Sculpture de Hugo Elmqvist

Sculpture de Hugo Elmqvist

Sculpture de Nils Hjalmar Mollerberg

Sculpture de Nils Hjalmar Mollerberg

Tableau de Félix De Boeck

Tableau de Félix De Boeck

I Quattro Pilastri dell'Anno

I Quattro Pilastri dell'Anno

Ex: http://aurhelio.blogspot.com/

 

In prossimità dell'equinozio di Autunno, riteniamo opportuno pubblicare questo articolo estratto dalla rivista "Solstitium" Anno IV numero 3-4 del Dicembre 1979. Esso, consente un approccio ciclico al senso del tempo e una riflessione sui ritmi cosmici. Una lettura imprescindibile per l'uomo di milizia

I quattro pilastri dell'anno sono i solstizi e gli equinozi. Essi formano la grande croce dell'anno o zodiacale, la cui braccia delimitano le stagioni. In scala ridotta corrispondono al giorno ed alle quattro fasi solari. Le quattro braccia dividono il cerchio zodiacale in quattro gruppi di segni, tre per ciascuno, che danno le caratteristiche delle rispettive stagioni. Ogni data segna l'inizio di un nuovo periodo, diverso dal precedente, in cui la luce del sole assume diversa forma e significato. Le quattro fasi si succedono regolarmente e tutto assume il senso di una rotazione costante attorno a un centro che fa da perno a tutto il movimento. Le quattro fasi dell'anno corrispondono ai quattro elementi ed il sole alla luce che li comprende e li trasfigura. Ogni periodo ha un riflesso esterno e uno interno, creando il presupposto di una stagione interiore che è nostro compito analizzare.

Il primo pilastro è il Solstizio d'inverno, data significativa in ogni tradizione, che segna astronomicamente l'inizio dell'inverno. Corrisponde alla posizione del Sole nel punto più basso dell'orizzonte ed alla maggiore disuguaglianza tra giorno e notte: qui la notte è più lunga del giorno. Il 22 dicembre segna la data ufficiale del calendario "astronomico" dell'anno.1 Da questo momento prende inizio la serie ascendente che porterà in avanti il giorno fino al futuro solstizio estivo, in cui i rapporti si invertiranno. Astrologicamente questa data segna il passaggio del Sole nel Capricorno (segno di Terra), a cui seguiranno l'Acquario e i Pesci. Nel simbolismo del giorno corrisponde invece al punto in cui il sole tocca il culmine della sua discesa: la Mezzanotte, in cui è opposto allo zenith meridiano.

Nell'antico Egitto, veniva simbolizzato nella forma di Khephra, lo scarabeo, chiara immagine dei sole occulto e sotterraneo.

Esotericamente2 questo momento è uno dei più importanti e significativi. Segna il punto preciso in cui l'esterno tace nel freddo e nel silenzio e l'interno vive di luce propria. II sole della coscienza è ora rivolto all'interno di sé e nella mezzanotte dell'anima tutto è pronto per una nuova rilevazione. E' in questo istante senza tempo che venivano eseguite le antiche cerimonie di iniziazione ai misteri dell'lo, nel profondo di grotte e caverne, a Mezzanotte in punto. Tramite esse una luce virtuale, occulta, veniva accesa nell'animo dell'adepto, che ora attendeva la nascita del proprio seme. E' in Inverno infatti che il seme, giacendo sotto la neve ed il gelo, dorme e matura i suoi frutti futuri. Ritualmente il nuovo periodo è rivolto alle opere della Terra: alla creazione cioè di basi e realtà concrete che facciano da perno ad ogni futura attività e alla coagulazione di precedenti iniziative. I tre segni invernali del Capricorno, dell'Acquario e dei Pesci suggeriscono un clima di freddezza, di silenzio e umidità che deve essere sciolto prima che il calore del sole porti con sé la Primavera.

Questo avviene il 21 marzo, il secondo pilastro annuale, data dell'Equinozio di Primavera o ascendente, in cui ciò che era sepolto torna adesso alla luce. Nel simbolismo segna il punto in cui il giorno eguaglia la notte: da questo momento essa sarà sempre più breve del giorno. Il sole della Mezzanotte precedente è ora sorto sull'orizzonte e il giorno è in equilibrio con la notte: è il Ra egizio, il sole occulto che ora diventa visibile. Nel piano zodiacale il Sole passa in Ariete (segno di Fuoco), a cui seguiranno il Toro ed i Gemelli.
II significato esoterico della Primavera è tutto nella luce che ora sorge. L'occulto si fa manifesto, la Terra si apre sotto la spinta del Fuoco e dà inizio alla vita. La luce interiore diventa ora visibile anche all'esterno, che si anima di vita propria. Il seme nascosto sorge dalla terra e tutta la natura si ricopre di verde e di fiori. La luce interiore si proietta all'esterno e dà vita al mondo,che ora viene vissuto come dotato di una propria interiorità. La natura già morta è ora animata da misteriosi significati che divengono chiaramente visibili alla coscienza. E' in questo periodo che venivano eseguiti dei riti di apertura cosmica verso il Creato, con lo scopo di ridurre quello che prima era separato dall'Essere, ma che ora tendeva a fondersi con lui. Sacre orgie e riti di fertilità avevano questo scopo, perché anche il sesso è spirituale.

Lo scopo era quello di riconoscersi nell'universo esterno, considerato come divino: Questo sei tu, secondo l'antica saggezza orientale. L'esterno e l'interno sono due facce di un'identica realtà, che li sovrasta. Ritualmente questo è il periodo del Fuoco, in cui si dà il via a iniziative di ogni genere, dato che anche la creatività personale è stimolata da questa fiamma che ora arde visibile. Si è spinti in ogni caso ad agire, a muoversi, a crescere, a fiorire, in un continuo avvicendarsi di impulsi, idee e sensazioni. E' noto come la Primavera influenzi l'eros animale e umano svegliando e moltiplicando i desideri. Meno noto è come esso, invece, vada al di là della semplice pulsione istintuale. II sesso è la Vita stessa e nell'adepto ai misteri della Luce esso si manifesta in altre forme ignote all'uomo comune. Il sesso cioè si svincola dal tendere al basso e sale, portato dalla fiamma che sorge, verso l'alto investendo idee, volontà e sentimenti di una nuova luce e fecondità. L'adepto cioè è fecondo in alto anziché in basso e il sesso diventa una via per la propria liberazione dai legami umani. La fiamma che sale, alimentata dall'Aria (i Gemelli) e sostenuta dalla Terra (il Toro), si innalza fino allo zenith dando inizio all'Estate.

Questa inizia il 22 giugno, giorno del Solstizio d'Estate e terzo pilastro annuale. Qui il giorno è più lungo della notte e l'anno e la luce sono al culmine. E' una data trionfale che segna la vittoria della luce sull'oscurità e il pieno sole meridiano. Corrisponde infatti all'ora del Mezzogiorno, in cui il sole è allo zenith e irradia al massimo luce e calore. Nel simbolismo egizio è Hathoor, il dio della luce meridiana e pienamente manifesta opposta a quella del Sole di Mezzanotte. Nella volta celeste il sole occupa ora il punto più alto e i suoi raggi arrivano perpendicolari alla luce terrestre. L'arco di luce è massimo e ricaccia la notte nella sua dimora oscura: ora tutto è in pieno sole e chiede di essere completamente manifestato. Astronomicamente il Sole entra nel Cancro (segno dell'Acqua), seguito dal Leone e dalla Vergine. Esotericamente questo periodo segna il momento in cui esterno e interno, Essere e Natura, sono perfettamente uniti e armonizzati, esaltati fino al massimo grado. L'Estate è il trionfo del sesso, della vita e delle opere intraprese. E' il periodo in cui il grano imbiondisce e viene mietuto, in cui sotto l'ardore del sole assume una tinta aurea, segno di perfezione e completamento. L'Estate porta con sé una corona d'oro, che l'adepto assume come segno di Vittoria sulla propria natura inferiore. E' il periodo in cui la materia è al Rosso e in cui i frutti attendono di essere colti dalla sua mano. Negli antichi riti questo periodo era una testimonianza di vittoria forse formava il supporto adatto di ogni cerimonia di incoronazione. Ritualmente l'Estate è il periodo dell'Acqua, in cui si procede a diffondere nel mondo quanto si è percepito e compreso in Primavera. Ora ogni cosa deve prendere corpo in attività che coinvolgano il mondo esterno e lo portino in sintonia con quanto vibra all'interno. Simile in questo all'acqua che si dilata e tende a unirsi con quanto lo circonda, comprendendo tutto in sé. Questo riflette l'antica idea dell'Unità e dell'inesistenza di ogni altro fuori di sé. La realtà esterna è illusione appunto perché si è incapaci di viverla come facente parte di sé stessi. Nell'assunzione positiva del mondo il senso del corpo si dilata e viene a comprendere nel suo ambito tutta la natura esterna e gli esseri che la popolano. Al limite la coscienza individuale si amplia fino a dissolversi in uno stato di coscienza cosmica che rappresenta la perfezione dell'Opera. E il Fuoco del Sole allo zenith provvede a fornirgli un aspetto attivo.
Facendo seguito al periodo estivo, l'Autunno avanza come un lento ripensamento. La fiamma della passione si riduce dando luogo ad un periodo di intensa riflessione, in cui il mondo esterno è filtrato attraverso lo schermo dei propri pensieri e si giudica quanto si è fatto. E' il 23 settembre, data dell'Equinozio d'Autunno o discendente e quarto pilastro dell'anno. La notte è ora di nuovo uguale al giorno, ma in forma diversa che in Primavera. La vita ora si ritira lentamente in se stessa e medita sul passato. Astrologicamente il Sole entra nella Bilancia (segno d'Aria), seguita dallo Scorpione e dal Sagittario. Nel giorno corrisponde all'ora del Tramonto, l'egizio Tum, in cui la luce si bilancia con l'oscurità e tende lentamente verso la morte. E' un'ora malinconica in cui i fantasmi passati risorgono e antiche e nuove idee affollano la mente, in cui si fa il bilancio sul proprio passato immediato e se ne tirano le somme. E' il periodo in cui si raccolgono i frutti e si semina il grano che nascerà nel nuovo anno. Esotericamente la luce dell'Essere si ritrae dall'esterno e tende a coagularsi nella propria origine spirituale, dando l'impressione come di una lenta morte che prende la natura interna ed esterna. E' in questo periodo che venivano praticati riti di astinenza e di purificazione, per liberarsi di tutto e iniziare il nuovo anno rinnovati interiormente. Di solito il periodo di astinenza precedeva immediatamente la data del Solstizio d'Inverno. La sera che va verso la notte è un'ora di purificazione in cui più forte deve splendere il Sole interno, ora non più oscurato dalla luce del giorno, e il crepuscolo fa da silenzioso ingresso. Ritualmente questo è il periodo dell'Aria: intelligenza e comprensione per quanto si è fatto e quanto si farà. La luce ora splende limpida nella propria mente e permette un giudizio obiettivo sui propri fatti e misfatti. Si può anche sorridere di sé, con paziente tolleranza, ma tutto ormai è dietro se stessi e va lasciato da parte.

E così torniamo verso l'inverno. Il cerchio zodiacale ha compiuto un nuovo giro e si appresta ad accendere i fuochi di quello che sarà l'inizio di un nuovo anno.

Nemo.

NOTE
1: I Solstizi, come gli Equinozi, corrispondono ad un particolare evento astronomico. Per convenzione si situano in alcuni giorni specifici sul calendario. amerò, a causa delle sei ore di scarto tra un anno e l'altro (la giurata di un anno è di 365 giorni e sei ore), si determina ogni quattro anni il giorno 29 di febbraio (anno bisestìle); di conseguenza la data in cui cadono i Solstizi e gli Equinozi non è sempre la stessa
ed in ogni caso l'orario differirà comunque dall'anno precedente.

2: Per esoterico, si intende l'insegnamento a una "conoscenza" (esoterica) che, per la sua particolare Natura e Forza, non è data alla portata di tutti. L'insegnamento tradizionale, dottrinario, che viene rivolto indistintamente, rispetto alla qualificazione del singolo, è chiamato essoterico;
l'insegnamento, che si rivolge a persone più qualificate ed in grado di essere sensibili e recettive verso alcuni messaggi, si dice esoterico. Vi è oltremodo da sottolineare che l'insegnamento esoterico non può essere compreso da colui che non ha già in sé le condizioni per il suo apprendimento.

 

 

Tableau de Constantin Meunier

Tableau de Constantin Meunier

Geopolitics of Leviathan

Geopolitics of Leviathan

By Edouard RIX

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

Translated by Greg Johnson

“Nur Meer und Erde haben hier Gewicht.”
(Only sea and land matter here.)
—Goethe

This article is less concerned with geopolitics than with thalassopolitics, a neologism coined by professor Julien Freund “to call into question certain conceptions of geopolitics that privilege telluric phenomena over maritime phenomena.”

“World history is the history of the fight of maritime powers against continental powers and of continental powers against maritime powers” writes Carl Schmitt in Land and Sea.

In the Middle Ages, the cabbalists interpreted the history of the world as a combat between the powerful whale, Leviathan, and the no less powerful Behemoth, a land animal imagined as looking like an elephant or a bull. Behemoth tries to tear Leviathan with its defenses, its horns or its teeth, while Leviathan, for its part, tries to stop with its fins the mouth and the nose of the land animal to starve or suffocate it. A mythological allegory not unrelated to the blockade of a terrestrial power by a maritime power.

The “Sea Power” of Admiral Mahan

Around the turn of the 20th century, the American Alfred T. Mahan in The Influence of Sea Power upon History (1890), the German Friedrich Ratzel in Das Meer als quelle der Volkergrösse [The Sea as Source of National Greatness] (1900), and the British Halford John Mackinder in Britain and the British Seas (1902), attach a paramount importance to the sea as source of power of the nations.

Admiral, historian, and professor at the US Naval Academy, Alfred T. Mahan (1840–1914) is the most famous geopolitician of the sea, his work comprising twenty books and 137 articles. On the basis of the study of European History of the 17th and 18th centuries, he sought to show how maritime power (Sea Power) appeared determinative of the growth and prosperity of nations.

For him, the sea can act against the land, whereas the reverse is not true and, in the long run, the sea always ends up winning any fight against the land. Mahan is deeply persuaded that the control of the seas ensures the domination of the land, which he summarizes with the formula “the Empire of the sea is without any doubt the Empire of the world.” By thus affirming the intrinsic superiority of the maritime empires, he offers a theoretical justification to imperialism, the great expansionist movement of the years 1880–1914.

In The Problem of Asia, published in 1900, Mahan applies his geopolitical paradigm to Asia, insisting on the need for a coalition of maritime powers to contain the progression towards the open sea of the great terrestrial power of the time, Russia. Indeed, he stresses that its central position confers a great strategic advantage on the Russian Empire, because it can extend in all directions, and its internal lines cannot be crossed.

On the other hand—and here lies its principal weakness—its access to the sea is limited, Mahan seeing only three possible axes of expansion: toward Europe, to circumvent the Turkish blockade of the straits, toward the Persian Gulf, and toward the China Sea. This is why the admiral recommends damming up the Russian tellurocracy through the creation of a vast alliance of the maritime powers, thalassocracies, which would include the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and Japan, the Americans asserting themselves as the leaders of this new Holy Alliance.

Halford John Mackinder

Inspired by Admiral Mahan, the British academic Halford John Mackinder (1861–1947) also believed that the fundamental geopolitical reality is the opposition between continental powers and maritime powers. A fundamental idea run throughout his work: the permanent confrontation between the Heartland, i.e. the central-Asian steppe, and the World Island, the continental mass Asia-Africa-Europe.

In 1887, Mackinder delivered a short public speech to the Royal Geographical Society that marked his resounding debut on the geopolitical stage, declaring in particular “there are two types of conquerors today: land wolves and sea wolves.” Behind this allegorical and somewhat enigmatic utterance is the concrete reality of Anglo-Russian competition in Central Asia. In fact, Mackinder was obsessed by the safety of the British Empire vis-à-vis the rise of Germany and Russia. In 1902, in Britain and the British Seas, he noted the decline of Great Britain and concluded from it that she must “divide the burden” with the United States, which would take over sooner or later.

In his famous essay of 1904, “The Geographical Pivot of History,” he formulates his geopolitical theory. One can summarize it in two principal points: (1) Russia occupies the pivotal zone inaccessible to maritime power, from which it can undertake to conquer and control the Eurasian continental mass, (2) against Russia, maritime power, starting from its bastions (Great Britain, the United States, South Africa, Australia, and Japan) that are inaccessible to terrestrial power, encircles the latter and prohibits her from freely reaching the open sea.

Studying the “pre-Colombian” epoch, Mackinder contrasted the Slavs, who inhabited the forests, with the nomadic riders of the steppes. This semi-desert Asian steppe is the Heartland, surrounded by two densely populated crescents: the inner crescent, encompassing India, China, Japan, and Europe, which are territorially adjacent to the Heartland, and the outer crescent, made up of various islands. The inner crescent is regularly subject to the pressures of nomadic horsemen from the steppes of the Heartland.

Everything changed in the “Colombian” age, which saw the confrontation of two mobilities, that of England which began the conquest of the seas, and that of Russia which advanced gradually in Siberia. For the academic Mackinder, this double European expansion, maritime and continental, found its explanation in the opposition between Rome and Greece. Indeed, he affirms that the Germans were civilized and Christianized by the Roman, the Slavs by the Greeks, and that whereas the Romano-Germans conquered the oceans, the Slavs seized the steppes on horseback.

Mackinder made the separation between Byzantine and Western Empires in 395, exacerbated by the Great Schism between Byzantium and Rome in 1054, the nodal point of this opposition. He emphasized that after the fall of Constantinople to the Turks, Moscow proclaimed itself the new center of Orthodoxy (the Third Rome). According to him, in the 20th century, this religious antagonism will lead to an ideological antagonism, between Communism and capitalism: Russia, heiress of the Slavic country village community, the Mir, will choose Communism, the West, whose religious practice privileges individual salvation, for capitalism . . .

For Mackinder, the opposition Land/Sea is likely to lean in favor of the land and Russia. Mackinder noted that if the United Kingdom could send an army of 500,000 to South Africa at the time of the Boer Wars, a performance saluted by all the partisans of the maritime power, Russia at the same time had succeeded in an even more exceptional exploit by maintaining an equivalent number of soldiers in the Far East, thousands of kilometers of Moscow, thanks to the Trans-Siberian Railroad. With the railroad, the terrestrial power was henceforth able to deploy its forces as quickly as the oceanic power.

Enthralled by this revolution in land transportation, which would make it possible for Russia to develop an industrialized space that is autonomous from and closed to trade with the thalassocracies, Mackinder predicted the end of the “Colombian” age and concluded that the telluric power is superior, summarizing his thought in a striking aphorism: “Whoever holds continental Europe controls the Heartland. Whoever holds the Heartland controls the World Island.”

Indeed, any economic autonomy in central-Asian space leads automatically to a reorganization of the flow of trade, the inner crescent thus having an interest in developing its commercial relations with the center, the Heartland, to the detriment of the Anglo-Saxon thalassocracies. A few years later, in 1928, Stalin’s announcement of the implementation of the first Five Year Plan would reinforce the British thinker, who did not fail to stress that since the October Revolution, the Soviets built more than 70,000 kilometers of railways.

Shortly after the First World War, Mackinder published Democratic Ideals and Reality, a concise and dense work in which he recalls the importance of the Russian continental mass, that the thalassocracies can neither control from the seas nor invade completely. Thus, concretely, it is imperative to separate Germany from Russia by a “cordon sanitaire,” in order to prevent the union of the Eurasiatic continent. This prophylactic policy was pursued by Lord Curzon, who named Mackinder High Commissioner in “South Russia,” where a military mission assisted the White partisans of Anton Denikin and obtained from them the de facto recognition of the new Republic of Ukraine . . .

To make impossible the unification of Eurasia, Mackinder never ceased recommending the balkanization of Eastern Europe, the amputation from Russia of its Baltic and Ukrainian glacis, the “containment” of Russian forces in Asia so that they could not threaten Persia or India.

Notes

1. C. Schmitt, Terre et Mer (Paris: Le Labyrinthe, 1985), p. 23. [See the English translation available on this website here ^[2]. -- Trans.]

2. The names of Leviathan and Behemoth are borrowed from the Book of Job (chapters 40 and 41).

3. A. T. Mahan, The Problem of Asia and its Effect upon International Policies (London: Sampson Low-Marston, 1900), p. 63.

Source: Edouard Rix, Terre & Peuple, No. 46 (Winter Solstice 2010), pp. 39–41.

Online: http://tpprovence.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/geopolitique-du-leviathan/ ^[3]

Geopolitics of Leviathan, Part 2

Karl Haushofer’s Kontinentalblock 

 

It was in Germany, under the decisive influence of Karl Haushofer (1869–1946), that geopoliticians, diplomats, and National Revolutionary and National Bolshevik theorists (the Jünger brothers, Ernst Niekisch, Karl-Otto Paetel) would oppose thalassocratic pretentions with greatest force.

A Bavarian artillery officer and professor at the War Academy, Karl Haushofer was sent to Japan in 1906 to reorganize the Imperial Army. During his return to Germany on the Trans-Siberian railroad, he became vividly aware of the continental vastness of Russian Eurasia. After the First World War, he earned a doctorate and became professor of geography in Munich, where connected with Rudolf Hess. In 1924, Haushofer founded the famous Zeitschrift für Geopolitik (Journal of Geopolitics). He was the direct intellectual heir to his compatriot Friedrich Ratzel and the Swede Rudolf Kjeller.

To begin, let us set aside the black legend of Haushofer as fanatical Hitlerist who used geopolitics to justify the territorial conquests of the Third Reich, a legend based in “American propaganda efforts,” according to Professor Jean Klein.[1] This diabolization will astonish only those who are ignorant of the anti-thalassocratic orientation of Haushofer’s geopolitics . . .

 

 

Haushofer wished to rise above petty nationalisms. Thus, beginning in 1931, in Geopolitik der Pan-Ideen (Geopolitics of Continental Ideas), he advocated the constitution of vast continental spaces as the only means to go beyond the territorial and economic weakness of traditional States. The first stage could be the sub-continental gatherings theorized in 1912 by the geographer E. Banse, who recommended 12 large civilizational regions: Europe, Greater Siberia (Russia included), Australia, the East Indies, Eastern Asia, the “Nigritie” (the “black lands,” i.e., Africa), Mongolia (with China, Indochina, and Indonesia), Greater California, the Andes, America (Atlantic North America), and Amazonia.

Haushofer’s radically continentalist and anti-thalassocratic thought came into focus in 1941, when he published Der Kontinentalblock-Mitteleuropa-Eurasien-Japan (The Continental Bloc Central Europe-Eurasia-Japan). Written after the Germano-Soviet pact, this work argued for a Germano-Italo-Soviet-Japanese alliance that would radically reorganize the Eurasian continental mass. He stressed that the permanent fear of the Anglo-Saxons is the emergence of a Berlin-Moscow-Tokyo axis, which would completely escape the influence of the commercial thalassocracies, which, he writes, practice the policy of the anaconda, which consists in gradually encircling and slowly suffocating its prey. But a unified Eurasia would be too large for the Anglo-American anaconda. Thanks to its gigantic mass, it could resist any blockade.

The idea of a tripartite alliance first occurred to the Japanese and Russians. At the time of the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, when the British and Japanese united against the Russians, some of the Japanese leadership—including Hayashi, their ambassador in London, Count Gato, Prince Ito, and Prime Minister Katsura—desired a Germano-Russo-Japanese pact against the English seizure of global sea traffic. The visionary Count Gato recommended a troika in which the central horse, the strongest one, flanked by two lighter and more nervous horses, Germany and Japan. In Russia, the Eurasian idea would be incarnated a few years later by the minister Sergei Witte, the creative genius of the Trans-Siberian Railroad who in 1915 advocated a separate peace with the Kaiser.

Needless to say, Haushofer disapproved of Hitler’s wars of conquest in the East, which went against his historical project of creating a Eurasian continental bloc.

The Anaconda Strategy of Spykman and Brzezinski

 

Route of the Trans-Siberian Railroad

The fundamental idea, posed by Mahan and Mackinder, to prohibit Russia’s access to the open sea, would be reformulated by Nicholas John Spykman (1893–1943), who insisted on the pressing need for controlling the maritime ring or Rimland, the littoral zone bordering the Heartland and which runs from Norway to Korea: “Whoever controls the maritime ring holds Eurasia; whoever holds Eurasia controls the destiny of the world.”[2]

Interpreting this maxim at that onset of the Cold War, the United States tried by a policy of “containment” of the USSR, to control the Rimland by means of a network of regional pacts: NATO in Europe, the Baghdad Pact then the Organization of the central treaty of the Middle East, SEATO and ANZUS in the Far East.

With the collapse of the Soviet bloc, one might have expected a strategic redeployment of the USA and a break with Mackinderite orthodoxy. But that was not to be. So much so that still today, the (semi-official) foreign policy adviser most heeded by President Obama proves to be a dedicated disciple of Mackinder: none other than Zbigniew Brzezinski, a friend of David Rockefeller, with whom he co-founded the Trilateral Commission in 1973, and Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor from 1977 to 1980. His major theoretical work, The Grand Chessboard, appeared in 1997, at the time of the wars in Yugoslavia undertaken mainly under his initiative, under the aegis of the Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Brzezinski’s strategic analysis cynically reprises Anglo-Saxon geopolitical doxa: Eurasia, which comprises half the planet’s population, constitutes the spatial center of world power. The key to control Eurasia is Central Asia. The key to control Central Asia is Uzbekistan. For this Russophobe of Polish origin, the objective of the American Grand Strategy must be to fight against a China-Russia alliance. Considering that the principal threat comes from Russia, he recommends its encirclement (the anaconda, always the anaconda) by the establishment of military bases, or, in the absence of friendly regimes in the former Soviet republics (Ukraine included), insisting in particular on the necessary utilization of Islamists. Paradoxically, it is in the name of the fight against these same Islamists that American forces were deployed Uzbekistan after September 11th, 2001 . . . Machiavelli is not dead!

Notes

1. Jean Klein, Karl Haushofer, De la géopolitique (Paris: Fayard, 1986).

2. N. Spykman, The Geography of the Peace (New York: Harcourt-Brace, 1944), p. 43.

Edouard Rix, Terre & Peuple, No. 46 (Winter Solstice 2010), pp. 39–41.

---

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/08/geopolitics-of-leviathan-part-2/

Tableau de Léon Frédéric

 

Tableau de Léon Frédéric

The German Death Wish

Frank Ellis reviews German’s huge best seller.

Ex: http://www.amren.com/

Thilo Sarrazin, Germany Consigns Itself to Oblivion: How We Are Putting Our Country at Risk, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, München, 2010, 410 pp. (in German, with German title: Deutschland schafft sich ab: Wie wir unser Land aufs Spiel setzen) €22.99.

Like all Western nations, Germany suffers from waves of immigrants who clearly have no intention of integrating, and from a duplicitous political class that harries its citizens to accept what they instinctively know is wrong. At the same time, because of the Nazi period, the pressure on Germans to conform to the United Nations-sponsored ideology of multiculturalism has been immense. Many Germans themselves treat any assertion of national German pride as a manifestation of neo-Nazi tendencies, as something hideously offensive and shameful.

It is this specifically German context that makes the publication of Thilo Sarrazin’s book so remarkable. It is all the more remarkable for having been written by one of Germany’s top technocrats, a person at the very heart of the administrative establishment. Clearly, Mr. Sarrazin, who was until last September 30 on the executive board of the Deutsche Bundesbank, has had enough. He instinctively grasps the truth of Solzhenitsyn’s eleventh commandment: “Thou shall not live by the Lie.” The fact that Mr. Sarrazin’s book has become a best seller in Germany and attracted enormous support may well have prompted Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, publicly to admit in October that multiculturalism has utterly failed in Germany. Indeed, it has, and not just in Germany.

The title of Mr. Sarrazin’s book has generally been translated as Germany is Abolishing Itself or Germany is Doing Away With Itself. I believe a translation of the German verb abschaffen that does justice to the implications of the book’s themes would be Germany Consigns Itself to Oblivion, or even Germany Commits Suicide or Germany’s Death Wish.

Mr. Sarrazin’s avalanche of evidence and professional analyses left me in no doubt that the suicide diagnosis is accurate. The author underlines the rather obvious but easily forgotten point that Germany is Germany “by virtue of its inhabitants and their living intellectual as well as their cultural traditions. Without the people it would merely be a geographical term.” The same, of course, is true of England, Denmark, China, or Zimbabwe. Mr. Sarrazin notes that for decades it has not been possible to talk about the preservation of Germany, since the left-wing media denounce such talk as Nazi, racist, and xenophobic. Mr. Sarrazin destroys the silence.

Like the highly trained member of the German technocracy that he is, Mr. Sarrazin presents thoroughly researched arguments. Each chapter addresses some aspect of the immigrant problem — poverty, fertility, declining mean IQ and educational standards, spiralling welfare payments, left-wing and intellectual cowardice, the relentless Islamification of Germany — providing the reader with a series of brilliantly written mini-monographs. The whole leads inexorably to his synthesis and the work’s devastating conclusions. Germany Consigns itself to Oblivion is a masterly display of erudition and logical exposition.

Thilo Sarrazin discussing his book.

To begin with, Germans, especially high-IQ women, are not having enough children, and the population of indigenous Germans is dropping below replacement rate. This is not, however, a justification for immigration: “[T]he natural population decrease in one country or group of countries may not serve as the basis morally and politically to justify immigration or seizure of land. The territorial principle is an inviolable component of state sovereignty and respect for it serves to maintain peace.”

Mass immigration from the Third World, primarily Turkey, the Middle East and Africa, will not solve the problem of Germany’s aging population because the country’s economic future lies in its human and intellectual capital. Mr. Sarrazin cites studies by Richard Lynn, Tatu Vanhanen, and others that show the average intelligence of people from these areas is well below the European average. He goes on to note that “the three immigrant groups with the greatest lack of education and the highest social costs [Turks, Middle Easterners, and Africans] are also those who are reproducing themselves the most.”

Very few Turks who came to Germany as workers ever returned home. Instead, their families joined them from Turkey, and this has created a huge, hostile underclass. Mr. Sarrazin calls the entire guest worker program “a gigantic error.” He notes that some of the problems Muslims bring are: Below average employment, above average dependence on welfare and handouts, above average fertility, segregation with a tendency to create parallel societies, above average religious participation with an attraction to fundamentalist Islam, and above average criminality and participation in terrorism.

One of the classic features of the black, white, or any underclass is addiction to television. It is the international underclass’s narcotic.

Mr. Sarrazin notes that Germany’s generous, typically European welfare state is cracking under the strain of millions of jobless Third-World immigrants. He nevertheless insists that those who cannot feed themselves and their progeny “should and must be helped.” But what happens when their numbers rise to the point that the means to clothe and feed the poor can no longer be found? The honest answer is that human beings who engage in reckless personal breeding experiments should be free to suffer the consequences, but this is farther than Mr. Sarrazin is prepared to go.

In any case, immigrants who live in parallel societies, courtesy of German and European taxpayers, and who have no intention of integrating cannot be considered fellow citizens. They are aliens who, in my view, do not meet the conditions laid down by Mr. Sarrazin for taxpayer charity. Furthermore, Mr. Sarrazin’s arguments in favor of welfare for foreigners living in Germany are the moral basis for massive transfers of German and European wealth to the Third World. It is common to claim that the starving and diseased in Somalia or Haiti — or wherever the latest Third-World disaster happens to be — are fellow citizens of the world and thus entitled to our money. This is what prompts the demented do-goodery of multimillionaire celebrities and pop stars who want other people’s taxes to subsidize reckless breeding everywhere.

“German” Turks wave their flag.

In any case, as Mr. Sarrazin points out, attitudes towards poverty are driven by emotion rather than analysis. He notes that “the poverty risk threshold in Germany today is higher than the average net income of Germans at the high point of the economic miracle at the start of the sixties.” Mr. Sarrazin has even tested his theories about the largesse of the German welfare system. Before he wrote Germany Consigns Itself to Oblivion, he and his wife famously demonstrated that it is possible to live well and healthily on the money provided by the German welfare system. The publicity surrounding this experiment resulted in a television program, and a cameraman told Mr. Sarrazin he had been instructed not to film the apartments of welfare recipients because they were full of electronic gadgets.

Mr. Sarrazin identifies three reasons why any challenge to welfare provokes so much emotion. First, the recipients themselves like the system. Second, hordes of researchers and bureaucrats depend on it for their jobs. Third, if it is possible to live adequately on welfare but those on it do not, it is their own fault rather than some existential catastrophe. It is this last point that triggers the most rage and aggression.

Mr. Sarrazin describes the effects of Germany’s generous welfare, quoting one account of the chaos of life of an immigrant Turkish family that concludes with the observation, “And the flat screen television is always on, always.” It seems that one of the classic features of the black, white, or any underclass is addiction to television. It is the international underclass’s constant narcotic.

Even Turks on welfare watch Turkish
TV with their dish antennas.

Mr. Sarrazin also writes about a small German town where the population of 300 Turks is derived from just two families. One of them boasts, “We don’t need the Germans.” Mr. Sarrazin also mentions Neukölln, one of the boroughs of Berlin, which is just one of many areas where immigrants have displaced the indigenous population. “A German going through these districts would feel like a foreigner in his own country,” he notes, an experience now available to the citizens of virtually any white country.

As in other European countries, the mainstream media ignore immigrant crime or fail to name or describe the criminals, because to do so would show that the perpetrators are immigrants. “Who is actually helped when facts in the public domain are suppressed ...?” asks Mr. Sarrizin. “Certainly neither the truth nor clear analysis or integration.”

Mr. Sarrazin concludes his book with two scenarios: nightmare and salvation. In the nightmare scenario he looks ahead to the end of the 21st century. He sees a Germany that is no longer German. Rampant welfare spending and the failure to control Third-World immigration have effectively turned Germany into a Muslim state. Germany’s famous churches, including Cologne cathedral, have been converted into mosques. There are demands for a new German flag, one with a crescent and star.

Salvation, if it is still possible, comes from the populist right-wing parties all across Europe. Immigration controls are tightened, educational standards rise, and high-IQ women start having more children. The migrant quarters in the big cities shrink and far less Turkish and Arabic is heard on the streets. Germany has been brought back from the brink.

What makes Germany Consigns itself to Oblivion so valuable is Mr. Sarrazin’s fearless, rational honesty. Germans reading this book must experience something similar to that of a Russian reading a samizdat version of Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago during the Cold War: an exhilarating experience that only the honest search for truth can deliver. I salute Mr. Sarrazin for his moral courage and intellectual acumen; and God bless his great nation in the struggle to save itself from oblivion.

Editor’s note: Germany Consigns itself to Oblivion was published in Germany in August 2010. It immediately shot to the top of the sales chart at Amazon.de, and dropped to number two only in late December. At that time it had 441 reader reviews, of which 73 percent were five stars, and 13 percent were four stars. Let us hope its enormous success will be the first step back from the brink.

Frank Ellis is an expert in Russian and Slavonic studies who took early retirement from Leeds University in 2006 after publicly stating he believed there is a substantial genetic contribution to racial differences in average intelligence.

IRAN-USA: la grande parodie

IRAN – USA : la grande parodie

par Jean-Marc Desanti

Ex: http://leschevaliersnoirs.hautetfort.com/

«  Le pouvoir n'existe plus que comme parodie  »

(Jean Baudrillard )

 

Il n'existe pas entre états stables de tensions irréductibles car il n'y a pas entre gouvernements de relations établies «  une fois pour toutes  ». Les adversaires d'hier deviennent les amis d'aujourd'hui et les alliés de demain, parce que la nature même de tout pouvoir est de survivre en développant une politique prioritairement conforme à ses intérêts, c'est à dire, en termes moins élégants, de tout faire pour durer.

 

Les USA et l'Iran ont , officiellement, connu une amitié réciproque jusqu'à la chute du Shah, puis en apparence, depuis vingt ans, de violentes tensions qui semblaient se cumuler durant le conflitIran-Irak. En réalité l'administration américaine de Reagan misa très concrètement sur Téhéran en organisant des livraisons massives d'armes par l'intermédiaire d'Israël. Ce qu'on nomma « l'Irangate » apparaissait comme incompréhensible aux yeux de beaucoup de « spécialistes », l'explication était pourtant simple : Face au « matérialisme » soviétique l'islamisme était favorisé. En vendant des armes aux iraniens les États-Unis faisaient d'une pierre deux coups.

D'une part ils se servaient des profits engrangés pour soutenir « les contras » qui combattaient les Sandinistes soutenus par l'URSS au Nicaragua et d'autre part nourrissaient la lutte armée contre l'Irak, faisant plus de 500 000 morts, qui avait le soutien de Paris et de Moscou.

 

Puis, les évènements continuèrent à resserrer les liens très discrets mais très étroits entre Washington et Téhéran. En 1998, 70 000 hommes des forces terrestres et aériennes iraniennes, appartenant aux pasdaran (gardiens de la révolution) et aux bassidji (milices islamiques) se massèrent à une cinquantaine de kilomètres de la frontière afghane en menaçant d'intervenir pour écraser les talibans. C'est à cette époque que la Vevak ( services secrets iraniens ) établit des contacts avec le commandant Massoud. C'est à cette époque aussi que la Vevak et la CIA s'entendirent sur le plan de soutien et de secours aux forces de Massoud. Téhéran était, d'ailleurs, déjà engagé dans le conflit, ses avions ravitaillant en vivres et en armes depuis des mois l'Hazarajat, une région du centre de l'Afghanistan, tenue par les milices chiites hazaras, alliées de Massoud et que les talibans n'avaient pas encore conquises.

 

Aussi lorsque le premier décembre 2001 l'US Air Force commença les bombardements sur Tora Bora, elle put bénéficier de l'ouverture de l'espace aérien iranien pendant deux mois.

 

Mieux encore, en 2003, l'armée américaine est partie du Koweit vers Bagdad, via le désert de Nassiriyah, les brigades de l'organisation Badr avec leurs 15000 hommes ( réfugiés et transfuges chiites irakiens ayant combattu avec les iraniens pendant la guerre irano-irakienne ) étaient déjà entrées depuis la côte d'Al Imara et de Sa'd Algharbi pour protéger les arrières de l'armée américaine. C'est à ce moment-là aussi que les Iraniens proposèrent aux Etats-Unis le fameux accord 6+6 , les six pays frontaliers de l'Irak, plus les USA et les pays du Conseil de sécurité, plus l'Égypte... Ce qui fut appliqué, dans les faits, malgré les dénégations embarrassées des diplomates US.

 

Pour le Pentagone, les iraniens sont des gens censés avec lesquels on peut faire « de bonnes affaires », la réciproque est vraie.

 

Depuis une dizaine d'années, il n'est pas de mois où l'on n'annonce une attaque américano-israélienne ou israélienne ou américaine contre l'Iran. Les experts les plus avisés nous exposent avec précision le déroulement des opérations futures, escomptant bien qu'avec le temps , ils auront forcément un jour raison …

 

Mais il n'en est rien et pour cause.

 

Les américains ont pu, grâce au puissant allié chiite, pacifier l'Irak, c'est à dire morceler le pays en le laissant sous forte influence iranienne.

 

Les iraniens, toujours inquiets et en opposition face au monde arabe sunnite, ont réussi par Gi interposés à détruire Bagdad l'orgueilleuse et même, par ricochet, à s'introduire et à remporter de grandes victoires en imposant le Hezbollah dans le jeu compliqué entre le Liban, la Syrie et Israël.

 

Le reste, recette médiatique rabâchée de l'intox et de la peur, n'est qu'un rideau de fumée , des gesticulations à usage interne.

 

Le USA PATRIOT Act n'est-il pas indispensable au capitalisme d'état américain pour expliquer ses atteintes aux droits fondamentaux face à l'apocalypse d'un nucléaire iranien ?

 

De même la répression de toute opposition par les bassidji ne trouve-t-elle pas sa parfaite justification dans les manœuvres supposées destructrices du « grand Satan » ?

 

Mais observons, de plus près, les dernières trouvailles des deux présumés protagonistes.

 

On parle de plus en plus du PJAK, groupe révolutionnaires armé kurde créé en 2004, d'inspiration marxiste et féministe ( la moitié des combattants sont des femmes ).

 

Ce groupe perpétrerait des attentats à la frontière de l'Irak et de l'Iran.

Le 4 Février 2009, Barrack Obama décréta le PJAK , comme groupe international terroriste. Cet acte gouvernemental américain n'est-il pas un soutien direct au gouvernement iranien ?

 

Quel genre de conception est-ce ? Pourquoi le président américain prend-t-il cette décision et choisit-il de ne pas soutenir la démocratie et les droits des groupes minoritaires en Iran comme les Kurdes, les Azéris, les Assyriens, les Juifs ou les Arabes ? 

 

Le gouvernement américain sait pourtant bien que les droits des Kurdes n'ont pas été reconnus pendant un siècle. Comment se fait-il alors que le président Obama s'oppose aux droits fondamentaux tels que le respect de toute culture et le libre apprentissage de sa langue maternelle ?

 

Ce volontarisme politique soutient-il le gouvernement iranien pour lui permettre de continuer son « alliance » avec le Pentagone, et le gouvernements turc afin que la Turquie puisse rester membre de l'OTAN ? 

 

Le régime iranien craint-il les militants du PJAK parce qu'ils sont pour la démocratie ?

 

Il semble, curieusement, que l'administration Obama ne supporte pas la lutte pour la démocratie en Iran.

 

De même, elle montre une patience peu commune et une prudence inhabituelle dans ses commentaires, concernant les évènements sanglants en Syrie. Le peuple kurde qui a vécu en Syrie des milliers d'années, avant même l'arrivée des Arabes au Moyen-Orient, n'a pas obtenu la citoyenneté syrienne, et est le premier à payer le prix du sang aujourd'hui.

 

Est-ce donc la raison pour laquelle on laisse la répression durer et se renforcer encore ?

 

« Nous avons des rapports de nos frères à l'intérieur de l'appareil de sécurité iranien qui démontrent que des généraux turcs sont venus en Iran pour préparer l'écrasement du PJAK et faire porter, à l'organisation,la responsabilité d'actes terroristes réalisés par des provocateurs », a déclaré Amir Karimi, membre du Comité de coordination du PJAK. 

 

« Ce plan de terreur fait partie de leur tentative pour obtenir de l'Union européenne de rallier les États-Unis afin de répertorier le PJAK comme un groupe terroriste ».

 

Pendant ce temps, en Europe, le régime iranien a envoyé quelques tueurs à gages en l'Allemagne pour abattre le secrétaire général du PJAK, Rahman Haji Ahmadi. 

 

« La police allemande a appelé la semaine dernière Ahmadi pour l'avertir que trois tueurs iraniens, utilisant des passeports turcs, avaient emménagé dans un appartement près de l'endroit où il vit  », a déclaré le porte-parole du PJAK . « Ils lui ont demandé d'être prudent, mais ne lui ont offert aucune protection  ».

 

Comment comprendre de telles circonvolutions ?

 

Il nous suffit de regarder une carte du «  grand Moyen -Orient », projet US machiavélique déjà largement engagé.

 

Ainsi, si on y voit un Kurdistan « libre » avec pour capitale Kirkouk, où les kurdes représentaient les trois quarts de la population en 1897, avant d'être massacrés dès 1980 par le régime arabe d'Hussein, avec l'aide et la complicité des turcs et des iraniens, on observe aussi que l'Iran débarrassé au nord – ouest des kurdes, récupérerait, au sud-ouest, une vaste zone appelée «  états arabes chiites  », entourant le Koweït et ayant une frontière commune avec les «  territoires intérieurs saoudiens indépendants  », une partie de l'Arabie saoudite démembrée.

 Il est à craindre qu'une fois de plus, ayant toujours besoin de barbouzes pour leurs opérations très spéciales, la NSA, avec l'aide du MIT turc ( Millî İstihbarat Teşkilatı ) et de la Vevak n'ait encore créé, un nouveau Al Qaida ou une nouvelle UCK, manipulables à souhait, qu'elle agite , qui parfois lui échappe, mais qui donne l'impression, l'illusion fausse qu'il se passe « quelque chose » , que demain peut-être les rapports de force basculeront.

 

Mais tout est sous contrôle. Le logiciel suit sa progression. Tous les paramètres ont été rentrés, les hypothèses élaborées sont testées et corrigées en temps réel.

 

N'oublions pas, Oncle Sam ne sort de son grand chapeau que le meilleur scénario possible à ses yeux.

 

Pour les petits James Bond obéissants comme Oswald, Diem, Bakhtiar, Moro, Kabila ou Ben Laden , leurs destinées, nous le savons, est de finir truffés de plomb car les états ne s'opposent jamais. Il peut y avoir, seulement, des changements d'équipes, des rotations de mafias ( pour ceux qui transgressent les règles du Monopoly mondial ). On sort les « caves » de la salle de jeu pour ne garder que les « affranchis ».

 

Les états sont, ne l'oublions pas, le « game », le casino, la banque.

Le lieu où se décident les règles à suivre impérativement, les pauses, les clients qui gagnent un peu, les mensonges, les stratégies et les trahisons, bref ce qui fait que la banque ne perd jamais.

 

Jean-Marc DESANTI

 

LIRE AUSSI SUR ------> http://www.agoravox.fr/actualites/international/article/i...

 

                                      http://therese-zrihen-dvir.over-blog.com/article-iran-usa...

                                      http://www.legaulois.info/2011/06/iran-usa-la-grande-paro...

 

                                      http://redekker.unblog.fr/2011/06/21/iran-usa-la-grande-p...

 

                                      http://ainsivalemonde-opinions.blogspot.com/2011/06/iran-...

 

                                      http://www.monjournal.ma/news/iran-usa-la-grande-parodie

 

Articles de R. Steuckers sur "centrostudilaruna.it"

Articles de Robert Steuckers sur http://www.centrostudilaruna.it/

 La décision dans l’œuvre de Carl Schmitt

Les thèmes de la géopolitique et de l’espace russe dans la vie culturelle berlinoise de 1918 à 1945

L’œuvre de Herman Wirth (1885-1981)

Evola and Spengler

Atlantis, Kush, and Turan: Prehistoric Matrices of Ancient Civilizations in the Posthumous Work of Spengler

La lecture évolienne des thèses de H.F.K. Günther

L’itinéraire d’Edgar Julius Jung

L’utopie conservatrice de Knut Hamsun

Les mentions de l’œuvre de Christoph Steding dans les écrits d’Evola

La contribution à Il Regime Fascista de Wilhelm Stapel

La “Révolution Conservatrice” en Allemagne (1918-1932)

Religiosité indo-européenne

L’influence d’Oswald Spengler sur Julius Evola

Paganisme et philosophie de la vie chez Knut Hamsun et David Herbert Lawrence

L’itinéraire de Knut Hamsun

Introduction à l’œuvre de Ludwig Ferdinand Clauss (1892-1974)

La Perfección de la Técnica. Friedrich-Georg Jünger (1898-1977)

Géopolitique et spiritualité du principe “Reich”

Espionnage par satellites, guerre cognitive, manipulation par les mafias: les embûches extérieures à la construction européenne

Geopolitica e spiritualità del principio “Reich”

Annulation magique de la crise et “méthode physiognomique” chez Ernst Jünger

Révolution Conservatrice, forme catholique et ordo æternus romain

L’itinerario di Knut Hamsun

Life After the Collapse

How whites will emerge from the rubble.

Guillaume Faye, Archeofuturism, Arktos Media, 2010, 249 pp., $22.95,
available from arktos.com, soft cover, (originally written in 1998)

reviewed by Thomas Jackson

Ex: http://www.amren.com/

Guillaume Faye is one of the most brilliant and provocative writers to emerge from the French New Right. He has written a great deal in his long and varied career, but Archeofuturism is his best-known and probably most important book. Written in 1998, only now has it been translated into English, thanks to the Arktos Media publishing group, which has made a number of New Right classics available to English-speakers.

Archeofuturism is hard to place on an American political spectrum. It is openly race-realist — “The ethnic question today is taboo, and hence crucial” — but has a revolutionary fervor that we associate with the left. Dr. Faye is passionately attached to the people and culture of Europe but wants completely to overthrow the current civilization. “The only strategy is all-out war,” he writes. “Compromise must be abolished.”

Archeofuturism is Dr. Faye’s blueprint for the future age that will succeed the cataclysms we are foolishly bringing upon ourselves. Much of it is fanciful, but Dr. Faye’s guesses about the future are never dull, and are based in a far more realistic understanding of history and human nature than the babblings of conventional “futurologists.”

The importance of race

Dr. Faye takes it for granted that race is real. “I insist on the importance of biological kinship to define peoples, and particularly the family of European peoples,” he writes. “The inherited characteristics of a people shape its culture and outlook.” This is why he so opposes “the current demographic colonization of Europe by Afro-Asiatic peoples, which is prudishly called ‘immigration’.” He asserts that Third-Worlders have none of the notions of brotherhood or “multi-culturalism” that hypnotize whites; they come with the intent to dominate. “One land, one people: this is what human nature requires,” he writes, noting that only whites pretend otherwise.

For Dr. Faye, the notion of the West is disappearing, eventually to be replaced by a northern coalition of whites facing waves of invasion: “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.” He points out that all non-whites think in terms of race, “unlike Parisian intellectuals,” and that our rulers are digging their own graves just as surely as they are digging ours: “We shall be submerged by more vital, more youthful and less well-meaning peoples with the complicity of a delinquent bourgeoisie that — whatever it may do — will itself be swept away by the tide it has so heedlessly caused.”

Dr. Faye has nothing but contempt for the present era. The central dogma of the age is egalitarianism, he writes, and it survives only because of a blind faith in miracles. The dogma’s failures are evident everywhere; just as individuals vary enormously in their talents and abilities, so do the races and nations. Forcible equality is tyranny.

Dr. Faye is passionately attached to the people and culture of Europe but wants completely to overthrow the current civilization.

Dr. Faye also denounces what he calls “pathological altruism,” or the perpetual propping up of failed people and failed societies. Our rulers ignore the dysgenic effects of welfare and — even worse — tax their own people to feed Third-Worlders who long to dispossess the North. “Pathological altruism” is partly explained by what Dr. Faye calls “pathological individualism.” Because our rulers think only about the individual — and not about nation or race — they promote dysgenic policies at home and raise armies of overseas enemies who will march against their own children.

“Pathological individualism” is also behind such modern distractions as homosexual marriage. The government should not recognize unions that are by definition barren and have no role in perpetuating society. As Napoleon explained, concubines take no notice of the law and the law takes no notice of them. Dr. Faye thinks homosexuality should likewise be a private matter, of no interest to the pubic or the state.

Homosexual marriage, however, is typical of the interests of Western governments because our rulers are incapable of grasping the questions that really matter. In Dr. Faye’s view, Western democracy is so cut off from reality, so amputated that he calls it “democtomy.” Only “pseudo dissent” is permitted, and Europeans prefer to ban political parties that actually challenge orthodoxy. In France, for example, the authorities call Jean-Marie Le Pen’s National Front “intolerant” because they want to ban it.

Dr. Faye argues that one of the goals of modern society is “to abolish thought in favor of spectacle” by promoting such things as professional sports. He can think of nothing more idiotic than paying money to watch people play games, and believes it is perverse to build up passionate attachments to outcomes that haven’t the slightest meaning or importance. Tennis champions or soccer players are nothing but performers, and their position in society should be no different from that of circus acrobats. Video games likewise clog the brain and prevent thought, which pleases our rulers because thought is dangerous. Dr. Faye also decries the disintegration of the family, the decline of education, and the replacement of culture with audio-visual pap.

Only radical, revolutionary acts, writes Dr. Faye, can destroy modernity. Unfortunately, Europeans are so domesticated they will never abolish egalitarianism and build a vigorous, self-conscious Europe. Instead, their infantilized world will be pulled down around them by “convergent catastrophes” that Dr. Faye predicted (writing in 1998) would strike between the years 2010 and 2020.

Disaster upon disaster

Among these, of course, are colonization by the South, which will lead to the collapse of multi-racial societies (which only whites have encouraged to take root in their midst). As Christianity continues to disintegrate in the face of Islam, Europe will face the prospect of “imperial theocratic totalitarianism.” At the same time, the West will be saddled with millions of old people with only a few young workers — or hostile Third-World immigrants — to support them.

The South is creating disasters of its own as non-whites try to mimic whites. Any Third-World attempt at democracy, for example, “leads to tragic consequences because of intellectual incompatibilities when it is forcefully imposed upon the cultures of the South.” Africans, for example, have lost their traditional societies and are incapable of replacing them with anything that is not squalid and cruel.

Illegal immigrants in France.

Dr. Faye laughs at anyone who thinks science will save us. He predicts plagues of drug-resistant diseases and, most catastrophically, exhaustion of the planet. The earth will run out of energy, he writes, adding that the notion that people would constantly get richer was a delusional spasm that lasted only 100 years. Dr. Faye roundly dismisses the fantasy of 7 billion people, all living like 20th-century Americans.

Cascading catastrophes will mean financial panic, global recession, plummeting world GNP, race war, and mass die offs. Europeans who survive will live by different principles: the principles of archeofuturism. Dr. Faye believes that what emerges from the rubble is the society Europeans would build deliberately if they were sane, but it will instead be forced on them by catastrophes of their own making. He hopes his book will guide the thinking of those who survive to lay the foundations.

Archaic, not conservative

After the crash, “most of humanity would revert to a pre-technological subsistence economy based on agriculture and the crafts.” An overexploited earth will permit no higher level of material existence. How will society be ordered? Dr. Faye rejects “conservatism,” or nostalgia for an older order: “We should avoid being backward-looking, concerned with restoration and reaction, for it is the last few centuries that have spawned the pox that is now devouring us.” Instead, he predicts the emergence of “archaic” values, that is to say, “answers that stretch back into the mists of time.”

People will live in hierarchical, inegalitarian communities that bind members to a common destiny. Atomized individualism will be impossible because there will be no government handouts, and people will depend on each other for survival. There will be distinct castes, in which the warrior caste will have great prestige. Duties will come before rights, infractions will be severely punished, sex roles will be clearly defined, and marriages will be unions of entire families rather than contracts between individuals. Dr. Faye conceives governance as something like that of the Germanic tribes, or Athens of the fourth century BC.

Unlike today’s system, which falsely promises that anyone can be “a scientist or a prince” — and which only causes envy and resentment — hierarchy will be ingrained but accepted. Free of “individualistic hubris,” even the humble will take pride in their limited contribution.

Dr. Faye insists that these societies will not be inferior to our own; just different. Dr. Faye imagines mystic initiations, rites of passage, and fervent forms of religion in what he calls “the new Middle Ages.” He sees most people as poorer but much more attached to their communities, and happier than people of today.

Not all people will live this way, however. Advanced technology will not have completely disappeared. A small elite will enjoy its benefits, and will live in material abundance. Just what the relations between the elite and the masses will be, Dr. Faye does not make clear, but he seems to think the elite will run things kindly through an aristocracy that renews itself through talent rather than heredity. The masses, in turn, will be satisfied with their lot, barely conscious of the gilded lives led by their betters.

The elites will, in fact, live in a world of “hyperscience” — the futurism of archeofuturism — unfettered by today’s “pseudo-ethical obstacles.” Nuclear power will proliferate, and Dr. Faye believes genetic science will unleash dramatic eugenic breakthroughs. He even imagines useful crossbreeds between humans and animals, and cloned organ banks. None of this will be available to the unscientific masses, so the gaps between the two worlds will grow ever larger.

A new world order

Dr. Faye speaking at the 2006 American
Renaissance conference.

Dr. Faye’s prescriptions for Europe are part of his post-catastrophe scenario, but could conceivably come about without a world-wide crash. He predicts the establishment of Eurosiberia or the United States of Europe, which would be home to the “folk whose natural and historical territory — whose fortress, I would say — extends from Brest to the Bering Strait.” He believes that in the face of Islam and Third-World immigration, whites are uniting within their common homeland and around their common culture, just as the Greeks did when the Persians invaded. He does not expect Eurosiberia to be entirely exclusive, however: “We can accommodate guests, but not invaders.”

Like many thinkers on the European right, Dr. Faye thinks the nation state is finished. Europeans will have deeper attachments to regions, which will have great autonomy in matters of culture, education, and language. In the meantime, he urges support for the European Union. Dr. Faye recognizes that this is a risky strategy, given the stifling, aggressively egalitarian nature of EU institutions. He nevertheless thinks they will become the framework of his beloved Eurosiberia when the collapse shatters egalitarianism and the belief in miracles on which it depends.

Eurosiberia will be just one of perhaps four or five autarkic blocs that Dr. Faye predicts will emerge. All will be racially more or less homogeneous, with the possible exception of the North American Union. Dr. Faye seems to believe that if anyone can make a success of multi-racialism, it is the Americans, but he is not sanguine about that either. The blocs — all with a large pre-technological populations and small elites — will not have much contact with each other, and there will certainly be no foreign aid.

Always entertaining

Clearly, Dr. Faye does not hesitate to make bold predictions, and his speculations are always entertaining. Whether anything he predicts will actually happen is anyone’s guess, but he is unquestionably right about two things: the central role race will play and the impotence of today’s Western ideologies. Whether one accepts his conception of archaism or not, there is no doubt that Islam and the Third World have the spirit of conquest and absolutism that once characterized Christianity and the West. Muslims are famously willing to die for their faith, and non-whites are famously ready to riot for whatever they want. Whites are famously willing to make endless concessions in the name of “human rights” to people who have nothing but contempt for anyone else’s “human rights.” As the game is played today, it is an abysmally unequal contest.

Let us hope it will not take “convergent catastrophes” to jolt whites out of their suicidal softness, but if it does, let the catastrophes come soon. The longer that day is put off, the larger the Third-World “fifth column” will grow, and the more desperate will be the struggle for European survival.