the result of our domestic decline. The reason for our waning lies within us and must not be sought anywhere else. What the NAI thus does is fill not only a power vacuum, but particularly a void of will.
In no way is the Muslim-Arab world, for instance, in any danger with regard to the NAI or the Likud’s policy, even if the American army does undertake military campaigns across Mesopotamia as part of a ridiculous remake of 19th century colonialism. Why? Because its demographic strength, fertility, culture and religion all act in its favour. Throughout history, the sole long-term victory ever achieved by various peoples has been that of their germen and will, thus reflecting two realities: a material one and a spiritual one, which are organically connected to one another.
What purpose would it serve for anyone to hold a long artful geostrategic discourse on the power relations between the USA and Europe, including Germany, Russia and France, if one remains oblivious to the fact that what is essential — indeed, absolutely vital — is for us to avoid depopulation and the destruction of our ethno-biological substratum at a time when both these processes have already been initiated? As witnessed in the past, a Europe that is perfectly healthy demographically speaking and preserved against the kind of dramatic ethnic colonisation we are currently experiencing would not find it difficult at all to free itself from adverse imperialism or resolve an economic crisis. However, it is infinitely difficult for one to convince the elites to heed such reasonable remarks, especially at a time when the prevailing ideology prohibits everyone from discussing ethnic and demographic problems, which represent the central issue.
In the long run, both cultural Americanisation and our strategic / economic submission to the USA are but fleeting and benign ailments which can be rapidly cured and whose source is not to be found overseas, but right here, among the ‘Euro-mericans’. Our domestic invasion, decadence and sub-replacement fertility will turn out to be mortal maladies unless they are very quickly treated. And let no one claim, as all those sophists do, that the USA has conspired to trigger European depopulation, family reunification and the construction of mosques, or that suburban ‘youths’ are the agents, victims and products of cultural Americanism, when it is their ethno-religious Islamisation that is actually on the increase and their Americanisation on the decrease.
Europe must therefore struggle on two fronts, which are more or less interconnected, even if not entirely: on the one hand, it must fight against a specific domestic invader, as well as against the collaborators, who are as pro-immigration as they are Islamophilic and include the above-mentioned pseudo-Identitarians, while simultaneously opposing American imperialism on the other. The main question at hand concerns the manner in which these threats are hierarchised, a question that I believe I have already answered when rejecting the nonsense preached by all those devotees, idiots and blindmen.
Those who rely on their love of the Third World and their Islamophilia in their struggle against American imperialism are following a descending suicidal path; the mistake made by the Atlanticists, who are under the fallacious impression that the American ‘power’ will protect a mythical ‘Occident’ against the jihadi onslaught, is a very similar one. As for the politicians who claim to believe that American and European interests are one and the same and that Europe and America are actually two halves of a single superpower (which is the case of Blair, Madelin, Aznar, etc.), their lies are those of a vassal and a courtesan.
It is unfortunately obvious that the standpoint in which I identify the invading Third-World, Islam and the European collaborative faction as our principal foe and the NAI as our main adversary presupposes the ability to liberate oneself from the prejudice which prevents people from contemplating the fact that one could actually struggle on two fronts, in accordance with two different confrontational methods.
As in the case of all americanolatric Atlanticists and those overexcited and hysterical anti-Americanists, this pathological state, afflicting the most impoverished minds, compels people to define themselves according to others. One is never pro-European, but anti-American and anti-Zionistic and therefore pro-Palestinian, Islamophilic, a Third-Worldist, and so on. All these terms can of course be systematically reversed: pro-American, etc. In fact, the European civilisation and its peoples do not interest these gentlemen in any way, whatever faction they may belong to. Obsessive anti-Americanists, for instance, are never troubled by the economic war that the USA is waging against us; what worries them instead is the fate of the ‘unfortunate Iraqi people’, whose destiny is, with all due respect, as unimportant to me as that of the now extinct Indian tribes.
What is noticeable is that the most fervent Americanophiles and the most hateful anti-Americanists share the central trait of not being familiar with the USA. For what is America if not an ephemeral empire that lacks the necessary features to subsist in the course of history and become a ‘long-lasting’ people (Raymond Ruyer). The USA is governed by a strictly mercantile, and therefore short-lasting, power logic. Messianic justifications (embodied by a simplified form of Protestantism) will make no difference in this regard. This nation, or ‘enterprise-nation’, rather, resembles the ephemeral Spanish empire, which was equally founded on gold; the difference, however, is that America is rootless.
What are the USA’s strengths and weaknesses? The former ones are well-known: economic dynamism, a willingness to work and make efforts, pragmatism, entrepreneurial will, institutional stability, and a social and moral kind of conservatism that allows it to export its viral decadence to Europe without being afflicted by it, in addition to cementing the American society through the veneration of ‘law and order’. What is also worth mentioning is America’s appreciation of efficacy and its philosophy of achieving results, paired with the rejection of useless ideas and dogmatic speculation; its faith in techno-science and the necessity to make enormous investments; its neo-Keynesian and semi-protectionist economic system, which involves an inseparable association between statal planning and enterprise, since American ‘liberalism’ is merely an exportation product targeting the competitors that are meant to be disarmed; its massive financial investments into the field of research and development; the exceptional quality that typifies its universities, which absorb European and Asian elites; optimism and elitism; a clear conscience in all its endeavours; its sense of conquest and will to domination; its espousal of patriotism as a supreme value; and so on. These characteristics obviously horrify our European intellectuals, as well as the Leftists that inhabit the east coast and the Hollywoodian milieu, although they all abide by the iron logic that governs this type of society. This strength can be summarised as being a primal state of mind (which is not meant pejoratively in any way) rooted in self-contentment and ethno-centrism, through which America itself becomes the supreme value and all inclinations towards ‘repentance’, masochism and self-criticism are always overcome, unlike what is happening in Europe.
Nevertheless, America’s weaknesses outweigh its strengths. Its speculative, casino-like economy is fragile, burdened with considerable external deficits and financed through inconstant international savings; it is experiencing a rapid and profound ethnic modification which benefits Latino-Americans, who lack the Fausto-Promethean culture that stems from Northern Europe; the NAI has triggered a generalised, global wave of anti-Americanism; its volatile public opinion is prone to demoralisation at the slightest defeat and remains reluctant to make any sacrifice whatsoever; its global imperialism is both adventurous and costly; its militarism is devoid of military qualities; it strives for the oneiric goal of world domination without actually possessing the means to achieve this ambition; and so on. In short, what the Americans are doing is entering into a bridge contract that they will be unable to uphold.
Let us now highlight further sources of weakness that are even more crucial than the previous ones, since they relate to America’s domestic situation: the absence of a genuine and profound ‘national culture’, which has, instead, been replaced by a way of life and an entertainment culture that prevent the US from defining its own identity (by attempting to Americanise the world, America is actually losing its identity); and the slow implosion and disaggregation afflicting the ancient North-American ‘civilisational unity’, a process that no amount of dollars, no global currency and no Stars and Stripes patriotism could ever durably cement.
What all of this means is that the global American ‘empire’ rests upon a specific bedrock, namely the USA itself, whose domestic homogeneity is ridden with cracks. It is quite possible that by 2030, southern American states (whose population will comprise a Latino majority) will have embraced secession. As for me, I predict that they actually will.
And unlike Europe, which is being invaded by the Third World and Islam, America is not endowed with age-old territorial enrooting and thus lacks any means to engage in fierce resistance. ‘Their home is not their own’, which means that they would perhaps not have sufficient mental strength to conduct a Reconquista should they find themselves on the edge of a precipice. America’s fundamental structural weakness lies in the fact that its patriotism is factitious. It belongs to the mercantile and emotional-speculative sphere and bears no relevance to a long-term memory, because Americans do not have any tangible homeland of their own. In the short term, this rootlessness is indeed a strength, but becomes a handicap in the long run, since no person would readily defend and die for a material homeland, which the USA undoubtedly is.
Americans are useful idiots, in the sense that they exacerbate global tensions while striving to appease them, hasten crises while trying to avoid them, cause civilisational clashes while attempting to bring an end to History in a manner that advantages them, and fuel the Islamic fire while seeking to extinguish it. As a result of their cowboy-like diplomacy, they are akin to bulls in a china shop. This is partly due to the fact that the major political decision-makers in the American government are never selected among genuine elites.
Faced with American militarism and the resulting impression of America’s invincibility, hysterically anti-American Europeans are struck with powerlessness and thus consider Islamic terrorism to be the sole means of countering and injuring the Giant; such is the unique response that the weak can have when confronted with someone stronger. They thus carry out a psychological and pathological transfer towards Islam, which, from their perspective, represents the only way for one to impede America’s imperialistic omnipotence.
Psychological schemes, simplistic reflexes and pre-defined reactions thus take hold of their minds, soothing their resentments and frustrations: ‘The USA is a materialistic and technological giga-power that abuses and humiliates us; let thus then ally ourselves to Islam, its spirituality, its ‘anti-modern’ civilisational counter-plan and its simplistic resistance tools, including justified terrorism, the vengeful weapon wielded by the poor and exploited’. These are the thoughts that lurk in the unconscious of all those who espouse OHAA.
This consolatory reasoning, which follows the Marxist logic of resentment, enables a simultaneous unification of traditionalists, Trotskyites, neo-Leftists and many others, as part of an unexpected convergence of impotent individuals in the framework of a desperado-like response. Let us call Islam to our aid in our struggle against Robocop and Mac World and place ourselves under the Prophet’s protective scimitar. Allah’s sabre will prevail over those bombers!
Their choice stems from a masochistic self-renouncement process, as well as from an alarming mixture of blindness and ignorance; the belief that harbouring rapidly growing Islamised masses on our soil is somehow preferable to an American presence (indeed, certain individuals go as far as to switch between idiocy and treason and wish for Europe’s Islamisation, whether implicitly or explicitly) will not reduce the American chokehold on our continent by a single inch, but actually add another domination effort to it, namely that of Third World colonists, a development which can only please Washington.
This USA is undoubtedly an ephemeral, yet formidable entity, a highly original and historically unprecedented structure which one must be careful not to despise. Its very existence is exclusively and simultaneously rooted in a sort of extension, projection and rejection of Europe. In the eyes of future historians, North America shall thus remain a kind of biopolitical monster.
America is neither a people nor a nation, nor even an empire, but a sort of chimera which has taken on the attributes of an imperial republic and extends across a new territory that has been seized and taken from its original occupants. Of course, in no way is this the case with China, Europe, India and the like. In the USA, the mercantile aspect has absorbed the sovereign and military functions as part of a successful fusion, which has never been entirely true of other major world powers. The US is the only country in the world whose political leaders are simultaneously involved in the military industry, business matters and electoral manoeuvres and whose elections are entirely determined by industrial sponsors. It is a country with a single function, a plutocratic entity in the purest possible form (no pejorative connotations intended).
The 21st century shall be an age of civilisational clashes, or rather a century marked by ethno-civilisational conflicts that may transcend any strictly continental and geostrategic logic. Alongside, or perhaps beyond, the very notion of an ethnocentric Euro-Siberia (a European-Russian merger that I am personally wishing for), I find myself wondering whether, in harmony with our current era and the century that now lies ahead, the massive and global reunification of all peoples of European descent will not end up being a conceivable accomplishment. In the world that is about to emerge, will ethnography not be destined to replace geopolitics? This concept is what I have christened ‘Septentrion’.
Islam may already be showing us the way. Despite claiming to be ‘universal’, this religion is also a civilisation. Objectively, implicitly yet palpably, it presents and sees itself as the banner of both coloured peoples and the South in the face of the White populations of Northern origin, which is true even in the case of Black Americans. Yes, I am schematising, caricaturising and simplifying, indeed, indeed; but is this trait completely inaccurate?
I therefore predict that, in the course of the 21st century, the great divide shall not oppose the USA to the rest of the world, but rather Septentrion to the entire planet. This opposition will take place in a climate of continual clashes between major ethnic and civilisational blocs (or Empires, perhaps?) and involve economic, cultural and military competition between them.