One mustn’t forget, moreover, that a European sovereignty could very well exist, even if today it’s only a dream. The tragedy, from this point of view, is not that nation-states have lost whole segments of their sovereignty (political, economic, budgetary, financial, and military), but that it has been lost itself in the black hole of Brussels based institutions without ever having reached a higher level.
The capital fact of this election, the one that confers a veritable historic character to it, it’s not the Macron phenomenon nor the presence of Marine Le Pen in the second round. It’s the total rout of the two former major parties of government, the PS [Translator’s note: Parti socialiste] and Les Républicains. I even predicted it last February, at a moment where no one seemed to notice it: for the first time since the head of state was elected through universal suffrage, neither of the two parties that have alternately governed France for nearly half a century will be present in the second round.
Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.
The popular classes are not only exasperated by the “way in which the city is managed.” They want to end administrative management, that is to say end the power of an expertocracy that pretends political problems are only technical problems in the final analysis (for which there only evidently exists a single rational solution) and who seek to seek to turn the governing of men into the administration of things. They realize that “governance” is only a means of governing without the people. What Vincent Coussedière called the “populism of the people” which is nothing other than a demand addressed to the politicians to actually practice politics in place of sticking to management.
Alain de Benoist is the leading thinker of the European ‘New Right’ movement, a school of political thought founded in France in 1968 with the establishment of GRECE (Research and Study Group for European Civilisation). To this day he remains its primary representative, even while rejecting the label ‘New Right’ for himself. An ethnopluralist defender of cultural uniqueness and integrity, he has argued for the right of Europeans to retain their identity in the face of multiculturalism, and he has opposed immigration, while still preferring the preservation of native cultures over the forced assimilation of immigrant groups. He has authored dozens of books and essays on topics such as immigration, religion, philosophy and political theory. In 1978, he received the Grand Prix de l’Essai from the Académie Française for his book ‘Vu de Droite’ [View from the Right].
There is every reason to believe that the consequences will be numerous and considerable, but it is too soon to speculate about it. As much as Hillary Clinton was predictable (with her, war with Russia was nearly assured), the intentions of Donald Trump remain relatively opaque. To deduce what the guiding lines of his policy in the White House will be from his most thunderous campaign declarations would be audacious at least, if not naive. Trump is not an ideologue, but a pragmatist. We must not forget (the parallel between France and the United States can also be mistaken) that the president of the United States, caught between Congress and the Supreme Court, is far from having all the powers that we attribute to him on this side of the Atlantic. Especially since the military industrial complex is still in place.
So the majority of whites voted for Trump, but that does not mean his victory is solely due to the ethnic factor. The truth is that it was the working class Whites, the popular and middle classes who chose Donald Trump (among the Whites without diplomas, he collected 67% of the vote), while the elite Whites, those who profit from neoliberal globalization, mostly turned out for Hillary Clinton. From this point of view, the vote in favor of Trump is also a class vote.
For many people on the Right, the meaning of social justice can easily fit on a piece of confetti. They want to defend the nation, but ultimately care very little for the people. They still do not understand that capitalism is intrinsically globalist, because it requires the abolition of borders.
To fight against the Islamic State implies attacking the primary causes of its strength, which are not military, nor even religious, but which are fundamentally political. It’s useless to suppress Daesh if we don’t know what to replace it with. To imagine that things will resume their normal course once we have made the ‘fanatics’ and ‘psychopaths’ disappear is nothing but a daydream. It will require intense diplomatic activity, both national and especially regional. Ultimately, a major international conference will be necessary that will probably call for the redrawing of the borders. But for the moment, it is already necessary to know more about the Islamic State, and to ask – this question was recently posed by Xavier Raufer – how it is that its leaders are not merely Islamists, but also in many cases were part of the former cadres of Saddam Hussein’s army.