About national-ecologism

Yes, it is entirely possible. Although we encourage real-life ties, we are above all pragmatic and understand that in many situations such an engagement is not feasible. In the age of social networks and the all-virtual, online engagement can have an impact equal to or greater than any real-life engagement. To that end, certain attached or affiliated structures are marked as "online" (like the review).

The network revolves around essential components:

• The ideological platform. This is the site you are consulting, as well as the review. The objective here is to develop a vision, to evolve public discourse, but also to provide a constructive exchange structure.
• Attached or affiliated structures. An attached structure officially claims itself as national-ecologist, while an affiliated structure simply shares its values.

In all cases, we meticulously verify the structures we list. They must respect a precise charter and meet a demanding quality standard. And in both cases, there is no hierarchical link. We are not a pyramidal structure: each structure, even attached, is independent and responsible for itself. Some structures may be militant, others purely based on community. Some are ideological, others not. Our objective is also to let the individualities and specificities of each structure express themselves.

In an atomized society where the individual is left alone facing the market and the State, communitarianism is not a retreat, but a basis for solidarity. National-ecologism is not intended to be only a theoretical idea, but a platform of exchange to build concrete ties. Although our action is very metapolitical (see previous section), our goal must be to allow the creation and organization of networks on the ground, as well as concrete communities that share common values. In the age of the all-virtual and social networks, all this is absolutely vital.

Metapolitics is what lies "above the political." It is the ideological, cultural, and normative substrate that underlies the collective organization of a society. A metapolitical action can be militant, but in practice and especially in the era of social networks, it is rarely so because the primary objective is to evolve this substrate in a specific direction.

As far as we are concerned, we consider it the most viable approach if it is complemented by community ties. The system is running out of steam; being "moderate" and thinking according to its rules and methods of action is not useful. Moreover, it is more difficult to repress an idea, cultural and opinion reviews, and groups of friends than militant political structures. Public opinion remains attached to a certain freedom of expression and assembly. However, militant groups generally perceived (whether it be true or false) as violent do not benefit from this positive angle.

Of course, metapolitics is not just ideology and doctrine. In fact, it is very little of that. Metapolitics is above all the development of an aesthetic, of organic human ties around a shared vision, etc.

Radicality is not so much a "choice" as a necessity imposed by the dramatic situation in which Europe finds itself. Liberal democracy is a deeply flawed system. It generates elites who work against the interest of the people for their petty personal profit. We must exit the democratic logic and take a great deal of perspective on our situation. We must grasp the full magnitude of the historical crisis in which we find ourselves. The coming decades will be difficult, and only a discourse of rupture, coherent and alternative, will be able to provide the correct answers.

Thus, our objective must go beyond the very principle of "democracy" or election. We must lead a cultural (metapolitical) fight that aims to evolve public discourse and break the post-1945 consensus. We must awaken consciences and form a "vanguard elite," embodied in local mutual aid communities, which can function as relays of solidarity in a decomposing system, all oriented towards a precise vision of a better society.

The future of Europe is by nature uncertain, and it is going through a grave crisis. It remains clear that its future lies neither in a globalist dissolution or submission to a foreign power, nor in a retreat into obsolete conceptions of the Nation-State. We face gigantic geopolitical blocs today (China, United States...) that aim above all for their own interest, and that is quite normal. It is time for us to do the same, and to give ourselves the means to do so. The future of Europe is that of an Empire. We must envision the nation on a larger scale through a federal Europe, respectful of national, regional, and local identities. The exact borders of this Empire remain to be determined, but Guillaume Faye's concept of Eurosiberia offers an interesting horizon, a total East-West axis with unprecedented strategic depth. In any case, we must radically break with our traditional Atlanticism.

Of course, this project is part of a larger whole. The destiny of Europe does not lie solely within its borders, but also in what happens within it. Beyond a self-sufficient Europe (autarky of great spaces), we must envision Europe from the angle of a biocivilization, and with an archeofuturist approach. The alliance of high technology and traditional values, archaic even, within the general framework of the rediscovery of a European spirit and an awareness of our collective interests, constitutes the only exit door to the crisis Europe is traversing. There is no other.

The subject is a bit saturated nowadays. We are supposed to believe that men and women are strictly equal to each other in practically all things. On the other hand, when it comes to criticizing (white) men, differences suddenly arise: men are allegedly dangerous, vicious, and at the same time useless, whereas women are considered innocent by default on just about every subject. On the other hand, societal values have been largely feminized, despite the fact that the role of mother has been greatly devalued. There are multiple causes for all this, among others:

• The impact of the industrial revolution.
• The market logic that would like everyone to be a "productive" consumer. As if the home and having children were a deadweight economic loss, which is obviously nonsense.
• Feminism, largely caused by the previous points.
• The post-1945 morality and the trauma of the world wars.

It is obvious that this situation will not be resolved by ideology. Men today are generally weak, softened by their comfort and a historically unprecedented period of peace. But this will not last indefinitely. All signs indicate that we are reaching the end of a cycle, the end of the current system's logic, and that natural roles will emerge again out of necessity. A woman is not a "man like any other" and neither are they interchangeable economic agents. Each sex has a role and is not meant to be crushed under a market logic that sells them their slavery as "emancipation."

As far as we are concerned, our vision is clear: the objective must be the re-establishment of a European patriarchy. It is the traditional system of our people and the only one that allows the complementary expression of each sex for the common good. The man's role is to provide and protect; the woman's is to ensure the transmission of life as well as culture, first through her children then within the collective. If the man is indeed the head of the family, his vocation is above all to provide a healthy and secure framework for his entire family and community.

Our relationship to technology is above all a relationship conditioned by reality. Technology does not solve everything, nor does returning to the stone age. Europe's destiny is also technological. Man, over the millennia, according to cycles of progress and regression, has expanded his level of consciousness and mastery. He first became master of himself, master of his immediate environment, and now master of the world, with the technical means to annihilate entire ecosystems. It is entirely possible that man, through the use of technology, through innate stupidity, causes his own extinction or returns millennia into the past. But it is entirely possible that he uses technology to reach new heights.

Ultimately, technology is a tool that must serve us. It must not become an excuse to sink into our worst vices, nor must it enslave us or denature us and render man unrecognizable. In an archeofuturist logic, we must aim for the tenfold increase of technology when it proves useful, and its reduction when it proves harmful.

Happiness is a concept that modernity has largely distorted. Today, it is understood as complete material satisfaction, which in turn allows the immediate satiation of all our impulses. In reality, true happiness is found above all in belonging: belonging to a community, belonging to something superior, belonging to the long term (temps long). It is also found in respect for one's deep nature; indeed, man is not a "consumer." He is a complex being, biological and social as well as moral and spiritual.

We are convinced that we carry the project of a healthy society in which we will be able to rediscover the true definition of happiness.

In a contractual society (which we also qualify as "artificial"), there is little to no emergent solidarity between individuals or groups of individuals. The main mechanisms of cohesion are abstract and utilitarian. Instead of ethnic, cultural, and traditional ties, society rests on an abstract and vague "social contract" to which you are supposed to consent by your mere existence. The relationship to power is conducted via an impersonal bureaucracy and your relationship with your "fellow citizens" is very often economic and based on explicit mutual interest. Only very strong organic ties survive, albeit with difficulty, like the family unit.

Conversely, an organic society is primarily made of indissoluble bonds. One can repudiate a contract, but one cannot choose to have been born elsewhere, to have grown up elsewhere. Nor can one change one's bio-cultural heritage. In an organic society, it is these factors that ensure social cohesion. Such a society does not consider these immutable factors as oppression but as an anchoring in real social structures, necessary for everoyone's psychological well-being. The relationship to the other is here primarily based on a common belonging to long-standing collective bodies, and solidarity is not founded on a contractual obligation but on reciprocal giving.

The stakes bound to the ecological "transition" are colossal. So-called "renewable" energies carry numerous issues, and in the current geopolitical context, we must unfortunately act with caution in this domain. We therefore assert that the elements are not sufficient to justify a drastic reduction in CO2. This is all the more true given that CO2 is not a pollutant but the food of all vegetation. One must also add to this proven scientific frauds (Climategate...), a scientific consensus that is in reality a media consensus, and it has been evident since Covid that it is entirely possible to instrumentalize "science" for political ends.

Overall, it is much more likely that we are simply in a period of natural warming that coincides with warming/cooling cycles and observable phenomena (climatic optima, etc.). And even if the anthropogenic thesis of global warming was proven, Europe is certainly not the main culprit.

Despite this, we recommend solutions quite similar to what anyone concerned about the climate might propose:

• Decreasing our dependence on coal, oil, gas: these are precious resources that must be saved.
• Elimination of actual pollution (exhaust fumes, etc.).
• Promotion of nuclear power as a source of clean energy.
• Promotion of a "resilient energy grid": encouraging local and regional energy self-sufficiency. This can be done, for example, by encouraging individuals to install panels on the roofs of houses.
• Exiting the productivist dogma, utilizing short supply chains where possible, etc.

Environmental protection must be understood as an overall objective that is not limited to a single subject, as is often the case today with the climate. The environment, too, must be understood in a global sense. For example, we must not limit environmental protection to well-defined spaces but extend this logic everywhere, including in cities. Fighting against encroaching blocks of concrete and uncontrolled urbanization are subjects just as important as the preservation of wild spaces.

Thus, environmental protection as we understand it consists not of guilt-tripping the people with carbon taxes or apocalyptic slogans, but of renewing a carnal bond with our biotope. We can cite a few lines of thought:

• Fight against microplastics, endocrine disruptors, and similar products. This is an absolute priority. Man must only come into contact with what his body is capable of processing without damage and without alteration. This is what we call the "chemical bubble." Endocrine disruptors participate, for example, in the collapse of birth rates and disrupt the basic physiological functioning of the entire population.
• End the throwaway culture and overconsumption: The first ecological gesture is also economical. We must return to an "economy of quality." This means buying less but of higher quality, prioritizing robust, repairable objects produced in short supply chains as much as possible.
• Restrict the use of pesticides and limit imports: A country that is not self-sufficient for its food is a country at the mercy of foreign entities, with food of often dubious quality. Health standards in this matter must be severe, but bureaucracy must be minimal. And above all, they must apply to everyone, and not only to our local producers who are already crushed under taxes, as it is currently too often the case.
• Adopt green urbanism: Vegetation should not simply be a decorative element of our cities, barely making hideous concrete blocks bearable. We must encourage green cities. Our architecture must be beautiful and our construction methods respectful of the environment.
• End animal suffering: Man may be an animal, but he is a moral and self-aware animal. Meat is certainly part of his diet, but today, animal suffering no longer has a place. We must be able to guarantee that the meat we eat has not been slaughtered "ritually" or in conditions of undue suffering.
• Preserve natural resources and wild spaces.
• And more.

Generally, when people speak of "nature," they mean the plant, animal, and mineral environment. Thus, protecting nature would amount to protecting an environment from which man is absent or at least external. This is laudable, of course, but insufficient in our view. The ancients had a completely different vision of nature. Nature, physis for the Greeks, was a universal and dynamic principle that governed the life and development of all things, including man. This also imposes a morality: that which stems from a death impulse or is unnatural is immoral. This even extends, for example, to usury, perceived as unnatural because it is non-generative.

This vision can be very difficult for modern men to grasp, for whom nature is a purely spatial and material object. Conversely, for a Greek philosopher, the expression "going for a walk in nature" would make no sense. As far as we are concerned, we simplify the principle by speaking of double ecology: that which surrounds man and that within him. Fundamentally, they are inseparable from one another. Both must be protected. Just as we do not ask a bee to behave like a sparrow, we must not denature man. However, many modern ideologies explicitly seek to separate man from this nature of which he is a part: transhumanism, transgenderism, etc. The common thread of these ideologies lies in a negation of all natural determinism. They respond to a death impulse and generally lead to psychological or even physical sterilization.

Thus, ecology for us is an integral philosophy that is not limited to environmental protection. Ecology conditions the protection of nature, understood as a universal principle of which man is a part and which he must respect for his own good.

We chose this compound name for its sonority and its ease of understanding in several languages, particularly English. But here too, one must understand what "national" means and what "ecology" means.

For us, the nation is not the Nation-State inherited from the Revolution of 1789. We use it in a sense much closer to its initial etymology: the Greek "natio," birth, the people of which one is a part because it is they who saw us being born. Today and in our case, this refers primarily to Whites, particularly in Europe (Russia included). But this large-scale solidarity reinforces other, more local solidarities. Just because one is White and European does not mean one ceases to be French or German, Provençal or Bavarian.

Furthermore, ecology, as far as we are concerned, cannot be summed up as simple environmental protection. Above all, it must not be equated with so-called democratic ecology, as we know it today. For us, ecology is first and foremost respecting a nature that determines us and determines our environment. We must, of course, protect the environment, this nature that surrounds us. But we must also protect who we are, this nature within us: race, bio-cultural heritage, historical customs, and ways of being are all integral parts of it. In the same way, we find it abnormal that one swoons over biodiversity on one hand, and on the other, forces white peoples to mix or even be replaced by other peoples.