The Trojan Horse of Ethnopluralism

When ethnopluralism masks surrender, only remigration remains.

Martin Sellner, drawing on Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism, argues that ethnopluralism gave way to multiculturalism, serving as a covert gateway to surrender, and calls for remigration as the only unifying response to nationalist retreat.

Even the very idea of ethnopluralism carries within it the seed of misunderstanding. Certain theorists of the Nouvelle Droite in France had already capitulated to replacement migration in the 1990s. They fused ethnopluralism — the anti-universalist vision of a heterogeneous world composed of relatively homogeneous peoples — with communitarianism. Voilà: the vision of a multicultural garden within one’s own country. Until now, Germany had been spared this heresy. Now, it is being presented as a revolutionary concept — one that is supposed to render remigration obsolete while simultaneously overcoming liberal “civic nationalism.” As early as 1989, Faye found the right words for this error in his book Archeofuturism.

Ethno-pluralism initially possessed an implicitly ‘external’ meaning: all peoples are different and should be respected, yet each should live in its own land, in a well-defined ethno-cultural sphere, while cooperating with others. This implied a rejection of migration flows towards Europe and of the idea of a global ethno-cultural melting pot (actually, only Europe is the destination of these migrations). So far, so good: this is a consistent view. But the Nouvelle Droite — see, for instance, issue 91 of Éléments, published in March 1998, and which refers to the ‘challenge of multiculturalism’ on its front page — sought to give the notions of ethno-pluralism and multiculturalism an ‘inner’ meaning that stands in contrast to the first, for instance by vehemently defending the use of the Islamic veil in schools. By acknowledging the presence of separate ethnic communities on European soil, it turns ethno-pluralism into the vehicle for a tribal, ghettoised (and perfectly American) view of our society, which stands in contrast to the very meaning of the expression ‘each folk in its own land’. Ethno-pluralism has thus been distorted in such a way as to deny the notion of European folk and even of ‘folk’ in general. Here too, the public is lost: similar stances puzzle our natural readership, while failing to convince our enemy that we are politically correct.

Faye’s critique is thorough and unrelenting. This error underestimates:

(…) — either for altruism or ignorance of ethnic and socio-economic events — the catastrophe represented by demographic-shifting immigration into Europe, a land which, unlike the United States, is generally only adapted to intra-European movements. There are three aspects to this catastrophe: rapid ethno-anthropological alteration; the erosion of European cultural roots (for which Americanism is less to blame); and strong economic and social setback, leading to poverty and endemic crime. The contemporary communitarian and multiculturalist discourse of the Nouvelle Droite can be interpreted as a sort of fatalism: for it sees the ethnic kaleidoscope of Europe, multiracial society and immigration as ineluctable events we should accept and submit to, managing and putting up with them as best we can. This is a demobilising stance, which is incompatible with an ideology that regards itself as revolutionary although ultimately it proves to be ‘politically correct’.

It is a sign of weakness to justify multiculturalism by invoking globalisation and the decline of the nation-state (which are self-evident facts). Only Europe and the United States are being made the victims of demographic colonisation from the South. But while the United States can withstand it, Europe cannot. All across the world, what we are witnessing is the self-affirmation of vast, homogeneous ethnic blocs, not multiracial ‘communitarianism’. The prospect of a ‘multicultural’ planet is a Disneyland dream, a peace-lover’s error. The future belongs to peoples, not tribes. The Twenty-first century will witness global ethnic warfare and the legions of immigrants in Europe will serve as the ‘fifth column’ of an aggressive South. This is not paranoia: it is geopolitics. To walk or drag one’s feet in the footsteps of the blinding, immigrationist pacifism of European Leftist intellectuals is to make a serious mistake that threatens to soon lead the Nouvelle Droite to its ruin.

(… ) The barbarisation of society and the rancorous and latent aggressiveness towards European culture shown by a large portion of young people brought here by immigration constitute an intermediate-term threat, as many impartial American sociologists have also observed. Why not acknowledge this? On the other hand, the Nouvelle Droite envisages a model of social harmony within a pacified multicultural society, which is sheer utopia. Every multiracial — and multicultural — society is multiracist and ‘infra-xenophobic’: from Brazil and former Yugoslavia to Algeria, Black Africa, and the Caucasus. Multi-ethnicism in France will prove explosive and will have nothing to do with the placid tribalism my friends Alain de Benoist and Charles Champetier have outlined (see issue 50 of Eléments) via a discourse that may be taken as an example of ‘the sociology of dreams’. Tribalism is never peaceful. I am ready to bet that, within ten years, history — through painful experiences — will have made all multiculturalist plans unserviceable, even for those on the Left. Alain de Benoist’s wish is to ‘foster a fruitful exchange of dialogue between groups that are clearly situated in relation to one another’ (Eléments, issue 50, p. 3). This, on European soil, strikes me as a rather unfeasible prospect, which derives from the same ideological illusion that inspired the advocates of ‘ethnic harmony’ in 1950s America, who opposed the idea of the assimilating melting pot. Actually, I believe that both assimilators — Jacobins and people in favour of the melting pot — and communitarians are wrong. A society based on ethnoterritorial co-existence was, is and will always be impossible. One land, one people: this is what human nature requires.

I completely agree with the anti-Jacobinism, organicism and polycentric social view promoted by my aforementioned friends. What I reproach them for is their failure to admit that the harmonious sociocultural diversity they are talking about can be achieved only among different but related European peoples. Out-and-out Europeanists, why do they believe or pretend to believe that a harmonious society will be established in France through ‘multicultural’ cohabitation with communities of Asian, African and Arab-Muslim origin, which are far removed from the mental framework of Europeans? Were they really consistent, they would defend the hard and abstract Republican idea of forced integration dear to Madame Badinter. In this respect, the ‘harmonicism’ of the Nouvelle Droite is self-contradictory. They insist on promoting a paradigm that is physically impossible to implement, submitting to the faith in miracles that characterises egalitarian ideologies.

My friends of the Nouvelle Droite have an imaginary view of Islam. They believe Islam can be integrated within a model of European harmony and general tolerance, without taking account of the fact that this ultra-monotheism is an intrinsically conquering, theocratic and antidemocratic religion that seeks — as General De Gaulle had foreseen — to replace each church with a mosque. By its very nature, Islam is intolerant, exclusivist, and anti-organic. The current thinkers of the Nouvelle Droite are captivated by the senseless talk about ‘French Islam’, and fail to realise that they are facing the strategy of the fox Machiavelli so aptly described. While followers of Carl Schmitt, in practice they never apply either the concept of the ‘exceptional case’ (Ernstfall) or that of the objective enemy: he who identifies you as an enemy for the very reason you exist, whatever you may do.

The multiculturalism and pro-Islamic stance of the Nouvelle Droite are objectively close to the incautious positions adopted by the Catholic episcopate in France, which also believes — out of altruism in the idea of a future harmonious and ethno-pluralist society on European soil.

Stranger still is the fact that the Nouvelle Droite does not seem to realise that in Muslim eyes ‘pagans’ are absolute enemies and spawns of the devil, while they are instead tolerated — even if looked down upon — by Jews and Christians. In a recent trip of mine to Saudi Arabia, I had to write ‘Catholic’ on the identity card given to me on board the plane: had I written I was a ‘pagan’ or follower of any other non-monotheistic religion, I would have faced some problems.

To expect an agreement between paganism and Islam is like hoping to reconcile the devil with holy water.

In its report on multicultural society, Éléments does not discuss the issue of the impossibility of expelling illegal immigrants (on account of reactions on the part of para-Trotskyist associations and Leftist Christians); nor does it discuss the social and economic cost of immigration, or the ongoing arrival in Europe of immigrants from the South: are we to seal this breach, and if so, in what way? Crucial questions such as this are never raised: yet people are waiting. There is also another problem: while each year tens of thousands French graduates leave for the United States, France is welcoming — and in exchange for what? — tens of thousands immigrants from the South with no qualification. Why not discuss this? Because it’s taboo? That’s right.

I reproach the Nouvelle Droite for its adherence to a worldview that is undermined by a devastating concept: ‘realism’ — which often takes the form of disheartened fatalism.

I am Nietzschean and do not like the term ‘realist’. History is not realist. Communism collapsed within three years: who would realistically have foreseen that? In issue 5 of Pierre Vial’s magazine Terre et Peuple, historian Philippe Conrad illustrates the Spanish reconquista against the Afro-Muslim invaders, emphasising that in history there are no ‘accomplished facts’. The reconquista was an unrealistic yet concrete endeavour, and it was accomplished. The essence of history is both real and unrealistic, for its motor is comprised of both fuel — will to power — and combustive — the power of will. Those who out of weakness choose to give in when faced by disagreeable and coercive historical events should heed the words of William of Orange: ‘Where there’s a will, there’s a way.’

The mission of the Nouvelle Droite ought to have been to anticipate and pave the way for this path. It needs to correct its mistakes, by allying itself with other groups in Europe that agree with the above analyses.

The most effective ideological line would seem to lie in simultaneously rejecting multicultural and multiracial society on the one hand, and the Republican, Jacobin French nationalism that encourages it on the other. Yes to a great federal Europe; no to a multicultural (and in practice multiracial) France and Europe open to increasingly numerous Afro-Asiatic and Muslim communities.

Ethno-communitarianism is the fruit of resignation. As a sign of weakness, it has a demobilizing effect, whereas remigration functions as a mobilizing myth. Through its Islamophilia and its pandering to foreign, unassimilated parallel societies, ethno-communitarianism becomes a source of division. It alienates potential native allies for a remigration alliance. In France, this distorted idea failed to take hold. Alain Soral’s attempt to promote it through the “Égalité et Réconciliation” list was unsuccessful.¹ This idea will also fail in Germany. The sooner it does, the less confusion it will be able to sow within the patriotic camp.

Get the paperback or hardcover of Archeofuturism. 40% off!

We’re clearing out the final stock of this unique edition — it will not be reprinted. Get your copy before it’s gone for good!

1. Égalité et Réconciliation is a political movement founded by Alain Soral that seeks to unite the nationalist Right and anti-globalist Left, promoting coexistence between native French and immigrant communities. This approach reflects a form of ethno-communitarianism, favoring parallel societies over assimilation or remigration. Critics argue it weakens patriotic movements by fostering division and failing to mobilize native support, as seen in the collapse of Soral’s electoral efforts.