Ok

En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

lundi, 10 février 2014

Greg Johnson’s New Right vs. Old Right

NewRightOldRight1crop1.jpg

Foreword to Greg Johnson’s New Right vs. Old Right

By Kevin MacDonald

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

Perhaps it’s best to start off with what New Right vs. Old Right [2]is not. Greg Johnson does not assail his readers with statistics to prove the Jewish role in the decline and impending fall of whites in America and elsewhere. He does not discuss the corruption of the media and the academic world and how they got that way. He does not discuss data on race differences in IQ and criminality to explain the behavior of non-white America. He doesn’t aim to refute the current mantra that race is nothing more than a social construct designed to provide white people with unearned privilege.

Those intellectual battles are over, and we have won, although the mainstream media and academic world continue to promulgate cultural Marxist blather as if it were a set of truths set in stone. The starting point for NRvOR is that the media, the academic world, and the political process are hopelessly corrupt. So where do we go from here?

Greg Johnson’s basic point is that we must work to create a metapolitics of explicit white identity—that is, a movement that will develop “the intellectual and cultural foundations for effective White Nationalist politics in North America, so that we can ultimately create a white homeland or homelands on this continent.”

Greg is one of the reasons why I think this is a feasible project. A very great reason for optimism is that there are so many intelligent, well-spoken people who “get it”—who understand that whites around the world are in decline and that there will be dire consequences if whites are unable to establish white homelands. People like Greg Johnson are part of a hugely important trend. I have recently met a great many young, intelligent, well-educated, and well-spoken people at conferences dedicated to activism on behalf of the interests of white America—the exact opposite of the image of uneducated, violent males sporting swastikas and missing a couple of teeth that has been so carefully crafted by our hostile elites.

Despite growing up with a constant barrage of multicultural, anti-white propaganda beginning in elementary school, these individuals understand that at this point America is an unfolding disaster as whites are increasingly displaced throughout the economic and political spectrum. They are acutely aware that whites are a minority of births in America and that whites will be a minority within their lifetimes—a minority with diminished prospects and increasingly victimized by the non-white majority, many of whom retain historical grudges against white America. It is very likely that the America of the future will be beset with chronic conflict among different racial/ethnic groups. The idea that America or the West can avoid such conflicts as their societies become ever more factionalized is magical and utopian.

The goal, therefore, is not, a “supremacism” that is in any way invidious. Rather, “the best way to ensure peace and good will among peoples and preserve human racial, cultural, and religious diversity is to give each distinct group a homeland where it can live and develop according to its own distinct nature and destiny.”

This is an attitude that seems to me to be pervasive in the white advocacy movement. It at once defuses a very effective bit of rhetoric of the Left—repeated with predictable regularity by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center. We are white advocates, people who, as Greg phrases it in several places following Michael Polignano, “take our own side” in issues of racial/ethnic conflict. And in taking our own side, we are doing exactly what racial/ethnic groups have done from time immemorial. No one accuses the Koreans of “Korean supremacism” for adopting policies aimed at retaining Korean demographic and cultural predominance. And imagine the horror by Western elites at a proposal to flood African countries with whites so that native Africans cease to be a political majority.

Make no mistake about it. The policies that are making whites minorities in lands they have dominated for hundreds or (in the case of Europe) thousands of years are not driven by utopian dreams of a raceless future, except among gullible, intimidated whites. The non-whites who are so enthusiastically embracing the decline of white political and cultural power are driven by hatred toward whites as a people and as a culture. This is a major theme of my writing on Jewish influence, and apparent as well in a host of non-white intellectuals and activists.

Greg Johnson received his Ph.D. in philosophy, and it shows. His forte is the well-developed argument presented in a lucid, easily understood style. There will be no complaints about this book being filled with turgid prose. And I can’t find any major disagreements.

I was particularly struck by several points. For example, unlike the European New Right, Greg is an advocate of white racial nationalism:

insofar as the breakdown of European national identities and the blending of European stocks in our North American context forces us (1) to give greater place to biological race and other deep roots of common European identity, and (2) to put greater emphasis on the Jewish question, given the role of American Jewry in promoting anti-white policies both in the United States and in white countries worldwide.

Right. As a biologist, there is always the tendency to see matters like race as a decontextualized matter. DNA, after all, is DNA. But American whites are indeed a very intermixed lot—a successful example of a European melting pot. In effect, we have created a new biological reality not present in any European country.

Nevertheless, we must remember that Europeans are in general closely related biologically, particularly in the north and east of Europe, as recent data continue to show. Indeed,

typical pairs of individuals drawn from across Europe have a good chance of sharing long stretches of [identical genes] by descent, even when they are separated by thousands of kilometers. We can furthermore conclude that pairs of individuals across Europe are reasonably likely to share common genetic ancestors within the last 1,000 years, and are certain to share many within the last 2,500 years.[1]

The white race is indeed a biological as well as a cultural reality. This biological reality forms a powerful basis for a scientifically based understanding of a commonality of interests wherever whites are living, whether in Europe or in the European diaspora.

And, yes, although the organized Jewish community has pursued the same set of policies favoring displacement-level immigration and multiculturalism throughout the West, Jewish influence varies in different Western societies. This brings up the need for developing a good model of cultural diffusion within the West. For example, academic culture is self-consciously international. If indeed the main impetus for the leftward shift is Jewish involvement in the Left beginning in the United States with the movements described in The Culture of Critique, it is not at all surprising that this culture spread to other areas with less Jewish influence given the pre-eminence of the U.S. in the post-World War II Western world. An aspiring academic in, say, Norway or Finland, who subscribes to a White Nationalist worldview would find himself ostracized from international academic societies, while countrymen who subscribed to the reigning cultural Marxism would find international recognition.

The same phenomenon occurs in the political realm, as, for example, when Austrian politician Jörg Haider joined a coalition government in 2000. This resulted in huge international pressure, with EU member states refusing to cooperate with the Austrian government and Israel withdrawing its ambassador. The assault on the Golden Dawn party in Greece is a more recent example. Any Western government that opposed continued immigration and multiculturalism would be subjected to similar pressures.

The culture of Western suicide exists throughout the white world, and dominating the most powerful country in the West goes a very long way to dominating the entire Western world, particularly given the fact that Jews often control media even in countries with very tiny Jewish populations, as with the Bonnier family in Norway and Sweden.

Greg does not shy away from discussing difficult issues having to do with National Socialism, supporting the ideal of an organic, hierarchical, meritocratic society dedicated to advancing the interests of whites and rejecting “party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide.

I agree entirely. It’s a very good strategy to confront such issues head-on rather than to leave them to be discussed solely by our enemies. It’s the same with the holocaust. The holocaust is simply not important for white advocacy, and whatever happened is not the responsibility of any living whites; it’s something that must be simply “stepped over,” to use Jonathan Bowden’s felicitous phrase. Even if the holocaust were proved to have never occurred to the satisfaction of one and all, there is more than enough resentment by Jews about their past in Europe and the United States to fuel the hostility toward the West that has been such a prominent feature of the organized Jewish community and so many influential Jewish individuals. The reality of Jews as a hostile elite aiming to displace white elites throughout the West would not change at all.

I should think that it would be uncontroversial that the white advocacy movement must be metapolitical, since there is a crying need to build up a self-confident, prideful culture than can eventually become mainstream. Greg’s argument that it is premature to pursue nationalist party politics—that at this point the money can be better used in education and organizing—will be more controversial. The question is whether these are really incompatible goals and, as Greg rightly notes, “We share the same broad aims, but we differ as to the best means of achieving them. We need to acknowledge these differences frankly, then divide our camp and pursue our common aims by the various paths that seem best to us.” Different ways should be attempted in the hope that eventually something will work. In the meantime, we must be as inclusive as possible.

In fact, nationalist parties have made substantial headway in Europe, and many observers are expecting a significant representation of nationalist parties to result from the 2014 European Parliament elections. With increasing success, the messages of these parties have inevitably become more widely known. Significantly, these parties have not developed with an explicitly pro-white or pro-ethnic nationalism agenda, but have rather attempted to stay under the radar of political correctness on race and on Jewish influence, basing themselves on an implicit ethnic nationalism that opposes immigration and multiculturalism for a whole host of reasons apart from the danger of ethnic swamping that is in fact lurking in the background. Not surprisingly, these messages are often most effective with the white working class, the group that has suffered the most from the immigration tsunami.

Indeed, I believe that model of change that I think most probable is that the revolution will begin in Europe with the success of one of these parties, particularly if it occurs in a pivotal country like France where there is a clear possibility that the Front National will obtain power, and in a context where other nationalist parties have substantial representation in other areas of Europe so that an effective countermovement of isolation and ostracism cannot develop. I think we are rapidly approaching such a situation now. Compared to America, Europe has the advantage of very ancient cultures and identities that are mortally endangered by this new dispensation. Once such a party gains power, then more explicit messages of ethnic and racial interests may become more acceptable, paving the way for more the dissemination of a theoretical framework based explicitly on ethnic interests.

I worry that in the absence of near-term political goals, a purely metapolitical movement is in danger of being a detached inward-looking, even self-serving elite. For one thing, the Left is completely in control of the academic scene and very actively— indeed passionately—polices any deviation from political correctness. This is quite unlike the situation in American universities where Franz Boas was able to control academic anthropology by the early 20th century, and several of the New York Intellectuals obtained positions at elite universities well before 1960. This is a very formidable barrier to the spread of an elite culture of white identity given the close relationship between universities and intellectual life in the West. There was no complaint from the academic world when the 1965 immigration law opened up immigration to the United States to all peoples of the world. Indeed, in several Western countries, Australia comes to mind, the movement to open up immigration to non-whites originated in the universities.

Even in America, with so many barriers against us, political action inside or outside the context of the electoral process could be a positive force for change. Americans need to see noisy, intelligent, attractive, committed white people marching in the street with signs opposed to immigration, multiculturalism, and the strident ethnic politics of other groups; there is a need for a steady drumbeat of political advertising where pro-white themes, whether explicitly white or not, are repeated over and over to the point that they become part of the furniture of life even if winning elections remains a distant goal.

Such movements may be particularly important for whites with less education who may be turned off by an elite culture of white identity. The white working class in fact has been the prime loser in the cultural changes promoted by our hostile elites. A great many of them are angry and, with less to lose than so many well-educated whites, they are an important natural constituency.

In any case, I wholeheartedly agree that we have to be open to a diversity of approaches.

Greg’s essay, “The Moral Factor,” raises the important issue of moral motivation which I think is an aspect of Western uniqueness. One does not see Chinese people agonizing over the fact that the Han Chinese greatly expanded their territory at the expense of other peoples. Nor does one see the Bantu peoples of Africa worrying about the ethics of displacing other African peoples as they spread far and wide from their homeland in Central Africa, including into South Africa where their treatment at the hands of white South Africans became Exhibit A for white evil during the apartheid era; nor do the Bantu-speaking peoples agonize about the widespread practice of slavery in Africa. Arabs do not apologize about their conquests in the name of Islam or their centuries-old role in slavery and the slave trade. As Greg notes, the Spaniards have apologized for the Reconquista that expelled the Muslims from Spain, but there are no apologies from the Muslims for the Conquista.

Whites are the only people to abolish slavery, and a great many of the activists and the fundamental popular sentiments so crucial in the ultimate victory over slavery were motivated by moral idealism, including especially empathy for slaves.[2] They did so despite very real costs to many individuals and to society as a whole, and all this occurred before the rise of the Jewish hostile elite. Indeed, this unique characteristic of whites is exploited by Jewish intellectuals for their own hateful ends. My basic theory is that this is a holdover of Northern European hunter-gatherer culture, where one’s status in a group is based on reputation for moral behavior (honesty, fair dealing) rather than on kinship relations—an aspect of Western individualism.

So I agree that “even if White Nationalism is politically meaningful, people will resist it if they think it is immoral. But they will move heaven and earth to establish white homelands if they think it is the right thing to do.” We must win the moral battle. The problem is that “our people overwhelmingly believe that our cause is unjust.” And yet, the moral argument for white survival is obvious and compelling. Fundamentally, our basic survival as a people and as a culture are threatened. As Greg notes, “the present system is not merely anti-white, it is genocidally anti-white.”

That’s enough for me to mark the present system as utterly depraved morally. It is profoundly immoral to inflict multiculturalism upon the white populations of the West, given that  ethnic conflict is absolutely predictable, based upon everything we know of the bloody history of ethnically divided societies. This is especially the case given that support for multiculturalism and support for their own demographic and political eclipse have never been majority views among whites. Whether in Australia or New Zealand, North America or Europe—in every case throughout the West, immigration and multi-culturalism have been projects of media, academic, and political elites. These changes have been top-down, not at all bottom-up.

We must pay more attention to the morality of infringing upon the legitimate rights and interests of the white majority. Everyone has rights and everyone has interests. The interests and rights of whites as a majority are no less morally legitimate than those of any other group. Whites must jettison the ideal of moral universalism and ask what is good for the future of whites.

On the basis of this collection of essays, Greg Johnson has a compelling vision of the impending disaster facing the people and culture of the West and what we can do about it right now. It is presented in a highly readable, well-argued manner that at once shows the power and confidence of the developing metapolitical culture of a Western renaissance. I wholeheartedly recommend it.

January 15, 2014

Note:

Greg Johnson’s New Right vs. Old Right is available for purchase here [2].

Notes

1. Ralph Peter and Graham Coop, “The Geography of Recent Genetic Ancestry across Europe,” PLOS Biology, vol. 11, no. 5 (May 7, 2013): e1001555. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.100155

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555&representation=PDF [3]

2. Kevin MacDonald, “Empathy and Moral Universalism as Components of White Pathology: The Movement to Abolish Slavery in England,” The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 2 (Summer 2013), pp. 39–63.


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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/02/foreword-to-greg-johnsons-new-right-vs-old-right/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/NewRightOldRight1crop1.jpg

[2] New Right vs. Old Right : https://secure.counter-currents.com/new-right-vs-old-right/

[3] http://www.plosbiology.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555&representation=PDF: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555&representation=PDF

 

New Right vs. Old Right

Greg Johnson
Foreword by Kevin MacDonald
San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2013
248 pages

Kindle E-book: $5.99

Nook E-book: $5.99

Hardcover and paperback release date: February 21, 2014

hardcover: $35 

Quantity:  

Note: The first 100 hardcovers ordered through this site will be numbered, signed, and personalized by the author. Unless otherwise indicated, the books will be personalized to the name that appears on the purchaser’s mailing address.

paperback: $20 

Quantity:  

Dr. Greg Johnson draws upon the ideas of the European New Right to promote a new approach to White Nationalist politics in North America. New Right vs. Old Right collects 32 essays in which Dr. Johnson sets out his vision of White Nationalist “metapolitics” and distinguishes it from Fascism and National Socialism (the “Old Right”), as well as conservatism and classical liberalism (the “Phony Right”).

Dr. Johnson rejects the Old Right’s party politics, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide in favor of the metapolitical project of constructing a hegemonic White Nationalist consciousness within a pluralistic society. He argues that White Nationalists are too dependent on the model of hierarchical organizations and need also to work on creating resilient lateral networks. He offers New Rightist answers to a number of disputed questions within the White Nationalist community, including white culpability for our decline, Hitler and National Socialism, the Jewish question, the holocaust, the role of women, Christianity vs. paganism, and the relationships of populism, elitism, and democracy. He sets out some basic principles for creating a growing, resilient, networked movement. Finally, he criticizes distractions and dead-ends like “mainstreaming,” conservatism, “premature” populism, and political violence.

Engagingly written and constructively critical, Greg Johnson’s New Right vs. Old Right is an important contribution to the emerging North American New Right.

Praise for New Right vs. Old Right

“Greg Johnson’s basic point is that we must work to create a metapolitics of explicit white identity—that is, a movement that will develop ‘the intellectual and cultural foundations for effective White Nationalist politics in North America, so that we can ultimately create a white homeland or homelands on this continent.’ Greg is one of the reasons why I think this is a feasible project. . . . Greg received his Ph.D. in philosophy, and it shows. His forte is the well-developed argument presented in a lucid, easily understood style. Nobody can complain about this book being filled with turgid prose. And I can’t find any major disagreements.”

—Kevin MacDonald, from the Foreword

“In New Right vs. Old Right, Greg Johnson lays out his vision for a pro-white movement more focused on ideas, education, and communication than on politics or thuggery. True to this vision, his writing is extremely accessible. Throughout this collection, Johnson breaks down complex philosophical concepts and challenging ideas into tight, efficient sentences and effective explanations. Johnson doesn’t drone on trying to sound clever. Like an enthusiastic professor, he truly wants his readers to understand why he believes it is morally right for whites—and all peoples—to determine their own collective destinies.”

—Jack Donovan, author of The Way of Men

“Dr. Greg Johnson’s New Right vs. Old Right delineates the differences between two ‘Rights,’ without repudiating the common philosophical origins of both in opposing egalitarianism and other passé ideologies that continue to dominate much of the world. The primary value of this collection of essays, however, is that Dr. Johnson asks the perennial question, from our side: “what is truth?” In doing so he lays the foundations for a morality of the New Right. This book is therefore unique in the English-speaking Rightist milieu that was, for much of the post-1945 era, poorly served in comparison to its counterparts in Europe. As such, Dr. Johnson’s book will be of relevance to many beyond the North American New Right, of which he is a founding father.”

—Kerry Bolton, author of Artists of the Right

“Greg Johnson’s New Right vs. Old Right is an important compilation that describes the North American New Right and explains how ‘this thing of ours’ differs from both the Old Right and the European New Right.

“Old Right terms like ‘National Socialism’ and ‘fascism’ do not accurately describe what we believe. We reject the narrow nationalism of the Old Right in favor of pan-Europeanism, and we also reject the totalitarianism and apocalyptic visions of bloodshed and genocide that are associated, rightly or wrongly, with Old Right thought and that are promoted by modern-day Nazis.

“On the other hand, the North American New Right differs from our European New Right counterparts: we reject their emphasis on narrow nationalist particularisms, their Continental existentialism that eschews Anglo empiricism, their naïve knee-jerk anti-Americanism, and their weakness on biological race and ‘the JQ.’

“The North American New Right is a new movement, neither constrained by a reactionary idealization of the nationalist past, nor beholden to the intellectual errors of the today’s Old World nationalists.

“You may not agree with everything in this volume. But there is no rigid ‘party line.’ There’s much room for discussion, disagreement, and debate as we articulate our worldview. We are still feeling our way around in the dark that precedes the new dawn, attempting to find our way on the proper path.

“This work represents an important signpost along that path. So, agree or disagree, I am confident that the readers will find this volume useful and illuminating. I invite the reader to join us in our crusade to reshape the future.”

—Ted Sallis

CONTENTS

Foreword by Kevin MacDonald

1. Introduction

Politics and Metapolitics

2. New Right vs. Old Right
3. Hegemony
4. Metapolitics and Occult Warfare
5. Theory and Practice
6. Reflections on Carl Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political
7. The Relevance of Philosophy to Political Change
8. The Moral Factor
9. The Psychology of Conversion

Disputed Questions

10. Our Fault?
11. The Burden of Hitler
12. Dealing with the Holocaust
13. White Nationalism & Jewish Nationalism
14. The Christian Question in White Nationalism
15. Racial Civil Religion
16. That Old-Time Liberalism
17. The Woman Question in White Nationalism
18. Notes on Populism, Elitism, & Democracy
19. The Perils of Positive Thinking
20. The Politics of Resentment
21. “Worse is Better”

Building a Movement

22. Learning from the Left
23. Explicit White Nationalism
24. Secret Agents
25. The Psychology of Apostasy
26. First, Do No Harm

Distractions and Dead Ends

27. White Nationalists and the Political “Mainstream”
28. Why Conservatives STILL Can’t Win
29. Status Competition, Jews, and Racialist Mainstreaming
30. The Laugh Test
31. Premature Populism
32. On Violence

Index

About the Author

Greg Johnson, Ph.D., is the Editor-in-Chief of Counter-Currents Publishing Ltd. and its journal North American New Right. He is author of Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2010) and Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2012).

 

dimanche, 09 février 2014

Tragedy & Myth in Ancient Europe & Modern Politics

LONDON FORUM:

Dr. Tomislav Sunic

Tragedy & Myth in Ancient Europe & Modern Politics

vendredi, 07 février 2014

Answers to the questions of Pavel Tulaev

Answers to the questions of Pavel Tulaev
About my modest biography, my experiences in the French New Right Circus, etc.

 

Dear Robert Steuckers, you are among the few West European journalists or publicists who profoundly understand the history and geopolitics of Russia. We know each other now since more than fifteen years and that’s why I find this interview is important. First of all, would like to introduce yourself, to tell us about your profession, your specialisation, your titles, etc. ?
 
RS: Well, there is nothing special about me. I was born in Uccle/Ukkel in January 1956 in a quite poor family. My father was the son of a peasant having a family of seven children and came to Brussels to find a job as a servant in 1933. He didn’t want to go to school to become a schoolmaster, didn’t want to work on the farm feeding the pigs and couldn’t find a long-lasting job in his province. My mother, who died recently in December 2011 at the age of 97, was the daughter of a beer brewer and seller, who, at the age of 14, left his village, where his own father had also seven children and only one cow he had to drive along ways and paths in his village in order to let her graze as he had no meadow of his own.
 
lancier_belge.jpgIn Brussels my grand-father became the helper of a baker and then could be hired by the army to replace a rich son of a bourgeois family, who had no lust to do his military service (at that time conscription was not yet compulsory in Belgium). He served for three years in the 2nd and 4th Lancers, an elite light cavalry regiment, in which he got the noble attitude in his daily gestures he kept till his last breath, almost 87 years old. With the money he got from the rich family to do military service instead of the son of the house, he could buy and take over the small business of a retired or passed away brewer and marry my grandmother in 1908, the very year one of his sisters migrated to the United States, to Indiana, to run a farm with her husband: they too had seven children. My mother’s parents started a trade in beers and lemonades, which lasted 80 years, being taken over by my uncles in 1953. My grand-parents’ youngest son retired in 1988. My grandfather was called up in August 1914 and participated in the First World War as a sergeant in the transport units behind the Yser Front in Flanders. He swallowed mustard gas (Yperite), suffered ten years long from the effects of this nasty chemical but could recover after a terrible pneumonia, due to lung complications, in 1928. Even if he could earn a good life by selling beers to pubs and private customers, he was the model of an ascetic, eating almost no meat, only oats with milk and eggs, together with rhubarb and prunes that he cultivated in his own garden. He wanted to remain thin to mount horses in case if… but he had no horse anymore. He bought motorcars and lorries that he was never able to drive himself: this was the task of his sons. He used to say: “Modern times are preposterous: they all need a motor under their bottom even for a distance less than 500 yards”. My grandmother was even more ascetic and left me one of her often quoted saying: “Clock hours (i. e. measured time) are for fools, the wise know their time” (‘t Uur is voor de zotten, de wijzen weten hun tijd). In this sense, she was exactly in tune with the celebrated German writer Ernst Jünger, when he theorized his ideas about time.
 
My father came to work as a servant to the House of Count Willy (Guillaume) de Hemricourt de Grunne in 1938. In the summer of this year he made his first trip outside Belgium to a village in Franche-Comté, near the Swiss border, where Count de Grunne had inherited a wonderful mansion house from an aunt who had inherited it from his own grandfather, the French Catholic thinker and politician Count Charles de Montalembert. I still spend some days in this part of Europe twice or three times a year. In August 1939, just a few days after the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, my father was called up in the Belgian army, was sent to barracks near the German border during the phoney war, then to the Beverloo military camp, where he underwent the German air attack by Stuka bombers in the early morning of May 10th, 1940. After his duty, as no Flemish conscript soldiers were taken prisoner of war and sent to Germany, my father went back to the House of Count de Grunne, where he worked till his retirement in 1978. Some months later Willy de Grunne died, just three days before his 90th birthday.
 
My youth was spent in the marvellous surrounding Willy de Grunne created in the large garden behind his house in Brussels, which was a marvel of architecture designed by the genial Belgian architect Brunfaut in the early Twenties. Willy de Grunne wanted to have different flowers in his garden in spring, summer and late summer, so that I always could play among the most beautiful selection of plants that a team of very able professional gardeners kept with love and care. The mansion in Franche-Comté is still a marvel today and is now run by his grandson, whose father was Russian and son of a White Guard officer and later one of the best teachers of your language in Belgium. The surroundings created by Willy de Grunne made of me a youth completely immune to the seductions of modern world, but simultaneously I was perhaps also affected by a serious handicap: I could never understand the way of working in factories or offices, with the artificial rhythms and hierarchies they imply.

 

eliz.jpgThe world of my youth was a world with only personal, friendly relationships never determined by contracts, only by pure genuine human and manly confidence, based on the given word you never withdraw. Books were important in this world, as Willy de Grunne had, among other tasks as a diplomat, to read books for Queen Elizabeth Wittelsbach, a Bavarian Duchess, who became Queen of the Belgians in 1909. Willy de Grunne was Grand Master of her House in the Thirties. Queen Elizabeth was, just as her whole Bavarian family in Munich, an excellent sponsor of arts, music and museums. We owe her the Egyptology Museum in Brussels and among many other things the world famous “Concours Reine Elizabeth”, promoting young talented musicians from all over the world. Many young Russian musicians participated in this prestigious competition. Besides, Queen Elizabeth has been (and still is) criticized for being of German origin and for having refused to boycott the USSR and China during the Cold war. She ended her life in the Fifties and the early Sixties by acquiring the then sulphurous reputation of a “Bolshevik Queen”. She died in 1965.

Now, I became a so-called “intellectual” thanks to my father’s sister Julienne, who had a diploma of schoolmistress, had married Hendrik Lambrechts, a Flemish schoolmaster in ‘s Gravensvoeren (Fouron-le-Comte), and had a son, Raoul, who after his father’s death in 1949, became a political scientist having studied at the prestigious University of Louvain, after brilliant secondary school studies (Latin and Greek) achieved at the Flemish “Heilig Hart College” (“Sacred Heart College”) in Ganshoren near Brussels. My aunt was very proud of her son. But unfortunately Raoul died in 1961 from a heart disease that would now be easily cured. I was only five years old when I was brought to the University Hospital in Louvain to see him dying after a previous operation that provoked a blood clot that stroke his brain. The vivid and awful memory of this dying unconscious young man, his desperate eyes and the frightful calls of his mother remain in my mind till now. After Raoul’s death my father was told and even ordered by his sister to make all the efforts needed to let me study at a University, because, she said, “our old Province Limburg should have an elite born out of peasant families”. I was given the task, even the burden, to replace Raoul in the family: a man had been killed, another had to take his place. Aunt Julienne died in 1991. I saw her some days before her passing away. She was as happy as happy can be. A bright smile illuminated her face, although she was suffering a lot due to the dog days: finally, not only me, the crazy boy full of silly fantasies, had something like a diploma, but also the daughter of her daughter, who just got her diploma of political scientist at the State’s University of Ghent. One of my cousins found the right words when she held a very well balanced speech in the church on her burial day: “A grand and simple lady”.
 
These family circumstances explain why I was first sent to a good primary school in the part of the City where I’ve always lived. The teachers were severe and taught us parsing very well, which has been of the uttermost importance for my further studies in Latin in the secondary school and in German, English and Dutch for my studies at University or at the Translators’ and Interpreters’ School. After the usual six years of primary school, I was sent to a secondary school not far from home, where my father, after a good briefing of Aunt Julienne and of Willy de Grunne, let me be registered in the Latin classes. I couldn’t understand why I had to study Latin when we both went to this impressive old school to meet a friar responsible to register the new pupils. He told me when I asked him why Latin was for that a secondary school is like a train with several cars, that my seat had been booked in the Latin car and if after a year or a couple of years I couldn’t feel well in this kind of luxury or first class car, they would book a seat for me in another one, perhaps less prestigious but even more efficient and pragmatic. But I immediately liked to study Latin, especially words and etymologies, and never failed any examination in this subject. My crux during the years of my secondary school had been maths not because I had a prejudice against maths —on the contrary— but because in September 1967, some crazy and criminal minds had decided to introduce “modern math” (singular!) without any pedagogical preparation: modern math is indeed too abstract to understand for children younger than 12 or 13 years and I was only 11 when I started secondary school. I was saved at the end of the first year because fortunately some clever minds had rung the alarm bell and imposed algebra in the traditional way.
 
During the fifth year, the so-called Latin “poetry class”, I became firmly decided to learn modern languages, more precisely German and English at University. After two years I changed for the Translators and Interpreters School, which was not far from my home. After four years I got the diploma of English and German translator. To obtain it I had to translate and comment a book of Ernst Topitsch and Kurt Salamun criticizing “ideologies” as constructed systems that prevent real pragmatic thoughts to develop or that serve as crushing instruments to perpetuate the domination of false elites (like the pigs in Orwell’s Animal Farm) becoming gradually out of touch.
 
So I became successively a clerk by Rank Xerox (to answer calls in several languages), the dumbfound redaction secretary of Benoist’s magazine “Nouvelle école” (having had the privilege to analyse on the very field the preposterousness of the all business lead by this silly old wet blanket of Benoist), a soldier doing his military service in the 7th Company Logistics for ten short months in Saive (near Liège), in Marche-en-Famenne, in the marvellous Burg Vogelsang and the village of Bürvenich in Germany along the border, a freelance translator and interpreter for twenty years (with a lot of different customers active in all possible social fields), a sworn translator for the Ministry of Justice, a private teacher, one among the numerous freelance assistants of Prof. Jean-François Mattei, who published in 1992 the “Encyclopédie des Oeuvres philosophiques” for the “Presses Universitaires de France”, and, as a wonderful and enthralling hobby, the metapolitical fighter you’ve known since now more than fifteen years. As a metapolitcal fighter, I was first a young and second-rank animator of the Brussels’ GRECE-group around Georges Hupin, an occasional pen pusher for his small bulletin “Renaissance Européenne” (still published nowadays as the organ of Vial’s “Terre & Peuple” movement in the French-speaking part of Belgium), then the founder of “Orientations”, the redaction secretary of “Nouvelle école”, one of the founders of the Brussels’ EROE–group, the founder of “Vouloir” together with Jean E. van der Taelen, a speaker having wandered throughout Europe to address meeting or participate to seminars of all kinds, a member of Faye’s “Etudes & recherches”-club within the “nouvelle droite”, then the organiser together with others of the Munkzwalm-seminars in Flanders, one among the founders of “Synergies Européennes” (together with Gilbert Sincyr and Jean de Bussac) and organisers of all the activities lead by this European group, including the publication of “Nouvelles de Synergies Européennes” and “Au fil de l’épée”.
 
You have a universal outlook that can be called encyclopaedic. How did you get your education? Whom can you consider your teachers? Who are the authors and which are the books that have influenced you most?
 
If once in your life you decide to become a metapolitical fighter you have of course as a duty to read ceaselessly and to acquire willy-nilly this “encyclopaedic outlook” you talk about. Moreover if the metapolitical purpose you follow is to re-establish European culture in all its richness the piles of books awaiting you reach permanently the ceiling. I got my education at school and nowhere else. It would be dishonest and conceited to invent a story trying to demonstrate somehow the contrary. Schoolbooks for the subject “History” were and are still good in Belgium. You have simply to assimilate the contents and to complete them with further readings. Of course, I owe a lot to our Latin teacher Simon Hauwaert and our philosophy teacher Lucien Verbruggen, not only for their lessons but also for the long tours they organized for us in Greece and Turkey, in order to discover Ancient Greek civilisation. When I was sixteen and a half, I was brought by the circumstances of these long school trips in the streets of Athens or Istanbul and visited Ankara’s Hittite Museum just one day after having had a short tour around Cappadocia’s cave dwellings and Byzantine churches. This was an even so good training in fact than school curriculum in itself. Another good thing was that we had to prepare every year for Hauwaert and his successor Salmon a paper on a classical Latin topic together with a grammatical analysis of an original text (I had with my late friend Leyssens, a future gynaecologist, who died in a mountain accident at 42 leaving three orphan sons, to study successively Lucretius’ De rerum naturae, a part of Plinius’ Natural History and Plautus’ theatre). The last year Rodolphe Brouwers, our French and History teacher, compelled us to write a paper on history: I had to write a survey about the COMECON countries (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary). Brouwers had also the good idea to let us parse in all details Bossuet’s speeches in order to let us discover the good balance of a possible barrister’s plea or to be able later to coin speeches along the same stylistic guidelines in order to let them be better understandable only by giving them a well-balanced rhythm à la Bossuet. It has been very useful each time the GRECE-people asked me to address their annual meeting held in Paris or Versailles. During a first year at University, I followed the lectures of René Jongen in German grammar and had a course of German literature by the Flemish writer Paul Lebeau. Later I had English grammar by Jacques Van Roey, as well as good introductory lectures in history, among which the ones of Léopold Génicot on the West European Middle Ages were the most memorable. At the interpreters’ school, two years later, we had excellent practical trainings in modern languages.
 
What concerns the specific New Right literature I was deeply influenced by Pierre Chassard’s introduction to Nietzsche’s philosophy (“Nietzsche, finalisme et histoire”), which compelled me to read Nietzsche more critically and to be definitively defiant in front of all kinds of ready-made idealistic notions (the ready-made “Platonisms” that lards unrealistic political programs) and to know that moralistic arguments are too often escapism and rejection of plain common sense. I had already read Nietzsche’s “Antichrist” and his “Genealogy of Moral” but I had then as a boy of 14 or 16 no serious guidelines to understand actually the purposes Nietzsche had by writing this two cardinal books. In 1970, when I was in the 3d class, I asked my French teacher Marcel Aelbrechts which novels I had to read: all he suggested me was excellent but the main book in the series was undoubtedly the “Spanish Testament” of Arthur Koestler: so I got fascinated by English novels not through the English teacher (who at that time was also an excellent man, Mr. Mercenier) but through the French teacher, an old mischievous friar, who was certainly not sanctimonious (and with whom I had a real boxing fight at the end of my studies because he tried to prevent me to beat the math teacher; we nevertheless remained good friends; normal people fight and shout at each other: the political correctness says today that such attitudes are wrong but in no other period of history so many people had to look for the help of the psychiatrist or to swallow sedating pills; so “political correctness”, as we can objectively state, is surely bad for your health…).
 
lhomme-revolte-camus.jpgMy next French teacher was Jacques Goyens, who is now retired of course and considered nowadays as a main French-speaking Belgian author. He introduced us to poetry (Rimbaud, Leconte de Lisle, Baudelaire, Verlaine,…) and to present-day literature. During springtime 1972, Jean-Paul Leyssens and I worked on Albert Camus and we stressed mainly his philosophical ideas, inspired by Nietzsche and written down in “L’homme révolté”. Goyens was disappointed because we had coined a portrait of Camus as a Nietzschean philosopher and therefore neglected his main contribution to the genuine French literature of the Fifties. But in the end I was happy to have learned about the philosophical dimension of Camus’ work and Goyens was perhaps thoroughly right as Camus is more important as a writer than as a philosopher, but what both parties forgot was the rather complex context in which Camus’ political views developed at the time when existentialism was fashion in Paris. In March 1973, Goyens took us away from school to visit an important exhibition at the Belgian Royal Museum of History and Archaeology: it was about the glorious medieval period of the so-called Rhine-Meuse civilization between the 9th and the 15th centuries. This region is indeed the cradle of the Western Imperial tradition, as the reaction against the Merovingian decay (our first “Smuta”) took place in the area between Meuse, Rhine and Mosel among the Pippinide clan of Charles the Hammer (Charles Martel) and as Charlemagne settled his main capital in the City of Aachen, from where a kind of Renaissance of Ancient thought took place long before the more widely known Italian Renaissance of the 15th Century. I was just seventeen then but the idea that our own imperial cradle was so near to my place fascinated me especially as my father’s family is from Flemish Limburg, an area close to this fertile and green cradle county. Jean Thiriart too liked to stress that his family originated from the Walloon part of this Rhine-Meuse area and that therefore the European idea was his own as the Carolingian Imperial idea had been the one of his ancestors.
 
In the translators’ and interpreters’ school we had good grammar and lexicology teachers like Potelle, Van Hemeldonck and Defrance (who had had a tremendously active life and had founded one of Belgium’s more prestigious bookshop in Ostend before becoming a teacher and who brought us to Berlin in 1977 and to Munich in 1978 during two memorable students’ trips). What concerns more specifically geopolitics and history, the lectures of Mrs. Costa, based on a German official handbook, whose title was “Zweimal Deutschland”, provided us a thorough knowledge in recent German history, which is the key to understand the process of geopolitical and political alienation in Europe after 1945. The history lectures of Prof. Peymans stressed the political and philosophical specificity of the liberal and subversive Western hemisphere (Britain, USA, France), which, in order to be able to develop, had to get rid of all the traditional institutions generating the peoples’ identity or of all the “atavistic forces” as Solzhenitsyn called them while he was defending old Russia against all the endeavours of the wild Westernization you have endured in your country. During the two last years in the translators’ school, we had lectures in international politics and current affairs given by Mrs. Massart, who agreed to let me comment and introduce Jordis von Lohausen’s book on geopolitics. My destiny as a “geopolitician” within the New Right groups was settled once for all. Having read the German “geo-economicist” Anton Zischka about Eastern Europe in order to be able to write out Brouwers’ history paper in 1974, my non Western vision of European history was from then on quite complete, as Mrs Costa’s lectures on recent German history, Zischka’s nostalgia of a united European area without any Iron Curtain and Lohausen’s Central European vision of history and geography made me immune for all strictly Western or NATO world visions.
 
As I’ve already told it to our Scandinavian friends in an interview they submitted me, historical atlases were important for me, among them I want to quote the “DTV-Atlas zur Weltgeschichte” and Colin MacEvedy’s British atlases issued by the celebrated Penguin publishing house in Harmondsworth, England.
 
You know some European languages and make a lot of translations. Why didn’t you study Russian or any other Slavonic language?
 
I’ve got a diploma for the English and German languages. As we spoke Dutch and French at home and more generally in Brussels’ everyday life, I was quasi born as a bilingual boy. My school education was in French as most of the Flemish schools disappeared in the late Forties and early Fifties because the Germans had supported a policy of “Rückgermanisierung” or “re-Germanization” during their second occupation. After 1945, the “Germanization” policy, that had been launched through the financial support for a revival of the Flemish language, was of course cancelled and the Belgian establishment inaugurated a policy of “Rückromanisierung”, that decelerated later because people started to send their children back to Flemish schools again, mostly because they weren’t attended by so many immigrants. This phenomenon of “Rückromanisierung” was especially the case in the Southern municipalities of Brussels. My cousin Raoul could attend a Flemish high quality secondary school in the Northern part of the urban area. An education in French was not as such a bad thing, of course, but we thought anyway that, even if French is a very important world language, the policy of “French alone”, followed by some Frenchified zealots within the Belgian establishment in Brussels lead to a kind of closeness or isolation, as Dutch/Flemish is a excellent springboard to learn English, German and Scandinavian languages. The left liberal and socialist Flemish author August Vermeylen, at a time between 1890 and 1914 when socialism in Belgium wasn’t uprooted (and an uprooting force as well) and produced excellent and original cultural goods, used to say that we had to be Flemings again in order to become good Europeans (in Nietzsche’s meaning of the phrase). Vermeylen didn’t exclude French as a language of course but wanted people to open their minds to the cultural worlds of Britain, Holland, Germany and Scandinavia. In this sense I am a socialist à la Vermeylen. And my own boy went to a Flemish school, despite the fact that his mother was born in Wallonia and had to learn Dutch as an adult.
 
To learn Slavonic languages at the time of the Cold War was almost impossible as you couldn’t meet native speakers in common professional and everyday life surroundings. When I was eleven years old in summer 1967, just after having achieved primary school, I went to de Grunne’s place in Franche-Comté, where he had invited “Babushka”, the grand-mother of his grand-children. “Babushka” was a fantastic elderly woman, who taught the Russian language to her grand-sons and I helped her to keep them and bring them to a playing area with a toboggan in the village. During these afternoons, only Russian was spoken! About more than one year later, I went for the first time in my life to a real theatre (i. e. not a wandering theatre for school children) to watch an adaptation of Dostoievski’s “Crime and Castigation”, written by Alexis Guedroitz, de Grunne’s son-in-law, and masterly performed by the troupe of the famous Belgian actor Claude Etienne, who played the role of the investigating police principal. This was not the only Russian presence in my childhood: the wife of our neighbour was Russian and I played as a boy with their half-Russian children. More: her father, a former Colonel of the Czar, had an old batman, a giant and handsome mujik, who worked in their little shop producing children disguises for carnivals and fancy fairs, as they had to make a living when they came back like many White Russians completely ruined from Congo where the Belgian authorities had sent them before this Central African country became independent. This former corporal batman of the White Army was fascinated by the little boy I was because —I disclose it here for the first time as I’ve always been too shy to tell it— I had been elected in 1958 the most beautiful baby boy of Belgium: this has been my very first diploma but since then I grew old and ugly! As a simple man, the old Russian White Gardist was very proud to be the neighbour of the most beautiful baby boy of Belgium and once a week this poor penniless man bought for me a bar of chocolate in our street’s sweets shop and put it in the letter box. My mother told me that this was a real sacrifice for such a poor man and taught me to respect sincerely this modest and kind weekly gesture of gentleness. But I kept in mind that all simple Russian men were generous and not avaricious, so I always have picked up denigrating propaganda, be it the German one of WWII or the NATO one of the Cold War, with an extreme scepticism.
 
When I moved to Forest again in 1983, my neighbour was the celebrated nurse Nathalia Matheev, daughter of another Czarist officer, who died fighting the Red Army in Crimea. She was loved by all our neighbours and died just a few days before my son was born. In her flat, where I live now, many Russians of the Twenties’ emigration came to pay her a visit, especially on Easter Day, when “Paska” and vodka with fruit juice were served: among them a cousin of Admiral Makharov and the German-Baltic Count von Thiesenhausen, who at Nathalia’s burial mass, stood upright at the respectable age of 83 during three long hours, holding a candle and singing the old sweet Slavonic burial songs, without a single minute of rest. Nathalia studied nursery in Brussels after having left Russia and was even sent as a volunteer of the Belgian Red Cross to Peru to manage a health centre high in the Andean mountains in 1928.
 
I tried by my own to learn Russian through an Assimil method when I was sixteen in 1972. I discovered Indo-European comparative etymology in our reference schoolbook “Vocabulaire raisonné Latin-Français” of the Belgian Latinist Cotton, where you could find the roots of all the Indo-European basic vocabulary, so I was inclined at that time to start studies of comparative linguistics and I decided shortly before the Easter holiday that I traditionally spent at the Flemish sea resort of De Haan, together with the future gynaecologist Leyssens, whose grand-father had a house there. I stayed alone in a charming and cheap hotel as my father loathed to spend weeks at the sea side: he was a land peasant unable to understand the importance of the sea, “a space you cannot cultivate and whose water is salty and undrinkable for men and cattle”. Every morning and every evening, after a complete day outside by foot or by bike even under the rainy and cold skies of the West-Flemish coastal district in March or April, I studied a lesson of Russian, another of Welsh and a third one of Swedish, in order to discover a Slavonic, a Celtic and a Teutonic language that I didn’t know. This was of course silly —a crazy idea of a funny teenager— as you cannot study such a spectrum of languages by your own without a well-established didactic frame and able teachers. So the experience didn’t last long. At the translators’ school, I started a Danish course but the extremely sympathetic lady, in charge of these lectures, died two weeks later and we had to wait for some weeks or months to find a new teacher, who came only at the very end of the academic year. In 2008, I was offered a free course of Russian but this initiative, due to several reasons, collapsed rapidly, chiefly because it couldn’t match into the scheduled and compulsory school activities.
 
So at the time of the Cold war, it was easier to learn German and English, two languages that are closer to our own Dutch and Flemish, in their official varieties as well as in their many dialects. I could have a better and direct access to these languages than to Slavonic or Celtic languages. In a speech held at the very beginning of the academic year 1976 (the day the underground train of Brussels was inaugurated), Alexis Guedroitz told the assembled teachers and students that Russian was a language that you can only acquire properly “with your own mother’s milk”. To study correctly a subject implies not to get rid of the quality of “otium”, giving you time and pleasure and banking on pieces of knowledge you already and naturally have, avoiding at the same time painful efforts that could spoil your life and degenerate into “negotium”, i. e. the feverishness of a greedy businessman who is never satisfied of what the gods give him. If I can read —and not properly speak— Latin languages is due to the fact that Simon Hauwaert was a very demanding Latin teacher. Shortly before my grand-father died in December 1969, I only had experienced a couple of years in the Latin classes and discovered next to his old worn-out and brownish armchair a copy of “Oggi”, a popular Italian magazine —I still cannot imagine how this magazine arrived there as my grand-father couldn’t understand a single word of Italian— and stated that I could understand for my own many sentences, thanks to the efforts of our Latin teachers (Philippe, Dumont, Salmon). Later, when Georges Hupin opened in 1979 a first office for the New Right/G.R.E.C.E. branch in Brussels, I could read copies of Marco Tarchi’s leading bulletin “Diorama Letterario” and of Pino Rauti’s weekly “Linea”, which were among the best the movement produced in Western Europe at that time. So I decided to try as much as possible to understand and translate the articles. I took the opportunity between January and October 1982, when I was out of work and had to wait to be enlisted in the army, to study the general features of Italian and Spanish, in order to acquire at least a passive knowledge of these languages; the purpose of this superficial studying was to get able to gather as much information as possible from Southern European publications in order to feed the New Right magazines with original stuff. What concerns Portuguese texts, I had been spoilt by the publisher of “Futuro Presente”, the New Right quarterly issued in Lisbon at that time. He came regularly to Paris, when I worked for “Nouvelle école” there in 1981. We often had the opportunity to have meals together. I helped myself to read these magazines with a copy of an Assimil method for Portuguese and an old dictionary.

We started our cooperation at the time you published “Nouvelles de Synergies Européennes” and animated the groups called “European Synergies”. Would you like to remind us the history of this organisation? How did it start?

 

 

As you know it, I had been active in several “New Right” initiatives in Belgium and France since 1974 and became a member of the GRECE-group in September 1980 after having followed a special summer course in July 1980, which took place in Roquevafour in Provence. I worked for “Nouvelle école” during nine months in 1981, came back to Belgium in December 1981 to do my military service and started, with the help of Jean E. van der Taelen, to activate a club in Brussels, that was called “EROE” (“Etudes, Recherches et Orientations Européennes”) in order to be completely independent from the Parisian coterie around Alain de Benoist and of course to be protected from all the quarrels and campaigns of hatred he used to rouse against his own friends and partners, especially against Guillaume Faye. From August to December 1992, I stated that cooperation with the crazy Parisian pack would be quite impossible to resume even in the very next future and that all type of further collaboration with them meant a waste of time, a time we would have spent arbitrating quarrels between new and former friends of Benoist or defending ourselves against preposterous gossip. After I had left the 1992 summer course in Roquefavour earlier, as I was fed up with the quarrels between de Benoist and GRECE-Chairman Jacques Marlaud, who, after having been insulted in the worst of all possible ways, was supposed to be prosecuted next to me in front of a Court composed of Benoist himself, a stuck-up simpleton and a snitch called Xavier Marchand and the usual godawful yesman Charles Champetier (nicknamed “His Master’s Voice”). Marchand had to play the role of the Prosecutor; he tried to make an angry face but was very nervous, his jackass’ look betraying obviously the fact that he was playing a part that had previously been dictated to him. As a good bootlicker pupil, he did his homework with application and started to accuse Marlaud and myself, first to have given articles to Michel Schneider’s magazine “Nationalisme & République”, an activity that had been forbidden a posteriori, and second to have started a non very accurately defined “plot” in favour of Schneider (who had no intention at all to plot against the Parisian bunch but only wanted to give a new life to the group he once founded, the CDPU [= “Centre de Documentation et de Propagande Universitaire”], of which my old friend Beerens was the correspondent in Brussels). After Marchand’s vociferated speech, I simply asked him to repeat his accusation. He resumed his clumsy plea but the contents of the second version were slightly different than the ones of the first version: poor simpleton Marchand hadn’t learned properly by heart his lesson… I said: “Which is the correct version? If it’s version B, then version A is false and…”. Benoist, Marlaud and Marchand, all nonplussed by this apparently harmless question, started immediately to shout loudly at each other, giving the very amusing spectacle that a quarrel between Frenchmen always is, while Champetier remained silent and was blowing the smoke of his cigarette up the air. After they all had uttered their grievances loudly, they left the backyard, where the trial should have taken place, and only Benoist followed me, repeating ceaselessly that “he liked me” while he walked heavily with his flat feet through the marshy meadow next to the river flowing along the park where the Summer course’s beautiful old mansion stood, disturbing the siesta of a good score of frogs and toads, that jumped away, cawing clamorously, to escape the hooves of this huge approaching pachyderm blowing a nasty gas cloud of cigarette smoke. I left the summer course, telling cocky Marchand, who had made a cock–up of the wannabe trial, that he should find immediately a car to travel to Aix-en-Provence. As he of course asked me why, I said that he had to buy an Assimil method to learn German, as I was about to leave and as he had of course to replace me as a translator for the German group. He had exactly a couple of hours to become fluent in German. 
 

Aqueduc_de_Roquefavour.JPG

 

 

I decided to leave definitively in December after they refused to pay me back the copies of my magazines that had been sold during the annual meeting, as well as the ones of “The Scorpion” Michael Walker had asked me to sell for him. I had already the impression to be a clown in a awkward circus but if this role implied to lose permanently money, it was preferable to leave once for all the stage. I had the intention to devote myself to other tasks such as translating books or private teaching. This transition period of disabused withdrawal lasted exactly one month and one week (from December 6th, 1992 to begin January 1993). When friends from Provence phoned me during the first days of 1993 to express their best wishes for the New Year to come and when I told them what kind of decision I had taken, they protested heavily, saying that they preferred to rally under my supervision than under the one of the always mocked “Parisians”. I answered that I had no possibility to rent places or find accommodations in their part of France. One day after, they found a marvellous location to organise a summer course. Other people, such as Gilbert Sincyr, generously supported this initiative, which six months later was a success due to the tireless efforts of Christiane Pigacé, a university teacher in political sciences in Aix-en-Provence, and of a future lawyer in Marseille, Thierry Mudry, who both could obtain the patronage of Prof. Julien Freund, the most distinguished French heir of Carl Schmitt. The summer course was a success. But no one had still the idea of founding a new independent think tank. It came only one year later when we had to organise several preparatory meetings in France and Belgium for a next summer course at the same location. Things were decided in April 1994 in Flanders, at least for the Belgians, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese and French. A German-Austrian team joined in 1995 immediately after a summer course of the German weekly paper “Junge Freiheit”, that organized a short trip to Prague for the participants (including Sunic, the Russian writer Vladimir Wiedemann and myself); people of the initial French team, under the leading of Jean de Bussac, travelled to the Baltic countries, to try to make contacts there. In 1996, Sincyr, de Bussac and Sorel went to Moscow to meet a Russian team lead by Anatoly Ivanov, former Soviet dissident and excellent translator from French and German into Russian, Vladimir Avdeev and Pavel Tulaev. We had also the support of Croatians (Sunic, Martinovic, Vujic) and Serbs (late Dragos Kalajic) despite the war raging in the Balkans between these two peoples. In Latin America we’ve always had the support of Ancient Greek philosophy teacher Alberto Buela, who is also an Argentinian rancher leading a small ranch of 600 cows, and his old fellow Horacio Cagni, an excellent connoisseur of Oswald Spengler, who has been able to translate the heavy German sentences of Spengler himself into a limpid Spanish prose. The meetings and summer courses lasted till 2003 and the magazines were published till 2004. Of course, personal contacts are still held and new friends are starting new initiatives, better adapted to the tastes of younger people. In 2007 we started to blog on the net with http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com in seven or more languages with new texts every day and with http://vouloir.hautetfort.com and http://www.archiveseroe.eu/ only in French with all the articles in our archives. This latest initiative is due to a rebuilt French section in Paris. These blogging activities bring us more readers and contacts than the old ways of working. As many people ask to read my own production, mostly students in order to write some short chapters in their papers or to be able to write out proper footnotes, I decided in October 2011 to publish my own personal archives on http://robertsteuckers.blogspot.com/

What are the main goals of “Synergies Européennes”?
 
Now the very purposes of “Synergies Européennes” or “Euro-Synergies” were to enable all people in Europe (and outside Europe) to exchange ideas, books, views, to start personal contacts, to stimulate the necessity of translating a maximum of texts or interviews, in order to accelerate the maturing process leading to the birth of a new European or European-based political think tank. Another purpose was to discover new authors, usually rejected by the dominant thoughts or neglected by old right groups or to interpret them in new perspectives.
 
“Synergy” means in the Ancient Greek language, “work together” (“syn” = “together” and “ergon” = “to work”); it has a stronger intellectual and political connotation than its Latin equivalent “cooperare” (“co” derived from “cum” = “with”, “together” - and “operare” = “to work”). Translations, meetings and all other ways of cooperating (for conferences, individual speeches or lectures, radio broadcasting or video clips on You Tube, etc.) are the very keys to a successful development of all possible metapolitical initiatives, be they individual, collegial or other. People must be on the move as often as possible, meet each other, eat and drink together, camp under poor soldierly conditions, walk together in beautiful landscapes, taste open-mindedly the local kitchen or liquors, remembering one simple but o so important thing, i. e. that joyfulness must be the core virtue of a good working metapolitical scene. When sometimes things have failed, it was mainly due to humourless, snooty or yellow-bellied guys, who thought they alone could grasp one day the “Truth” and that all others were gannets or cretins. Jean Mabire and Julien Freund, Guillaume Faye and Tomislav Sunic, Alberto Buela and Pavel Tulaev were or are joyful people, who can teach you a lot of very serious things or explain you the most complicated notions without forgetting that joy and gaiety must remain the core virtues of all intellectual work. If there is no joy, you will inevitably be labelled as dull and lose the metapolitical battle. Don’t forget that medieval born initiatives like the German “Burschenschaften” (Students’ Corporations) or the Flemish “Rederijkers Kamers” (“Chambers of Rhetoric”) or the Youth Movements in pre-Nazi Germany were all initiatives where the highest intellectual matters were discussed and, once the seminary closed, followed by joyful songs, drinking parties or dance (Arthur Koestler remembers his time spent at Vienna Jewish Burschenschaft “Unitas” as the best of his youth, despite the fact that the Jewish students of Vienna considered in petto that the habits of the Burschenschaften should be adopted by them as pure mimicking). Humour and irony are also keys to success. A good cartoonist can reach the bull’s eye better than a dry philosopher.
 
In 1997, Anatoly Ivanov, a Russian historian, polyglot and essayist registered the Russian branch of the “European Synergies” in Moscow. How did you learn about him?
 
I don’t remember quite well but I surely read some sentences about him and his work in an article of Wolfgang Strauss, who wrote an impressive amount of articles, essays and interviews about Russian affairs in German and Austrian magazines as Criticon, Aula, Junges Forum, Staatsbriefe, Mut, Europa Vorn, etc. The closest contact I had at that time was with the team of Junges Forum in Hamburg, which also published next to Strauss’ essays a monthly information bulletin called DESG-Inform (DESG meaning “Deutsch-Europäische Studiengesellschaft”). In this context, I received a copy of a German translation of his very important book Logika Koshmara (Logik des Alptraums) published in 1993 in Berlin with a foreword and a conclusion of Wolfgang Strauss, explaining the world view of the new Russian dissidents, who were not ready to exchange communism for the false values of the West. After the publishing of Logik des Alptraums, Ivanov was regularly quoted in the DESG bulletin or in Strauss’ long and accurate essays in Staatsbriefe. But the very first contact I had was a letter by Ivanov himself, in which he introduced himself and sent some comments that we translated or reproduced for Nouvelles de Synergies Européennes or Vouloir. After having received this letter, I phoned him, so that we could have a vivid conversation. The rest followed. But I am sad that I never could meet him till yet.
 
The same is true for Strauss: I should like to remember here that the very first German article I summarized for Hupin’s Renaissance Européenne was a Strauss’ contribution to Schrenck-Notzing’s Criticon about the neo-Slavophile movement in Russia. I met Strauss only once and too briefly: at a Summer Course of the German weekly magazine Junge Freiheit near the Czech border in the region of Fichtelgebirge in 1995. The representative of Russia was then Vladimir Wiedemann, whose speech I translated for Vouloir.
 
Since then our magazines ‘Heritage of the Ancestors” and “Atheneum” have published news about the “European Synergies”, some of your articles in Russian translation and reviews about such publications as “Nouvelles de Synergies Européennes”, “Vouloir”, “Nation Europa”, “Orion”, etc. Do you find such an initiative important? Why?
 
It is indeed important to inform people about what happens in the wide world. The pages “Atheneum” dedicates to the activities of other groups in Europe or elsewhere in the world replace or complete usefully the information formerly or still communicated by DESG-Inform, Diorama Letterario, Nation Europa, Nouvelles de Synergies Européennes, etc. Recently, i. e. in the first days of June 2011, when I was interviewed in Paris for the free radio broadcasting station “Méridien Zéro”, the two young journalists declared to regret the lack of information about what is said, published or broadcast in the so-called “New Right” or “Identitarian” movements throughout Europe, since “Nouvelles de Synergies Européennes” ceased to be published. They both found that the ersatz of it on the Internet was not sufficient, although one of them produces every week, depending on the topics they are dealing with, an excellent survey of webpages, books and magazines on the “Mériden Zéro’s” website. The same kind of intelligent survey should be done regularly for books because there is one big difference between the time, when the New Right began to develop at the end of the Sixties and in the Seventies, and now: many topics aren’t taboo anymore, such as geopolitics or Indo-European studies at scientific level. Lots of books on the main topics the New Right wanted to rediscover at the time when such topics were repressed are nowadays issued by all possible publishing houses and not only by clearly identifiable conservative or rightist publishers. For general news on current affairs, we can bank on a German friend to issue monthly a general survey of interesting topics gathered from the German press and on a Flemish friend for the same purpose, but this time twice or three times a week. The Flemish “Krantenkoppen” (= “papers’ heads”) are in four languages (Dutch, French, German and English). You can jump into the web to discover them regularly by paying a visit to : http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/. In Italian you can get daily a excellent collection of articles on http://www.ariannaeditrice.it/. A good survey of the American non conformist press and webpages can be found on Keith Preston’s site : http://www.attackthesystem.com/. But you and the Méridien Zéro journalists are right: the instrument should be widened and rationalized. This one important goal to reach for all those who were formerly confident of the “Synergies Européennes” network.
 
You also published articles and interviews of us all in the bulletin “Nouvelles de Synergies Européennes” and in the journal “Vouloir”. Had these texts some echo? Who among your readers did pay more attention to our material and about Russian matters in general? Was it Wolfgang Strauss, Jean Parvulesco or Guillaume Faye?
 
parvul10.jpgAll our readers agreed that our articles about Russia or Russian authors and our interviews of Russian personalities were of the uttermost importance. Strauss and Parvulesco received the magazines regularly. I had regular contacts with Parvulesco, who unfortunately died in November 2010 (cf. The category “Jean Parvulesco” on http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com ), and I know that he always read attentively everything coming from Russia: one should not forget that Parvulesco was among the first thinkers in France who were aware of the dangers epitomized by Brzezinski’s strategic projects in Central Asia and elsewhere, be it along the “New Eurasian Silk Road” or in the Caucasian and Pontic areas. Articles like “La doctrine des espaces de désengagement intercontinental” and “De l’Atlantique au Pacifique” (and within this important geopolitical manifesto, the paragraphs under the subtitle “Zbigniew Brzezinski et la ligne politico-stratégique de la Chase Manhattan Bank” – Both texts can be read in “Cahier Jean Parvulesco”, Nouvelles Littératures Européennes, 1989).

 


But at a first stage, we have to thank retrospectively the guy who translated Russian texts under the pseudonym of “Sepp Staelmans” (a “Bavarianification & Flemishification” of “Josef Stalin”!). He came to us, when he was sixteen and we all were still students, and asked to our friend Beerens what he could do for the movement: Beerens, who in this very evening had most probably drunken too much red wine, told him: “You should learn German and Russian!”. Incredible but nevertheless true: the young lad did it! Many other translations were done by girls who were trainees in my own translation office. More students indeed study Slavonic languages now than formerly, simply because there is no Iron Curtain anymore and they can meet youth of their own age in Slavonic countries. Michel Schneider, who once published the interesting political magazine “Nationalisme et République”, stayed in Moscow for a quite long time and sent us articles too. The former readers of Schneider’s magazine welcomed heartedly of course the Russian stuff he sent to us.
 
One day in Paris, just after having jumped out of the train from Brussels, I had a meal in the famous “Brasserie 1925”, just in front of Paris’ “Gare du Nord”, with a young lady, an incredibly attractive and intelligent woman seeming to come just out of the most beautiful fairy tale. She belonged to the team around the most efficient French present-day Slavists, such as Anne Coldefy, Lydia Kolombet or Marion Laruelle. They wanted to have copies of all our publications dealing with Russian topics for their archive.

Many other articles or essays on Russian matters were inspired by German books of Slavistics produced by the publishing house Otto Harassowitz in Wiesbaden. This publishing house is indeed specialized in Russian ideas and topics and issues regularly a thick journal called Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte (= “Studies on East European History”), where we could find many inspiring texts.
 
Can we call our own initiatives as belonging to the transnational “New Right” movement? How would you define this ideological movement? Who are its leaders?
 
The phrase “New Right” has of course many different significations. Especially in the Anglo-Saxon world it can delineate a rather multiple-faced libertarian movement inspired by Reaganomics, Thatcherite British conservatism, i. e. an renewed form of the old liberal Manchesterian way of managing a country’s economy, etc. The main theoreticians who inspire such a British or Transatlantic view of politics, state or economics are Milton Friedman, Friedrich von Hayek or Michael Oakshott. This is not, of course, the way we would define ourselves as exponents of a “New Right” (although in some particular aspects, beyond economics as such, Hayek’s notion of “catallaxy” is interesting).
 
Personally I would say that I belong to a synthesis of 1) the German “Neue Rechte”, as it had been accurately defined by Günter Bartsch in his book “Revolution von Rechts?”, 2) of the French “nouvelle droite” as it has been coined by Louis Pauwels, Jean-Claude Valla and Alain de Benoist at the end of the Sixties and 3) of the Italian initiatives of, first, Pino Rauti and his weekly paper “Linea”, and, second, of Dr. Marco Tarchi and his journals “Diorama letterario” and “Trasgressioni” before they started sad aggiornamenti in order not to be insulted by the press.

Img 7_Pauwels.jpgThe German “Neue Rechte”, as defined by Günter Bartsch, is a bio-humanist movement, opposed to technocracy in the widest sense of the word, has got a biological-medical view on man (on anthropology). This implies the rather well-known option for ethnopluralism, which, subsequently, implies an option for all kinds of “liberation nationalism”, within and outside Europe, and for a broad conceived “European Socialism”. The story of the French “nouvelle droite” is better known throughout the world due to the many essays or books written about it since more or less four decades but not so much has in fact been written about the link between, on one hand, the early G.R.E.C.E.-Groups and, on a second hand, Louis Pauwels, editor of the futurology and prospective journal “Planète”, the organized “Groupes Planète” throughout France’s regions, the specific interpretation of the May 1968 ideology of Herbert Marcuse that had been developed in the numerous essays of the magazine, the critical approach of Western materialism, the speculations of Arthur Koestler about biology (“The Ghost in the Machine”) and his attraction towards parapsychology, the influence of the Gurdjieff group on the all venture, the presence in the redaction team of the Belgian thinker Raymond De Becker with his particular interpretation of Jung’s psychoanalysis (and his past as a “crypto-fascist” activist in the Thirties and the Forties, afterwards fascinated by Jungian psychoanalysis during the seven years he spent in jail). Moreover, “Planète” was in a certain way “ethnopluralist” as it supported the Occitan revival in Southern French regions such as Provence and Languedoc. Purpose was of course to dismantle the materialistic and rationalist Jacobine French State. From my experience in the New Right groups, I consider as essential the following topics: the metapolitical way of working, the critical view on the Western world (developed in a special issue of “Nouvelle école” on America and a remarkable issue of “Eléments” on the “Western civilization”), the exploration of the German Conservative Revolution through thinkers like Spengler, Jünger, Moeller van den Bruck or Carl Schmitt.
 
The Italian magazines were more interested in pure political sciences, even in some popularized articles from “Linea”, describing mostly the life of important and original political figures and of political scientists (such as Pareto, Mosca, Sombart, Weber, Sorokin, etc.) and explaining the main trends of their works. For us in Belgium the critique the Italian fellows developed to reject partitocracy was more interesting than the French or German ideas or debates. Why? Simply because the corrupted situation in which we lived and still live, the impossibility to realise genuine political programmes and an authentic reformation aiming at solving actual problems was very similar to what happened and still happens in Italy: in France, De Gaulle had made it possible to escape the narrowness of the 4th Republic’s petty politics and had suggested original ideas such as the workers’ participation, the “intéressement” of a factory’s personnel in the benefits of their company or a new form of Senate with representatives of the regions and the professions and not with aloof professional politicians, who could after some years of parliamentary life become totally cut from all social realities. Nothing of all these intelligent projects after him became reality but nevertheless at the end of the Seventies, there was still hope to translate these seducing programmes into French political life. In Germany at that time, the full results of the post war reconstruction could be felt and at that time the country didn’t experiment the impediments generated by the many dissolving consequences of a partitocratic system.

The French “nouvelle droite” acquired a worldwide reputation after a team around Jean-Claude Valla could manage in the autumn 1978 to man the redaction of a new and broad dispatched weekly magazine, the “Figaro Magazine”. Alain de Benoist was among the new journalists selected and took over the “rubrique des idées” (the “ideas’ column”) he already had run in the Figaro daily paper’s literary supplement, which was issued every Sunday. Louis Pauwels, the head of the new weekly “Figaro Magazine” and former chief animator of the “Groupes Planète” had accepted the deal proposed by the young wolves within the GRECE-team that proceeded from small national-revolutionist groups, students’ associations and tiny political parties that had failed to score sufficiently during several rounds of general or local elections in the Sixties. They all formerly were more or less linked to the monthly magazine “Europe-Action” mainly supervised by Dominique Venner. The events of May 1968 proved that the left or all the leftist non communist caucuses had actually seized the cultural or metapolitical power in France and elsewhere in Western Europe. Nowadays many studies tend to demonstrate that the American OSS and later the CIA had created artificially the 68 uprising in order to weaken Germany which became at the end of the Sixties an economical and industrial power again and to weaken also France which under De Gaulle became a nuclear military power having developed a competitive aircraft industry (Bloch-Dassault with the celebrated Mirage fighters that had been sold to Israel, India, Australia and Latin American countries as well as to some European countries such as Belgium). But in a first step the purpose of the metapolitical fight was to criticize and to suggest a counter-power to the 68 ideology as well as to defeat the heavy influence the communists still had in the French press at that time. This brought the “nouvelle droite” in a kind of precarious balance as, on the one hand, they still had columns in “Valeurs actuelles” and “Le Spectacle du monde”, which were publications owned by the press magnate Raymond Bourgine, who was an Atlanticist, and as, on a second hand, they had started to develop a thorough criticism of American values in both their separate home magazines “Nouvelle école” (1975), under the brilliant intellectual leadership of the Italian Giorgio Locchi, and “Eléments” (1976) under the vigorous supervision of Guillaume Faye.
 
Other ambiguity: Pauwels within the network of the “Groupes Planète” had staunchly supported some social criticism of the pre-68 movement and stressed the importance of the more or less Nietzschean notion of “one-dimensional man”, as a possible aspect hic et nunc of the “Last Man blinking his eye” whose deleterious influences one had to fight against, as well as the notion of an “Eros” able to wipe out all the petty consequences of a hyper-civilized and hyper-rationalized Western world, both notions having been theorized in Herbert Marcuse’s main books in the Sixties; now, in the columns of the brand new glossy “Figaro Magazine” (or abbreviated: “FigMag”), all the effects of the pre-68 and genuine 68 movement were submitted, with the help of the formerly marginal “pre-new right” would-be journalists, to a thorough criticism leading to a final and total rejection, in name of a new conservatism aiming at preserving the values of the West or at least of Old Europe. More than one theoretical gap between these discrepancies were not filled, leading in the four or five following years to a quite large array of misunderstandings. The eternal problem of lack of time couldn’t solve these discrepancies, leading at the end of 1981 to a clash between de Benoist and Bourgine, then to a recurrent blackmailing of Pauwels, who was threatened by attrition in the way advertisement agencies refused to place ads in the weekly FigMag. The constant blackmail Pauwels underwent aimed at sacking the “New Right” people and at throwing them out of the “Figmag” for the sole benefit of the exponents of the new ideological craze, coined by the system’s agencies: neo-liberalism.
 
A Russian “New Right” cannot be of course a tributary of all these Western European aspects of a general conservative-revolutionnist criticism of the main modern ideologies or political systems. A Russian “New Right” must of course be an original and independent stream, a synthesis of Russian ideas. According to the German Slavist Hildegard Kochanek, the Russian source of a general conservative revolutionist attitude lies of course in the Slavophile tradition, taking into account values like “potshvennitshestvo” and “samobytnitshestvo”, i. e. the roots of the glebe and the genuine political sense of community (“Gemeinschaft” in German). This implies, still according to Mrs. Kochanek, a kind of socialism, very different than the historical dominant forms of socialism within the 1st, 2nd and 3d Internationals, the West-European social democracies or the Soviet communism. Mrs. Kochanek sees Vladimir Soloviev and Sergej Nikolaïevitch Bulgakov (1871-1944) as the spiritual fathers of a spiritualized socialism, inspired by the very notion of Greek-Byzantine Sophia. Bulgakov, as an émigré in Paris, in the Twenties and Thirties, was clearly conscious of the lack of ethics in the several forms of real existing socialisms or communisms. Sophia and ethics help to break the vicious effects of “economical materialism” of both communist and social democratic doctrines, which are in the end not fundamentally different from the utilitarian Anglo-Saxon bourgeois ideology (“burzhuaznost”), as it was theorized by Jeremy Bentham and later by David Ricardo. Society, according to Bulgakov, cannot be seen as a mere mechanism of individual atoms trying to realize their own petty interests. In fact, Bulgakov produced long before the existence of a “New Right” a complete critique of the Western ideologies, that Guillaume Faye tried to formulate again —but this time in a non Christian intellectual frame— in his very first articles on “Western Civilisation”, published in “Eléments” in 1976, as well as in several articles and short essays about economical theory (but the main book Faye wrote about his views on economics was thrown into the wastebasket by de Benoist… I could only save some pages that I published in my “Orientations”, Nr. 5; the rest was spoilt by Faye himself, who used to clean his pipe with the scattered sheets…). In the former Soviet Union, Mikhail Antonov wrote some articles in 1989 in the well-known Moscovite journal “Nash Sovremennik”, urging the Russian economists not to adopt the Western unethical forms of economics but to continue Bulgakov’s work (see: Hildegard KOCHANEK, Die russisch-nationale Rechte von 1968 bis zum Ende der Sowjetunion – Eine Diskursanalyse, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart, 1999); in the eyes of Bulgakov, it is impossible to let economics not be counter-balanced by ethical brakes. Without such “brakes”, economics tends to invade the whole sphere of human activities and to destroy all other factual, intellectual or spiritual fields in which mankind is evolving. Hypertrophy of economics leads to an extreme “fluidity” of human thoughts and actions: as Carl Schmitt explains it in his posthumous “Glossarium”, we aren’t Roman surveyors anymore but seamen writing “logbooks”. He meant that we have lost all links with the Earth.
 
So we expect to learn more about Russian ideas through a totally independent Russian “New Right”, that wouldn’t in no respect imitate Western models.

When you ask me who are the leaders or the leading personalities of the Western European New Right, I will have to enumerate country by country the men who were and are the main exponents of this diversified ideological current. I’ll only select France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Austria. In France, the leading personality is of course Alain de Benoist, who seems to personify the movement in its wholeness. According to Pierre Chassard the core group that intended at the very beginning to launch a metapolitical struggle and to spread “other ideas” than those in power was a college of friends, was mainly built by old members of “Europe Action” or the “Fédération des Etudiants Nationaux”, or even people having tried initiatives in the Fifties. They selected some younger collaborators. Alain de Benoist was among the members of this new generation: he had been selected because he had made good synthesized reviews of books and magazines and had coined well balanced definitions for “L’Observateur Européen”, a bulletin which was at the same time the heir publication of the “Cahiers Universitaires”, the intellectualized publication of a students’ association (FEN – Fédération des Etudiants Nationaux), and later a supplement to Dominique Venner’s monthly “Europe Action” (“Europe Action Hebdomadaire”). After Venner resigned in July 1967, a team decided to abandon pure politics and opt for metapolitics: this was the very birthday of “Nouvelle école”, the wonderful magazine that seduced me six years later in 1973, when I was only seventeen. But next to the first emergence of what will become the still existing “New Right” as a later expression of the prior “Nouvelle école” redaction, Domnique Venner started the “Institut d’Etudes Occidentales” and a bulletin called “Cité-Liberté”, but the experience only last a year and a half (from November 1970 till July 1971).

Later, some people hoping for a more active approach created the G.R.E.C.E.-Groups, more or less along the same organizational lines as Louis Pauwels’ “Planète-Groups” in the Sixties, with a representative group in every important town; these groups were supposed to start a “cultural revolution” to get rid of the conventional post war liberal ideology and its “translations” in real life; for the “Grecists”, their similar town-based groups would be called “unités régionales”. These metapolitical groups had as a purpose to organize locally speeches, debates, conferences, seminars or art exhibitions to compete with the dominant ideologies. To inform the members of these new created network, a bulletin called “Eléments” was launched, very simple in its layout: it was a plain pile of sheets wrapped in a light cardboard cover. In 1973 it became a full magazine, not only designed for the members but for a broad public. Both magazines made Benoist’s reputation in and outside France. For me all positive aspects of Benoist’s initiatives are directly linked with “Nouvelle école”. Later Guillaume Faye, a figure of a new “Grecist” generation, gave an energetic punch to “Eléments”. We may say after four decades of observation that the soul having animated “Nouvelle école” is undoubtfully Alain de Benoist and that all his other initiatives are either awkward adaptations to the Zeitgeist or betrayals of the core message of the initial movement from which he proceeds.
 
I mean here that the birth of metapolitics at the end of the Sixties was a clear and harsh declaration of war against the dominant metapolitical powers and against all the political systems and corrupted personnel they support: the very aim of metapolitics is to let appear the dominant power as a full illegitimacy. In such a long lasting war you cannot make compromises, you never criticize positions you once adopted, you never negate what you once asserted. On the contrary you have to spot immediately the new pseudo-intellectual garments the dominant power is regularly putting on, each time when its usual instruments aren’t fully efficient anymore; this spotting job is absolutely necessary in order not to be trapped by the new seducing strategies the foe is trying to spread to fool you, according to the principles once invented by Sun Tsu. You cannot criticize positions you once opted for, as if you had to be forgiven for youth mistakes, because you lose then rather large parts of your operation field. If you reject, for instance, biology or biohumanism or biological anthropology (Arnold Gehlen) or all types of medical-biological questions, because you could eventually be accused by the press to be a proponent of a new kind of “biological materialism” or of a “zoological view of mankind” or of “racialist eugenics”, etc., you’ll never be able anymore to suggest a well-thought national health policy programme elaborated by doctors, who intend to develop a preventive health system in society. That’s what happened to poor de Benoist, who was scared stiff to be labelled a “Nazi eugenist” since the very first polemical attack he underwent in 1970, an attack that wasn’t lead by the left as such but by Catholic neo-royalists, who had purposely adopted a typical leftist phraseology and created an ad hoc anti-racist committee to crush the future “New Right” team they saw as competitors in the new metapolitcal struggle that was about to be fought in France in the early Seventies.
 
dia_konrad-lorenz.jpgSome years later Alain de Benoist interviewed for “Nouvelle école” the Nobel Prize Konrad Lorenz who had written well shaped didactical books to warn mankind of the dangers of a possible “lukewarm death” if the natural (and therefore biological) predispositions of Man as a living being were not taken into consideration by the political world or the Public Health Offices. Although he had the backing of a Nobel Prize winner and of the Oslo or Stockholm jury having granted Prof. Lorenz the Prize, de Benoist has till yet feared to resume the kind of research “Nouvelle école” had tried to start in the middle of the Seventies. The paralysing fear he felt in the deepest of his guts lead him to express all kind of denials and rejections that were in no case scientifically or factually established but were mere makeshift jobs typical of political journalists manipulating blueprints in order to deceive their audience.
 
The further evolution of the first French “New Right” team involved some years of interesting developments from 1970 to 1978, with as only outside tribune the magazines published by Bourgine, “Valeurs actuelles” and “Le Spectacle du monde” (the famous book of Alain de Benoist “Vu de droite” is a 1978 anthology of articles having been first published in Bourgine’s publications). The creation of the “FigMag” in 1978 boosted the G.R.E.C.E.-groups and brought them into the very debates of the “French Intellectual Landscape” (“Paysage Intellectuel Français” or “PIF”). This period of intoxicating euphoria lasted till December 1981. During three years Alain de Benoist thought he had deep in his tuxedo’s pocket the (metapolitical) key to a very soon available power access or to a seat in the celebrated “Académie Française” and became incredibly arrogant and haughty in a typical Parisian way, what was in our eyes a very funny scene to watch and mock. These arrogant manners of him but also his exhilarating strokes of near nervous breakdowns, when he was once more scared stiff for futilities and swallowed handfuls of sedating pills, were very often aped in Paris, in all the province towns and in the Brussels’ pubs where we met to discuss the last tittle-tattle of the movement, leading to general hilarity and merriment. Guillaume Faye was of course the best animator in such merry meetings. This period was nevertheless the apex of the movement. With the publication of Faye’s “Le Système à tuer les peuples” and the ideological consequences of two publications of the group, the special issue of “Nouvelle école” about America and the American Way of Life and the issue of “Eléments” inaugurating a thorough critique of Western values, the movement had really broken with the usual Western and Atlanticist positions of the dominant rightist-conservative political field. It was now thoroughly different from the old far right groups on the French political chessboard but became also quite different from the established official right (the main political parties of Giscard d’Estaing and Chirac). The movement had its originality. But the world political surroundings had completely changed. First, the Socialists of François Mitterrand won the presidential elections in May 1981, a new political synthesis was about to dominate the world stage, combining the libertarian view of economics with the anti-Soviet and anti-fascist heritage of the usual Jewish-American East Coast Trotskites. This meant that the Trotskite intellectual gangs of the East Coast decided to abandon the usual leftist phraseology and to adopt a new vocabulary larded with conservative or rightist (anti-communist) expressions. At the same time, this new conservatism with Trotskite background became the proponent of libertarian economics and of an aggressive anti-Soviet foreign policy, destroying all the assets left by the endeavours of diplomacy (the German “Ostpolitik”, the policy of bilateral relationships between small powers of the EEC and of the COMECON suggested in Belgium by Pierre Harmel, the independant policy of the Gaullists and some of their most brilliant ministers such as Jobert and Couve de Murville, etc.) and re-introducing the geopolitics of anti-Russian containment inaugurated by the British geographer Sir Halford John Mackinder in 1904 and later improved by NATO-geopolitics as it had been coined by Nicholas Spykman and some other geopoliticians working for the American Foreign Affairs or for the US Army. The new synthesis of economical libertarianism, anti-communist conservatism and recycled Trotskite thoughts lead to the election of Reagan and to the introduction of “Reaganomics” in the United States. Simultaneously, new forms of slightly toned down Reaganomics or Thatcherite recipes were suggested in European countries: in Belgium the future Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, who was at that time a young challenging politician, started a campaign to let adopt Thatcherite methods in the Low Countries and a whole bunch of French journalists such as Guy Sorman, Alain Minc and Laurent Joffrin stood up for adjusting French economics to the new American or British standards.
 
The New Right wasn’t prepared at all to face such a worldwide well orchestrated offensive; first, its staff was not numerous enough to man all the bastions where a fierce defence fight was needed and second, under the too preponderant influence of de Benoist, the topics of economics or economical theory, of geopolitics and of political sciences and history of political ideas (such as the genesis of all the possible combinations the US American ideological sides were able to adopt when they changed their strategies in order to win elections) had been fully neglected in favour of purely cultural or literary speculations. In 1979, Giorgio Locchi left the G.R.E.C.E.-Group because he disagreed with the policy of “entrisme” in the press and in established conservative caucuses (he meant the “FigMag”-affair and the cooperation with a think tank of Giscard d’Estaing’s party, called “Maiastra”). At the same time a group left also the G.R.E.C.E -team to create a so-called “Club de l’Horloge”, more focussed on political and economical matters but even more predisposed to “entrisme”-policies.

The ambiguity was actually present: the G.R.E.C.E./New Right movement was indeed torn between two possibilities. Either it specialized in pure intellectual, cultural, literary or philosophical topics or it specialized in political sciences with both a theoretical branch and a pragmatic one, with the purpose of translating the theoretical principles into real political life, for instance by modelling solutions as they would be suggested in a Parliament. Giorgio Locchi thought it was to early to risk a way or another of “entrisme”; he was too conscious of the weakness and ill-preparedness of the movement and estimated that every kind of “entrisme” would lead to a fading away of the strong philosophical corpus. No actual conservative revolution was possible in his eyes in 1979 France. The withdrawal of Locchi was a catastrophe. In the only really scientific study about the “nouvelle droite”, that was written by Pierre-André Taguieff in 1993, Locchi’s and Mohler’s roles were duly stressed, as they were rightly considered as the real ancestors of the movement, as belonging to the small group of the “Founding Fathers” having already modelled the concept of their wished new conservative revolution in the Fifties: according to late Professor Piet Tommissen, who unfortunately died recently in August 2011 just after having written down his own memoirs, Mohler, as a secretary of the world famous German writer Ernst Jünger, was ceaselessly organizing meetings and speeches throughout Switzerland and Germany as early as 1952 when the future Flemish university teacher Piet Tommissen met him for the first time. Locchi was surely as active in Italy. His departure meant that the movement lost a part of its roots at the very moment when it seemed to have reached its apex. Alain de Benoist started, consciously or unconsciously, his strategy of cutting links with the old generation as he would also cut all links with newcomers in the movement: successively Faye, myself, Baillet, Champetier, Bresnu and many others were isolated and ruled out, reducing the movement to his single person surrounded by some narrow-brained lackeys. The movement ceased gradually to be a real team of good friends working on different topics, each according to his acquired academic knowledge, to become the tiny club of a guru with no other purpose that to repeat endlessly its own static patterns or, even worse, to repeat brainlessly the newly coined aggiornamenti without being conscious of the contradiction between them and the previous assertions of the guru.

 

The fears Locchi had when he contemplated the future with pessimism were about to become plain reality at the end of 1981. In November 1981 the offices of G.R.E.C.E. were a real hive of activity in order to materialize the new craze or the new Machiavellian trick, that was supposed to produce the metapolitical and final breakthrough of the movement on the French political stage. Some got the pseudo-Evolian idea to “ride the Tiger” by adopting Reaganomics or Thatcherite ideas and to smuggle stealthily de Benoist into a team of representatives of this new monetarist or neoliberal network for which a huge international conference would be organized in Paris with the support of the “FigMag”. As de Benoist would be alone among the mostly American or British monetarist or neo-conservative eggheads of the panel, his would-be Machiavellian chums thought naively that no one would have smelt a rat that the whole affair had been set up secretly by the “new right” team. So in the first days of December an international conference, under the simple and pompous title of “Alternative libérale”, had been planned. It would have hoisted boastful Benoist into a network of conservative and neo-conservative political scientists or economists; our man would gather subsequently high consideration in the wide world and wouldn’t be taken for a “fascist” or a “crypto-fascist” anymore. But the whole affair was quickly discovered. The office of “Alternative libérale” was settled in a flat belonging to de Benoist’s mother who died some months previously. The very efficient spying network of the former Trotskites turned “neoconservatives” could rapidly spot who was poorly hidden behind the flimsy set-up. But the conference rooms had been rented, folders and pamphlets printed, etc. so that the initiative couldn’t be cancelled without risking to ruin the movement! Under harsh pressure of Raymond Aron (who, just like Karl Popper, had been fawned on by Benoist some weeks before in an article of the “Figmag”), of Norman Podhoretz and of several neoconservative caucuses from America and France, de Benoist was kicked out from the conference panel like a tramp who would have lost his way in a luxury hotel along the Riviera. The conference took nevertheless place with only a panel of recycled Trotskites, neoconservatives, Thatcherites and other birds of ill omen. The lesson we should draw from this ludicrous incident is that “Mr. Nouvelle Droite” has simply no ideas of his own; he is only a poor parrot aping others’ voices: he imitated Locchi or Mohler when he pretended to be a “conservative revolutionist” in the German tradition; he imitated some others when he wanted to participate to any possible “Alternative libérale”; he imitates a bright feathered queer customer like the Swiss Jean Ziegler when he plays the role of a “New Leftist” animated by a deep concern for the alleged “Third World”; he still plays the drama character of the catacombs’ fascist when he wants to get some dosh from a reduced bunch of old chums who were former activists of “Europe Action”... He has neither personal ideas nor stable views and only looks for opportunities to be hoisted on prestigious panels or to grasp money to pay the bills of his printers. But the funniest result of all is that the “New Right” teams helped to saddle neo-liberalism on the French political stage, a neo-liberalism that was closer to its arch-enemies, the “nouveaux philosophes”, who imposed the newspeak of “political correctness” during the three last decades, excluding by the way Benoist and his “New Right” from all official panels. Who were the cheated lovers, the “cocus magnifiques”? You can easily guess…
 
When the conference of “Alternative libérale” was being prepared feverishly, Faye was puzzled and disappointed. Exactly like Michel Norey, the only member of the team who had written for “Nouvelle école” (nr. 19) an introduction to an alternative history of economics, he belonged to a completely different tradition in the history of economical ideas. This tradition is the so-called “historical school” having roots in Continental Europe, in Germany as well as in France. Guillaume Faye, Ange Sampieru and I agreed that the way out of the liberal Western mess could only be instrumentalized by some revival and updating of the intellectual assets of the “historical school”. Faye studied the works of André Grjebine and François Perroux, Sampieru discovered long before priggish de Benoist the new French anti-utilitarian movement of the M.A.U.S.S.-team as well as the authors of the “regulationist school” and I suggested in the Eighties the reading of alternative histories of economical thought in order to bring didactically some order in our friends’ minds. In December 1981 I left definitively the Parisian offices of G.R.E.C.E., while Benoist was brooding and chewing over his failure to become a star in the new Reaganized and Thatcherized world. The result of this brooding and chewing over process in “Prig Benoist’s” scattered scatter-brain, the very result of the sad cogitations of Big Failed Chief, was —I must confess— a wonderful article in the issue of “Eléments” that was dispatched in France’s kiosks in January 1982. Imitating both Spengler and Evola, he had given his long and well-balanced article the title of “Orientations pour des années décisives”, an allusion to Evola’s booklet “Orientations”, issued in the early Fifties, and to Spengler’s “Jahre der Entscheidung” (“Années décisives” in French), published as a bestseller in 1933, the year when Hitler took over power in Germany. Deeply offended because he had been kicked out of his own December plot and had missed an opportunity to become a worldwide star, Prig Benoist took positions and adopted views that were diametrically opposed to the ones usually backed by the people reading the “FigMag” or the publications of Bourgine’s press group. In his article, Prig Benoist wrote a couple of sentences that were quite easily considered as pure provocation by the people in Bourgine’s teams: “We’ll finally prefer to put on our heads Red Army caps than to finish as fat old guys eating disgusting hamburgers somewhere in a nasty Brooklyn lane”. Faye, Sampieru and I found the sentence surely provocative but amusing and very well written. The result of this whim was that Benoist was immediately kicked out of Bourgine’s glossy magazines as soon as Boss Bourgine himself could read a copy of “Orientations pour des années décisives” (Benoist nevertheless could recuperate his position as a chronicler in “Le spectacle du monde” during the first decade of the 21st century, long after Boss Bourgine’s death). It lasted only some weeks before he was also evicted from the highly considered “Ideas’ column” of the “FigMag”, but as Louis Pauwels was a chivalrous gentleman, Prig Benoist could keep the “Video column”, where he had to comment films. The apex era of the French “New Right” was over. Definitively.
 

 

The movement had no bias of “petty conservatism” or of “alternative liberalism” anymore and cultivated from now on a kind of discrete “national-bolshevism”, trying openings to non conformist left clubs, just as the German “Neue Rechte” had done till yet. Sampieru and I were delighted. In January 1982, the second period in the history of the French “New Right” started. During this interesting period of decrease in real power or real influence in the media world but of increase in intellectual maturity, the movement tried to define itself as an alternative non Western movement, heir of the anti-American Gaullist positions and of alternative non Marxist socialist thoughts (such as those of Sombart, Sorel, De Man, etc.). In 1982, the German neutralist movement became better organized and started to acquire national dimensions it hadn’t previously had. In 1981, Willy Brandt’s son Peter Brandt had already showed the way as he had revived the Prussian socialist tradition alongside a big exhibition about past Prussia in Berlin, the first of the kind that had been set up after 1945 in the German and Prussian capital. Peter Brandt and others, among them Wolfgang Venohr, coined a new left nationalism that was seducing us, in the way that it wasn’t Western-oriented anymore and took into account the former Prussian/Russian alliances of 1813 and during the time Bismarck was in office. They rediscovered also the most interesting figure of Ernst Niekisch, member of the short-lived Soviet republic of Bavaria’s government (1919) and advocate of a German-Russian alliance against the West in the Twenties and Thirties, who was sent to jail in Hitler’s time. Behind the historical recollections that exhibitions, books and essays allowed, there was a thorough political re-orientation: Germany, if it wanted to be reunified as a neutral country in Central Europe just as were Austria since the Treaty of 1955 and Finland since the special agreements with the USSR signed in 1948, had to adopt a non Westernized pattern of thought. In our eyes, the same was true for all Western-European countries.
 
1982-3-4.jpg I was the first in the New Right group to stress the importance of this new drift in European politics, as I was the only reader of Siegfried Bublies’ magazine “Wir selbst”, which was the main platform that had the real will to dispatch and popularize the new ideas. A summary of all the aspects of this important political drift at the very begin of the Eighties was published in the third issue of my magazine “Orientations” and Philippe Marceau, one of the most honest managers in the G.R.E.C.E.-team, invited me in June 1982 to hold a speech at the G.R.E.C.E. internal “Cercle Héraclite” to explain which were the fundamentals of the new German neutralist nationalism. It wasn’t easy to convince people, accustomed to NATO-ideology, to accept the new world view induced by the pacifist and neutralist movement in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.

 

When we started our bulletin “Vouloir”, we decided to transmit regularly information about what happened and was written in Germany in the wake of this renewed trend in international and national policy. We acquired the still sulphurous reputation of being “national-bolsheviks” as we refused to repeat or to take into positive consideration the usual views that the pro-NATO conservatives dispatched in the mainstream media.
 
locchi.jpgAlain de Benoist observed our activities very distrustfully but most probably due to the influence of Armin Mohler, who had established guidelines for a genuine European foreign policy in his book “Von rechts gesehen” and said that we had to bet on the “rogue states” in order to free ourselves from American mental colonisation, he accepted our views gradually. The projects for a neutral Mitteleuropa became obsolete as soon as Gorbachev proclaimed his glasnost and perestroika. We were awaiting the peaceful and gradual passage of Eastern Europe and Russia to a more gentle form of socialism, crossed with populist (narodniki) and national bias, cultivating Slavonic roots. This was of course a mistake as nothing like that happened. From 1982 to about 1987, the French New Right remained in a kind of no-man’s-land. The best publication issued in the Eighties was undoubtedly a booklet of Guillaume Faye (85 pages), “L’Occident comme déclin” (“The West as Decay”). Keep in mind the difference with Spengler: Faye doesn’t talk in his book about the decay of Western civilisation but about the West as a decay producing negative force encompassing the whole world.

This long essay is certainly the best Faye has ever written. He described the process of Westernization in the all world. The essay is written in the best French, has a considerable intellectual depth and poetic punch: the Westernization of our Planet Earth is equivalent to a dark night in which no one seems to hope anymore for a revival of the pre-Westernized pluralistic world in Europe or elsewhere. But a deep night is never eternal, concludes Faye, as there always will be a new dawn. As the anti-values producing the darkest night cannot subsist in bright daylight, the values of daylight will be completely different and will be ours, as ours are diametrically opposed to the ones producing darkness. Faye: “At the time of the triumphant rise of equalitarianism, of the victorious forward movement of the Last Man’s mentality, a regeneration of the old European consciousness would have been impossible. Today, everything changes. The Last Man is settled in power and he cannot suggest anything else than what is already there. And what exists seems not to be sufficient”. But “the first light of dawn will appear after a long time”.
 
After having read the typescript of this wonderful booklet, Alain de Benoist got into a terrible rage and threw it into the dustbin and forbade the publishing department of the movement to let it be printed. Faye was deeply offended, disappointed and utterly distraught. He expressed his helplessness in front of his comrades from Franche-Comté, who read the typescript and found it of course terrific. One of them, Patrice Sage, decided to finance a first edition of the booklet not under his own name but under the very name of the publishing department of Paris, the so-called “SEPP” (“Société d’Editions, de Presse et de Publicité”), the personnel of which had previously been forbidden by Benoist to publish the typescript. He considered this generous gesture as a “present” to the poor “SEPP”-people, who alleged not to be able to afford the task of printing, publishing and dispatching Faye’s wonderful booklet. In three weeks time, the booklet was completely sold out! I was the only guy in Belgium who could get three copies of it. Our late friend Jean-Marie Simar, who had already published other Faye typescripts like ”Europe et modernité” and “Petit Lexique du Partisan Européen” (now available in an extended English version under the title “Why We Fight”) that had also been thrown pitilessly into the trashcan by furious Prig Benoist, decided generously to finance a new edition. I told him to be careful, as the booklet had not been printed by Faye or by a one of his good friends like Sage, but officially by the SEPP, which had sold the complete bulk without having paid a penny back to Faye. I feared of course that, although the SEPP hadn’t paid a single penny for the printing and hadn’t paid any royalties to Faye, they could nevertheless sue Simar for having reprinted and commercialized a publication of their own. So I travelled to Paris with Simar to let Faye sign a regular contract with Simar’s small publishing department, called “Eurograf”. Ten days later, a new edition of Faye’s “L’Occident comme déclin” was printed. A couple of weeks later, a silly pettifogging lawyer, sent by this two-faced obnoxious miscreant Alain de Benoist, phoned me, accusing me of being the editor of the new edition of Faye’s booklet, because, he said, I was “the man doing everything in Belgium”. I answered: “You probably mean that I am the King… so you must have dialled the wrong number…”. I said that there was a contract between Faye and Simar’s Eurograf; therefore he could only sue Faye for having signed two contracts with two different publishing houses… But as Faye hadn’t actually signed a contract with the SEPP and hadn’t been paid any royalties, he was of course free to sign contracts with others as the law regulating authors’ royalties foresees it in France. Later another lawyer, who admired Faye’s productions, took up his case and dismissed the SEPP’s pettifogging goggled lawyer. This incident shows how contemptible the mentality of Benoist and his fellow travellers is.

After this farcical and nonsensical incident, the movement went through a series of crises; first, in 1985, the General Secretary Jean-Claude Cariou, a deeply honest man wholly dedicated to the movement, was sacked simply because he very politely introduced a case asking for a better salary for Faye (who earned at that time 5000 French francs, which was a far too modest salary to live decently in Paris). The forced departure of Cariou let vanish the organisation and the logistics between all the local clubs spread throughout the French territory and abroad. Second, after Cariou’s preposterous and laughable “trial” staged by Benoist’s fellows in pure Vishynsky style, the official Chairman, an international leading specialist of Indian mythology,

 

Jean Varenne, a benevolent and charming university teacher, whose relevant studies were financially supported by the UNESCO, left the movement without a single word in order to stress the deep contempt he felt. Third, Gilbert Sincyr, who replaced Cariou for a while, left the movement in order to prepare a hypothetical rebirth of it. Fourth, Faye left the movement, with the help of his now eternal chum Yann-Ber Tillenon, at the very beginning of 1987, writing to the members of GRECE a too gentle open letter, simply stating that the movement had reached its apex and that times had come to start something new. The second period in the history of the French New Right ended actually in a messy sewer in which Benoist revelled himself.

In Belgium, we had our own initiatives completely shielded from all the Parisian circus of hullabaloo and quackery. 1986 was even the best year of “EROE” (“Etudes, Recherches et Orientations Européennes”), the informal movement Jean van der Taelen and I set up in October 1983 in order to organize under one single appellation the series of conferences and speeches we intended to propose to interested people in Belgium. In 1987 we invited Guillaume Faye after he had broken with de Benoist, in order to give us a speech about the so-called “cotton language” (la langue de coton) or tone-downed “newspeak” he had theorized under the pseudonym of Pierre Barbès together with the celebrated French strategist François-Bernard Huyghe. Just one day before the meeting, which had to take place in the prestigious Brussels Hotel “Métropole”, Benoist let a quick-tempered idiot, he had previously stirred up and brainwashed, phone me to dissuade me to have further contacts with Faye. I simply answered that, first, I wasn’t the official organiser of the meeting (it was Rogelio Pete from the GRESPE-group) and, second, I wasn’t interested in personal quarrels fought by temperamental natives abroad, quite far away from Brussels, and that only interesting topics were stimulating me. “The cotton language” was one of them and therefore Pete, van der Taelen and I had invited Faye to talk about it. I had no other comments to utter, I said, and hung up.
 
The two years that followed after Faye’s departure were a kind of desert crossing for the GRECE-movement. In June 1988, I received a letter from a young lad called Charles Champetier, who wanted to purchase a complete collection of the magazines I had published (“Orientations” and “Vouloir”) till then. I immediately phoned him and we decided to see each other at a rally organized by Swiss friends some weeks later at the occasion of the Swiss national celebration, during which traditionally people light up bonfires on hills or mountain tops to commemorate the foundation act of the Swiss Confederation, i. e. the celebrated Rütli Oath. Champetier was only 18 at that time, had just been married to a sweet 16-years old girl he had met some months before at a bazaar fair and had already a beautiful baby son. We had a long conversation in Switzerland and we took the decision to meet each other in September or October in Brussels to see what could be done in the now scattered movement. Champetier published at that time a modest bulletin, whose title was “Idées” and which popularized the core ideas the GRECE had spread at the very beginning of its existence. In Brussels, he suggested to become himself a member of GRECE in order to give a new start to a movement that he admired so much: I answered that it might be a good step forward but I duly warned him that after the so many quarrels fought during the last four years the movement had become a “panier à crabes” (“a crabs’ basket”), where they all were constantly trying to cheat each other under the supervision of the cretinous twit having a voice like a foghorn, who had organised Cariou’s trial in 1985 and whom I nicknamed “Vlanparterre” (= “Wham! Again on the floor!”). Back in Paris young Charles asked to become a member of the then derelict club around moaning Prig Benoist and his barking wiseass Vlanparterre. So a new era started in the history of the core movement of the French New Right. We can call it the Champetier Era or the third period in the history of French New Right. It lasted twelve years, from the end of 1988 to the year 2000.

Champetier rightly thought that the movement needed a full refurbishing, that the core ideas had to be thought again according to new fruitful trends in philosophy (the so-called postmodernity) and sociology (the anti-utilitarian movement in economics and sociology, that had been discovered by Sampieru five or six years before). His first model was Marinetti’s Italian futurism, which had the will to sweep the world of thoughts and art from all the petty, useless and preposterous pseudo-embellishments the Biedermeier or bourgeois mentality of the 19th Century had added to Italian and European culture in general. Along similar lines, Champetier wanted to get rid of some boring ritornellos (“ritournelles”) of the movement’s old guard and to wipe out of European culture all the ideological rests of a broadly bad understood Enlightenment.
 
9783050045337.jpgHe invited me in June 1989 to talk about postmodernity, not in the usual way that prevailed in the end, i. e. the postmodern trend that leads downhill to more vulgar permissiveness and degenerated festivism (Philippe Muray), but in a way that had been suggested by the real and true old guru of the European New Right, who was Dr. Armin Mohler; he had read an excellent book on postmodernity, the only one I find worth reading on this topic even after so many years: Wolfgang Welsch’ “Unsere postmoderne Moderne” (“Our Postmodern Modernity”), published in 1988. In a didactical short essay in Caspar von Schrenck-Notzing’s magazine “Criticon”, Mohler delineated the reasons, our own reasons, to believe that postmodernity meant simultaneously the end of the eudemonist Enlightenment’s projects and febrile political schemes that had lead Europe politically and biologically to decay. Postmodernity meant going beyond the modern general project, as many avant-garde artists like for instance the dadaists and surrealists as well as the new traditionalists (like Guénon and Evola) wanted to surpass modern times. Ten months later, Champetier organised a conference about futurism, to which he invited Jean-Marc Vivenza and late philosopher and alpinist Omar Vecchio (who died some ten years later climbing a high peak in the Himalayas). Champetier gave also a new punch to the good habit to organise Summer Courses, that had been abandoned in 1987 and 1988. He created a kind of substructure called “Nouvelle Droite Jeunesse” (NDJ or “New Right Youth”), which attracted some new people and launched a new dynamic.
 
During three years I participated to the activities dynamically promoted by Champetier and was happy that things were still going on despite the departure of Faye. These happy times lasted till 1992. During these three years I committed, without being really conscious of it, an all array of terrible frightful sins. I did too much. I met too many people. I talked to a lot of old friends, who could have been seduced by my way of working and could perhaps think of financing my activities... I was reproached three articles: the one on Welsch’ book on postmodernity, an article asking to investigate the case of French Right (“Il faut instruire le procès des droites”) and the script of my speech in Italy during a conference set up in February 1991 by Dr. Marco Tarchi and Dr. Alessandro Campi in Perugia. I was also blamed for having written several articles in Michel Schneider’s new magazine “Nationalisme & République”, as, of course, I had been forbidden to write again for “Nouvelle école” and “Eléments”, two game areas reserved in all exclusiveness for the personal essays of Big Prig Guru and for the good boys who obsequiously and childishly venerated him. And worst of all other sins, I had been hired by Prof. Jean-François Mattéi to cooperate in a Presses Universitaires de France’s project to publish an “Encyclopédie des Oeuvres philosophiques”; my task was to write short didactical essays and establish bibliographies on mainly German Romantic or Conservative philosophers and on geopoliticians (as the scope was at that time to broaden the area of “philosophicité” and to include some non philosophers in the formerly exclusive realm of pure philosophy). Big Prig Guru was in rage because he personally hadn’t been hired by Prof. Mattéi simply because he couldn’t be hired as he has no diploma at all neither of a secondary school nor of a university. This doesn’t mean anything essential as so many educated idiots circulate around the world but for a University foundation such as the venerable PUF a sheepskin is inevitably compulsory.
 
brylcreem rood 150ml 2.25.jpgSince the very day he heard about it, he started to hate me from the deepest corners of his nicotinized guts, like he most probably had hated in the same way many other guys before, as Locchi or Faye. The effects of this hatred was of course more funny than tragic. When I paid my monthly visits to Paris after the PUF incident, I could immediately notice a changing of attitude by Charles Champetier and by a newcomer, Arnaud Guyot-Jeannin (nicknamed “Jeannot Toto-Lapin”), a funny-looking Brylcreem guy, who hadn’t obviously benefited from a real school education and was permanently uttering slogans and blueprints in a Frenchy arrogant authoritarian sharp abrupt voice but with a good measure of anxious nervousness, that was impossible for him to conceal, and with trembling and soggy hands, all features which would have made of him a good character for a Louis de Funès’ film. Champetier and Toto-Lapin were friendly at the beginning but as their brainwashing was going on with huge portions of venomous gossip, they lost, the poor, all humour and, worst of all, smiles were wiped out from their young still adolescent faces. During the short meetings in Parisian cafés, I had the impression to meet angry taxmen or atrabilious inspectors of I don’t know what. I used to dispatch during such informal meetings the new issues of “Vouloir” or “Orientations”: these were certainly welcomed till begin 1991 but afterwards, they all sulked when I handed over the issues. I remember one day Champetier saying in a low disregarding voice, “again an article on geopolitics – geopolitics doesn’t exist…”. And I answered: “Well, my dear, you may of course say that politics, in the usual trivial sense of the word (and not “the political” in the sense coined by Carl Schmitt and Julien Freund), is irrelevant but if you say that “geo”, id est “Gaia”, the Greek goddess symbolizing our good old Earth, doesn’t exist, it would mean that you are in a permanent state of levitation, what I can observe in a certain way in your behaviour and read in your scriptures…”. Spoilt sour by his Master’s gossip as he had become, Champetier was upset by my ironical answer and started in his turn to cultivate a dark kind of Tshandala’s hatred and rancorous resentment against my poor naturally easy-going person.

Some weeks after this short but significant incident, I once more sat together with Philippe-Nicolas Bresnu just before lunchtime at a nice Parisian terrasse for the same purpose of dispatching the magazines and Toto-Lapin came half a hour later to have the noon meal with us and to pick up the publications. He was very angry, ill-willy, and looked at us with big disapproving eyes, even before we had uttered a single word, and suddenly after some nonsensical and low-voiced babbled sentences, he shouted in the middle of the pub, next to the astonished other guests, “Alain de Benoist is the greatest philosopher of the 20th Century!”. “Maybe” answered Bresnu ironically, “but what about Heidegger then…?”. Toto-Lapin: “He has only paved the way for Alain de Benoist…”. We both burst out laughing and Toto-Lapin’s rage become even more funny as he repeated mechanically like a clockwork parrot what he had asserted while a poor fly landed on a tuft of hair on his forehead and couldn’t fly away anymore, as the frail insect was glued in the thick lay of gomina argentina our Benoistian superfreak conscientiously smeared his hair with every morning before leaving his luxury flat of the well-off suburb of Neuilly.
 
More and more nervous, Toto-Lapin went ahead shouting his usual nonsense as the fly was flapping its wings in a desperate attempt to leave the messy gum in which its many legs were perilously locked up. All the utterances of Toto-Lapin were punctuated by the buzzing noise of the poor bogged bug’s wings.
 

fly-trapped-on-sticky-paper.jpg

 
Bresnu, many others and myself thought it was high time to leave this ambulant lunatic asylum, where no sensible conversation was possible and where no clever and witty guys could be found anymore, except if you would have got the idea of setting up a vaudeville or a remake of Molière’s “Précieuses ridicules”. The definite break took place in December 1992, as I explained it previously in this interview. So the third period in the history of the French New Right continued till the thankless and ungrateful thrust out of poor zealot Champetier himself at the end of the year 2000, after his twelve long years of loyal duty, more, after having sacrificed his best youth years for the worshipping service of his Master (he had written just before his eviction: “No, no, He’s not my Master, He is my friend, my Marx” – besides, why Marx? And not Christ? Or was Champetier at that time of his young years cut out to be a new Lenin?). Champetier started a new career in some scientific magazines (like “Bio-Sciences”), dealing with the popularization of biological thought, in a kind of organic futurist perspective, which was absolutely not preposterous and potentially fruitful. This hidden life of post-New Right Champetier lasted till 2005-2006; after this period of independent autonomous metapolitical action, he worked professionally together with another former collaborator of Benoist, who had also left the movement, despite a key position he had held in the journal “Krisis”, also lead by Benoist since the end of the Eighties. Champetier had hoped that “Eléments” would have supported his new post-Grecist activities by commenting or reviewing his articles or essays. Not a single word was ever printed in Benoist’s magazines to help promoting Champetier’s editorial or internet activities after his departure: another proof that Chief Prig is a real malevolent and ungrateful bloke.
 
From the very day Champetier left the “cockpit” of the GRECE-movement, we can talk about a fourth period, the Post-Champetierite era, around the sole egomania of the “lider ridiculo”. The start of a fifth period could possibly be stated since the end of 2010, when things were taken over by an apparently intelligent young fellow, Pascal Eysseric, who, according to some rumours, would have Russian roots. The issues of “Eléments” under his supervision seem to be better balanced, even if they have now absolutely no impact on the “French Intellectual Landscape” (= “PIF or “Paysage Intellectuel Français”). But wait and see: how long will this apparently clever guy be able to serve in Benoist’s scaramouch troop? Is a plot against him already fabricated behind the stage by bad old geek Vlanparterre? Will he sacrifice twelve years of his healthy and vigorous youth, like the former yesman Champetier, before being pitilessly fired? When will he write down the excellent essay that will make Chief Prig angry and rancorous? The problem with efficient young managers is that they mostly ignore the sad past of a club or a company when they take it over, thinking that they are going to heal it from a transient disease, that is in fact not temporary but chronic with outbursts after apparent respites like by a patient suffering from malaria.

 

During the Champetier’s era, Pierre Vial founded the “Terre & Peuple” club in the Nineties, that in its initial phases was ruled like a kind of think tank within Le Pen’s “Front National”. As we weren’t French citizens and as we didn’t want to start a political movement in Belgium akin to the French FN or to become the representatives of a party being dominantly of “Old Right” signature, we didn’t join nor pay any attention to it. It’s only after the break between Vial and Le Pen that we started to be more interested in this new initiative born out of Vial’s mind, another historical figure of the French New Right. We all must admit now that “Terre & Peuple” has reached its full maturity, by publishing excellent articles about American imperialism and about globalization and plutocracy. Nowadays as a regularly published magazine, that you can buy at any newsagent’s shop as well in France as in Belgium, you only have Dominique Venner’s “Nouvelle Revue d’Histoire”. On the other hand, the people having founded the “Club de l’Horloge” in 1977-1978 run now under the supervision of Jean-Yves Le Gallou a very interesting website: http://www.polemia.com/. Yvan Blot too, a former leading figure of the “Club de l’Horloge”, runs several websites from which you can download interesting articles interpreting European political history according to the general Ancient Greek guidelines coined 500 years B.C. at the so-called “Axis period” of history (the phrase “Axis period” —Achsenzeit— was coined by the German philosopher Karl Jaspers and has been resumed nowadays by the Irish-British historian of religion Karen Armstrong, who developed and broadened the idea in her excellent book “The Great Transformation”; Dr. Armin Mohler called the German “Konservative Revolution” a kind of “Axis Time” in the history of European political thought as it had been influenced by Nietzsche during the decades between 1890 and 1930.
 
It’s nevertheless a pity that the core movement that started the “New Right” as such in France isn’t manned anymore by younger people of several generations having been recruited during the four or five decades of the history of the movement. All younger people have been ruled out, and the new young people will inevitably be ruled out when time will come, a deeply diseased system which will condemn the movement to a silent disappearing within the next fifteen years. Pascal Eysseric won’t be able of course to find back all those who have been kicked out and won’t be able either to recruit a sufficient mass of new people as the mainstream media keep now totally silent about the core group of New Right in France.
 
Let us now examine the “New Right” initiatives outside France. In Germany, when I started to investigate the scene, it was dominated by three giant figures: Armin Mohler (former secretary of Ernst Jünger), Baron Caspar von Schrenck-Notzing (editor of “Criticon”) and Gerd-Klaus Kaltenbrunner. Mohler wrote for “Criticon”, which was a magazine devoted to all possible currents in the so-called German conservative stream and in which Mohler could take a third of all pages to set out his ideas of an “existentialist-vitalist” New Right that wasn’t exactly on the same line as the bio-humanist views explained by Günther Bartsch. Kaltenbrunner wrote especially biographies and thematic essays for widespread collections of small books like “Herderbücherei Initiative”. Later, Kaltenbrunner’s essays were published in many different volumes. Next to these three giant figures, we had the Hamburg group around the simply produced magazine “Junges Forum” of Heinz-Dieter Hansen, mainly interested in people’s liberation movements in Western and Eastern Europe. In Munich, Hans-Dieter Sander published “Staatsbriefe”, with lots of articles about Russia from Wolfgang Strauss, before this former Gulag’s convict ceased all activities due to age and illness. In Northern Germany, Bernhard Wintzek published the monthly “Mut” with many articles of Gerd-Klaus Kaltenbrunner. During the two last decades, Dieter Stein, who at the very beginning of his career, published a small DINA5-bulletin in a small town in South-Western Germany, managed to develop it at giant scale and so to create the now prestigious weekly paper “Junge Freiheit” based in Berlin. To replace “Criticon” after the passing away of Baron Caspar von Schrenck-Notzing, the historian and theologian Dr. Karlheinz Weissmann, author of many interesting books around the so-called “Konservative Revolution” or around several other historical topics, launched the new high level magazine “Sezession”, together with a former officer of the scout armoured cars of the West-German army, Götz Kubitschek, and his wife Ellen Kositza. Their activities are coordinated by an “Institut für Staatspolitik”, organising one or two prestigious courses and conferences each year. There are also many other activities in Germany, especially the publication of many books around topics linked to the wide realm of “conservative-revolutionnist” ideas.
 
In Austria the many activities were of course linked to the German scene but the magazine of the Students’ “Burschenschaften”, “Aula”, gives us still a more genuine Austrian view on the usual topics. It is mainly through the Students’ movement that we got in touch with Austrian friends. A group of them came each time we organized seminars in the Flemish village of Munkzwalm. Genuine friendship was born. Then a group around Jürgen Hatzenbichler came to the French Summer courses in Roquefavour. Hatzenbichler, together with Selena Wolf, had created the small magazine “Identität”, in which ideas of the New Right were spread. Hatzenbichler unfortunately changed his mind and became a leftist activist; I cannot explain which were his motivations for such a switch as I lost all tracks of this very sympathetic young man, who explained me during our last phone conversation that he could observe from the window of his study a short but heavy fight along the Austrian-Yugoslavian border in 1992: a tank of the Federal Yugoslavian Army attacked a customs office held by Slovenian militiamen, who fired antitank rockets as retaliation, causing the complete destruction of the small building.
 
me.pngIn this duty free customs office, Hatzenbichler used to buy his cigarettes every day. Due to the successes of the national-liberal party first lead by Jörg Haider and later by Hans-Christian Strache the Austrian scene became much more politicized than elsewhere in Western Europe. Most activities take place around the weekly paper “zur Zeit”, which was at the beginning an Austrian version of Stein’s “Junge Freiheit”. The magazine is now lead by Andreas Mölzer, an elected Member of the European Parliament. To be complete we also have to mention the excellent magazine “Neue Ordnung” published by Mag. Wolfgang Dvorak-Stocker, leader of the well-known publishing house “Stocker Verlag”. Due to the fact that Austria has been officially a neutral country since the Treaty of 1955, the views expressed by their publications are not Atlanticist but genuinely European and “neutral”, which could be a model for similar Western political parties. Till yet it has not been the case.
 
In Italy you had and still have a well working “New Right” club under the leading of Dr. Marco Tarchi, a political scientist from Firenze. Even if he would deny it now, as he became some years ago a distinguished and established professor, Tarchi owns his genuine way of working to the political activist Pino Rauti, who died at the end of 2012.

 

Rauti had volunteered in Mussolini’s Social Republican Army, was taken prisoner in Northern Italy after the German-Italian collapse in Spring 1945, almost escaped being shot by communist partisans when British paratroopers evacuated the Fascist prisoners, sent them subsequently to camps in French Northern Africa in order to select a good deal of them who could be eventually sent to Australia to be settled in the Western half desertified regions around the present-day town of Perth. Once liberated, Rauti and two friends, who didn’t want to settle in the hottest, driest and snakes infected regions of British Australia, reached Rome where they sang too loudly some patriotic songs in the streets, songs of the RSI that had of course be banned by the new government. They were sent for a couple of weeks to the Maria Coeli jail, where they found books of Julius Evola: the three fresh liberated RSI-Army comrades were immediately fascinated by the philosopher’s ideas and decided on the spot to pay a visit to him, once they would leave the Maria Coeli clink. When they rang the bell at Evola’s door along the Corso Vittorio Emmanuele, the Austrian servant told them that her master was still being cured in a hospital in Bologna, after a wall crumbled down and broke his spine during the siege of the Imperial City of Vienna by Soviet troops, making a cripple of the gallant former officer, alpinist and diplomat. They immediately rushed to Bologna and when they arrived, Evola had been sent back to his home in Rome. Finally they decided to resume political and metapolitical activities, a decision that lead, at least for Rauti to the foundation of the movement “Ordine Nuovo” in the Fifties (which was banned and sued by the Italian State) and later the weekly paper “Linea”. We received copies of “Linea” in Brussels and I could, as a very young man, observe that the cultural pages of the paper were indeed of the highest possible quality.

Tarchi belonged obviously to the Rauti’s branch of the so-called “Italian Social Movement” and decided first to develop more genuinely the satirical press of the movement and the metapolitical activities within its frames. By publishing the really “politically incorrect” satirical magazine “La Voce della fogna” (“The Sewer’s Voice”), Tarchi attracted the more radical activists. It was the “Sewer’s Voice” simply because the French artist and activist Jack Marchal created the famous comic figures of the

 

“Black Rats”, dwelling in sewers, after having imitated the Belgian anti-fascist cartoonist Raymond Macherot who created bad guys characters in the shape of angry rats, also dwelling in underground drains. Marchal’s “Black Rats” became a craze among “radical right” groups in the late Seventies and Tarchi adopted them and introduced these characters in his “Voce della fogna”, so that almost every staunch right-wing activist identified with the sinister and giggling “Black Rats” (a Swiss equivalent of “La Voce della fogna” was also published in Geneva under the title “Le Rat Noir”). But by starting his highly learned magazine for book reviews and philosophical comments, “Diorama letterario”, he attracted also the best intellectuals. “Diorama letterario” as well as “Trasgressioni” (with deep-thought essays) are still published in Italy nowadays. If there is a person incarnating “New Right” in its best form in Europe, it is undoubtedly Tarchi, as he is a genuine political scientist of high level, duly acknowledged by academic caucuses, whose studies are penetrating and extensive. More, Tarchi’s printed productions are the only ones in the New Right realm to appear regularly, just like Venner’s “Nouvelle revue d’histoire”. The Italian New Right, under the supervision of Tarchi, is a well-oiled machine: if the trains arrived on time in Mussolini’s Fascist State, publications are similarly issued in time in Tarchi’s own “New Right” preserve. The exact contrary of Prig Benoist’s and Vlanparterre’s erratic publishing policy in Paris.

But there is something pitiful in Tarchi’s person and activities: he is totally under the silly influence of Benoist, although he is a far more brilliant thinker and analyst and also a better manager of his publishing house. He surely belongs to an Italian tradition in political sciences, early born in the 16th century with Machiavelli and perpetuated by other high figures like Mosca or Pareto. When Tarchi worked in tandem with another political scientist from his home City of Firenze, Dr. Alessandro Campi, and when they published together the seven or eight wonderful issues of “Futuro Presente” —a perfect clone journal of Benoist’s “Nouvelle école”, what concerns the lay-out at least, the rest of the essays printed were genuinely original— they really reached an apex in the history of the Italian New Right. I take the opportunity here to thank once again Dr. Tarchi for the excellent and accurate translations he made of my own texts and those of my friends, and that appeared till 1993 in “Diorama letterario” or “Trasgressioni”.
 
But now I feel compelled to add some “venenum in cauda” in order to remain fully objective in my narration of the New Right avatars. I’ve just said that I considered and still consider Tarchi as far more brilliant than Benoist, so that I cannot understand his slavish submission in front of his Parisian shabby master. When I decided to leave definitively the GRECE-movement end 1992, I received some weeks later a furious, stupid and childish letter from Dr. Campi, who didn’t really know me personally, accusing me of being something like a naughty heretic for having had a cheek to abandon Prig Benoist and for allegedly plotting against the Lord of the New Right flies (maybe those very bugs that are attracted by Toto-Lapin’s gomina argentina…).

 

Therefore, in the paranoid crazy logic of the sectarian Benoist’s fan club, I had to be punished: I won’t receive review copies of “Diorama letterario” and “Trasgressioni” anymore and my articles as well as all the ones that I translated from German or from Dutch wouldn’t be translated into Italian anymore; and I was also forbidden to translate Tarchi’s or Campi’s articles. Obeying like a good drilled mutt, the prick-and-boobs trash creams seller from Antwerp, about whom I’m going to talk next, did exactly the same but without writing a letter… The old Flemish dumbbellified wacko knew pretty well that I could have translated and published it with the best polished sarcastic comments. Campi and Tarchi were in fact shooting in their own feet: no one in the Benoist’s silly small club was ever able to translate their own texts and their Italian readers were from then on definitively bereft of articles from Germany or elsewhere and subsequently fed up like fattened up geese, whose fat liver is a real “délicatesse” (with onion jam!), with Benoist’s and Champetier’s abstruse productions, which are of course inedible. Of the considerable amount of reviews, articles and essays of Tarchi, only one short interview of him was taken over and printed in an issue of Benoist’s “Eléments” and that single poor miserable translation was made in a period of more than twenty years! That’s what happens when you recruit tinkers, umbrellas’ repairers, parrots’ breeders, Parisian slappers who wipe the stinking shit off their babies’ bottom at the back of the conference room while Benoist and Champetier are explaining their sophisticated strategies in front of the assembled members!

Tarchi is obviously a high learned man, whose deep knowledge in political sciences I respect, but I must objectively add that he behaves nevertheless in a quite bizarre way in everyday life. Always dressed up with a sad lightless blue blazer and a white shirt, never forgetting his eternal dark and dull tie, he looks really like a stuffed up unbearable egghead or as a lugubrious funeral director. These outfits of him are worn in all circumstances, even in the hottest Mediterranean summers. One day, I decided with some other participants to the 1990 summer course in Provence to have a walk in the mountains surrounding the mansion, where we stayed, in order to catch a glimpse at the superstructure of the fantastic aqueduct that you can find at the back of the mansion’s park and to climb high enough along small stony paths to be able to see the celebrated “Montagne Sainte Victoire” near Aix-en-Provence and the blue water of the Mediterranean. To be able to perform this rather easy sports activity, you need of course to wear some comfortable casuals and shoes and have a solid canvas belt to fix your water flask, as you cannot walk under the hot sun of August in Provence without taking some water with you.
 
180px-Gourde_de_l'armée_française.pngTarchi was upset and scandalized to see me in casuals (i. e. a mustard-yellow T-shirt and linen trousers!) and with a water flask! He made me some disapproving remarks in a 19th Century schoolmaster’s tone, adding that I looked too “military”, because of the flask (which was nevertheless very “civilian”-looking) and because of the canvas and sack-cloth boots of sand colour. From then on, after having shortly observed the sweat-drenched white shirt and the ugly rumpled tie of our dear Italian professor and after having stated once more his poor derelict appearance of a weak puny little thing, who was unable to understand our Zarathustra’s desire to climb higher and higher, I got the conviction that some screws were loose in his professor’s skull and that he had definitively a monotonously buzzing bee in his bonnet. Since January 1993, I have never heard of him anymore. Poor chap! Reality for him is quite narrow, just reduced to library walls, and beautiful nature and landscapes are banned from his dreary existence. His lungs are only breathing books dust (according to some visitors, his books are among his toys and his childhood’s Mickey Mouse/Topolino dolls in his parents’ house, where he still lived in the early Nineties…) and not, for instance, the wonderful lavender smell of the Provençal countryside.

In Spain many activities took place firstly under the supervision of journalist and author J. J. Esparza, who founded the journals “Punto y Coma” and “Hesperides”, together with a group of other comrades. These journals were all excellent and I let translate some of the most brilliant articles for my own publications. J. J. Esparza is a celebrity now in Spain as he is the author of two best-sellers: “La gran aventura del Reino de Asturias – Así empezó la Reconquista” (Esfera de los libros, Madrid, 2010) and “Moros y Cristianos – La gran aventura de la España medieval” (Esfera de los libros, Madrid, 2011). These two books are now the myth giving texts to remember all Spaniards the very core of their history, i. e. a strong will to resist and survive, even against a giant power as the Muslim world was one in the 8th and 9th centuries: history is born out of the spirit of people who never capitulate. Esparza didn’t follow the bad path some of the French New Rightists took in venerating everything that is Non European or Muslim while developing a kind of self-hate or “oikophobia”, as it is said now to stigmatize this attitude among European politicians to invent laws and rules to

 

crush patriots or to forbid or limit the celebration of European festivals like Christmas or Carnival because this could offend people having one day come from all possible alien continents. Simultaneously the same politicians spend huge amount of the taxpayers’ money to stimulate the celebration of the most strange and weird festivals of foreign folks or to sponsor new ridiculous festivities among which you can include the well-known “Gay Prides” that Serbians and Russians loath in the name of Orthodox decency. Among all those who were active in the frame of the old New Right of the Eighties, Esparza didn’t become an “oikophobic” traitor like many others. Esparza wrote also books to criticize the domination of television in the Western way of life (“Informe sobre la televisión – El invento del Maligno”, Criterio Libros, Madrid, 2001). He participated also to collective initiatives aiming at destroying the persistent myths of the Spanish and international Left, that were born during the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939 and are still conveyed by the present-day left, which they now call the “Zapaterismo”. In this respect, Esparza was the editor of “El libro negro de la izquierda española” (Chronica, Madrid, 2011; “The Black Book of the Spanish Left”). As a brilliant hispanist, you should take all those ideas and books into consideration if you want to develop an original Russian New Right. Esparza’s life is the true story of a metapolitical success.

During the nine months I worked in Paris as a secretary of “Nouvelle école”, I had quite often the pleasure to meet for dinner Jaime Nogueira Pinto, who was the editor of “Futuro Presente”. After my stay in Paris, I’ve never heard of him anymore, what I regret it sincerely. Later, a Portuguese group belonged to “Synergies Européennes”, participated actively to all summer courses and published a magazine “Sinergeias Europeias”, before founding a publishing house in Lisbon. Nowadays the former leader of the “Terre & Peuple” antenna in Portugal, Mr. Duarte Branquino, runs a popular satirical paper “O Diabo”, that you can find at every newsagent’s shop in Portugal, and  animates  several websites like “Pena e Espada”  while other animate another important site “Legio Victrix”, which posts many  translation from French, Spanish, Italian and English.

Two weeks before I left Brussels to go to Paris to work for “Nouvelle école” in March 1981, I had received a letter from Michael Walker who was about to launch his magazine “The Scorpion” the first issues had as title the “National  Democrat”). Walker was living in Berlin at that time and earned his life as an English teacher by Berlitz. Next to a Canadian friend, Paul Thomson, he was the very first man to pay me a visit at my new office in Paris. We immediately planned common activities and I participated several times, even once as the chairman, to his annual conferences in London. Michael with some friends of him had founded a club called IONA, which was quite active in the British capital in the Eighties. He and his friends came also to Brussels or elsewhere in Belgium to address meetings and I had often the opportunity to meet him in France too. After I left Benoist’s Parisian circus, I learned one hot summer day about a stay of Michael Walker in the Provençal mansion where the movement’s members regularly met. Flemish and French friends, who told me about everything that happened there during the summer courses, told me Michael had had a lot of fun during his stay over there and described me one of his funniest and most mischievous misadventures. I wanted to talk Michael more about this joyful summer course and to invite him to further activities that I planned for the next autumn. When I phoned, he was very surprised that I knew everything that had happened in Roquefavour during the summer course and he reacted in a quite bizarre way, as no one has ever heard about him in New Right clubs after that… There was absolutely no reason to disappear like that, as Michael did exactly what a German friend of Hatzenbichler did one or two years before. I deeply regret not to hear anything more from Michael. Life is sometimes quite cruel. And as far as I know, “The Scorpion” isn’t published anymore and Michael has no webpage.
 
Personally I wouldn’t say that I actually and mentally belong to the New Right, especially if you mean the French branch of it. I always felt myself as a stranger in their hectic and often pathological surrounding. It is mainly due to the fact that the Belgian and French political and ideological systems are thoroughly different and that you cannot import purely and simply a French system into Belgian reality, be they Flemish or Walloon. I had thought of course that as an atypical and a wilful European movement, at least in its declared intentions, the French New Right could have been a springboard to develop a genuine Paneuropean movement, i. e. a rallying movement for all those who wanted to rediscover and reactivate their deepest roots in all the countries whose populations were from European kinship. I was very often disappointed. I remember having invited in 1982 at my place in Wezembeek-Oppem people from all parts of Belgium as well as the main members from the Lille GRECE-group in order to try to cooperate pragmatically as closely as possible, for instance by organising common conferences, by inviting the same speakers in all of the main cities in Flanders, Wallonia and in the two “départements” of Nord and Pas-de-Calais in order to maximise the impact of the texts producing people we had among us. First, the stupid, stultified and uneducated (at that time… he got a diploma for a quite good end paper two decades later when he was almost 60…) leader of the Flemish group in Antwerp, a clumsy worshipper of Big Prig Benoist, refused to come as he stubbornly refused to be anything else but the true, only and main vicar of his venerated Chief in our provinces, as he claimed he alone had the right —because once upon a time he became a rich man by selling Swedish miracle powders to get wonderful erections or wonder creams to get big boobs— to invite people to common meetings. Second, another totally uneducated tosspot, who also foolishly venerated Big Prig and was officially the head of the Lille “GRECE-regional unit”, wanted to control all the cities where conferences and speeches would have been held in French under the name of “Fédération Nord” of which he would have been the almighty chairman. By saying “Fédération Nord” he upset a representative of the Liège-group, a Walloon university teacher who asked spontaneously an ironical question: “Why a “Fédération Nord”? From which entity are we a Northern part?”. He then said that we could say in Belgium to be a part of the Southern provinces of the former United Kingdom of the Netherlands (1815-1831) or the Far-Western-Middle part of the former Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation or, especially in Liège, the very middle part of the Carolingian core of the early medieval Austrasian entity or a remote province of the Austrian Hapsburg Empire of the 18th Century. But in no case a new “Northern” appendix of a French Republic centred on the City of Paris. This incident will in the aftermath astonish many neutral Flemish observers, accustomed to discover views in the Flemish movement and literature that were opposed to any unique French tutelage: it was a genuine Walloon from Liège —whose direct ancestor survived after having been run over by the Platev’s cossacks the crowd in Verviers acclaimed as the liberators who repelled Napoleon’s troops— who opposed a total French control on the New Right circles in the Low Countries and not the Flemish alleged leader, who slavishly venerated his Parisian master and later retired somewhere in a lost village in France maybe to have more opportunities to kiss his Master’s hands and feet in an act of total devotion. He should have become now an innkeeper in a kind of Gaulish “middle-of-nowhere-hamlet”. Many Flemish nationalist thinkers have complained during almost a century that the common Flemish people often have had in history a slavish mentality in front of French-speaking bosses. This was also true in the main club of the Flemish New Right in the Eighties of the 20th Century, a club exhibiting proudly the GRECE-logo on the front page of all its publications, signalling an actual and total dependence from the initial French club. But the Antwerpian fathead’s refusal to work closely with us prevented the systematic translation of the Dutch texts into French or into other languages: the Dutch and Flemish authors worked subsequently for a narrower audience instead of having the opportunity to participate to a wider discussion forum spread throughout Europe and the world. Narrow brains always produce narrow things.
 
We had decided after this meeting 1) not to become dependent of the Parisian entity, 2) to accept a common New Right initiative only if voices from France, Germany and Italy and from other minor countries were heard equally and benevolently as emanating from a college of pairs and not dominated by the Parisian team around Prig Chief, 3) to reject the appellation of “New Right” as it was totally inadequate in Belgium where the word “right” had completely disappeared from the political vocabulary and had also not very often been used. To judge critically political matters and to suggest new policies like a shadow cabinet would do, the French New Right offered almost no intellectual instruments as Belgian political life is structured in a completely other way. It would have been better to popularize the Italian matters and topics about partitocracy and political corruption as the Italian political stage is more like the Belgian, Austrian and German ones. But the fathead, who sold prick-and-boobs powders and creams in Antwerp, rejected the idea as, you know, he is a kind of Northern Viking genius (his powders and creams were Swedish, weren’t they?), even if he has only the poor narrow shoulders and the half beard without moustache of a derelict Mennonite clergyman (so that he couldn’t defend himself, just one day before his second wedding party, when he came out of a shop selling cheap china dishes…); he would have lost his imaginary rank and title and his alleged “Northerness” if he would have read, translated and dispatched mean Italian/Latin texts and books. The result of this cretinous behaviour is that the Flemish political identitarian movements and parties, that got lots of votes in the Nineties and till 2004, were never really prepared on intellectual level to face the dominating partitocracy and couldn’t crack it as Berlusconi (Forza Italia), Fini (Allianza Nazionale) and Bossi (Lega Nord) did it partly with the assent of a good deal of the population in the Nineties in Italy (the operation “Clean Hands” or “Mani pulite”). The new Italian triumvirate of the early Nineties could achieve the job and largely discredit patritocracy because they had behind themselves teams of political scientists perfectly drilled in thoroughly criticizing a corrupt plural partitocracy and able to suggest practical solutions (see Gianfranco Miglio’s book “Come cambiare” that I let summarize for “Vouloir” in January 1993). One more metapolitical struggle that has been lost by the historical “benoistian” New Right…
 
So, if you consider yourself to be members of a imaginary world movement called “New Right” or not, I don’t really care. The important thing for you is to start a revival of the Narodniki ideas in an actualized way and to remember that the phrase “conservative revolution” was first coined in Russia by Youri Samarin and F. Dmitriev in 1875 in a short essay “Revoliutsionny konservatism”. Before this essay was written, the phrases “conservative revolution” or “revolutionist conservatism” in Germany had only been quoted without having been properly defined. It’s up to you to table on this very Russian heritage. Besides, one should never forget this sentence once written by Dieter Stein: “The notion of ‘New Right’ can arbitrarily be filled by any possible contents, can be stretched or slackened in all possible directions like chewing gum, so that malevolent people can suspect (of “fascism” or of any other odd feelings) everything and/or everyone linked at random to it” (“Auflösung eines Begriffs”, in: “Junge Freiheit”, nr. 30/2003).

Do you consider Alain de Benoist as belonging to the New Right or to the New Left? Explain your answer…

Well, he belongs historically and obviously to the New Right as he is generally considered as one of the main founding fathers of the movement or as the sole representative of it after all the memorable quarrels that tarnished the four or five decades long history of the movement. But all know that Benoist is unhappy with the appellation of “New Right”, that was first given to his movement by the French weekly magazine “Le Nouvel Observateur” in 1979, as malevolent journalists often equate “New Right” and “Extreme Right” or even “Fascism”, in order to wipe out all the potential innovations that a reappraisal of repressed or forgotten ideas would soon arouse and subsequently suggest other solutions to present-day affairs. In the French context, the purpose was of course to prevent the emerging of any possible challenging intellectual club, that could possibly ruin the established metapolitcal power acquired by the “nouveaux philosophes” in all the French mainstream medias. These “nouveaux philosophes” around people like Bernard-Henri Lévy or André Glucksmann were certainly former leftists or even Maoist thinkers or Trotskite intellectuals and had therefore a genuine “left” label, even if they never cared really about the actual problems of the French working class; they developed during the four last decades a kind of new ideological blend made of
1)     anti-communism (by communism they meant the USSR as a state and a superpower —a “panzercommunist” main power on the chessboard as they used to say— and the French PCF as a possible anti-American force next to the nationalist Gaullists) and of
2)     American neo-conservatism, exactly as the current neo-cons in the United States were in former times mainly Trotskite intellectuals of the East Coast who turned conservative shortly before Reagan took over power in Washington D.C.
 
 
The dominant ideology in the West, exported by the many NGO’s everywhere in the world, is now this very mix of
1)     disguised Trotskite revolutionism (where the “permanent war” waged in the area of the “Great Middle East” and elsewehre replaces the hoped “permanent world revolution” coined in the Thirties by Trotsky), of
2)     neo-conservatism, of
3)     anti-communism, of
4)     neo-liberalism as the most useful and efficient tool to globalize the world economy and of
5)     left-overs of the typical religious puritanism of the protestant “dissidents” of 17th Century British zealots expelled from England and sent on ships like the Mayflower to America to found there a “New Jerusalem” according to their cock-and-bull Biblical views.
 
This puritanical protestantism remains the core ideology of the United States (what some observers call the “American theocracy”) and are responsible for all the eager fanaticism under “democratic” or “liberal” disguises that the US produced during recent history and that outbalanced the traditional way of practicing diplomacy. It also explains why the United States are the best allies of the worst Wahhabite islamists in parts of the world like Libya, Chechnya or Syria. There is a global plot of all the most obscure fundamentalists against all normal political conditions in the world, as they have been derived from Aristoteles’ philosophy in the Catholic, Byzantine-Orthodox and Islamic (Ottomanic and Persian) civilisational realms. Against Aristotelician political and pagan realism, Puritans of dissident Protestant provenience, Wahhabite Muslims, Jewish zealots and Trotskite chaotic revolutionnists are constantly rebelling, creating permanently instability on the world chessboard that should according to Kissinger, Brzezinski or the Clintons (wife and husband) be totally turned upside down.

In front of this mainstream new dominant ideology in France, the pseudo-rational purpose of de Benoist is to avoid being labeled a “Fascist” or being accused of supporting in a way or another Le Pen’s National Front so that he could be accepted as a full legitimated partner in fake pluralist debates in the press or on television, where he would play the role of a gentle “non-conformist” who could perhaps lightly spice the controversial discussions: to say it in a nutshell, Mr. “Nouvelle droite” would like to be considered in Paris intellectual clubs as a mere pinch of soft mustard.
 
amora-moutarde-douce-flacon-souple-260-g-.jpgHe simply longs for being on the stage again, the very stage from which he was expelled in December 1981 by the future winners in the metapolitical game. In this sense he is very naive as the kind of people now in power, and controlling tightly the media-ruled “soft power”, will never be ready to leave him even an extremely reduced room to express his views. It is for such a flimsy and unachievable ambition —being a mere pinch of soft mustard in the dreary meal boiled in the hotchpotched kitchen of the narrow-minded French media world— that he has betrayed many of his old friends like Guillaume Faye and that he refuses to discuss objectively the problems arousing from mass immigration and, subsequently, by a rampant islamization in big Cities (and as an odd-thought population demographical graft, a “chaotization” in large urban areas within the main states and civilizational realms considered since President Carter as mere “aliens audiences” areas, even if they are theoretically good “allies”).
 
As you cannot find the magazine “Eléments” anymore since at least twenty years in Belgian newsagents’ shops, I have to buy my copies in France when I travel in some parts of this neighbor country. In November 2010 I found a copy of the then last issue in Nancy, where my wife likes to have a delicious cup of coffee on the celebrated “Place Stanislas” and to do some shopping. I unfortunately lost this issue somewhere during the rest of my travel through France, Switzerland and Germany (I visited Heidegger’s favorite holiday place in Todtnauberg where this world famous Black Forest philosopher wrote a good deal of his books). In this issue, Stuffed Shirt Alain de Benoist tried to demonstrate that the “New Right” was in fact the real “New Left” and the true inheritor of Marx’ ideas as well as the devoted intellectual protector of the masses of African and Muslim immigrants against the centralization and assimilation efforts of the alleged “xenophobic” French State’s system, while the “New Left” was genuinely a neo-conservative islamophobe movement or had become gradually such a faction, due to the blend first with “Reaganism” and second with neo-conservatism under Bush Senior and Bush Junior and maybe also with the Zionist Likud ideology. His old silly chum Michel Marmin, in the same issue, asserted that the New Right, somehow contrary to Maurras’ views at the beginning of the 20th Century, was a movement inspired by Immanuel Kant (and why not by Mother Theresa from Calcutta or Father Christmas from a heavens’ portion above Lapland...?).
 
The exercise of proving that Left is Right and vice-versa could be very entertaining and philosophically challenging, provided it would have been written in a humorous style. It was not. Prig Benoist wrote all that very seriously, in the credulous hope he would have been finally taken as a genuine leftist by the Left and would have transformed his alleged false rightist young fellows in true new leftists more leftist than the usual leftists (Do you follow...?). Such an attempt is of course preposterous. Prig Benoist and Aloof Marmin tried to sell the wide public opinion the absurd story that they were in fact the only actual New Left and that nobody in the world could grasp it till yet... But would ultimately grasp it now, once all clever minds all over the world would have read the brittle pseudo-intellectualized demonstration printed in “Eléments”.
 
The problem is that they cannot be labeled “New Left” as they never had any historical connection with, for instance, the “Frankfurter Schule” or with any other of its subsidiaries like for instance the group around Ernst Bloch and Rudy Dutschke or, in France, with clubs around Sartre’s “Les Temps Modernes” or with the Christian personalist caucuses around Jacques Maritain or Emmanuel Mounier and their journal “Esprit” (even if Benoist participated in a debate with their late heir Jean-Marie Domenach in 1993; I think Domenach also wrote an article for Benoist’s third magazine, “Krisis” but cooperation ended quite soon with that single piece of writing). Benoist is almost 70 now: I think that it is too late for him now to change views and that it would also be completely silly to play the role of a kind of ageing pagan leftist Saint Paul, converting to the faith of his former foes on an imaginary way to an even illusory Damascus (or is the joy of putting one’s flabby bottom on the armchair of a television studio worth all denials...?).
 
I think that, due to these nonsensical exercises by which Prig Benoist still tries to find a position as a now allegedly mature man, he is finally nowhere anymore as his recurrent “aggiornamenti” produced only confusion and puzzlement first in his own flibbertigibbet brain and second in his readers’ minds (be they friendly towards his initiatives or not). Fact is that he is a pathological coward and that he invents constantly new intellectual constructions that he doesn’t understand properly himself as he is finally a poor awkward philosopher (Faye used to say: a “scissors-and-paste thinker”), simply because he is permanently scared witless to be once more insulted by adverse gannets as a “Rightist” or even worse as an “extreme Rightist”, a “Fascist” or a “Nazi”. As I once wrote: “Fear is a bad adviser”. Indeed you cannot achieve anything if you’re pathologically dominated by fear (Benoist couldn’t properly understand what Evola or Jünger —his alleged favorite authors whose numerous books he claims to have read and meditated in order to absorb literally all their thoughts— told us masterfully about fear and fearlessness, be it as an alpinist in the mountains around the Lyskamm, a soldier in the WW1 trenches or a reader of martial Buddhist texts).

 

After all, Benoist can call himself as he wants to be called; it would only be one more ludicrous sketch in the long vaudeville à la de Funès of which his personal existence and his personal feelings were parts. Only the poor Pierre-André Taguieff had once upon a time, when he was writing a book about the “nouvelle droite”, the weakness of believing the self-concocted fiction that Benoist is hawking about himself, fabricating the fable of a serious intellectual, reading heaps of books since his caring childhood, while he is often only a substandard “feuilletonist” and a plagiarist. When Taguieff heard one day the truth about Benoist’s failures in the Lycée where he studied as a teenager, failures that of course Chief Prig had stupidly concealed as we all had failures as teenagers or as students, he phoned me while he was beside himself and complained that he had been abused...
 
How did you get to know Alexander Dugin? What is your opinion about his works and his Eurasian ideology? Are you still in contact with him?

I met Dugin for the first time in 1990 in a Parisian bookshop. It was still a time when you almost never met Russian people in Western Europe, except in compact groups duly coached by guides and interpreters, as we did for instance in Lübeck, Germany, in Spring 1979. You also could recognize Soviet citizens at their clothes as there wasn’t yet a standardization of garments like in present-day globalized world. When I heard a Russian man and his wife talking with the usual charming Russian accent, I got immediately the impression that the person in front of the bookshop’s desk was Dugin himself. He had already written a couple of letters to me and, also of course due to Wolfgang Strauss’ articles, I knew already quite a lot about him. I went straight to him and asked: “You are Alexander Dugin, I presume...?”. He looked very afraid as if I had been a policeman in plain clothes. But I introduced myself and we had a long and friendly conversation in a pub. Later I interviewed him for “Vouloir”. He also held a speech at a GRECE annual meeting in 1991. About one year later, he invited Benoist and myself to Moscow where we met personalities like Guennadi Zyouganov and Alexander Prokhanov, former editor of “Lettres soviétiques”, who had published the very first complete issue of a Soviet magazine dedicated to Dostoievski. Beerens and I could buy copies of it in Brussels in 1982 (if I remember well...), together with a long study of Boris Rybakov about Russian paganism printed in the Journal of the Soviet Sciences Academy. During my short stay in Moscow a “Round Table” was held in the offices of the newspaper “Dyeïnn”, which was run by Prokhanov at that time. A press meeting had also been organized by the tandem Dugin/Prokhanov where I was interviewed by people from the journal “Nash Sovremennik”, who had published an article of mine about economics. Later in September 1992 Dugin invited Jean Thiriart, Michel Schneider, Carlo Terracciano and Marco Battarra who met the same people as we did, plus Nikolai Baburin.
 

img042.jpgI supposed that Benoist, who hated deeply all the people invited by Dugin and Prokhanov in September 1992, started to tell Dugin the worst possible things about myself and the others. In his paranoid eyes, the combined invitation was the evidence that a “Schneiderite-Steuckersite” plot was about to succeed with the sardonic blessing of Thiriart, whom Benoist loathed particularly, because the Belgian animator of the former “Young Europe” movement based in Brussels and his fellow-travelers like Bernard Garcet couldn’t stop mocking the “would-be intellectual and narcissistic Frenchie”, who has “frail, puny and unmuscular arms coming out of his shabby sleeves” and “who was permanently smoking like a chimney”. Thiriart unfortunately died some weeks after his visit to Moscow. But since then, probably due to Benoist’s gossip, I could meet Dugin only once, in 2005, when he came to Brussels and Antwerp to address two different meetings. Just after the Brussels’ meeting, held in the famous Coloma Castle, Dugin took a very light meal (as it was Lent time) and jumped on the train to Paris, as he had an appointment with Benoist. I’ve never heard of him anymore since then. Alain de Benoist surely pursued his usual dissolving job of chitchatting and splitting the movement, by setting the people of our own spiritual-intellectual community at loggerheads, as if he was duly paid to do so by some mysterious sponsors...

The only tracks of Dugin that I can follow now are his video clips on “You tube”, that the webmaster of “euro-synergies.hautetfort.com”, old friend Ducarme, sometimes takes over to inform our readers about Dugin’s new activities.

As you surely know, Dugin derives his Eurasian ideology from two main sources: Konstantin Leontiev and Lev Gumilev. As you cannot consider Leontiev and Gumilev as pro-European thinkers, our views are slightly different than those of Dugin: we surely admit the criticism Leontiev and Gumilev adressed to Western thoughts when they were still alive but as we consider ourselves as “Europeans” and not “Westerners”, we cannot accept the equation too often made between “Europe” and the “West”. Leontiev at his time knew that Western European liberalism was the main danger for Russia (and for other empires, as well as for the Western European people themselves) and wanted to isolate the Czarist Empire from the womb of subversion that Europe was in his eyes. Gumilev thought more or less according to the same line, adding biological views that a spiritualist like Leontiev wouldn’t have taken into consideration. Surely in the context of the 19th Century, they were right. But the Western subversive spirit came to Russia under the mask of Bolshevism and remained in power for about 70 years, while the usual liberal ideology spoilt continuously the rest of Europe. The two sides during the era of the Cold War underwent a form or another of subversion. Now we all face a major risk of Westernization under neo-liberal (globalist) disguise. So neither Western-Central Europe nor the countries of the former USSR can win the battle against subversion alone. Would Russia isolate itself according to the formerly well-thought guidelines coined by Leontiev or Gumilev (and reproduced in a much simpler formulation by Dugin), we Western Europeans wouldn’t play any role in the future world struggle against subversive ideologies or would have to fight in the limited area of the reduced Western part of the Eurasian peninsula. The risk is to recreate a kind of new isolated Soviet Union or a renewed “Tatar Block’ (according to the Eurasian ideology of Alexander Blok, who also spoke of a Scythian Russia and of a Bolshevik revolution being the best embodiment of subversion but at the head of which the opponents to subversion should place themselves as you cannot struggle againt subversion if you don’t first take control over it). Isolation isn’t a solution today neither for the Russians nor for ourselves. Otherwise the worst aspects of Nazi or Nato propaganda could be too easily reactivated.

I expressed our vision of Eurasian or Euro-Russian solidarity in the foreword I wrote for a book by our Croatian friend Jure Vujic about Atlanticist and Eurasian geopolitics. The “Synergist” movement is maybe also “Scythian” but not in the way Blok thought it was Scythian. For us the Indo-European horsemen’s tribes, that left Eastern Central Europe with the first domesticated horses to spread far across the Ukrainian and Central Asian steppes, are the first historical subjects in the Eurasian areas between the present-day Western Ukrainian borders and today’s Chinese Sinkiang or Turkestan. Eurasia was first dominated by Indo-European people and not by Altaic or Mongolic khans. It is true that from about 220 B.C. the Proto-Mongolic tribes united in the so-called Xiongnu Federation, that started the movement of the Hunnic people towards the Western areas of Eurasia and would in the run expel or annihilate politically the Indo-European horsemen’s peoples and tribes. The Russian “reconquista” from Ivan IV to the 19th Century is the revenge of the Indo-European people, the cosacks’ sotnia replacing the Scyths, Proto-Iranians, Sarmatians and Sakhians. In France, a Ukrainian historian of protohistorical times, Iaroslav Lebedynsky, has published several very accurate historical and archeological studies about the Indo-European horsemen’s people that allow us to develop a specific Eurasian vision, that is slightly different than the one coined by Dugin. The young French historian Pascal Lassalle is, among former members of the GRECE-groups, the best present-day specialist of Lebedynsky’s works.

jeudi, 06 février 2014

Jean Mabire: éveilleur de peuple

Internet : la pieuvre américaine ?

Internet : la pieuvre américaine ?

par Guillaume Faye

Ex: http://www.gfaye.org

7617_s.jpegLe fondateur et directeur de Skyrock, Pierre Bellanger (photo), par ailleurs créateur du premier réseau social français (skyrock.com), expert en Internet et analyste des médias, signe un nouveau livre, La souveraineté numérique (Stock, 253 p.), qui est probablement l’analyse la plus originale et fouillée de la Toile – et de son futur – parue à ce jour. Au rebours de l’optimisme béat souvent de mise en ces matières, la thèse de l’auteur fait froid dans le dos. Il faut citer ici intégralement la quatrième de couverture : « la mondialisation a dévasté nos classes populaires. L’Internet va dévorer nos classes moyennes. La grande dépression que nous connaissons depuis cinq ans n’est qu’un modeste épisode en comparaison du cataclysme qui s’annonce. La France et l’Europe n’ont aucune maîtrise sur cette révolution. L’Internet et ses services sont contrôlés par les Américains. L’Internet siphonne nos emplois, nos données, nos vies privées, notre propriété intellectuelle, notre prospérité, notre fiscalité, notre souveraineté.

Nous allons donc subir ce bouleversement qui mettra un terme à notre modèle social et économique. Y a-t-il pour nous une alternative ? Oui. »

 

Comparant le réseau Internet à l’espace océanique trans-frontières, l’auteur fait un parallèle entre la thalassocratie anglo-saxonne et l’hégémonie américaine sur la Toile planétaire. Sans oublier de préciser que la Chine, puissance ascendante et sans scrupules, est comme un pirate en embuscade. Les Européens et les Français restent bras ballants, renonçant à utiliser leur  énorme potentiel économique, à le transformer en puissance, voire même à le protéger. Face à ce que l’auteur appelle le « complexe militaro-numérique américain », l’Europe reste un nain, qui prend à peine conscience de ce qui lui arrive. Comme si nous ne savions pas que nous sommes au XXIe siècle et que le ”nomos de la Terre”, pour employer le concept schmittien, a changé de fond en comble. (1)

 

La question de la souveraineté numérique, de la maîtrise d’Internet, fait évidemment beaucoup de moins de buzz que des sujets nettement moins importants (je n’ai pas dit sans importance puisque j’en traite par ailleurs avec vigueur) tels que le mariage homo ou la théorie du genre.

Bellanger use d’un néologisme pertinent : les « résogiciels » c’est-à-dire les conglomérats numériques en réseaux qui tendent à maîtriser les processus et les flux économiques, d’amont en aval et inversement, pour l‘instant tous américains : Google, Apple, Amazon, etc. Espionnage, captation de toutes les données personnelles et collectives, maîtrise des leviers politico-économiques, contrôle des industries : la panoplie de puissance des géants américains de l’Internet, qui fonctionnent la main dans le main avec les super agences de renseignement et le Pentagone, ne cesse de croître, comme une vigne vierge ou une pieuvre.      

La thèse de Bellanger est qu’il faut reconquérir une indépendance et une souveraineté abolies par l’Internet tel qu’il est aujourd’hui.  Car pour lui, il ne s’agit pas de diaboliser Internet mais de se le réapproprier, d’y réintroduire des principes démocratiques mis à mal par une dérive orwelienne des maîtres américains oligopolistiques du web ; loin de fulminer avec rogne impuissante contre l’ ”impérialisme US”, l’auteur appelle à jouer le jeu de la vie, de la politique et de l’histoire, selon une logique au fond schumpeterienne : l’innovation compétitive et la reprise en mains de son destin en cessant d’accuser les autres par fulminations morales, coups d’épée dans l’océan.  

En inventant le concept de « souveraineté numérique », Bellanger fait avancer la science politique en ce qu’il est le premier à formuler cette extension du domaine de la souveraineté – et partant celui du champ politique – au XXIe siècle. Il présente, dans la seconde partie de son essai, un véritable plan de bataille pour reconquérir (ou plutôt conquérir) en France et en Europe, cette souveraineté. En créant nos propres résogiciels, pour nous réapproprier Internet et ses innombrables synapses.

Car, pour les résogiciels et le complexe militaro-numérique US, l’Europe, démontre Bellanger, est le maillon faible, la proie principale, bien plus que l’Asie. En raison de son énorme PIB global  et de son absence conjointe de volonté et de synergie.

 

L’auteur explique, contrairement aux clichés, que la puissance US (et bientôt chinoise par un étrange paradoxe de l’histoire) dans la sphère numérique – et dans toutes les autres, d’ailleurs – repose sur une étroite collaboration, patriotique au fond, entre l’État, le système militaro-industriel et le mercantilisme privé. C’est la logique de l’économie organique, telle qu’elle avait été décrite par François Perroux, qui n’a absolument rien de ”libéral” au sens d’Adam Smith. (2)

 Refuser de reconquérir et de maîtriser la sphère numérique aujourd’hui, c’est comme si jadis on avait renoncé à contrôler l’imprimerie,  à posséder une flotte hauturière ou à construire des chemins de fer, laissant ce soin à d’autres. 

Sur le plan strictement économique, outre le champ politico-stratégique, Bellanger ouvre une autre piste, une autre interrogation : et si l’économie numérique (Internet au premier chef) était fondamentalement destructrice d’emplois, notamment dans les pays qui ne la maitrisent pas ?

 

Bellanger, qui ne néglige pas la science-fiction réaliste, nous brosse un monde dominé par le soft-totalitarisme des réseaux numériques. Ses prédictions sont parfaitement impensables et horriblement possibles. Il est comme le médecin qui vous dit : ”vous voyez  ce petit bouton sur votre fesse gauche ? C’est une tumeur. Si vous n’y prenez garde, elle vous emportera ”.

Contrairement à la tradition de la critique pure (qui est hémiplégique et hélas très française), Bellanger propose des solutions argumentées pour reconquérir l’indépendance numérique. Ces dernières sont, à proprement parler, gaullistes. C’est-à-dire l’alliance synergique de la puissance publique et de l’économie privée. Dans ses propositions, il essaie aussi de surmonter les handicaps des institutions européennes, par des solutions innovantes. Il prône, pour la France et l’Europe la liberté individuelle et l’indépendance collective : n’était-ce pas déjà la leçon d’Aristote, il y a de cela des milliers de révolutions circumsolaires  ?  

 

NOTES

(1) La révolution d’Internet, extrêmement véloce, qui marque le début du XXIe siècle et se caractérise par la constitution d’un ”nouvel espace” (en sus de la terre, de l’océan et de l’atmosphère/ espace proche) peut se comparer à ce qui s’est produit à la charnière XVe/ XVIe siècles par l’irruption de la dimension océanique post-méditerranéenne. 

(2)  L’idée selon laquelle l’économie américaine serait ”libérale” et anti étatiste est d’une prodigieuse fausseté, comme je l’ai montré dans plusieurs de mes essais. Les USA refusent l’État Providence social mais ont totalement adopté le modèle de l’État-pilote du colbertisme, évidemment avec d’énormes variantes. Mais cela mériterait un autre article.

 

NOTE LIMINAIRE

 Pour le philosophe Martin Heidegger, l’innovation technique (à l’image de l’évolution naturelle), intégralement liée à sa diffusion par l’économie, est un mécanisme aveugle et tâtonnant, dont il est impossible de prévoir les conséquences. Il parle de « processus sans sujet ». Et de fait, depuis des siècles, les progrès de la technoscience produisent des effets imprévus sur les plans sociologiques, économiques, anthropologiques, politiques ; des effets qui n‘avaient jamais été planifiés mais qu’on découvre ”quand il est trop tard”. Et auxquels il faut s’adapter a posteriori. Il en fut ainsi de l’agriculture de jachère, comme de l’imprimerie, des métiers à tisser,  de la poudre, du chemin de fer, de l’automobile, du télégraphe et du téléphone, de la radio et de la télévision, de l’aviation, des antibiotiques, du nucléaire, etc. Il en est aujourd’hui de même avec l’informatique, le numérique et Internet. Pour paraphraser Heidegger, l’homme invente un procédé supranaturel (”technique”, du grec technè, qui signifie à la fois ”art” et ”fabrication”) qui produit une réalité augmentée, laquelle agit en retour sur la société humaine de manière imprévue. L’artéfact technique « arraisonne » l’écosystème naturel et humain. C’est l’allégorie juive du Golem : la poupée qui échappe à son créateur et devient autonome. Néanmoins, un pilotage a posteriori de l’innovation est possible, mais il faut faire très vite, être hyper réactif : c’est ainsi que procèdent les ”résogiciels” dont parle Bellanger, pour maîtriser un système économique devenu extrêmement fluide.

mercredi, 05 février 2014

State & Society

guillaume faye,nouvelledroite,état,société,théorie politique,sciences politiques,politologieState & Society

By Guillaume Faye

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

Translated by Greg Johnson

A nation, a people can have deficient state institutions while continuing to produce a great creative civilization. The example of France — among others — is quite eloquent. In many periods of its history, this country has experienced an unstable political state organization which cannot master endemic crises. However, society continued to function and create in all domains despite the ongoing crisis of the state. Because the society was the fertile population of vital people, who were never discouraged. 

Take the case of the period from 1815-1848 (the Restoration and July Monarchy ) and that of the Third Republic (1875-1940). State institutions (the “constitutions” in Tocqueville’s words) were particularly fragile, poorly supported, and challenged by permanent crises. But, at the same time, in the arts, sciences, industry, the quality of education, economic and cultural influence, etc. the country was creative and effective. How to explain this paradox?

First of all, the sustainability and genius of a nation depends on the relationship between a masculine and organizing principle, the State, and a feminine and vitalistic principle, which gives birth to forms, Society. Stateless, Society becomes sterile, since a people without a state sink into folklore and lethargy. And without a structured and homogeneous Society, a State (even if very well-organized) becomes powerless and ineffectual: this is happening today, to which I’ll come back later.

Second, in the past, during countless crises of the State and its institutions, France still had a State, however imperfect. Crises of the “regime” were superficial and superstructural, but it was still a state and political infrastructure that framed and aided the creativity of society.[1]

Third, roughly likening the State to the brain and Society to the organic body, as in an individual, if the former can suffer a headache while the latter remains perfectly healthy, the Nation as a whole may continue to function. However, if Society disintegrates in its organic foundation, the best state can neither govern nor save the Nation. State crises are much less severe than Societal crises. Similarly, an individual who has an excellent brain but whose body collapses will end up paralyzed and powerless.

The “historical capital” of a nation, that is to say, its creative accumulated production (cultural and material) depends on the interaction between the State and Society, but also the awareness that it is a ethno-historical unity.[2]

Now let’s deal with some shocking facts. Currently, we can not say that the French State apparatus functions poorly compared to everything we have experienced in the past. The problem is that French Society, the organic and productive force of the nation, is slowly disintegrating. The responsibility is partly — but only partly — the State’s, which has allowed it and failed to correct it. But the sickness of Society precedes that of the State, since the latter originates as a biological production of the organic body of Society, just as man is born of woman. From a holistic and interactive perspective, Society produces the state which, in turn, regulates, directs, and protects Society.

Today, the entire French Nation (like many others in Europe) suffers from extremely serious pathologies that put its survival in the medium term in question, and which have nothing to do with “institutions.” To enumerate: the aging of the indigenous population and its demographic decline, a massive immigration invasion from below (caused by or accepted with fatalism or hostility but in no way imposed by force from the outside), domestication (the psycho-behavioral source of egotism), refusal of effort (lethargy), criminal sentimentality, emasculation, passive hedonism, indifference to one’s ancestors and lineage (the germen), etc.

Some offer explanations based on external political or ideological causes: the long-term influence of Christian morality, the Freemasons, the “Jewish spirit” of Americanism, consumerism , etc. The internal explanation, which has the support of sociobiology, is that the peoples, biological groups, age just like individuals and lose their vital energy and their collective will. In the long term, they become less capable of withstanding their environment, ideological or otherwise. The external reasons are sources of irresponsibility, the internal ones of fatalism.

Nobody will ever decide. But one should not be deterministic. One must always act as if fate is surmountable and as if quiet desperation is stupid.

There are four principles (or conditions) that determine the health and creativity of a Society:

  1. Ethnic homogeneity in the broadest sense, with strong anthropological kinship.
  2. Values, a culture, a shared historical consciousness without inner communitarianism — that is to say, the unity of Society and the State .
  3. Internal solidarity beyond economic class differences, a sense of belonging more carnal than intellectual.
  4. Its own genius, that is to say, intrinsic qualities, innate creativity in a large proportion of members. This is not the prerogative of all peoples.

The political role of the state is thus to organize this ensemble and to plan for the future, that is to say, for history. But the French republican ideology (taken over by Soviet communism) imagines, from Robespierre to the hallucinating Terra nova leftists who inspire the Socialist Party, that the State, equipped with its idealism (“make France!”) can harmoniously organize a society composed of anyone from anywhere. Utopianism torpedoes all common sense. Aristotle explained that the body of a city (that is to say Society) cannot be based on chance. The State needs a well-chosen Society as the sculptor needs quality marble. Society and the State must assemble and resemble one another, and weaker of the two is the state. Why?[3]

Conclusion: If the disintegration, the ethnic chaos of French Society continues, the State, which is its projection, will eventually collapse in turn. France will disappear. But the sun will continue to shine.

Notes:

1. Montaigne believed that if the head of the State apparatus disappeared, the country would continue to operate normally. In other words, Society has its own autonomy.

2. The very original concept of “historical capital” has been formulated by the Breton nationalist movement Emsav and theorist Yann-Ber Tillenon. It describes the interaction of Society and state to build, over time, the heritage, both material and spiritual, of a Nation.

3. Because Society finances the State. Even the physical force of the state (law enforcement coercion) depends on the financial consent of Society. So the balance of power is complex. The collapse of a nation always comes from breaking the pact Society/State. And Society always generates a new State, while the State cannot create a Society.

Source: http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/archive/2014/01/14/temp-2b6c3bf3a2b4d6cd4bd1be800b8d2a2f-5271290.html [2]

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/01/state-and-society/

jeudi, 30 janvier 2014

"United by Hatred"

Alexander_Dugin-580x580.jpg

"United by Hatred"

Interview with Alexander Dugin

by Manuel Ochsenreiter

Ex: http://manuelochsenreiter.com

Prof. Dugin, the Western mainstream media and established politicians describe the recent situation in Ukraine as a conflict between pro-European, democratic and liberal oppositional alliance on the one side and an authoritarian regime with a dictator as president on the other side. Do you agree?

Dugin: I know those stories and I consider this type of analysis totally wrong. We cannot divide the world today in the Cold War style. There is no “democratic world” which stands against an “antidemocratic world”, as many Western media report.

Your country, Russia, is one of the cores of this so called “antidemocratic world” when we believe our mainstream media. And Russia with president Vladimir Putin tries to intervene in Ukrainian domestic politics, we read...

Dugin: That´s completely wrong. Russia is a liberal democracy. Take a look at the Russian constitution: We have a democratic electoral system, a functioning parliament, a free market system. The constitution is based on Western pattern. Our president Vladimir Putin rules the country in a democratic way. We are a not a monarchy, we are not a dictatorship, we are not a soviet communist regime.

Our politicians in Germany call Putin a “dictator”!

Dugin: (laughs) On what basis?

Because of his LGBT-laws, his support for Syria, the law suits against Michail Chodorchowski and “Pussy Riot”...

Dugin: So they call him “dictator” because they don´t like the Russian mentality. Every point you mentioned is completely democratically legitimate. There is not just one single “authoritarian” element. So we shouldn´t mix that: Even if you don´t like Russia´s politics you can´t deny that Russia is a liberal democracy. President Vladimir Putin accepts the democratic rules of our system and respects them. He never violated one single law. So Russia is part of the liberal democratic camp and the Cold War pattern doesn´t work to explain the Ukrainian crisis.

Violent protesters in Kiev

So how can we describe this violent and bloody conflict?

Dugin: We need a very clear geopolitical and civilizational analysis. And we have to accept historical facts, even if they are in these days not en vogue!

What do you mean?

Dugin: Todays Ukraine is a state which never existed in history. It is a newly created entity. This entity has at least two completely different parts. These two parts have a different identity and culture. There is Western Ukraine which is united in its Eastern European identity. The vast majority of the people living in Western Ukraine consider themselves as Eastern Europeans. And this identity is based on the complete rejection of any pan-Slavic idea together with Russia. Russians are regarded as existential enemies. We can say it like that: They hate Russians, Russian culture and of course Russian politics. This makes an important part of their identity.

You are not upset about this as a Russian?

Dugin: (laughs) Not at all! It is a part of identity. It doesn´t necessarily mean they want to go on war against us, but they don´t like us. We should respect this. Look, the Americans are hated by much more people and they accept it also. So when the Western Ukrainians hate us, it is neither bad nor good – it is a fact. Let´s simply accept this. Not everybody has to love us!

But the Eastern Ukrainians like you Russians more!

Dugin: Not so fast! The majority of people living in the Eastern part of Ukraine share a common identity with Russian people – historical, civilizational, and geopolitical. Eastern Ukraine is an absolute Russian and Eurasian country. So there are two Ukraines. We see this very clear at the elections. The population is split in any important political question. And especially when it comes to the relations with Russia, we witness how dramatic this problem becomes: One part is absolute anti-Russian, the other Part absolute pro-Russian. Two different societies, two different countries and two different national, historical identities live in one entity.

So the question is which society dominates the other?

Dugin: That´s an important part of Ukrainian politics. We have the two parts and we have the capital Kiev. But in Kiev we have both identities. It is neither the capital of Western Ukraine nor Eastern Ukraine. The capital of the Western part is Lviv, the capital of the Eastern part is Kharkiv. Kiev is the capital of an artificial entity. These are all important facts to understand this conflict.

Western Media as well as Ukrainian “nationalists” would strongly disagree with the term “artificial” for the Ukrainian state.

Dugin: The facts are clear. The creation of the state of Ukraine within the borders of today wasn´t the result of a historical development. It was a bureaucratic and administrative decision by the Soviet Union. The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was one of the 15 constituent republics of the Soviet Union from its inception in 1922 to its end in 1991. Throughout this 72-year history, the republic's borders changed many times, with a significant part of what is now Western Ukraine being annexed by the Red Army in 1939 and the addition of formerly Russian Crimea in 1954.

Some politicians and analysts say that the easiest solution would be the partition of Ukraine to an Eastern and a Western state.

Dugin: It is not as easy as it might sound because we would get problems with national minorities. In the Western part of Ukraine many people who consider themselves as Russians live today. In the Eastern part lives a part of the population that considers itself as Western Ukrainian. You see: A simple partition of the state wouldn´t really solve the problem but even create a new one. We can imagine the Crimean separation, because that part of Ukraine is purely Russian populated territory.

Why does it seem that the European Union is so much interested in “importing” all those problems to its sphere?

Dugin: It is not in the interest of any European alliance, it is in the interest of USA. It is a political campaign which is led against Russia. The invitation of Brussels to Ukraine to join the West brought immediately the conflict with Moscow and the inner conflict of Ukraine. This is not surprising at all of anybody who knows about the Ukrainian society and history.

Some German politicians said that they were surprised by the civil war scenes in Kiev...

Dugin: This says more about the standards of political and historical education of your politicians than about the crisis in Ukraine...

But the Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych refused the invitation of the West.

Dugin: Of course he did. He was elected by the pro-Russian East and not by the West. Yanukovych can´t act against the interest and the will of his personal electoral base. If he would accept the Western-EU-invitation he would be immediately a traitor in the eyes of his voters. Yanukovych´s supporters want integration with Russia. To say it clearly: Yanukovych simply did what was very logical for him to do. No surprise, no miracle. Simply logical politics.

 

ucraina4-1024x689.jpg

 

There is now a very pluralistic and political colorful oppositional alliance against Yanukovych: This alliance includes typical liberals, anarchists, communists, gay right groups and also nationalist and even neo-Nazi groups and hooligans. What keeps these different groups and ideologies together?

Dugin: They are united by their pure hatred against Russia. Yanukovych is in their eyes the proxy of Russia, the friend of Putin, the man of the East. They hate everything what has to do with Russia. This hate keeps them together; this is a block of hatred. To say it clearly: Hate is their political ideology. They don´t love the EU or Brussels.

What are the main groups? Who is dominating the oppositional actions?

Dugin: These are clearly the most violent neo-Nazi groups on the so called Euro-Maidan. They push for violence and provoke a civil war situation in Kiev.

Western Mainstream media claims that the role of those extremist groups is dramatized by the pro-Russian media to defame the whole oppositional alliance.

Dugin: Of course they do. How do they want to justify that the EU and the European governments support extremist, racist, neo-Nazis outside the EU-borders while they do inside the EU melodramatic and expensive actions even against the most moderate right wing groups?

But how can for example the gay right groups and the left wing liberal groups fight alongside the neo-Nazis who are well known to be not really very gay friendly?

Dugin: First of all, all these groups hate Russia and the Russian president. This hate makes them comrades. And the left wing liberal groups are not less extremist than the neo-Nazi groups. We tend to think that they are liberal, but this is horribly wrong. We find especially in Eastern Europe and Russia very often that the Homosexual-Lobby and the ultranationalist and neo-Nazi groups are allies. Also the Homosexual lobby has very extremist ideas about how to deform, re-educate and influence the society. We shouldn´t forget this. The gay and lesbian lobby is not less dangerous for any society than neo-Nazis.

We know such an alliance also from Moscow. The liberal blogger and candidate for the mayoral position in Moscow Alexej Nawalny was supported by such an alliance of gay rights organizations and neo-Nazi groups.

Dugin: Exactly. And this Nawalny-coalition was also supported by the West. The point is, it is not at all about the ideological content of those groups. This is not interesting for the West.

What do you mean?

Dugin: What would happen if a neo-Nazi organization supported Putin in Russia or Yanukovych in Ukraine?

The EU would start a political campaign; all huge western mainstream media would cover this and scandalize that.

Dugin: Exactly that´s the case. So it is only about on which side such a group stands. If the group is against Putin, against Yanukovych, against Russia, the ideology of that group is not a problem. If that group supports Putin, Russia or Yanukovych, the ideology immediately becomes a huge problem. It is all about the geopolitical side the group takes. It is nothing but geopolitics. It is a very good lesson what is going on in Ukraine. The lesson tells us: Geopolitics is dominating those conflicts and nothing else. We witness this also with other conflicts for example in Syria, Libya, Egypt, in Caucasian region, Iraq, Iran...

Any group taking side in favor of the West is a “good” group with no respect if it is extremist?

Dugin: Yes and any group taking side against the West – even if this group is secular and moderate – will be called “extremist” by the Western propaganda. This approach exactly dominates the geopolitical battlefields today. You can be the most radical and brutal Salafi fighter, you can hate Jews and eat human organs in front of a camera, as long as you fight for the Western interest against the Syrian government you are a respected and supported ally of the West. When you defend a multi-religious, secular and moderate society, all ideals of the West by the way, but you take position against the Western interest like the Syrian government, you are the enemy. Nobody is interested in what you believe in, it is only about the geopolitical side you chose if you are right or wrong in the eyes of the Western hegemon.

Prof. Dugin, especially Ukrainian opposition groups calling themselves “nationalists” would strongly disagree with you. They claim: “We are against Russia and against the EU, we take a third position!” The same thing ironically also the salafi fighter in Syria would say: “We hate Americans as much as the Syrian government!” Is there something like a possible third position in this geopolitical war of today?

Dugin: The idea to take a third and independent position between the two dominating blocks is very common. I had some interesting interviews and talks with a leading figure of the Chechen separatist guerilla. He confessed to me that he really believed in the possibility of an independent and free Islamic Chechnya. But later he understood that there is no “third position”, no possibility of that. He understood that he fights against Russia on the side of the West. He was a geopolitical instrument of the West, a NATO proxy on the Caucasian battlefield. The same ugly truth hits the Ukrainian “nationalist” and the Arab salafi fighter: They are Western proxies. It is hard to accept for them because nobody likes the idea to be the useful idiot of Washington.

To say it clearly: The “third position” is absolutely impossible?

Dugin: No way for that today. There is land power and sea power in geopolitics. Land power is represented today by Russia, sea power by Washington. During World War II Germany tried to impose a third position. This attempt was based precisely on those political errors we talk about right now. Germany went on war against the sea power represented by the British Empire, and against the land power represented by Russia. Berlin fought against the main global forces and lost that war. The end was the complete destruction of Germany. So when even the strong and powerful Germany of that time wasn´t strong enough to impose the third position how the much smaller and weaker groups want to do this today? It is impossible, it is a ridiculous illusion.

Anybody who claims today to fight for an independent “third position” is in reality a proxy of the West?

Dugin: In most of the cases, yes.

Former German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle shows solidarity with the "Euro-Maidan"

Moscow seems to be very passive. Russia doesn´t support any proxies for example in the EU countries. Why?

Dugin: Russia doesn´t have an imperialist agenda. Moscow respects sovereignty and wouldn´t interfere in the domestic politics of any other country. And it is an honest and good politics. We witness this even in Ukraine. We see much more EU-politicians and even US-politicians and diplomats travelling to Kiev to support the opposition than we see Russian politicians supporting Yanukovych in Ukraine. We shouldn´t forget that Russia doesn´t have any hegemonial interests in Europe, but the Americans have. Frankly speaking, the European Union is not a genuine European entity – it is an imperialist transatlantic project. It doesn´t serve the interests of the Europeans but the interests of the Washington administration. The “European Union” is in reality anti-European. And the “Euro-Maidan” is in reality “anti-Euro-Maidan”. The violent neo-Nazis in Ukraine are neither “nationalist” nor “patriotic” nor “European” - they are purely American proxies. The same for the homosexual rights groups and organizations like FEMEN or left wing liberal protest groups.

mardi, 28 janvier 2014

T. Sunic: Tragic Identity

Tomislav Sunic

Tragic Identity

dimanche, 26 janvier 2014

Théorie du genre et lavage de cerveau

identite-sexuelle.jpg

Théorie du genre et lavage de cerveau

Mme Vallaud-Belkacem, chargée du ”Droit des femmes” au gouvernement, c’est-à-dire de la propagande féministe (1),    entend faire enseigner la ”théorie du genre” à l’école et ce, dès le plus jeune âge. Selon un rapport qui lui a été remis par le lobby des dingos – le même qui a pondu le rapport à Matignon sur la fin de l’”intégration” et de l’identité française–, il s’agit  de « lutter contre les stéréotypes filles-garçons, un enjeu d’égalité et de mixité dès l’enfance ». Les stéréotypes, vous l’avez compris, c’est de penser que les filles sont différentes des garçons, et réciproquement.

M. Olivier Vial, porte-parole de l’Observatoire de la théorie du genre, déclarait, confirmant le caractère soft-totalitaire de l’initiative : « c’est juste un début de propagande douce : on va essayer par une série de micro incitations insidieuses de guider le comportement des gens et de remplacer peu à peu un modèle de société par un autre ». L’entreprise a les mêmes racines idéologiques que le communisme totalitaire : construire l’homme nouveau utopique contre la nature. Il importe d’éradiquer en force les différences hommes/femmes dans l’esprit des enfants. Masculiniser les filles, féminiser les garçons, construire l’être androgyne.

Tout un arsenal est prévu pour lessiver le cerveau des jeunes enfants, afin, selon le rapport précité, de « permettre aux jeunes d’envisager un parcours atypique au regard de leur sexe ».  Comprendre : faire entrer dans la tête des jeunes garçons qu’il est parfaitement normal et positif  de faire guili-guili avec un autre garçon. Car derrière cette initiative gouvernementale, il y a en embuscade le lobby homo masculin qui veut faire des adeptes et recruter sa chair fraiche.

Le rapport jargonnant entend, contre les « stéréotypes de genre », procéder à un « contre-stéréotypage ». Sous-entendu : les filles et les garçons sont exactement les mêmes, la physiologie sexuelle (la nature) ne compte pas, seul importe le choix sexuel. Toujours cet idéalisme consubstantiel à l’égalitarisme de gauche. On passe rapidement dans la case ”crétinisme” quand on entre dans le contenu des programmes destinés aux enfants. 

Par exemple, pour démontrer que les différences d’habillement entre les sexes n’ont aucune signification, un manuel montre le portrait officiel de Louis XIV  en soulignant qu’il portait des talons hauts. Donc, n’est-ce pas ? il se costumait en femme. Le Roi-Soleil était un travesti, c’est bien connu.  On stigmatise le fait « d’acheter un poupon à sa petite fille et non un camion » et cet horrible préjugé de ne pas offrir de poupées aux petits garçons, et tout à l’avenant. De même le rapport préconise de ne plus parler d’ « école maternelle » mais d’ « école pré-élémentaire » car le terme ”maternel” fait référence aux soins apportés aux petits enfants par les mères, alors que, bien entendu, les papas peuvent parfaitement  prodiguer leurs soins aux nourrissons. (2) Les allaiter, aussi ? 

On remarquera de ce fait, dans cette théorie du genre, qui vise la déconstruction de la famille, la haine de la maternité, supposée oppressive pour les femmes. Il faut corréler cela aux positions pro-abortives extrémistes et à l’homophilie défendues par l’idéologie au pouvoir. L’objectif implicite (nihiliste et suicidaire) est la destruction à terme du modèle du couple et de la famille de souche en France, en installant la confusion des rôles sexuels, le brouillage de la féminité/maternité, et l’apologie de la stérilité.  Cette idéologie dissimule par ailleurs un profond esprit égotique et irresponsable.

Mais on ne peut que constater avec effroi que le moyen utilisé par le pouvoir socialiste est le formatage des mentalités dès la petite enfance. Dans l’irrespect absolu de l’innocence de l’enfant. C’est bien là la logique soft-totalitaire de M. Vincent Peillon qui considère l’Éducation nationale non pas comme une institution d’instruction (telle que la voulait Jules Ferry et la vraie République) mais de propagande et de rabotage de la liberté de penser.  Peu importe pour ces bourgeois trotskystes et idéologues fanatiques que le peuple devienne inculte pourvu qu’il pense bien.

Tout cela étant dit, ce qui est réjouissant et rassurant, c’est que cette politique ”éducative” inspirée de la théorie du genre (gender theory, d’origine gauchiste américaine des années 60 et 70, vieille lune) échouera lamentablement, comme échoue toute utopie de gauche.

 L’essence de la gauche, c’est la révolte contre la nature humaine en particulier et le refus de l’ordre naturel en général. Les sexes n’existent pas et la nature est un ”stéréotype”, n’est-ce pas ? Les enfants, qu’on veut abrutir par l’enseignement de la théorie du genre, ne marcheront pas dans la combine. Leur nature est plus forte (et plus intelligente) que les radotages des fonctionnaires payés pour les décérébrer en leur racontant des inepties. 

Notes: 

(1) L’idéologie féministe officielle (cf. à ce propos mon essai Sexe et Dévoiement, Éditions du Lore) a celle paradoxale particularité qu’elle est anti-féminine. Elle ne vise pas à défendre les femmes mais à les masculiniser, à les dépouiller de leur féminité. D’autre part, l’insistance sur la ”parité” est un miroir aux alouettes qui cache un silence tonitruant sur l’oppression envers les femmes pratiqué par l’islam, intouchable.

(2) Le ”politiquement correct” s’attache d’abord au langage. Vouloir truquer les mots en espérant changer les choses. C’est un procédé qui s’inspire des méthodes des régimes totalitaires du XXe siècle.

samedi, 25 janvier 2014

De afgodendeemstering van de Nouvelle Droite

menth.jpg

De afgodendeemstering van de Nouvelle Droite      

door Koenraad Elst

Ex: http://www.koenraadelst.info

Twee artikels uit de pen van Dr. Elst. Wij delen waarschijnlijk niet zijn standpunten in hun geheel maar wij vinden sommige van zijn kritische en bijtende bemerkingen wel heel, heel leuk en... treffend. De artikels stammen uit het jaar 2005. En bijna negen jaar later hebben ze ons nog eens goed tot een Breughelse lachen gebracht. Dat is wel het voornaamste!  

 

Op 30 januari 2005 heb ik als uitgenodigd spreker deelgenomen aan een debat over sluierdracht en lekenstaat tijdens de jaarlijkse Rencontres de la Pensée Rebelle te Parijs.Dit evenement vervangt het vroegere jaarlijkse colloquium van de Groupement de Recherche et d’Etude pour la Civilisation Européenne (GRECE), ooit de centrale denkrichting in een bredere stroming die vaag bekend staat als de Nouvelle Droite (ND).Het onderwerp was dit keer: “Quelle religion pour l’Europe?Spiritualité, identité, laïcité ».In dit artikel enkele indrukken over de evolutie in ND-kringen.

 

Islam en Europa

 

Ik had me dus niet laten afschrikken door waarschuwingen dat deze club rond Alain de Benoist een reputatie-aantastende aura heeft; tenslotte hebben tal van respectabele professoren en journalisten evengoed deelgenomen aan de congressen van het Vlaamse GRECE-filiaal, de Delta-Stichting.Sommige bijgelovige schaapjes schijnen te denken dat andere en met name “foute” opvattingen besmettelijk zijn, en in mijn puberteit heb ik me inderdaad door linkse kennissen van het rechte pad laten afbrengen, maar inmiddels ben ik best in staat om zonder wankelen mijn eigen standpunten te vertegenwoordigen desnoods temidden van een hele meute andersdenkenden.En andersdenkend waren mijn gesprekspartners zeker wel.

 

Ri7poison-qui-rend-fou.jpgHet debat over “le foulard islamique et la laïcité » met communicatiewetenschapper prof. Jacques Marlaud en advocaat mr. Jean-Charles Personne was best gezellig.Die Fransen kunnen natuurlijk eindeloos redekavelen over de details van hun systeem van laïcité, scheiding van Kerk en Staat, best leerrijk voor mijzelf doch voor het publiek allicht weinig nieuws.Het belang van de laïcité in het onderwijs is voor identitair georiënteerde mensen vooral dat ze communautaire identiteiten in grote mate uitwist.Islamisten en andere religieuze puristen vinden dat een erge zaak, mij lijkt dat wel een sympathieke kant te hebben.Tenslotte is identiteit een betrekkelijk oppervlakkige laag van het menselijk wezen, en religieus geloof is nog weer iets anders, iets dat naar eigen opzet alle vooraf gegeven identiteiten onderdompelt in een als algemeengeldig begrepen waarheid.Religies met waarheidsaanspraak die zichzelf ernstig nemen, is het niet om hun groepsidentiteit te doen, die is slechts een tijdelijk neveneffect van hun coëxistentie met andere religies.

 

Zelf verdedigde ik er mijn aloude standpunt dat we de uit zichzelf reeds aanzwellende deïslamisering van de moslims moeten aanmoedigen, en dat we de praktische afspraken met de moslims zoals die over de sluierdracht op scholen en in openbare functies daarbij niet als princiepskwesties moeten behandelen, maar als bijzaken waarin de discretionaire bevoegdheid van de overheid vrij mag spelen in functie van haar politieke doelstellingen, met name assimilatie.Het is het eindresultaat dat telt, en soms is daartoe een confronterend beleid nodig, terwijl in andere omstandigheden juist kleine toegevingen een snellere methode vormen om het islamvuur te blussen.De andere sprekers en meer nog vele toehoorders waren het grondig oneens met mijn negatieve beoordeling van de islam.In dit anti-Amerikaanse milieu geldt McWorld als een grotere vijand dan Djihaad.

 

Net tevoren had historicus Guy Rachet (zie verder) een lezing gegeven over “Les racines de notre Europe”, een titel die bij mij normaal een angstvisioen zou oproepen van de zoveelste nieuwrechtse fantasterij over Indo-Europese oerhorden die ons werelddeel deden ontwaken en loskomen uit “het dromende Azië”.Maar omdat het van Rachet was, werd het juist zeer goed, met ondermeer een ontleding van alle recente smoesjes over de onmisbare bijdragen van de islamwereld aan de Europese beschaving.Om maar één zeer eenvoudig voorbeeldje aan te halen: zij die zo graag met ruime overdrijving verklaren dat de moslims ons de Griekse filosofie doorgegeven hebben, vergeten natuurlijk dat die Griekse filosofie zelf onmiskenbaar een vrucht is van de Europese geest, een geschenk van Europa aan de Arabieren vooraleer die het (zonder er zelf veel mee te doen) aan Europa konden teruggeven.Ook hier weer wat proteststemmen uit de zaal, namelijk van islamdwepers die per se een erkenning wilden van de bijdrage van de soefi-mystiek.

 

Doch over de islam gaan we het verder niet hebben hier.Die koe is stilaan uitgemolken, het is een vrij eenvoudig onderwerp waarover alles gezegd is dat echt van praktisch belang is om te weten.Ik kan niet garanderen dat de Nouvelle Droite, zoals men de ideologische stroming rond Alain de Benoist ooit genoemd heeft, zoveel ingewikkelder en interessanter is, maar er is zeker wel meer nieuws over te vertellen. 

 

Wegdeemstering

 

Bij de boekenkraampjes in de hal, veel minder talrijk dan in de jaren ’90 toen er nog serieuze uitgeverijen als L’Age d’Homme deelnamen, viel eigenlijk weinig te beleven.Weinig origineels of baanbrekends, alleszins.De betere nieuwheidense tijdschriften Irmin en Antaïos, die nogal wat echte historische onderzoeksresultaten belichtten, zijn blijkbaar verdwenen.Ook minder talrijk maar toch nog aanwezig waren de heikneuters die ijverig hun blaadjes en pamfletjes uitstalden voor diverse regionalismen, met bv. stoere vikingbeeldentaal voor de Normandische identiteit.Of die herdrukken sleten van boekwerken over versleten esoterische toestanden als de katharen, de tempeliers en de Graal.Nee, this ain’t where it’s at.Ook de mensen achter de stalletjes, grijze muizen of overjaarse hippies maar bijna allemaal met een uitgebluste blik in de ogen, illustreerden mede de algehele sfeer van aftakeling.

 

De lezing over “Comment je suis devenu païen” die de Normandische regionalist Jean Mabire zou geven, maar die wegens ziekte van de spreker niet door kon gaan, werd vervangen door een inleiding tot het heidendom door een veel jongere Normandiër, een zekere Eric Norden, en zijn verhaal bestond uit alle pro-heidense en anti-christelijke argumenten die in dit milieu al tientallen jaren de ronde doen.Als de zaal nou vol jonge mensen gezeten had die het allemaal nog moesten leren (of vol pastoors die in het kader van een interreligieuze dialoog voor het eerst een zelfvoorstelling van een heidense kapel kwamen bijwonen), dan zou dit zijn nut gehad hebben, maar zelfs dat was niet het geval.Nu je het zegt, ook de titel van het colloquium, “welke religie voor Europa”, was voor GRECE-kringen zo uitgemolken als maar zijn kon.En de jongste nummers van de GRECE-media Nouvelle Ecole en Eléments bevatten nog steeds de onvermijdelijke artikels over Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger en Ernst Jünger, alsof de lezers uit dit milieu niet stilaan alles al weten over die dwaallichten.

 

60039829.jpgHet deed mij denken aan een lezing over astrologie die ik recent had bijgewoond.Begin jaren ’80 interesseerde dat onderwerp mij wel, ondermeer omdat het er toen gonsde van activiteit en verwachting.Er waren vele originele boekwerken met nieuwe theorieën, nieuwe auteurs die elders hun sporen verdiend hadden en nieuwe inzichten bijbrachten, en mede daardoor het gevoel dat de astrologie spoedig wetenschappelijke status zou verwerven.De eerste ernstige statistische onderzoeken over het vermeende astrologische effect vielen echter over de hele lijn tegen, en spoedig verdween dat élan, samen met de meest talentrijke mensen en ook met ondergetekende.Onlangs kreeg ik een uitnodiging voor een lezing van een Amsterdamse astroloog, en met mijn nostalgische voorliefde voor de occasionele blast from the past, ging ik nog eens luisteren.Het was verschrikkelijk.Die man had absoluut niets te vertellen dat dit soort publiek niet al honderd keer gehoord had, het waren al de bekende gemeenplaatsen uit het New Age-denken.Maar nog erger was dat het publiek dat helemaal niet erg leek te vinden.Een bepaald mensentype lijkt er tevreden mee te zijn, alle sinds lang ingeroeste eigen opvattingen nog maar eens bevestigd te horen, gewoon herkauwen zonder het brein met nieuwe ideeën te bezwaren, zonder uitgedaagd te worden.Verschrikkelijk dus, maar datzelfde verschijnsel zie ik ook in nieuwrechtse kringen.

 

En dat voor een stroming die haar jaarlijkse hoogmis de dag van “la pensée rebelle” noemt.De hier gedebiteerde standpunten behoren inderdaad niet tot de verplichte consensus van la pensée unique, maar veel fris of uitdagends is er ook al lang niet meer aan.Wat een puberachtige term trouwens, “het rebelse denken”.Voor mij is denken gewoon denken, en het enige criterium om zijn waarde te beoordelen, is of het dichter bij de waarheid brengt; en bescheidener uitgedrukt, of het misvattingen uitwiedt.Soms zal dat denken dan uitmonden in de dominante zienswijze, terwijl het bij andere gelegenheden non-conform of “rebels” zal blijken te zijn.Maar om nu de “rebelsheid” te gaan cultiveren lijkt me werkelijk onvolwassen.Het is een symptoom van het fundamentele probleem van de hele nieuwrechtse stroming in de breedste zin: een gebrek aan spirituele en intellectuele ruggengraat, en vandaar een springerige rusteloosheid.

 

Een ander probleem in dit milieu is de persoonlijke omstandigheid dat nogal wat ND-tenoren hun studies nooit afgemaakt hebben en hiervoor nadien zijn gaan overcompenseren met een vermoeiend academisme.Ze gaan dan lang vergeten auteurs in groot detail bestuderen en daar hun eigen expertschap in vestigen, zonder nog goed te weten welk doel die kennis eigenlijk moest dienen.Verdwaald tussen de bomen, geen zicht op het bos.Je ziet dat heel goed in de ND-benadering van het onvolprezen heidendom, waar ziekelijk veel werk gemaakt wordt van het uitspitten van de mythologie.Voor antieke heidenen stond die mythologie heus niet zo centraal in hun levensbeschouwing.

 

Ook het in deze kringen vrij populaire “traditionalisme” van de islambekeerling René Guénon, het verabsoluteren van het respect voor wat onze voorzaten ons overgeleverd hebben, is psychologisch meestal zo’n kwestie van overcompensatie door mensen met te weinig interne stabiliteit, te weinig levensbeschouwelijke ruggengraat.Niet elke traditie is het bewaren waard, en er zit ook een contradictie in die antirevolutionaire piëteit voor de traditie als zodanig: de meeste tradities die zich zo noemen zijn begonnen met een revolutie, een geestelijke bliksemflits.Zo was hun vereerde Mohammed juist de vernietiger van de bestaande Arabische tradities.

 

Rechts?

 

Bij de boekenkraampjes waren geen hakenkruisen te zien, wel hier en daar een Keltisch kruisje.Geen Mein Kampf, wel een tafeltje van de vriendenkring van Robert Brasillach.Kortom, niet de harde kern der foutheid, wel de softfoute aura daarrond.Het is weliswaar niet eerlijk, maar met wie men verkeert, wordt men geëerd, en dat was al zo lang vóór linkse amateurflikken fichenbakken begonnen aan te leggen om de “banden” tussen A en B te “onthullen”.Wie zich dus al dat gebrandmerkte gezelschap laat welgevallen, moet ook weer niet te hard klagen over een “extreemrechts” etiket.Desondanks blijft er het feit dat er vanuit het oogpunt van de politieke correctheid weinig aan te merken is op de jongere jaargangen van de eigen GRECE-publicaties.

 

trichter.gifWie bang is van een rechtse zwavelgeur hoeft zeker niet uit de buurt van Alain de Benoist te blijven.Veel rechts is er aan die man niet meer aan.Bij de jongste Franse presidentsverkiezingen in 2002 riep hij in het linksliberale weekblad Marianne op om voor eender wie te stemmen maar niet voor één van de twee rechtse kandidaten, Jacques Chirac en Jean-Marie Le Pen.Voor het overige wordt de zeldzaam vruchtbare meesterdenker van de GRECE in de Franse media vakkundig doodgezwegen, maar als het voor een links stemadvies is, dan krijgt hij wel eventjes een tribune.(Als ware het om zijn irrelevantie in de verf te zetten, beslisten de kiezers tot een eindronde tussen juist de twee door hem gewraakte kandidaten.)Alle prominente medestanders uit de jaren ’80 die nog steeds de anti-immigratie-agenda genegen zijn, of die een of ander antidemocratisch gedachtegoed cultiveren, hebben zich al lang van Alain de Benoist afgekeerd.Ex-GRECE-ideologen als Pierre Vial, Guillaume Faye en Robert Steuckers drijven de spot met hem, als iemand die de hete hangijzers van vandaag ontwijkt en zich beperkt tot een veilig intellectualisme en een veredelde meeloperij met het heersende multiculturalisme.

 

En inderdaad, het “communautarisme” van De Benoist is in praktische termen nauwelijks nog te onderscheiden van het multiculdiscours.Het is minder plat, minder oneerlijk en minder autoritair, maar in zijn praktische conclusies komt het op hetzelfde neer: net als de Bretoenen of de Basken hebben de Berbers en de Arabieren het volste recht om hier als gemeenschap hun aparte identiteit te beleven en in stand te houden.Een terugkeerbeleid is hier helemaal niet aan de orde, en doemscenario’s over een komende burgeroorlog tussen autochtonen en immigranten al evenmin.Mij ligt dat wel, althans als B-plan (zoals gezegd geloof ik wél in assimilatie), maar ik kan me voorstellen dat zulke aanvaarding van de multi-etnische status-quo voor rechtse militanten te slappe kost is; en dat mensen vol dadendrang sowieso iets pittigers wensen dan al die steriele Parijse woordenkramerij.

 

gay_pride2012_vf.jpg Een illustratie van waar in het ideologische spectrum de GRECE zich tegenwoordig situeert, is zijn standpunt over het hete hangijzer van de homorechten.Vanuit de keuze voor het droit à la différence aanvaardt men, volledig in de postmoderne tijdsgeest, het recht van de homo’s om “hun ding te doen” en hun eigen groepsidentiteit te beleven.Een recente gay parade was aanleiding tot de mijmering dat dit soort explicitering van een aparte groepsidentiteit eigenlijk kadert in een terugkeer naar de premoderne toestand, waarin de maatschappij veel minder uniformiteit oplegde dan tijdens de laatste twee eeuwen.Etnische en sociale groepen afficheerden veel meer hun eigen zeden, ondermeer via een eigen kledingcode.Ook op het gebied van de seksualiteit was er veel minder uniformiteit.Zo was het monogame huwelijk annex de verwachting van maagdelijkheid bij de bruid typisch voor de middenklasse, terwijl de bovenklasse openlijk polygaam was en de lagere klassen veel minder aan de formaliteit van een huwelijksverbintenis gehecht waren.Spijts dit typisch nieuwrechtse differentialisme, heeft het GRECE-kwartaalblad Eléments ook een pleidooi gepubliceerd voor het “vasthouden aan de notie van normaliteit”: het is niet omdat je homoseksualiteit tolereert dat je ze ook als gelijkwaardig met heteroseksualiteit moet beschouwen.Wat evidente implicaties heeft voor het debat over holebi-adoptie.

 

 Hoewel sommige nieuwrechtse tenoren in hun jonge jaren zeker “neo-nazi” genoemd mochten worden, demarkeert de GRECE zich nu scherp tegenover de centrale elementen van de nazi-ideologie.Dat geldt zeker voor het autoritarisme, dat de ongedisciplineerde Franse woordenkramers volledig vreemd is.Het geldt ook voor het antisemitisme.

 

De fabeltjeskrant De Morgen presteerde het ooit om Alain de Benoist ervan te beschuldigen, het bestaan van nazi-concentratiekampen te ontkennen.Als er nu één zogenaamd rechts (in Frankrijk overigens in gelijke mate links) thema is waarvan hij zich verre houdt, dan wel het holocaustrevisionisme.Een onmiskenbare autoriteit hierover, de revisionist prof. Robert Faurisson, maakte in april 2004 op zijn webstek een einde aan alle twijfels hierover.Bij de voorstelling van een nieuwe Spaanse ND-webstek (www.nuevaderecha.ya.st) merkt hij op: “On y trouve tout un tas d’articles fort instructifs, mais on remarque aussi une chose, en parcourant ces centaines de titres: la Nouvelle Droite a ignoré entièrement le révisionnisme, et ne dit jamais un mot qui pourrait fâcher les juifs.On fait le totor, on paganise, on heideggerise, on démondialise, on celtise, on synergise, on suroccidentalise mais quant il s’agit des juifs et des crimes du sionisme, c’est le point aveugle grand comme la place de la Concorde, il n’y a plus personne.Ils ont tous la tête dans le sable. »

 

Ook in de immigratiekritische strekking in Noordwest-Europa is deze resolute weigering om zich met revisionisme, antisemitisme of zelfs maar met Israëlkritiek in te laten, eerder gemeengoed, vaak tot en met een militant pro-Israëlisch standpunt, zie Pim Fortuyn, Geert Wilders of Filip Dewinter.De Vlaamse GRECE-dépendance TeKoS (het kwartaalblad Teksten, Kommentaren en Studies) telde ooit de revisionist Frans De Hoon onder haar redactieleden, maar zijn ideeën over de Holocaust moest hij elders kwijt, die werden in het blad strikt geweerd.In Frankrijk bestaat dat resolute taboe in rechtse kringen echter helemaal niet, zie bv. het weekblad Rivarol dat gelijkelijk de islamitische immigratie en de joodse lobby aanvalt.In dat opzicht vertegenwoordigt de GRECE er nog steeds een heel aparte optie binnen het zogenaamd rechtse spectrum.

 

Typisch rechts bij de GRECE is misschien juist de constante inspanning om klassieke links/rechts-schema’s te doorprikken.In geschiedkundige artikels gaat er steeds maximale aandacht naar extreemrechtse weerstanders en linkse collaborateurs in WO2, of naar de populariteit van racisme, kolonialisme en eugenetica bij bekende progressisten in de eeuw vóór 1945.Rechts en is niet rechts!Maar de links/rechts-tweedeling is door links opgelegd, en wie haar durft betwijfelen wordt omwille van dat feit zelf juist als rechts geklasseerd.Dat neemt niet weg dat die talrijke zogenaamd rechtse standpunten van linkse coryfeeën gewoon een historisch feit zijn.

 

 Goed, als GRECE niet rechts meer is, wat is het dan wel?Eerlijk gezegd, ik denk dat het allereerst meer dan ooit Alain de Benoist is (en ook hij ziet er maar bleekjes uit).Al zijn intellectuele luitenants van de jongste jaren zijn weggetrokken, ondermeer de twee “traditionalisten” met wie ik in 1993 nog een debat gevoerd heb over hun geliefde islam, Charles Champetier en Arnaud Guyot-Jeannin.Er blijven wel enkele ijverige vrijwilligers over die de boel organisatorisch draaiende houden.Met de Franse slag, natuurlijk, maar toch.De GRECE-webstek (www.grece-fr.net) mag er wezen, en een vereniging is niet dood zolang ze een levende webstek in stand kan houden.

 

De wegdeemstering van de GRECE is vermoedelijk ook gewoon symptomatisch voor de neergang van Frankrijk in zijn geheel als centrum van intellectueel leven.Eén van de opvallende prestaties van Alain de Benoist is echter dat hij veel buitenlandse ideeën en onderzoeksresultaten in zijn verhalen verwerkt, niet als passieve of al te gretige overname (zoals bij VS-enthousiastelingen genre André Glucksmann) maar als aanzet voor een originele Franse inbreng.Ik zou zeggen dat hij eindelijk zijn roeping gevonden heeft: een knap vulgariseerder van en commentator bij de belangrijke hedendaagse debatten, ja; maar de ideoloog van een invloedrijke politieke stroming, dat zeker niet.

  

(Nucleus, juni 2005)

  

NouvelleDroite (2)

  

Vermeldenswaardige individuen

 

 

In de wandelgangen heb ik wel enkele interessante figuren ontmoet, geen ideologen maar geleerden, geen luitenants van welke beweging dan ook maar gewoon denkers voor eigen rekening.Eén van hen was de zelfstandige onderzoeker Guy Rachet, die een kroostrijk gezin grootgebracht heeft van de inkomsten uit zijn veelschrijverij als romancier en historicus.Sommige van zijn tientallen werken over geschiedkundige en archeologische onderwerpen waren overhaast geschreven en navenant onnauwkeurig, maar uit zijn recentere productie bevelen we graag een studie aan over de historiciteit van Oudtestamentische figuren van Noach tot Mozes (La Bible, mythe et réalités, Rocher 2003).Hij legt daarin met de correcte dosis aan kritische zin de gebreken bloot van twee invloedrijke scholen van Bijbelhistorici, wier beweringen regelmatig de massamedia halen en die nog steeds de inhoud van de schoolboeken bepalen.

 

Enerzijds zijn er nog steeds zij die de tekst letterlijk nemen en bovendien in een ideologisch keurslijf stoppen, bv. door vanuit een overijverig monotheïsme te beweren dat de godsnaam Elohim, letterlijk “goden”, een honorifiek meervoud is, terwijl het gewoon een overblijfsel is uit de polytheïstische fase van de Israëlitische religie.Fundamentalisten van protestantse of joodse obediëntie hebben het nog steeds moeilijk met de historiciteit van de Bijbelse theologie, die gegroeid is en niet vanaf het begin kant en klaar meegegeven.Anderzijds is er de minimalistische school die alle Bijbelfiguren en Bijbelepisodes daterend van vóór de Torah-redactie (tijdens en na de Babylonische ballingschap, 6de eeuw v.C.) als onhistorisch wegwuift.Dit is niet alleen een simplistische overdaad aan skeptisch rationalisme of een hoogmoedige dwaasheid van wetenschappelijke beginnelingen die denken dat al wat door hen niet waargenomen is, niet kan bestaan hebben.Het dient tegenwoordig ook als trucje van trendgevoelige gelovigen om tijdsgeestonwelgevallige daden van Bijbelfiguren weg te toveren, bv. de genocides waarmee Mozes en Jozua het Beloofde Land voor zijn nieuwe bewoners vacant maakten.

 

Rachet toont dus aan wat we historisch wél kunnen weten.Natuurlijk was Mozes een historische figuur, en dwaallicht Sigmund Freud had voor één keer gelijk toen hij Mozes als minstens cultureel een Egyptenaar beschouwde (wat nog uit zijn naam blijkt: “zoon”, als in Toetmozes, “zoon van Thoth”, of in Ra-mses, “zoon van Ra”), die onder invloed stond van de monotheïstische revolutie van farao Echnaton, hoewel hij zijn devotie van de zonnegod Aton verlegde naar de Midjanitisch-bedoeïense stormgod Jahweh.Vele details over de naamgeving en de zeden van de stam van Abraham kloppen met wat we nu over de Mesopotamiërs van het vroege 2de millennium v.C. weten, hoewel zij niet bekend waren aan de Torah-redacteuren meer dan duizend jaar later.Of je christen bent of niet, dat zijn onderzoeksresultaten die je niet zomaar kan negeren.

 

 En dan was er Christian Bouchet, sinds zijn jeugd een “integraal traditionalist” in de geest van dwaallicht Julius Evola, maar inmiddels toch wat bezadigder geworden.Mensen die niet van meningsverschillen en kritiek houden, zouden in mijn geval een hekel aan die man moeten hebben, want hij heeft nogal wat kritiek op mijzelf in zijn nawoord bij de heruitgave door prof. Claudio Mutti, zelfverklaard “nazi-maoïst” en islambekeerling, van het boekje van Maximiani Portas alias Savitri Devi Mukherji: Le national-socialisme et la tradition indienne (Avatar, Dublin/Paris 2004, inz. p.99-102).Zelf had ik die pseudo-Indiase Française, die Hitler als incarnatie van de zonnegod vereerde, danig gehekeld en als getikt beoordeeld in mijn boek The Saffron Swastika (Voice of India, Delhi 2001, inz. p.534-660), wat dus niet overal in goede aarde gevallen is.Bouchet doet begrijpelijkerwijze erg laatdunkend over mijn wortels in “het studentengauchisme en de New Age”, maar ook over mijn rijpere sympathieën voor het hindoe-activisme.Hij beschouwt dit terecht als een anti-traditionalistische vorm van hindoeïsme, die tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog bovendien aan de “foute” (= Geallieerde) zijde streed.Zijn feitenkennis over de hindoe-beweging blijkt daarmee accurater dan die van vele zogenaamde deskundigen, maar zijn beoordeling van die feiten is wel tegengesteld aan de mijne.

 

Nou goed, niets zo heilzaam als je critici eens in levende lijve ontmoeten en er gewoon menselijk contact mee opbouwen.Voor de linkse amateurflikken die dit ter stoffering van hun fichenbak zitten mee te lezen, moge ten overvloede opgemerkt dat een gesprek tussen A en B helemaal niet bewijst dat A en B op dezelfde golflengte zitten.Linksen die in hun grote gelijk verkrampt zijn, verkeren alleen met gelijkgezinden en mijden andersdenkenden als de pest, dus zij kunnen zich dit niet goed voorstellen, maar ik praat wel degelijk met mensen die er een serieus verschillende mening op nahouden.

 

Bouchet getuigde over zijn bezoek als jonge kerel aan Savitri Devi (1905-82) in haar comfortabel appartement in Delhi tijdens de winter 1980-81.Daar woonde ze samen met tientallen katten in een vreselijke kattenpisgeur.Als ze de stad inging, moest ze zich volsprenkelen met eau de Cologne om die geur te onderdrukken.Terwijl er op straat kinderen liepen te bedelen, kocht zij elke dag vlees om dit uit te delen aan de straatkatten.“Liever een mooie kat dan een lelijke mens”, zo was haar anti-antropocentrisch motto.Bouchet bevestigde mijn diagnose dat er aan dat groenrechtse mens een steekje los zat.

 

Hij signeerde me ook zijn boek Les nouveaux païens (Dualpha 2005), een reeks diepgaande vraaggesprekken met nieuwheidense denkers uit het Franse taalgebied.Linkse en apolitieke maar vooral toch rechtse.Aan de nieuwheidense stromingen en clubjes ontzegt hij nadrukkelijk het predikaat “heidens”, want een herschapen religie kan nooit de geest van de ongeschapen oerreligie zelfs maar benaderen.In nieuwheidense kringen, en dan bij uitstek in de nieuwrechtse, is het gebruikelijk om de neus op te halen voor “New Age”.Bouchet was het echter met mij eens dat nieuwheidendom juist zelf een New-Age-verschijnsel is: eclectisch, eigengereid, creatief, ongeworteld.In een hal vol neotempeliers, retrokatharen en would-be-druïden was het verfrissend om hem te horen verklaren: “Moi je ne suis pas du tout néo-païen.”

 

 Wie in feite op ongeveer hetzelfde punt was aangeland in zijn levensbeschouwelijke evolutie, was Michael Walker, een in Keulen gevestigde Britse ideoloog en uitgever van het rechtse tijdschrift The Scorpion.Hij bezorgde me een bespreking die hij gewijd had aan mijn boek over de moord op Mahatma Gandhi (Gandhi and Godse, Voice of India, Delhi 2001), een tegendraads betoog dat blijkbaar de weg naar bepaalde non-conformistische geesten gevonden heeft.Altijd fijn om vast te stellen dat je geschriften ook effectief lezers vinden, maar een schrijver moet ermee kunnen leven dat zijn woorden bij sommige lezers een heel andere betekenis krijgen.Walker bleek vooral onthouden te hebben dat belegerde groepen, destijds in de beginnende staat Pakistan de hindoes maar voor hem vandaag vooral in het Westen “de blanken”, zich niet moeten laten verleiden tot suïcidale gandhiaanse wijsheden van het type “de andere wang aanbieden”.Hij gelooft meer in strijdbaarheid.Persoonlijk meen ik dat de tegenstelling tussen strijd en pacifisme er juist één is die we moeten transcenderen in een vernuftige strategie van “winnen zonder strijd”, of van wat de NAVO ooit “vrede door kracht” noemde.Maar blijkbaar verkiezen de meeste mensen één van de twee uitersten, en de temperamentvollen dan vooral de optie strijd.

 

Wat ook onze meningsverschillen mogen zijn, op menselijk niveau bleek Michael Walker best een jofele kerel.Ach, ik besef natuurlijk wel dat zulke openheid voor de louter menselijke dimensie als heel erg fout moet gelden: voor links is immers ook het persoonlijke politiek.Daarom dat CD&V, de partij van “de mens centraal stellen”, nog steeds als rechts geldt.Een rechtse hond (“chaque anti-communiste est un chien” – Sartre) die zich als mens voordoet, probeert gewoon om respectabiliteit te verwerven met het oog op infiltratie van de machtsstructuren, en moet dus afgeblokt worden door een totaal ostracisme.Hoe dan ook, over zijn eigen vaag beleden heidense oriëntatie getuigde Walker: “Mijn vrouw is erg katholiek, en het nieuwheidendom heeft niet veel te bieden aan levensrituelen, dus laat ik haar de kinderen maar in de katholieke traditie grootbrengen.”Religieus réveil of gewoon opnieuw een generatie in aantocht die zich aan de kluisters van het geloof zal ontworstelen?

 

En zo waren er daar nog enkele rechtse intellectuelen te gast bij GRECE.De indo-europeanist prof. Jean Haudry bv., met wie ik ooit nog gedebatteerd heb over het herkomstland van de Indo-Europese taalfamilie.(Volgens hem en de meeste Euro-nationalisten was dat natuurlijk in Europa, maar zelf zie ik wel wat in de argumenten voor een Aziatische oorsprong.)Hem moet ik nog danken omdat hij mij na een ver over tijd gegane conferentie aan een lift naar het TGV-station hielp, want de organisatoren vonden dat teveel gevraagd, ook voor een genodigd spreker die door fysieke complicaties slecht te been was.Maar goed, ook Haudry is dus een rechtse rakker.In het tijdschrift Krisis verschijnt Alain de Benoist regelmatig hand in hand met linkse meesterdenkers, maar die schijnen de weg naar zijn jaarlijkse show niet te vinden. 

 

Eeuwige wederkeer van dezelfde fouten

 

 

U begrijpt het al, deze hele mouvance loopt leeg.De best geïnformeerde nieuwheidenen geloven niet in hun religie, of maken er geen werk van.De politieke activisten zoeken hun heil elders: in het militante nationalisme met pan-Europese klemtoon (strekking Vial); in een alarmistische weerstand tegen de islam (strekking Faye); in een Angelsaksisch quasi-wetenschappelijk racisme (zie Walker); in een cerebraal en overigens pro-islamitisch traditionalisme in de oude voetsporen van Evola en Guénon (zie Bouchet); en in vele gevallen ook in een klassiek conservatisme van het Continentale danwel het Angelsaksische type (zie TeKoS, dat zich tegenwoordig tot een “conservatisme in de geest van Edmund Burke” bekent), of in de burgerlijk-rechtse partijpolitiek.Geen hond ziet nog om naar de zelfstandige koers van de slinkende GRECE, tenzij dan louter als onmiskenbaar levendig en interessant kanaal van ideeën en debat, zeg maar als intellotainment, maar zeker niet als richtsnoer voor politieke actie.Zo was de afsluitende lezing van Alain de Benoist, “Qu’est-ce qu’une religion?”, een mooi staaltje van begripsverheldering maar zeker geen aanzet tot engagement.

 

Ook de term “metapolitiek” of “gramscisme van rechts” kan men moeilijk nog zonder ironie uitspreken.Van het hele idee om de culturele sfeer te beïnvloeden, laat staan voor zich in te nemen, is immers volstrekt niets in huis gekomen.Linkse “waakhonden” gebruiken deze notie graag om de verdenking te staven van een wijdverspreide rechtse infiltratiepoging, maar die is niets anders dan een projectie van hun eigen “lange mars doorheen de instellingen”.De hele sector cultuur en opinievorming is meer dan ooit een condominium van anti-identitair links en Amerikaans gericht globalisme, dus niet bepaald een succes voor de Nouvelle Droite.Tijd om de mislukking onder ogen te zien.

 

 

De term “nieuwrechts” ligt dus voor het oprapen, en wordt inderdaad door meerdere nieuwe bewegingen opgeëist.In Rotterdam heeft Michiel Smit met andere fortuynisten de partij Nieuw Rechts opgericht, klassiek immigratiekritisch, verder sterk liberaal en laïcistisch, op erg naïeve wijze pro Verlichting, en geestdriftig pro VS alsof het nog Koude Oorlog was.In Engeland is zopas een groepering annex internetdiscussieforum opgericht, New Right.

 

Terwijl de Franse ND al een tijdje de waarde van de directe democratie ontdekt heeft, noemt deze Engelse nieuwe club zich “antidemocratisch”.Blijkbaar gaat het hier weer eens om halfwassen intellectuelen die zich bezighouden met zich beter te voelen dan de massa.Toen de moderne tijd begon, vielen aristocratische families uiteen in twee types: de zoon die iets in zijn mars had, gebruikte in de nieuwe maatschappelijke voorwaarden zijn materiële en culturele voorsprong om het te maken als ondernemer of uitvinder of zelfs als verkozen politicus in een democratische partij; en de waardeloze zoon deed niets beters dan zich vermeien in zijn vermeende ingeboren superioriteit en zich vastklampen aan onverdiende voorrechten.Bij dat tweede type voegden zich dan de fantaserende would-be nobiljons uit de kleinburgerij, en het resultaat was een hele trits volstrekt steriele bewegingen tegen de democratie, voorlopig uitmondend in deze nieuwe “nieuwrechtse” club.Ik mag er haar op wijzen dat zelfs de door haarzelf tot inspiratiebron uitgeroepen 19de-eeuwse denker Thomas Carlyle op het eind van zijn leven zijn geloof in een genetische adel verloor en zijn hoop ging stellen op “niet door klasse bepaalde, natuurlijke aristocraten”.Dit wil zeggen: mensen van waarde komen heus wel bovendrijven, daar heb je geen hiërarchische maatschappij voor nodig, een systeem van gelijke kansen is er juist het meest geschikt voor.

 

 

Aannemend dat er superieure mensen bestaan, zoals deze club duidelijk meent, weten die zich zeker te handhaven in uiteenlopende maatschappijvormen, zelfs in een egalitaire democratie. Daarom is zich inzetten tegen de democratie tijdverspilling, benevens een manier om jezelf onmogelijk te maken, in je eigen voet te schieten en met je hoofd tegen de muur te bonken. Iets voor mensen die hun leven zo waardeloos vinden dat ze het aan uitzichtloze projecten willen vergooien.Politieke structuren zijn voor rechtse denkers sowieso minder belangrijk. Het is juist links dat alles van de politiek verwacht en alle bestaansdomeinen tracht te politiseren. In deze tijd zijn er levensbelangrijke problemen die zich best binnen de huidige structuren laten aanpakken en die werkelijk niet kunnen wachten tot de dag dat één of ander eliteclubje die structuren in deze of gene zin weet te hervormen.

 

De New Right kiest op haar beurt nog maar eens voor de “metapolitiek”, een begrip dat, althans in rechtse handen, nooit iets anders geweest is dan een fraaie benaming voor een eindeloos theekransje zonder enige relevantie of impact. Deze club wil een hele waaier rechtse denkers bestuderen en bekendheid geven.In haar lijstje vinden we weer maar eens oude depressievelingen als Nietzsche en Oswald Spengler, gezwollen dwepers als Evola en gebrandmerkte figuren als Pierre Drieu de la Rochelle. Erger nog is de poging om geestige en wijze mensen als Samuel Johnson, Edmund Burke of Russell Kirk te encanailleren met getikte zotten als Miguel Serrano, de meesterdenker van het “esoterisch hitlerisme”.

 

De club rekruteert trouwens onder “mannen en vrouwen van uiteenlopende politieke, culturele en esoterische achtergrond”.Esoterisch, laat me niet lachen: maçonnieke Spielereien, theosofische geheimleringen, en vooral de beroezende begoocheling van meer te weten dan de nuchtere medemens.Esoterie, dat is waanwijsheid voor zweefteven van beider kunne; woordenkramerij die het daglicht niet verdraagt maar zich in haar boudoir wel vreselijk opdirkt om belangrijk en diepzinnig te lijken. De waarheid is eenvoudig, maar esoterie is ingewikkeld omdat ze uit warhoofdigheid en gebrek aan geestelijke ruggengraat voortkomt.Ze is een molensteen om de hals van elke vereniging die iets van waarde wil bereiken.

 

Kortom, jonge zoeker: tijd om je uit de voeten te maken.

 

vendredi, 24 janvier 2014

De Carla Bruni à Julie Gayet: les starlettes présidentielles

carla-bruni-a-sorti-un-nouvel-album-little.jpg

De Carla Bruni à Julie Gayet: les starlettes présidentielles

par Guillaume Faye

Ex: http://www.gfaye.com

Actrice de catérorie B, mignonne, sympa, et au talent moyen, (rien à voir avec les Adjani, Deneuve, Huppert…), la starlette Julie Gayet, qui n’est d’ailleurs plus toute jeune, a réussi un coup de com magistral pour booster sa carrière : s’afficher comme la maitresse de Flamby, surnom irrévérencieux attribué à M. François Hollande. Devenir la maîtresse d’un homme en vue, surtout s’il est président de la République, voilà qui permet de compenser, par la médiatisation, un talent improbable. 

Mais ce qui est intéressant, c’est le parallèle à faire avec M. Sarkozy, l’ennemi juré de M. Hollande. Comme si ce dernier suivait, par une sorte de fatalité tragi-comique, le parcours de son prédécesseur détesté et possible challenger à la prochaine élection présidentielle. Tel un vaudeville qui se répète. Carla Bruni, elle non plus, n’était pas au top niveau de la chansonnette ; mais, mannequin ayant atteint la limite d’âge, elle a réussi à se refaire une santé par l’effet marketing de son mariage avec le président de la République. Calcul réussi : ses prestations ”musicales” et ”artistiques”, qui seraient passées inaperçues si elle avait épousé mon libraire – ou qui n’auraient probablement pas eu lieu – ont recueilli un certain succès.  Le marketing est plus fort que le talent et ça ne date pas d’aujourd’hui.

Ces deux charmantes quadras, qui appartiennent à la gamme moyenne/basse du showbiz (comme une Renault Clio par rapport à une Aston Martin Vanquish) ont, avec une certaine intelligence, tenté de grimper dans la gamme supérieure en devenant la favorite du chef de l’État. Bien joué. On verra si ça marche, si Julie Gayet obtient des rôles phare et si Carla Bruni se hisse au niveau de Barbara.  Peu probable, mais sait-on jamais ?  La médiocrité est parfois compensée par la notoriété.

Celle qui a mal joué son coup, c’est la journaliste moyenne gamme Valérie Massonneau, épouse Trierweiler, qui s’est carbonisée en envoyant son tweet pour soutenir un opposant électoral de Ségolène Royal, par un réflexe de jalousie, gaffe impayable dont elle doit évidemment se mordre les doigts. Valérie, par rapport à Julie et à Carla n’a pas été une bonne courtisane, parce qu’elle a laissé apparaître, par naïveté, son ambition sans les fards nécessaires. Elle n’a sans doute jamais lu Saint Simon et sa chronique du Grand Siècle où le duc explique qu’une courtisane doit cultiver l’impassibilité.  

juliegayet.jpgOn pourrait comparer, en effet, ces dames aux Pompadour et Du Barry. Mais ça n’a rien à voir. Les maîtresses des rois avaient, comme leur royal amant, du panache.  En revanche, les histoires à rebondissement, et parfaitement similaires, des deux PR successifs Sarkozy et Hollande, avec leurs nanas ont un côté petit-bourgeois horriblement banal et vulgaire. Le pire, c’est M. Hollande, avec son casque et son scooter qui va en catimini voir sa chérie. Qui délaisse son épouse pour une première maîtresse et puis largue cette dernière pour une nouvelle courtisane plus jeune et ce, sans savoir gérer la confidentialité de sa vie privée. « Pauvre petit bonhomme ! » comme l’écrit méchamment un grand quotidien américain. L’incapacité totale des services de protection, incapables de repérer un paparazzi et a fortiori un tueur n’a pas tellement d’importance (1).

Ce qui est plus grave, c’est la dévalorisation symbolique du chef de l’État, commencée par M. Sarkozy et aggravée par M. Hollande, dégradant l’un comme l’autre la fonction souveraine. Ce bal des courtisanes, femmes,  demi-épouses,  maîtresses, étalé sur la place publique est non seulement la risée des médias internationaux mais un très mauvais signal envoyé aux Français.        

Bien sûr, il faut respecter l’intimité et la sincérité de chacun, amoureuses, sexuelles et conjugales. Mais quand on est élu chef de l’État français, on n’est plus un citoyen comme les autres. La notion de ”vie privée” n’est plus pertinente. Ou alors, il faut choisir un autre métier. Ni M. Sarkozy ni M. Hollande, dont la ressemblance est au fond assez étonnante, n’ont vraiment compris ce que signifiait être président de la République française. Les courtisanes, elles, l’ont bien compris.

Note:

(1) On ne voit pas très bien qui pourrait vouloir attenter à M. Hollande. Sa vacuité politique est sa meilleure protection. Ce qui explique le relâchement des services de sécurité.

jeudi, 23 janvier 2014

Europäische Visionen

A5-FLYER_VORNE.jpg

L’égalitarisme contre l’égalité

égal.jpg

L’égalitarisme contre l’égalité

par Guillaume Faye

Ex: http://www.gfaye.com

La thèse défendue ici est que la France est une société égalitariste mais non pas égalitaire et que l’égalité n’y est pas respectée mais évacuée ; que l’idéologie égalitariste sert à la fois à justifier et à camoufler des privilèges qui sont probablement plus importants encore que ceux de la défunte monarchie ; que par effet hétérotélique l’idéologie égalitariste a aggravé les inégalités les plus injustes, au profit de pseudo égalités.

La Révolution française et la Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme  de 1789 avaient défini l’égalité, en rupture avec les privilèges d’Ancien Régime, comme l’égalité devant la loi et l’instauration de la méritocratie en lieu et place des avantages de naissance ou de situation. Mais peu à peu, l’égalitarisme, en exigeant l’égalité de résultat (sous l’influence de la vulgate marxiste) et en prétendant ”aider” des catégories prétendues défavorisées a récréé une inégalité de conditions entre catégories de la population. Avec, à la clé : injustice sociale, inefficacité et sclérose de la circulation des élites.

Tout d’abord, la principale technique, très perverse, de l’égalitarisme est de construire des simulacres d’égalité. Pour cela, on fait appel à l’idéologie féministe (dévoiement de la défense de l’égalité sexuelle), aux doctrines hypocrites du lobby homosexuel masculin ou à la théorie américaine du genre (gender theory) qui, aux USA, est déjà dévalorisée, ou encore à l’”antiracisme”.

Mesures emblématiques ”sociétales” de cette idéologie aussi médiatique qu’inefficace : le mariage pour tous, la parité hommes-femmes obligatoire en politique comme maintenant dans les conseils d’administration, (1) l’enseignement néo-totalitaire dès l’école primaire voire maternelle de l’équivalence entre les sexes. Tout cela au nom de la lutte contre les discriminations sexuelles, largement fantasmées. Cette dernière est un détournement d’attention, donnant lieu à des dispositifs législatifs délirants pour l’immense majorité de la population, symboliques et mensongers. Toute cette plaisanterie – poudre aux yeux – masque la construction progressive d’un imposant appareil inégalitaire édifié peu à peu au nom de la justice et de l’égalité et fondé sur l’escroquerie idéologique. Quelques exemples :       

1) En matière de protection sociale, de retraites, de régimes de santé, etc.,  observons les incroyables privilèges des salariés de la fonction publique et des secteurs avantagés au détriment  du privé, des PME, des TPE, des professions libérales, des indépendants, des agriculteurs, qui financent les déficits de la classe protégée.

2) La non représentativité des syndicats de gauche en terme d’adhérents qui sont financés par l’État, qui sont au dessus de toute décision de justice et qui dictent leur volonté corporatiste, par ailleurs machine à tuer les emplois. 

3) Les aides versées aux clandestins, sans-papiers et faux réfugiés, inexpulsables (CME, etc.) ou bien les prestations à de ”jeunes” oisifs, artificiellement victimisés, alors que des Français de souche en détresse (les ”invisibles”) sont relégués aux oubliettes.  

4) La ”discrimination positive” qui ne dit pas son nom : au nom du concept de ”diversité”, elle instaure une préférence ethnique – de fait raciste au pays de l’antiracisme – dans l’administration et les grandes entreprises, au détriment de la méritocratie égalitaire. 

5) En pratiquant le nivellement par le bas et en abolissant la qualité de l’école publique, l’idéologie égalitariste, croyant aider les ”classes populaires” les a plombées. Aujourd’hui, seules les classes riches peuvent espérer une éducation de qualité pour leurs enfants. Jules Ferry a été aboli par les héritiers de Mai 68. L’élitisme et la sélection sont les trésors du peuple sans héritage : la République gauchisée augmente les inégalités sociales en offrant une éducation démagogique bas de gamme. Les enfants des bourgeois de gauche vont dans les écoles privées élitistes. L’ascenseur social est bloqué parce que l’Éducation nationale offre des prestations dévaluées aux classes populaires, avec toute la prétention de la caste, d’autant plus agressive qu’elle est incapable.     

6) La laïcité égalitaire de l’État est également  mise à mal du fait d’une indifférence envers les agressions et profanations contre les lieux de culte catholiques. Sans parler des répressions envers certains (condamnées par les instances judiciaires européennes) et de l’aménité envers d’autres, protégés par un pouvoir tolérant.  Sans parler de la bienveillance protectrice et privilégiée dont bénéficie l’islam. D’une manière générale, il existe un rupture d’égalité en faveur des amis et protégés du pouvoir. Tout le système des subventions publiques  le prouve aussi.

L’esprit même de l’égalité méritocratique anti-privilèges est détruite au profit de l’édification d’une société à la fois communautariste et de castes où l’égalité de simulacre dissimule les inégalités réelles. La circulation sociale ne fonctionne plus. L’égalitarisme idéologique est un virus sournois contre la justice, la liberté et la démocratie. Il creuse les inégalités juridiques et économiques. Il est l’aliment de la guerre à venir. La démocratie et l’harmonie sociales sont rigoureusement impossibles sans l’homogénéité ethnique, la méritocratie sélective et l’instruction de qualité pour tous.  

Note:

 (1) La ”parité”, tout comme la ”discrimination positive”, est une rupture du principe d’égalité individuelle puisque le critère de sélection n’est plus seulement le mérite et la capacité d’un individu mais son appartenance – à laquelle il n’est pour rien – à un sexe ou à un groupe ethnique.

lundi, 20 janvier 2014

Dieudonné interdit : mauvais pour les juifs

dieudonnn.jpg

Dieudonné interdit : mauvais pour les juifs

par Guillaume Faye

Ex: http://www.gfaye.com

L’interdiction sèche de certains spectacles de Dieudonné, à la demande du gouvernement, n’ont pas seulement comme conséquence de publiciser au delà de tout espoir un bateleur qui, autrement, serait resté inaudible dans le tintamarre médiatique et aurait probablement vite disparu ; elle a aussi réveillé et amplifié l’ardeur antisémite qui couvait dans les populations immigrées.

Comme je l’ai expliqué dans un précédent article de ce blog (Dieudonné et l’antisémitisme) (1), l’antijudaïsme de Dieudonné s’inscrit dans ce ”nouvel antisémitisme” qui n’attire plus que des franges marginales de l’extrême droite mais rassemble surtout un public issu de l’immigration afro-maghrébine et musulmane, qui considère le sionisme (ou ”idéologie juive mondiale impérialiste et oppressive ”, allant bien au delà de la signification historique de ce terme) comme l’oppresseur principal de ce qui est ethniquement de couleur et/ou musulman.  

Il y a un glissement sémantique de taille, analysé par Finkielkraut : jadis, l’antijudaïsme s’exerçait au nom de la défense racio-ethnique des ”Aryens”, de la domination estimée légitime des Européens de souche ; aujourd’hui, le nouvel antijudaïsme représenté par M’bala M’bala, vise à présenter le ”sionisme” comme stade suprême de l’impérialisme (concept détourné du marxisme) et d’un néo-racisme. Ce nouvel antijudaïsme, selon le philosophe précité, est victimaire et non plus raciste affirmatif.

L’interdiction administrative frappant Dieudonné, outre qu’elle piétine le droit et atteint aux libertés publiques (mais de cela, la gauche est coutumière), dénote une profonde stupidité politique. Et une méconnaissance étonnante des règles sociologiques de la ”communication” (2). En effet, ce prurit répressif va conforter l’idée, dans les populations immigrées et chez les lobbies islamiques, que les Juifs dirigent un gouvernement français aux ordres du Crif. Les mesures répressives anti-Dieudonné sont interprétées comme un acte de soumission de l’État français à la communauté juive surpuissante. Sans le vouloir – mais parce qu’il est au fond impulsif et irréfléchi sous des dehors d’homme sérieux et réfléchi – M. Valls a tiré un but contre le camp de ses amis. M. Valls est un tacticien, sans l’envergure d’un stratège.  

Après cet épisode, la communauté juive doit s’attendre à un regain d’hostilité de la part des populations allogènes et à une expansion de l’antijudaïsme. On a fait de Dieudonné un emblème et un martyre, alors qu’il fallait le laisser nager dans l’immense marigot des  showbizmonkeys qui essaient de se faire un nom sans succès.         

Ce que j’ai retenu de mes discussions avec des représentants du judaïsme américain et avec des journalistes israéliens, c’est que les élites du judaïsme français sont considérées comme assez naïves, les moins politiques de toute la diaspora juive. La communauté juive française a poussé à la répression contre Dieudonné Mb-Mb sans comprendre qu’elle se tirait une balle dans le pied. La presse communautaire juive française analyse avec une naïveté confondante l’affaire Dieudonné. (3) De même qu’elle constate que les juifs sont en train de fuir certaines portions du territoire, sans oser en révéler ouvertement la cause. Bref, l’interdiction frappant Dieudonné est une bénédiction pour le nouvel antijudaïsme d’origine afro-arabe et musulmane, qui tient là un argument central. L’intelligentsia juive française, sauf exceptions, se caractérise par la médiocrité analytique et l’aveuglement historique. Qu’elle se rassure : elle n’est pas la seule. La réalité recadre toujours la fiction.    

Notes:

(1) Voir mon essai La Nouvelle Question Juive, Éditions du Lore.

(2) Je travaille dans la com et la pub depuis très longtemps (les protocoles sont exactement les mêmes en économie et en politique) et la règle de base, c’est que pour éliminer un concurrent, un adversaire, un discours gênant, etc., il faut surtout ne jamais en parler, encore moins essayer de l’interdire par voie de justice ! Le révisionnisme (ou négationnisme) est inconnu aux USA parce qu’il est autorisé (liberté absolue d’expression) et noyé dans le brouillard médiatique. En France, où c’est interdit, tout le monde sait de quoi il s’agit. En matière de communication, la règle d’or est affirmative et non pas négative. 

(3) Cf. Hamodia, 15/01 2014.

samedi, 18 janvier 2014

État et Société

athena.jpg

État et Société

par Guillaume Faye

Ex: http://www.gfaye.com

Une nation, un peuple peuvent avoir des institutions étatiques déficientes tout en continuant de produire une grande civilisation créatrice. L’exemple de la France – entre autres – est tout à fait parlant. Dans maintes périodes de son histoire, ce pays a connu une organisation politico-étatique instable, inadaptée et en crise endémique. Pourtant, la société continuait de fonctionner et de créer, dans tous les domaines, malgré la crise permanente de l’État.  Parce que la Société était le corps fécond d’un peuple vivace, jamais découragé.

Prenons le cas de la période 1815-1848 (Restauration et Monarchie de Juillet) et celui de la Troisième République (1875-1940. Les institutions étatiques (les « constitutions » selon le vocabulaire de Tocqueville) étaient particulièrement fragiles, mal étayées, contestées et en crise permanente. Mais en même temps, dans les arts, les sciences, l’industrie, la qualité de l’éducation, le rayonnement économique et culturel, etc. le pays se montrait créatif et performant. Comment expliquer ce paradoxe ?

Tout d’abord, la pérennité et le génie d’une nation dépendent de l’articulation entre un principe mâle et organisateur, l’État, et un principe féminin vitaliste et accoucheur de formes, la Société. Sans État, la Société devient stérile, puisqu’un peuple sans État sombre dans le folklore et l’anémie. Et sans Société structurée et homogène, un État (même très bien organisé) devient inutile et impuissant : c’est ce qui se produit aujourd’hui, j’y reviendrai plus loin.

Deuxièmement, par le passé, lors des innombrables crises de l’État et de ses institutions, la France possédait toujours un État, aussi imparfait fût-il. Les crises de ”régime” était superficielles, superstructurelles, mais il existait toujours une infrastructure étatique et politique qui encadrait et aidait la créativité de la société. (1)

Troisièmement, en comparant approximativement l’État au cerveau et la Société au corps organique, comme chez un individu, si le premier connaît des maux de tête mais si la seconde reste parfaitement saine, l’ensemble global de la Nation peut continuer d’être performant. En revanche, si la Société se délite dans son fondement organique même, le meilleur des États ne pourra ni gouverner ni sauver la Nation. Les crises étatiques sont beaucoup moins graves que les crises sociétales. De même, un individu qui possède un excellent cerveau mais dont la santé du corps s’effondre se retrouvera paralysé et impuissant.

Le « capital historique » d’une Nation, c’est-à-dire sa production créatrice (culturelle et matérielle) accumulée dépend de l’interaction entre son État et sa Société, mais aussi de sa prise de conscience qu’elle constitue une unité ethno-historique. (2) 

Maintenant passons aux choses qui choquent. Actuellement, on ne peut pas dire que l’appareil étatique français fonctionne mal par rapport à tout ce qu’on a connu dans le passé. Le problème, c’est la Société française, la force organique et productive de la Nation, qui se désagrège lentement.  La responsabilité en revient en partie – mais en partie seulement – à l’État, qui a laissé faire et n’a pas corrigé. Mais la maladie de la Société précède celle de l’État puisque ce dernier provient, comme production biologique, du corps organique de la Société ; de même que le mâle naît de la femelle. D’un point de vue holistique et interactif, la Société produit l’État qui, à son tour, l’encadre, la dirige et la protège.

Aujourd’hui, l’ensemble de la Nation France (comme bien d’autres en Europe) présente des pathologies extrêmement graves qui mettent sa survie à moyen terme en question, et qui n’ont rien à voir avec les ”institutions”. Énumérons : le vieillissement de la population autochtone et son déclin démographique, l’invasion migratoire massive par le bas (provoquée ou acceptée avec fatalisme ou hostilité mais nullement imposée par la force de l’extérieur), la domestication psycho-comportementale source d’égotisme, de refus de l’effort (anémie), de sentimentalisme culpabilisé, de dévirilisation, d’hédonisme passif, d’indifférence envers les ancêtres et la lignée (le germen), etc.

Ces pathologies, qui ont atteint non pas tout le monde mais une proportion trop importante, expliquent la plupart des effets du déclin de la France et de bien d’autres pays européens. L’État , en tant que substance produite, n’en est pas la cause ; c’est la Société, en tant qu’essence productive, qui l’est.

L’explication que certains avancent s’appuie sur des raisons exogènes, de nature politique ou idéologique : l’influence à long terme de la morale chrétienne, de la franc-maçonnerie, de ”l’ esprit juif”, de l’américanisme, du consumérisme, etc. L’explication endogène, qui a la faveur de la sociobiologie, est que les peuples, ensembles biologiques, vieillissent, tout comme les individus, et perdent leur énergie vitale et leur volonté collective. Ils finiraient à long terme par moins bien résister à l’environnement, idéologique ou autre. Les premières raisons sont sources d’irresponsabilité, les secondes de fatalisme.

Personne ne pourra jamais trancher. Mais il ne faut pas être déterministe, il faut toujours agir comme si la fatalité était surmontable et comme si le désespoir tranquille était stupide.    

Continuons par l’énoncé de quatre principes (ou conditions) qui déterminent la santé et la créativité d’une Société :

1)   L’homogénéité ethnique au sens large du terme, avec une parenté anthropologique forte.

2)   Des valeurs, une culture, une conscience historique partagées, sans communautarismes intérieurs – c’est-à-dire l’unité de la Société et de l’État.

3)   Une solidarité intérieure au dessus des clivages de classes économiques, avec un sentiment d’appartenance charnelle plus qu’intellectuelle.

4)   Un génie propre, c’est-à-dire des qualités intrinsèques, innées de créativité chez une large proportion des sociétaires.  Ce qui n’est pas l’apanage de tous les peuples.

 

 Le rôle politique de l’État est alors d’organiser cet ensemble et de le projeter dans l’avenir, c’est-à-dire dans l’histoire. Mais l’idéologie républicaine française (reprise par le communisme soviétique) s’imagine, depuis Robespierre jusqu’aux gauchistes hallucinés de Terra nova qui inspirent le PS, que l’État, muni de son idéalisme (« faire France ! ») peut harmonieusement organiser une Société composée de n’importe qui, venu de partout. Utopie qui torpille tout bon sens. Aristote expliquait que le corps d’une Cité (c’est-à-dire la Société) ne peut être fondé sur le hasard. L’État a besoin d’une Société choisie comme le sculpteur d’un marbre de qualité.  La Société et l’État doivent se ressembler et se rassembler et le plus faible de l’équation est l’État. Pourquoi ?  (3)

Conclusion : si le délitement, le chaos ethnique de la Société française se poursuit, l’État, qui n’en est que la projection à terme, s’effondrera à son tour. La France disparaîtra. Mais le soleil continuera à briller. 

Notes:

(1) Montaigne estimait que si la tête de l’appareil étatique disparaissait, le pays continuerait de fonctionner normalement. Autrement dit, la Société possède sa propre autonomie.

(2) Le concept, très original,  de ”capital historique” a été formulé par les nationalistes bretons du mouvement Emsav et par le théoricien Yann-Ber Tillenon. Il décrit l’interaction d’une Société et d’un État pour construire, dans la durée, l’héritage à la fois matériel et spirituel d’une Nation.

(3) Parce que c’est la Société qui finance l’État. Même la force physique de l’État (contrainte de force publique) dépend du consentement financier de la Société. Donc le rapport de force  est complexe. L’effondrement d’une Nation provient toujours de la rupture du pacte Société/État. Et la Société génère toujours un nouvel État alors que l’État ne peut pas créer une Société.

Sur l’histoire des idées de la nouvelle droite en Australie

we_as_one__australian_flag_by_maddie_claire97-d5hgfqg.jpg

Sur l’histoire des idées de la nouvelle droite en Australie

By Jim Saleam

English original here [2]

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

Si les Australiens discutent et débâtent aujourd’hui ces idées généralement définies comme celles de « La Nouvelle Droite Européenne », il est bien fondé de se demander quelle est l’histoire de l’idéologie de la Nouvelle Droite en Australie ? 

En fait, il s’agit d’une histoire aussi longue qu’imprégnée, avec des tentatives utiles à l’adaptation. C’est également une histoire généralement inconnue bien que certains des figures fondatrices de l’école de pensée de la Nouvelle Droite soient encore parmi nous. Dans ce bref aperçu, je partirai du principe que le lecteur est familier avec les orientations de la Nouvelle Droite et ne nécessite pas de plus amples éclaircissements. Dans le cas où l’auteur est mentionnée, j’emploierai mon nom à la troisième personne.

Une Nouvelle Droite « autochtone » pour l’Australie.

On sait que la Nouvelle Droite est une tendance intellectuelle initiée en France par Alain de Benoist en 1967. Elle s’est ensuite répandue de France aux autres pays Européens, un à un. Il existe une documentation suffisante, même en anglais , qui en fournit l’histoire essentielle.

Le corpus idéologique de la Nouvelle Droite n’a été que partiellement traduit en anglais. Ceci a souvent laissé un vide majeur et une tendance à se rabattre sur des théoriciens  et des textes plus anciens (même si cruciaux) de l’école intellectuelle allemande (et européenne) communément appelée Révolution Conservatrice. Toutefois, il y’a eu une tentative au fil du temps (et dernièrement de façon plus affirmée) de traduire les textes contemporains de la Nouvelle Droite en anglais. Un travail considérable a été fait depuis la seconde moitié des années 80 afin de fournir ces ressources indispensables et des interprétations locales de ces travaux  par des auteurs de langue anglaise, et ainsi donc en Australie.

Concernant les auteurs classiques, on peut se reporter à des noms tels que Oswald Spengler, Carl Schmitt, Julius Evola et Arthur Moeller vand den Bruck et bien d’autres encore devenant plus largement connus des nationalistes et des cercles anti libéral australiens. Nous ne pouvons toutefois pas affirmer qu’il en aille de même pour  les auteurs contemporains de la Nouvelle Droite en Australie.

La venue en Australie en 2007 de l’éminent théoricien de la Nouvelle Droite, le docteur Tomislav Sunic et la distribution de son livre Against Democracy and Equality : The European New Right, a été évidement très utile afin de fournir une histoire indispensable, en raccordant les « classiques de cette école de pensée avec les contributions de De Benoist et d’autres. Cet ouvrage mérite évidement une diffusion plus large.

Mais à quel moment cette tendance générale est-elle apparue en Australie ?

De façon intéressante, si nous préférons l’idée d’un parallélisme évolutionnaire, la Nouvelle Droite est apparue dans un formule locale.

La première « tentative » d’idéologie de Nouvelle Droite fut limitée et associée au pamphlétaire Australien bien connu, A.F Norwick (nommé ci après sous son nom de plume Alec Saunders). Saunders fonda, en 1975, un cercle basé à Sydney  - « The Indo European Cultural Renaissance Society » [1] (« un groupe apolitique » qui rejetait l’idée occidentale d’une civilisation Judéo-chrétienne comme supérieure à la civilisation classique ou à ses prédécesseurs Indo-Européens). Il créa le journal « The Fire Makesr » Ce fut une expérience de courte durée.

Saunders en parle en ces mots :

Le groupe distribuait The Fire Makers à beaucoup de gens. Malheureusement, nous recevions un certain nombre de réponses venant d’ « aspirants » néo-nazis qui associaient la défense de l’idéal Indo-Européen avec le fascisme allemand. Il n’y avait guère d’autre intérêt et trop peu d’entre nous pour soutenir le travail.

Le groupe fut dissous au bout de plusieurs mois.

L’intérêt du cercle de Saunder tient du fait qu’il émergea indépendamment et fricota avec les idées fondatrices de la Nouvelle Droite – Sa profession du mythe culturel Indo-Européen qui avance l’idée d’une identité culturelle pour les Européens en dehors du schéma de la civilisation chrétienne d’Occident.

Plus important encore pour cette discussion qu’il y figure des contributions australiennes directes, pas seulement contemporaines au système de la Nouvelle Droite mais aussi des figures de proue australiennes (Je ne dirais pas des « théoriciens » en tant que tels de l’école de la Révolution Conservatrice Européenne) de périodes plus antérieures, qui portent certains éléments de ses idées. Je pourrais dire que Wiliam Baylebridge et P.R Stephensen en font partie.

Une connexion est forgée.

En 1977-1979 et plutôt accidentellement, une source pour l’idéologie Nouvelle Droite fit surface. Au travers des activités de National Resistance/ Australian National Alliance plusieurs étudiants en universalité partageant ces centres d’intérêt furent recrutés.

En 1977, alors étudiant à l’université de Sydney, je faisais des recherches pour ma thèse de doctorat sur « l’extrême droite » (Sic) britannique. Lors de recherches parallèles, des contacts furent incidemment établis avec des participants français au « mouvement national-révolutionnaire » Ces personnes firent découvrir autant qu’elles purent aux milieux australiens le mouvement bourgeonnant de la Nouvelle Droite française. Bien que cela ait encouragé un intérêt pour les textes classiques, la discussion sur de nouveaux arguments était plus difficile compte-tenu des barrières de langage. Des informations découpées dans les journaux traitant de l’actualité ainsi que des articles de magazines continuèrent à arriver en Australie après 1977 et ils furent très utiles au développement d’une vue d’ensemble

Toutefois, si les australiens étaient attentifs aux arguments culturalistes de De Benoist dans le style et la méthode d’Antonio Gramsci, il était quand même nécessaire de contester les bases culturelles et idéologiques du libéralisme pour soutenir un model de changement politique.

Les principaux activistes australiens tels que F.K Salter and E.F Azzopardi ont évidement avancé  avec fermeté cet argument dans la période de 1977 à 1980.

Apres la fondation de National Action en 1982 qui concluait quelques années de réussites mitigées pour la mouvance nationaliste australienne, certains australiens allaient de nouveau s’intéresser à la Nouvelle Droite. Deux membres de ce parti visitèrent les bureaux de De Benoist a Paris début 1983 et revinrent avec des documents clé, des brochures et le magazine Eléments.  Ces écrits furent largement débattus.

Saunders prit contact avec des militants britannique de British Third Position[2], groupe The Rising en 1983 et Michael Walker éditeur du magazine The Scorpion. Ce dernier était sur une ligne Nouvelle Droite classique, il y publiait ses propres réflexions ainsi que les derniers développements concernant le mouvement Européen florissant. Saunders écrivit The Social Revolutionary Nature of Australian Nationalism qu’il distribua via National Action et d’autres groupes. Cette brochure se reposait sur des textes d’auteurs de la Révolution Conservatrice et de la Troisième Voie, avec des références et des interprétations spécifiques à l’Australie. Il était également fait référence à De Benoist et à l’école du GRECE.

En 1985, Eugene Donnini, un ancien de National Action, établit un lien avec le magazine The Scorpion, Donnini fonda un groupe militant à Perth, l’Australian Populist Movement ainsi que le magazine Stockade. Le groupe innovait avec un nationalisme « vert » tout en popularisant anti impérialisme de la Nouvelle Droite ainsi que sa critique du régime libéral américain. Malheureusement le groupe se sépara au bout d’un an. Les efforts de Donnini montrèrent la facilite de mélanger les thèmes de la Nouvelle Droite avec des organisations militantes de type Troisième Voie.

Le mariage fertile de l’idéologie Nouvelle Droite et des idées tercéristes  (aussi connues comme idéologie nationaliste révolutionnaire) est notable. Pourquoi ? Parce que plusieurs idées sont communes, bien sûr l’on pourrait affirmer comme le fait Roger Griffin (l’expert académique des théories du fascisme et du néofascisme) que les unes sont les filles de l’autre, rendant plus accessibles des notions plus complexes et développant un nouveaux discours plus attractif, je fais référence aux idées telles que l’anti impérialisme, l’ethno différencialiste (non raciste), la critique de l’américanisme an nationalisme écologiste etc, de telle façon que la Nouvelle Droite sert d’arsenal idéologique aux groupes militants et aux partis. Ce processus est visible au sein de grands partis du nationalisme européen comme le NPD ou le MSI.

Welf Herfurth, aujourd’hui éditeur du site Nouvelle Droite Australie/Nouvelle Zélande arrivé en Australie en 1987. Il était un jeune militant de Troisième Voie implique au sein du NPD en Allemagne. Herfurth conjuguait (et le fait encore aujourd’hui) les éléments de l’école Nouvelle Droite avec les idées de Troisième Voie. Herfurth aida à diffuser cette position au travers des membres de National Action et plus largement dans les années qui suivirent.

Quelle place pour l’idéologie de Nouvelle Droite en Australie ?

Je pose la question en termes de fonction politique. Il serait banal d’affirmer que la Nouvelle Droite constitue la base intellectuelle  de la contestation sérieuse de l’idéologie libérale, mondialiste et humaniste. Cependant comment peut-elle servir cette contestation ?

L’exemple communiste est un outil théorique utile pour décrypter la relation entre « L’idéologique » et le « politique ». Dans les premiers partis marxiste-léninistes, le matérialisme dialectique était la vérité idéologique centrale. Ainsi on peut être militant communiste sans avoir une compréhension particulière la philosophie de l’histoire des bouleversements sociaux révolutionnaires de Marx et son appréciation de la dynamique de la philosophie qui sous-tend ces changements, mais l’on ne peut pas être un chef du parti ou un théoricien du party sans être versé dans le matérialisme dialectique.

Et ainsi les communistes n’opéraient pas des partis de matérialisme dialectique mais des machines militantes. En d’autres mots, bien qu’ils aient épousé une philosophie, ils respectaient le diktat de Marx dans ses Thèses sur Feuerbach : « Les philosophes n’ont fait qu’interpréter le monde de diverses manières, il s’agit maintenant de le transformer. »

Quelle était donc la fonction du matérialisme dialectique ? C’était la colle, la raison, le mystère au centre d’un mécanisme matériel. Il liait la structure et était la base du reste de la construction politico-idéologique. En apportant des certitudes, il armait ses soldats pour la guerre.

Il est raisonnablement évident que ceux qui se sont intéressé à la Nouvelle Droite des années 70 jusqu’à très récemment, conjuguaient un engagement à ses idées de base et ses expressions courantes (assimilées au mieux) avec leurs engagements aux formes variées de politique de militants nationalistes.

On pourrait donc dire que l’idéologie Nouvelle Droite, que ce soit en termes de ses idées basiques de Révolution Conservatrice que son discours après 1967 ont servi de système de valeurs central, un mythe révélé fournissant la théorie de l’homme, de l’homme Indo-Européen, de l’histoire , de l’histoire culturel et du debat idéologique. Il s’agit maintenant de transformer le monde.

Et maintenant – Comme tendance

La Nouvelle Droite a eu une histoire brisée en Australie. Nous pouvons dire qu’après 1991 (l’éclipse de la branche principale de National Action), nous n’avons pas entendu grand-chose. Aucun autre groupe n’a exprime son intérêt pour la ND et nous étions revenus aux « individus »

La Nouvelle Droite a été ravivée dans le débat aux alentours de 2002. Je me laisse a penser que climat impérialiste va-t-en guerre, le matraquage des forces du Nouvel Ordre Mondial affirmant que la nouvelle phase du millénaire du marché était devant nous ont inspiré un retour aux principes antilibéral.

Un signe de ce renouveau a été la formation d’une organisation Nouvelle Droite. Ces deux dernières années la « New Right Australia/New Zealand » dirigée par Herfurth a proposé une synthèse des idées fondatrices de la Nouvelle Droite et des idées du  « nationalisme anarchiste » avancées par l’auteur et sympathisant de la Nouvelle Droite britannique, Troy Southgate. Cette synthèse n’a pas été adoptée comme une tendance dominante à l’international seulement parce que le procédé de synthèse suit son chemin, d’autres alternatives se présentent souvent. Nous voyons donc la Nouvelle Droite se combiner avec l’Eurasisme en Italie et avec l’école nationaliste révolutionnaire de Horst Mahler en Allemagne et sous d’autres formes ailleurs.  Toutefois, via le mécanisme local australien, l’idéologie de la Nouvelle Droite a généralement été diffusée, réveillant une nouvelle couche d’étudiants et de jeunes au pluriverse du débat idéologique. Ceci a été une initiative importante.

Le Sydney Forum qui a rassemblé plusieurs personnalités de la Nouvelle Droite et d’autres éléments du nationalisme australien (Herfurth et moi-même y sommes engages) a popularise le message de la Nouvelle Droite. C’est évidement le Sydney Forum qui a invite Tom Sunic en 2007.

Fondamentalement, la Nouvelle Droite est susceptible d’atteindre une diffusion plus profonde dans les dix prochaines années, les contacts avec les acteurs européens se renforcent et des textes sont écrits au niveau local. L’importance des auteurs locaux ne peut pas être sous-estimée. Les étudiants à l’université effectuant des travaux de troisième cycle peuvent être la clef de l’écriture de l’histoire australienne d’un point de vue révolutionnaire conservateur et en développant une critique de la banlieue australienne abandonnée, de la société bourgeoise et de l’etat. Le temps le dira. La Nouvelle Droite est une tendance et est surement le « noyau mythique » d’une vision du monde à n’importe quelle contestation au  l’état libéral mondialiste.

Notes

1. Groupe de renaissance indo-européens

2. Troisième Voie Britannique

 


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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/01/sur-lhistoire-des-idees-de-la-nouvelle-droite-en-australie/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/mn010824_sm.gif

[2] here: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/12/on-the-history-of-new-right-ideas-in-australia/

mercredi, 15 janvier 2014

Théorie et pratique

Théorie et pratique

new-faye.jpgLe drame de la configuration intellectuelle politique française, surtout à gauche mais aussi à droite, c’est la prévalence de l’idéologie sur l’expérience ; autrement dit, une mauvaise articulation entre la théorie et la pratique. Karl Popper et Claude Bernard, le formulateur de la « méthode expérimentale », avaient montré que dans les sciences exactes, la théorie et la pratique doivent sans cesse s’articuler en un permanent mouvement  d’aller-retour, de feed back : on formule d’abord une théorie et puis on la corrige par l’expérimentation et alors, une nouvelle théorie est formulée, jusqu’à ce que les deux termes s’ajustent. 

Mais les choses ne se passent pas exactement ainsi dans les domaines de la politique et de l’économie, qui ne sont pas des sciences exactes. C’est le marxisme, avec son matérialisme dialectique qui prenait l’économie politique pour une science exacte, qui a pollué les raisonnements politiques principalement en France. En organisant la précession absolue de la théorie sur la pratique. Et en interdisant, par conséquent, le retour d’expérience. Ce qui provoque un déni du réel par rapport à l’idéologie, d’autant plus que celle-ci se mélange avec la morale du Bien. Cette distorsion mentale est très incrustée dans la pensée-réflexe des élites françaises, qui ont toujours eu un gros problème avec le pragmatisme (1). 

Or en sciences politiques – ce qui comprend l’économie mais aussi la stratégie militaire – la théorie doit procéder de la pratique et non point la pratique de la théorie. C’est ce qu’expliquait parfaitement Aristote qui, en politique, préférait l’expérience historique aux Idées pures de son ancien maître Platon, qui ne sont que des constructions abstraites, toujours brillantes mais le plus souvent fausses.

L’échec retentissant du système communiste (que même la Chine a abandonné) provient de cet acharnement à suivre le dogme idéologique contre le réel, contre la nature (2).  En espérant, avec l’infantilisme de toute construction intellectuelle, que par miracle la réalité va finir par obéir à la théorie. Aujourd’hui en France, on assiste, en basse intensité, à la persistance de cette illusion. Notamment dans deux domaines.

Premier exemple : on théorise (pour des raisons idéologiques et morales) qu’une société ethniquement hétérogène est possible, réalisable, souhaitable. Contre toute expérience actuelle ou historique qui démontre exactement l’inverse.  Ça ne marche pas, mais on persiste dans l’utopie délirante de l’immigrationnisme, à grand renfort de formules idéologico-romantiques (la ” diversité ”, le ”vivre ensemble ”, le ”faire société ”, etc.) qui sont autant d’incantations impuissantes.

Second exemple : l’État Providence socialisé. Alors que ce dernier peut fonctionner dans certaines circonstances mais pas dans toutes, on en fait un absolu, un impératif catégorique. Et on refuse de voir l’échec du dogme. On abolit tout retour d’expérience pour préserver l’idéologie sacralisée qui n’est ni plus ni moins qu’une religion laïque.

Mais cette dictature de la théorie sur la pratique s’observe dans bien d’autres secteurs : la politique éducative, la politique pénale, la politique énergétique (dogmes écolos), etc. Le bon sens s’effondre devant l’intellectualisme et le dogme, c’est-à-dire, au fond devant la croyance théorisée. Une croyance qui, d’ailleurs, finit par perdre son honnêteté pour devenir un acharnement. Les croyants persistent d’autant plus dans leur erreur qu’ils en prennent conscience sans se l’avouer.

La conséquence est, comme l’expliquait Jules Monnerot, l’hétérotélie, c’est-à-dire l’obtention de résultats totalement inverses du but recherché : l’antiracisme de la ”diversité” débouche sur le multiracisme généralisé et la menace de guerre civile ethnique ; le ”social ” et l’assistanat donnent lieu à la paupérisation et au chômage de masse ; l’éducation égalitariste et anti-disciplinaire provoque le déclassement, l’inégalité accrue, l’arrêt de l’ascenseur social ; les solutions énergétiques des écolos augmentent les niveaux de pollution, etc.

Cette fascination pour la théorie au détriment de la pratique relève de l’abstractivisme, qui est le travers de couches sociales déconnectées du réel du fait de leur mode de vie urbanisé et coupé de la nature, vivant économiquement dans une situation fonctionnarisée, confortable, irresponsable.  Ce qui prédispose à la superficialité prétentieuse, à l’absence d’effort d’observation, à la paresse intellectuelle au cœur même de l’intellectualisme. Mais, à terme, le retour au réel finit toujours par s’imposer – en général dans la douleur. Tout cela ne signifie pas qu’il faille mépriser ou abandonner les théories mais les formuler après et non avant le processus expérimental.

 Une théorie n’est pas faite pour être ”élégante” ou ”rebelle”, comme on le croit trop souvent en France, mais pour être opérationnelle.

Notes:

(1) On retrouvait un processus  semblable dans la médecine du XVIIe siècle, bien critiquée dans le théâtre de Molière : le respect du dogme passait avant l’observation physiologique, d’où des méthodes thérapeutiques catastrophiques.

(2) La plus grande imposture du marxisme – ou plus exactement son erreur philosophique majeure – a été de se penser comme matérialisme (réaliste) par opposition à l’idéalisme, alors qu’il est au contraire une forme exacerbée d’idéalisme.

mardi, 14 janvier 2014

1972/2014 : Idéologie «antiraciste», la grande catastrophe!

 

Ri7Jugement-Raptou.jpg

1972/2014 : Idéologie «antiraciste», la grande catastrophe!

ex: http://www.polemia.com

 

« Un peu de modestie, de finesse, d’autocritique et de repentance seraient sûrement bienvenues »

 

♦ En 1972 la France était un pays indépendant, unitaire, fier de son passé et où les libertés étaient respectées. Quarante ans plus tard, l’idéologie nationale héritée de la monarchie, de la République et actualisée par le gaullisme a été remplacée par l’idéologie « antiraciste ». Les résultats sont désastreux : immigration de masse peu assimilable, société multiconflictuelle, perte du sens commun, alignement de la politique extérieure sur des intérêts étrangers, censure à répétition. Comment en est-on arrivé là ?

Jean-Yves Le Gallou fait le point pour Polémia.

 


 

1972: Alors que le président Pompidou est fragilisé par sa non-participation à la Résistance de 1940 à 1944, deux événements majeurs surviennent : le Parlement vote à l’unanimité la loi Pleven qui introduit – au nom de la lutte contre le « racisme » – le délit d’opinion dans la grande loi sur la liberté de la presse de 1881 ; les médias lancent « l’affaire Touvier », du nom de ce milicien protégé par l’Eglise catholique. Les deux piliers de l’antiracisme – pénalisation des opinions dissidentes, culpabilisation du passé français – sont ainsi posés.

 

1980: L’attentat contre la synagogue de la rue Copernic est attribué de manière purement mensongère par les médias à « l’extrême droite ». Jean Pierre-Bloch, patron de la LICRA, met en cause le « climat » : climat intellectuel pour aboutir à la neutralisation idéologique du Figaro-Magazine de Louis Pauwels, porteur d’une vraie pensée alternative ; climat politique visant la politique proche-orientale de Valéry Giscard d’Estaing jugée pas assez favorable à l’Etat d’Israël.

 

« L’antiracisme » est instrumentalisé par les socialistes et par certains milieux juifs (Le Renouveau juif d’Hajdenberg notamment) pour aboutir à l’élection de François Mitterrand en 1981.

 

1984/1985 : Fondation de SOS-Racisme, officine gouvernementale créée depuis l’Elysée par Jean-Louis Bianco, secrétaire général de la présidence, assisté d’un jeune conseiller… François Hollande en s’appuyant sur Eric Ghebali et Julien Dray de l’Union des étudiants juifs de France (UEJF) et Bernard-Henri Lévy. Les objectifs de SOS-Racisme sont à la fois idéologiques et politiques : promouvoir une société multiculturelle, culpabiliser et scinder la droite, encadrer et contrôler les populations issues du Maghreb (pour les faire « bien » voter tout en évitant une dérive pro-palestinienne).

 

1986: La mort de Malik Oussekine, un Franco-Maghrébin sous dialyse, à l’occasion des manifestations contre la loi Devaquet, débouche sur une campagne de sidération médiatique. Celle-ci contraint le gouvernement Chirac à renoncer à ses projets, notamment quant à la protection de la nationalité française. A cette occasion le lobby « antiraciste » prend la main de manière définitive sur la droite parlementaire.

 

1990: Alors qu’il existe 300 profanations de cimetière par an, la dégradation du cimetière juif de Carpentras fait l’objet d’une manipulation médiatique sans précédent. L’ensemble de la classe politique officielle défile sous le parrainage des associations « antiracistes » et d’organisations juives. Deux objectifs sont atteints : la consolidation du fossé entre le FN et le RPR/UDF ; le vote de la loi Gayssot faisant de l’analyse historique critique de la « Shoah » un délit de blasphème.

 

1993/1998 : Poursuites et condamnations de Maurice Papon pour « crime contre l’humanité ». La condamnation de Papon, haut fonctionnaire français, préfet de police du général De Gaulle (qui lui conféra le grade de commandeur de la Légion d’honneur), député RPR, ministre de R. Barre, est un acte essentiel : c’est l’extension à l’Etat français, en 1998, de la culpabilisation imposée à l’Allemagne en 1945. Cela a aussi pour conséquence le désarmement moral de l’appareil d’Etat face à l’immigration : les associations « antiracistes » empruntant volontiers la figure du juif comme bouclier pour les immigrés clandestins.

 

2001 : Première loi Taubira, loi mémorielle définissant comme crime contre l’humanité les traites négrières (occidentales seulement) et l’esclavage.

 

Années 2000/2010 : Pendant longtemps le combat « antiraciste » a été mené par les associations spécialisées (LICRA, MRAP, LDH et SOS-Racisme) bénéficiant d’importantes subventions publiques nationales et locales et recevant des dommages et intérêts de leurs procès; à partir des années 2000, certaines institutions juives prennent directement le relais. Lors de son dîner annuel, avec un parterre plus brillant que pour la Fête nationale du 14 juillet, devant les plus hautes autorités de l’Etat, de la justice, de l’économie et des médias, le CRIF (Conseil représentatif des institutions juives de France) fixe la feuille de route : promotion de la société multiculturelle, renforcement de la législation et de la lutte « antiraciste », notamment sur Internet, soutien indéfectible à l’Etat d’Israël et lutte contre les pays qui y sont réputés hostiles.

 

Années 2000/2010 (bis) : Adoption d’un mode opératoire comparable au CRIF par le CFCM (Conseil consultatif du culte musulman) et le CRAN (Conseil représentatif des associations noires). Prise en tenaille des Français de souche.

 

Fin des années 2000/début des années 2010 : L’UEJF prend la tête du combat judiciaire pour obtenir la mise en place d’une censure publique, voire privée, sur Internet.

 

Le lobby « antiraciste » : fabuleux pouvoir et fabuleux échec

 

Après 40 ans de grandes manœuvres « antiracistes », le bilan est désastreux.

 

Pour les libertés d’abord, avec la multiplication des lois liberticides. Dans tous les classements internationaux portant sur la liberté d’expression la France figure parmi les plus mauvais élèves : entre la 40e et la 50e place pour la liberté de la presse selon Reporters sans frontières ; en troisième position (devant la Russie pourtant si souvent vilipendée !) pour les condamnations pour atteinte à la liberté d’expression par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (pourtant très politiquement correcte…) ; aux premiers rangs pour les requêtes auprès des grands fournisseurs d’accès Internet.

 

Pour la concorde intérieure ensuite : la société multiculturelle est un échec manifeste. Ni l’assimilation, ni même l’intégration n’ont fonctionné. Le seul lieu (hors celui, contraint, du travail) où des gens de culture, de religion et de race différentes se retrouvent ce sont les spectacles de… Dieudonné ou les réunions de Soral. Bref, là où ils se rient du Système selon les uns, du lobby sioniste selon les autres. Fabuleux échec du lobby « antiraciste »: c’est contre lui que s’organise la seule cohabitation black-blanc-beur !

 

Pour l’indépendance nationale enfin : L’alignement de la politique française sur des intérêts étrangers est de plus en plus préoccupant ; promue par BHL, l’intervention en Libye a été un succès militaire mais une catastrophe géopolitique ; et l’aventurisme de François Hollande sur la Syrie a nui à l’image de la France.

 

Pour les institutions juives aussi : Depuis l’affaire Dreyfus la communauté juive jouissait d’un statut moral lié à celui de l’innocence injustement persécutée ; en se plaçant systématiquement du côté de la censure, les institutions juives risquent de perdre leur statut de représentants d’opprimés pour celui d’odieux persécuteurs. C’est grave et c’est prendre un double risque : se placer en opposition de l’esprit français traditionnellement frondeur ; et heurter de plein fouet la sensibilité des jeunes générations, à la fois parce que, pour elles, la seconde guerre mondiale est finie depuis 70 ans… et parce qu’elles sont viscéralement attachées aux libertés sur Internet, véritable sujet du débat. Enfin, l’immigration massive encouragée par le lobby « antiraciste » a pour conséquence la constitution de ghettos musulmans et africains qui cultivent une forte sensibilité antisioniste, voire antisémite.

 

Bien sûr, ce serait une faute que de confondre les juifs dans leur ensemble et ceux qui prétendent parler en leur nom ; on ne saurait davantage passer sous silence le remarquable engagement du côté de l’identité française et de la patrie d’hommes comme Alain Finkielkraut ou Eric Zemmour. Pour autant, il semblerait raisonnable que les dirigeants des institutions juives aient la force de procéder à leur examen de conscience : à l’égard de leur communauté comme à l’égard de la France. Un peu de modestie, de finesse, d’autocritique et de repentance seraient sûrement bienvenues.

 

Changer de paradigmes

 

Quant au peuple français dans son unité, il lui faut changer de paradigmes dominants : renvoyer le lobby « antiraciste » à ses échecs ; cesser de le subventionner ; cesser de l’écouter et supprimer ses privilèges judiciaires. Vite !

 

Jean-Yves Le Gallou
9/01/2014

 

Voir aussi :

 

L’affaire Dieudonné : l’arbre qui cache la forêt de l’offensive contre Internet
Evolution des libertés en France : Cent restrictions en quarante ans
Défendre la liberté d’expression contre la police de la pensée
« Je ne sais rien… mais je dirai (presque) tout »

Par Yves Bertrand
Conversations politiquement incorrectes
Sarkozy et Hollande, candidats officiels du CRIF
Le CRIF : la tentation du lobby
Le CRIF refuse de donner « un certificat de Cacherout » à Marine Le Pen
Le dîner du CRIF : nuisible aux libertés, à la souveraineté et à l’identité françaises

lundi, 13 janvier 2014

La poudrière des Balkans

La poudrière des Balkans...

La Nouvelle Revue d'Histoire est en kiosque (n° 70, janvier - février 2014).

Le dossier central est consacré aux Balkans comme zone de déchirement et de conflit tout au long du XXe siècle. On peut y lire, notamment,  des articles de Philippe Conrad ("Histoire des Balkans" ; "1914-1915, la Serbie dans la guerre"), de Tancrède Josseran ("Les guerres balkaniques de 1912-1913"), de Gérard Hocmard ("Les conflits balkaniques et la politique britannique"), de Rémy Porte ("L'Armée d'Orient 1915-1919"), d'Yves Morel ("L'échec du royaume yougoslave") de Martin Benoist ("L’État oustachi de Croatie"), de Frédéric Le Moal ("Le combat perdu des tchetniks"), de Thierry Buron ("Churchill et les résistances yougoslave et grecque") et de Alexis Troude ("Yougoslavie : une désintégration programmée").

Hors dossier, on pourra lire, en particulier, un entretien avec le général, et historien,  André Bach ("Commémoration du centenaire de 1914") ainsi que des articles d'Emma Demeester ("Gaston d'Orléans, un adversaire de Richelieu"), de Rémi Soulier ("Michel de Nostredame, un médecin des âmes"), de Jean Kappel ("L'aventure française au Sahara"), de Pierre de Meuse ("Quand la France était en Syrie"), d'André Cubzac ("L’avènement et le triomphe du marché") et d'Yves Nantillé ("Le septennat de Giscard d'Estaing").

 

NRH 70.jpg

samedi, 11 janvier 2014

Douguine : «Les Etats-Unis sont derrière les attentats de Volgograd»

Aleksandr_Dugin.jpeg

Alexandre Douguine : «Les Etats-Unis sont derrière les attentats de Volgograd»

Auteur : Algérie Patriotique
Ex: http://www.zejournal.mobi

Algeriepatriotique : Quelle analyse faites-vous de la dégradation de la situation sécuritaire en Russie après les deux actes terroristes perpétrés à Volgograd ?

Alexandre Douguine : Je ne crois pas qu'il s’agisse de dégradation de la situation sécuritaire en Russie. Certains actes terroristes sont presque incontrôlables quand il est question des régions ayant des populations plus ou moins homogènes qui soutiennent, dans une certaine mesure, des groupes terroristes comme c'est le cas au Caucase du Nord, en Russie. Le fait que l'activité des terroristes s’accentue ces derniers temps montre que les forces qui veulent déstabiliser la Russie se focalisent sur les Jeux olympiques de Sotchi. Les Etats-Unis et les pays de l'Otan veulent montrer Poutine, qui s’oppose radicalement au libéralisme et à l’hégémonie américaine, comme un «dictateur» en comparant Sotchi à Munich à l'époque d’Hitler. C'est la guerre médiatique. Dans cette situation, les forces qui soutiennent la politique hégémonique américaine, avant tout les réseaux sub-impérialistes locaux – comme les wahhabites soutenus par l’Arabie Saoudite –, cherchent à confirmer cette image en faisant de la Russie un pays où il n’y a pas le minimum de sécurité et qui est prêt à installer la dictature en réponse aux actes terroristes qui visent essentiellement les Jeux olympiques de Sotchi chers à Poutine. On sait que le chef des renseignements saoudiens, Bandar Bin Sultan, a proposé à Poutine de garantir la sécurité en Russie en échange de l'arrêt de l'appui russe à Damas. Poutine a piqué une colère et refusé cela d'une manière explicite, en accusant les Saoudiens d'être des terroristes, ce qu'ils sont en vérité, pire que ceux qui servent les intérêts des Etats-Unis. Donc, les groupes wahhabites qui activent en Russie, téléguidés par les Saoudiens et à travers eux par leurs maîtres de Washington, ont accompli la menace de Bandar Bin Sultan. En fin de compte, ce sont les Etats-Unis qui attaquent la Russie de Poutine, afin de le châtier pour sa politique indépendante et insoumise à la dictature hégémonique américaine et libérale.

Qui en est à l'origine ?
Je crois que je l'ai expliqué dans ma réponse à la question précédente. Quant aux organisateurs concrets de cet acte terroriste, je n'en sais pas plus que les autres. Il semble que ce sont des réseaux wahhabites du Caucase du Nord et les femmes de terroristes liquidés par les services spéciaux russes. Je crois qu’elles sont ignoblement utilisées par les chefs cyniques, consciemment ou inconsciemment, qui travaillent pour les intérêts des Américains.

D'aucuns estiment que ces attentats terroristes sont la conséquence du soutien indéfectible de la Russie à la Syrie et à l'Ukraine. Etes-vous du même avis ?
C'est absolument correct. Il s'agit du «châtiment américain» accompli par les complices des Américains par le biais des Saoudiens.

Quelles vont être les mesures que prendra le Kremlin pour parer à une escalade de la violence dans le pays ?
Je crois que la montée de la violence durant la période des Jeux olympiques de Sotchi est inévitable. J'espère qu’à Sotchi on réussira quand même à contrôler la situation, mais c'est théoriquement impossible de le faire dans les régions qui l'entourent et qui sont organiquement liées à certains groupes de population du Caucase du Nord où se trouvent les bases principales des terroristes. Cette fois, ce n'est pas la Tchétchénie qui est au centre du dispositif du terrorisme, mais plutôt le Daguestan et la République de Kabardino-Balkarie. On essayera de faire pour le mieux, mais il ne faut pas oublier qu’on a affaire à une grande puissance mondiale, celle des Etats-Unis, qui nous attaque. C'est un défi sérieux qui demande une réponse symétrique. Donc, on verra...

jeudi, 09 janvier 2014

Le Roi Veneur

Le Roi Veneur

Le Roi Veneur

Écrit dans la plus pure tradition littéraire de la nouvelle, cet opuscule d’Olivier Meyer se veut résonance à l’œuvre laissée par Dominique Venner dont le geste fort, quasi-sacrificiel, a affecté bon nombre d’Européens conscients.

Véritable conte du Graal du XXIe siècle sur les traces de Dominique Venner, ce texte est un vibrant appel au réveil des consciences, afin que les Européens sortent de leur dormition, qui trouvera écho par delà les différences intergénérationnelles.

« Il existe une Europe secrète, un ordre de chevalerie de l’esprit qui relie des hommes par delà le temps et la mort ». Êtes-vous prêts à découvrir l’Ordre O21M ?...

Pour commander: http://www.ladiffusiondulore.fr/a-voir-nouveautes/511-le-roi-veneur.html

 

17:57 Publié dans Livre, Livre, Nouvelle Droite | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : nouvelle droite, dominique venner, livre | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

mardi, 07 janvier 2014

Elementos 61 y 62: Spengler y Condicion femenina

ELEMENTOS Nº 62
REVISAR A SPENGLER: EL FUTURO YA ESTÁ AQUÍ
 
 
Descargar con issuu.com

Descargar con scribd.com


Descargar con pageflip-flap.com


Descargar con google.com


Sumario.-


Oswald Spengler,
por Alain de Benoist

Oswald Spengler, el hombre que veía más lejos,
por Rodrigo Agulló

Oswald Spengler y la decadencia de la Civilización Faústica,
por Carlos Javier Blanco Martín

Revisar a Spengler. ¿De la filosofía de la vida a la filosofía de la crisis?,
por Javier Esparza

Irracionalismo y culto a la tradición en el pensamiento de Spengler,
por Javier R. Abella Romero

Oswald Spengler: la muerte del “Hombre” a comienzos del siglo XX,
por Javier B. Seoane C.

El Socialismo de Oswald Spengler,
por Carlos Javier Blanco Martín

La Decadencia de Occidente y la novela utópica contemporánea,
por Paulino Arguijo

Prusianismo y Socialismo en Spengler,
or Javier R. Abella Romero

Decadencia y muerte del Espíritu Europeo. Volviendo la mirada hacia Oswald Spengler,
por Carlos Javier Blanco Martín

Guerra permanente, anti-pacifismo y elitismo en el pensamiento de Spengler,
por Javier R. Abella Romero

Nihilismo, crisis y decadencia: Ortega frente a Spengler,
por Juan Herrero Senés

Años Decisivos: el distanciamiento definitivo del nacionalsocialismo,
por Javier R. Abella Romero

La influencia de Spengler,
por Antonio Martín Puerta
 

ELEMENTOS Nº 61.

LA CONDICIÓN FEMENINA. ¿FEMINISMO O FEMINIDAD?


 
Descargar con issuu.com

Descargar con scribd.com


Descargar con pageflip-flap.com


Descargar con google.com


Sumario

Visión ontológico-teológica de lo masculino y lo femenino,
por Leonardo Boff

El ser oculto de la cultura femenina en la obra de Georg Simmel,
por Josetxo Beriain

El feminismo de la diferencia,
por Marta Colorado López, Liliana Arango Palacio, Sofía Fernández Fuente

La condición femenina,
por Alain de Benoist

La mujer objeto de la dominación masculina,
por Pierre Bourdieu

Feminidad versus Feminismo,
por Cesáreo Marítimo

Afirmando las diferencias. El feminismo de Nietzsche,
por Elvira Burgos Díaz

La mujer como madre y la mujer como amante,
por Julius Evola

El “recelo feminista” a proposito del ensayo La dominacion masculina de Pierre Bourdieu, por Yuliuva Hernández García

Friedrich Nietzsche y Sigmund Freud: una subversión feminista,
por Eva Parrondo Coppel

Hombres y mujeres. Un análisis desde la teoría de la polaridad,
por Raúl Martínez Ibars

Identidad femenina y humanización del mundo,
por Rodrigo Guerra

Simmel y la cultura femenina,
por Raquel Osborne

La nueva feminidad,
Entrevista a Annalinde Nightwind

El hombre no es un enemigo a batir,
Entrevista con Elisabeth Badinter
 

lundi, 06 janvier 2014

Heidegger, la tradition, la révolution, la résistance et l’“anarquisme”

Robert STEUCKERS:

Heidegger, la tradition, la révolution, la résistance et l’“anarquisme”

 

Petit itinéraire très très pédagogique

 

robert steuckersmartin heidegger,heidegger,philosophie,nouvelle droite,allemagneExpédier Heidegger en trois pages pour expliquer qu’il est un tenant de la tradition, ou d’une tradition, tient de la gageure. Je vais néanmoins m’y atteler, pour faire plaisir à Eugène Krampon et parce que, finalement, c’est une nécessité pédagogique dans un combat métapolitique comme le nôtre.

 

Tout néophyte qui a abordé Heidegger sait qu’il parle de “Dasein”, terme allemand signifiant la vie ou l’existence mais que les philosophes exégètes de son oeuvre préfèrent traduire par “être-là”. Les exercices de haute voltige philosophique n’ont pas manqué pour cerner avec toute l’acuité voulue ce concept d’“être-là”. Ce “là”, pour Heidegger, tout au début de ses réflexions, c’est son enracinement dans le pays souabe, dans la petite ville de Messkirch où il a vu le jour. Au-delà de cet enracinement personnel, tout homme, pour être un homme complet et authentique, pour ne pas être une sorte de fétu de paille emporté par les vents des modes, doit avoir un ancrage solide, de préférence rural ou semi-rural, à coup sûr familial, dans une patrie, une “Heimat”, bien circonscrite.

 

Plus tard, Heidegger, élargira son enracinement souabe à toute la région, du Lac de Constance à la Forêt Noire, aux sources du fleuve central de notre Europe, le Danube. En effet, c’est dans cette région-là, très précisément, que sont nés les grands penseurs et poètes allemands, dont Hölderlin et Hegel. C’est dans leur patrie charnelle baignée par le Danube naissant que le retour subreptice et encore voilé à l’essence grecque de l’Europe s’est ré-effectué, à partir du 18ème siècle. La germanité pour Heidegger, c’est donc cet espace de forêts et de collines douces, parfois plus échancrées au fur et à mesure que l’on s’approche de la frontière suisse, mais c’est aussi le lieu de l’émergence d’une langue philosophique inégalée depuis la Grèce antique, plongeant dans un humus tellurique particulier et dans une langue dialectale/vernaculaire très profonde: cette Souabe devrait donc être la source d’inspiration de tous les philosophes, tout comme une certaine Provence —ce qu’il admettra bien volontiers quand il ira y rendre visite au poète René Char.

 

La tradition pour Heidegger n’est donc pas une sorte de panacée, ou d’empyrée, qui se trouverait, pour l’homme, hors du lieu qui l’a vu naître ni hors du temps qui l’a obligé à se mobiliser pour agir dans et sur le monde. Heidegger n’est pas le chantre d’une tradition figée, inamovible, extraite du flux temporel. L’homme est toujours “là” (ou “ici”) et “maintenant”, face à des forces pernicieuses qui l’assoupissent, lui font oublier le “là” qui l’a vu naître et les impératifs de l’heure, comme c’est le cas de nos contemporains, victimes de propagandes dissolvantes via les techniques médiatiques, fabricatrices d’opinions sans fondements. Par voie de conséquence, la “proximité” (“Nähe”) est une vertu, une force positive qu’il s’agit de conserver contre les envahissements venus de partout et de nulle part, du “lointain” (“Ferne”) qui troublent et désaxent l’équilibre qui m’est nécessaire pour faire face aux aléas du monde. Le meilleur exemple pour montrer ce que Heidegger entend par “Nähe” et par “Ferne”, nous le trouvons dans son discours de 1961, prononcé en dialecte souabe à l’intention de ses concitoyens de Messkirch, de ses amis d’enfance avec qui il jouait une sorte de formidable “guerre des boutons”, où il était le chef d’un clan de gamins armés d’épées de bois. Ces braves citoyens de Messkirch lui avaient demandé ce qu’il pensait du nouveau “machin” qui envahissait les foyers, surtout dans les villes, en plein “miracle économique” allemand: ils voulaient qu’il leur parle de la télévision. Heidegger y était hostile et a prouvé dans un langage simple que la télévision allait apporter continuellement des sollicitations mentales venues du “lointain”, des sollicitations hétéroclites et exotiques, qui empêcheraient dorénavant l’homme de se resourcer en permanence dans son “là” originel et aux gens de Messkirch de ressentir les fabuleuses forces cachées de leur propre pays souabe.

 

Heidegger, malgré son plaidoyer permanent —par le biais d’une langue philosophique très complexe— pour cet enracinement dans le “là” originel de tout homme, n’est pas pour autant un philosophe de la banalité quotidienne, ne plaide pas pour une “installation” tranquille dans un quotidien sans relief. Tout homme authentique sort précisément de la banalité pour “ex-sister”, pour sortir (aller “ex”) de tout statisme incapacitant (aller “ex”, soit “hors”, du “stare”, verbe latin désignant la position immobile). Mais cette authencité de l’audacieux qui sort des lourdes banalités dans lesquelles se complaisent ses contemporains n’est “authentique” que s’il se souvient toujours et partout de son “là” originel. L’homme authentique qui sort hardiment hors des figements d’un “végétatisme” n’est pas un nomade mental, il garde quelque part au fond de lui-même un “centre”, une “centralité” localisable; il n’est donc pas davantage un vagabond sans racines, sans mémoire. Il peut voyager, revenir ou ne pas revenir, mais il gardera toujours en lui le souvenir de son “là” originel.

 

L’homme de Heidegger n’est pas un “sujet”, un “moi” isolé, sans liens avec les autres (de sa communauté proche). L’homme est “là”, avec d’autres, qui sont également “là”, qui font partie intégrante de son “là” comme lui du leur. Les philosophes pointus parlent avec Heidegger de “Mit-da-sein”. L’homme est inextricablement avec autrui. Même si Heidegger a finalement peu pensé le politique en des termes conventionnels ou directement instrumentalisables, sa philosophie, et son explication du “Mit-da-sein”, impliquent de définir l’homme comme un “zoon politikon”, un “animal politique” qui sort des enlisements de la banalité pour affronter ceux qui veulent faire de la Cité (grecque ou allemande) une “machine qui se contente de fonctionner” où les hommes-rouages —réduits à la fonction médiocre de n’être plus que des “répéteurs” de gestes et de slogans— vivraient à l’intérieur d’une gigantesque “clôture”, sous le signe d’une “technique” qui instaure la pure “faisabilité” (“Machenschaft”) de toutes choses et, par voie de conséquence, impose leur “dévitalisation”. Contre les forces d’enlisement, contre les stratagèmes mis en oeuvre par les maniaques de la clôture, l’homme a le droit (vital) de résister. Il a aussi le droit de dissoudre, mentalement d’abord, les certitudes de ceux qui entendent généraliser la banalité et condamner les hommes à l’inauthenticité permanente. C’est là un principe quasi dadaïste d’anarchie, de refus des hiérarchies mises en place par les “clôturants”, c’est un refus des institutions installées par les fauteurs d’inauthenticité généralisée. Heidegger n’est donc pas un philosophe placide à l’instar des braves gens de Messkirch: il ne les méprise cependant pas, il connaît leurs vertus vitales mais il les sait menacés par des forces qui risquent de les dépasser. Il faut certes être placide comme ceux de Messkirch, vaquer à des tâches nobles et nécessaires, au rythme des champs et du bétail, mais, derrière cette placidité revendiquée comme modèle, il faut être éveillé, lucide, avoir le regard qui traque pour repérer le travail insidieux d’objectivisation des hommes et des Cités, auquel travaillent les forces “clôturantes”. Cet éveil et cette lucidité constituent un acte de résistance, une position an-archique (qui ne reconnaît aucun “pouvoir” parmi tous les pouvoirs “objectivants/clôturants” qu’on nous impose), position que l’on comparera très volontiers à celle de l’anarque d’Ernst Jünger ou de l’“homme différencié” de Julius Evola (dadaïste en sa jeunesse!).

 

L’homme a le droit aussi de “penser la révolution”. Heidegger est, de fait, un philosophe révolutionnaire, non seulement dans le contexte agité de la République de Weimar et du national-socialisme en phase d’ascension mais de manière plus générale, plus pérenne, contre n’importe quelle stratégie de “clôturement” puisque toute stratégie de ce type vise à barrer la route à l’homme qui, à partir de son “là” originel, tente de sortir, avec les “autruis” qui lui sont voisins, avec ses proches, des “statismes” emprisonnants qu’une certaine “métaphysique occidentale” a générés au cours de l’histoire réelle et cruelle des peuples européens. Cette “métaphysique” a occulté l’Etre (lequel est de toutes les façons insaisissable), dont on ne peut plus aisément reconnaître les manifestations, si bien que l’homme risque d’y perdre son “essence” (“Wesen”), soit, pourrait-on dire, de perdre sa capacité à ex-sister, à sortir des banalités dans lesquelles on se complait et on se putréfie quand on oublie l’Etre.

 

robert steuckersmartin heidegger,heidegger,philosophie,nouvelle droite,allemagneDeux solutions s’offrent alors à l’homme authentique: 1) amorcer un “nouveau commencement” (“neuer Anfang”) ou 2) accepter de faire pleinement connaissance de l’étranger (der “Fremde”), de ce qui lui est fondamentalement étranger, pour pouvoir mieux, en bout de course, s’ouvrir à son propre (das “Eigene”), quand il sera aperçu que ce fondamentalement étranger n’est pas assimilable à son propre. Dans le premier cas, il faut rompre “révolutionnairement” avec le processus métaphysique d’“enclôturement”, rejeter politiquement les régimes et les idéologies qui sont les produits finis et applicables de cette métaphysique de l’“enclôturement”. C’est ce que Heidegger a fait en prononçant son fameux “discours de rectorat” qui scellait son engagement national-socialiste en 1933-34. Le ré-alignement du nouveau régime sur des institutions imitées du wilhelminisme d’avant 1914 ou sur certaines normes de la République de Weimar, suite, notamment, à la “Nuit des longs couteaux” de juin 1934, plonge Heidegger dans le scepticisme: le régime semble n’être qu’un avatar supplémentaire de la “métaphysique enclôturante”, qui abandonne son “révolutionnisme” permanent, qui renonce à être l’agent moteur du “nouveau commencement”. C’est alors que Heidegger amorce sa nouvelle réflexion: il ne faut pas proposer, clef sur porte, un “nouveau commencement” car, ruse de l’histoire, celui-ci retombera dans les travers de la “métaphysique enclôturante”, à la façon d’une mauvaise habitude fatale, récurrente au cours de l’histoire occidentale. Au contraire: il faut attendre, faire oeuvre de patience (“Geduld”), car toute la trajectoire pluriséculaire de la métaphysique oeuvrant de manière “enclôturante” ne serait qu’un très long détour pour retrouver l’Etre, soit pour retrouver la possibilité d’être toujours authentique, de ne plus avoir face à soi des forces génératrices de barrières et de clôtures qui empêchent de retrouver le bon vieux soleil des Grecs. L’homme doit pourtant suivre ce trajet décevant pour se rendre compte que la trajectoire de la métaphysique “enclôturante” ne mène qu’à l’impasse et que répéter les formules diverses (et politiques) de cette métaphysique ne sert à rien. Ce sera alors le “tournant” (die “Wende”) de l’histoire, où il faudra se décider (“entscheiden”) à opter pour autre chose, pour un retour aux Grecs et à soi. Les éveillés doivent donc guetter le surgissement des “points de retournement” (des “Wendungspunkte”), où le pernicieux travail d’“enclôturement” patine, bafouille, se démasque (dans la mesure où il dévoile sa nature mutilante de l’hominité ontologique). C’est en de tels moments, souvent marqués par la nécessité ou la détresse (“die Not”), que l’homme peut décider (faire oeuvre d’“ex-sister”) et ainsi se sauver, échapper à tout “enclôturement” fatal et définitif. Cette décision salvatrice (“die Rettung”) est simultanément un retour vers l’intériorité de soi (“Einkehr”). L’homme rejette alors les régimes qui l’emprisonnent, par une décision audacieuse et, par là, existentielle, tout en retournant à lui-même, au “là” qui le détermine de toutes les façons dès le départ, mais qu’on a voulu lui faire oublier. Pour Heidegger, ce “là”, qu’il appelle après 1945, l’“Okzident”, n’est pas l’Occident synonyme d’américanosphère (qu’il rejette au même titre que le bolchevisme), mais, finalement, sa Souabe matrice de poésie et de philosophie profondes et authentiques, l’“Extrême-Ouest” du bassin danubien, l’amont —aux flancs de la Forêt Noire— d’un long fleuve qui, traversant toute l’Europe, coule vers les terres grecques des Argonautes, vers la Mer Noire, vers l’espace perse.

 

La deuxième option, consécutive à un certain “enclôturement” du national-socialisme puis à la défaite de celui-ci (en tant que “nouveau commencement” avorté), implique une certaine dépolitisation, une diminution du tonus de l’engagement, si fort dans les années 30, toutes idéologies confondues. L’échec de la “métaphysique clôturante” ne sera dès lors pas dû à une action volontariste et existentielle, posée par des hommes auhentiques, ou des héros, mais par l’effet figeant, étouffant et destructeur que provoquent les agitations fébriles des tenants mêmes de ces pratiques d’enclôturement qui, dès maintenant, arriveront très vite au bout de leur rouleau, buteront contre le mur au fond de l’impasse qu’ils ont eux-mêmes bâtie. Cette fin de règne est notre époque: le néo-libéralisme et les résidus burlesques de sociale-démocratie nous ont d’abord amené cette ère de festivisme (post-mitterrandien), qui utilise la fête (qui pourrait pourtant être bel et bien révolutionnaire) pour camoufler ses échecs politiques et son impéritie, son incapacité à penser hors des sentiers battus de cette métaphysique de l’enclôturement, fustigée par Heidegger en termes philosophiques aussi ardus que pointus. Le sarközisme et l’hollandouillisme en France, comme le dehaenisme ou le diroupettisme en Belgique, et surtout comme la novlangue et les lois scélérates du “politiquement correct”, sont les expressions grotesques de cette fin de la métaphysique de l’enclôturement, qui ne veut pas encore céder le terrain, cesser d’enclôturer, qui s’accroche de manière de moins en moins convaincante: persister dans les recettes préconisées par ces faquins ne peut conduire qu’à des situations de détresse dangereuses et fatales si on n’opte pas, par un décisionnisme existentiel, pour un “autre commencement”. Mais, contrairement à nos rêves les plus fous, où nous aurions été de nouveaux Corps Francs, cet “autre commencement” ne sera pas provoqué par des révolutionnaires enthousiastes, qui, en voulant hâter le processus, mettraient leur authenticité existentielle en exergue et en jeu (comme dans les années 30 —de toute façon, ce serait immédiatement interdit et donnerait du bois de ralonge à l’adversaire “enclôturant”, qui pourrait hurler “au loup!” et faire appel à sa magistraille aux ordres). Le “nouveau commencement” adviendra, subrepticement, par les effets non escomptés de l’imbécillité foncière et de l’impéritie manifeste des tenants des idéologies appauvries, avatars boiteux de la “métaphysique occidentale”.

 

Il nous reste à boire l’apéro et à commander un bon repas. Après la poire et le fromage, après un bon petit calva tonifiant, il faudra bien que nos congénères, sortis de l’inauthenticité où les “enclôtureurs” les avaient parqués, viennent nous chercher pour emprunter la voie du “nouveau commencement”, qui sera “là” sans nos efforts tragiques, de sang et de sueur, mais grâce à la connerie de l’ennemi, un “nouveau commencement” que nous avons toujours appelé de nos voeux et que nous avons pensé, à fond, avec obstination, avant tous les autres. Nous avons réfléchi. Nous allons agir.

 

Robert STEUCKERS.

(Voilà, j’ai commis le pensum de 15.000 signes commandé par Eugène, ce formidable commensal aux propos rabelaisiens et tonifiants; on va maintenant m’accuser d’avoir fait du simplisme mais tant pis, j’assume, et j’attends de boire avec lui une bonne bouteille de “Gewurtzraminer”, agrémentée d’une douzaine d’ huîtres... Forest-Flotzenberg, novembre 2013).

 

Bibliographie:

-          Jean-Pierre BLANCHARD, Martin Heidegger philosophe incorrect, L’Aencre, Paris, 1997.

-          Edith BLANQUET, Apprendre à philosopher avec Heidegger, Ellipses, Paris, 2012.

-          Mark BLITZ, Heidegger’s Being and Time and the Possibility of Political Philosophy, Cornell University Press, London, 1981.

-          Renaud DENUIT, Heidegger et l’exacerbation du centre – Aux fondements de l’authenticité nazie?, L’Harmattan, Paris, 2004.

-          Michael GELVEN, Etre et temps de Heidegger – Un commentaire littéral, Pierre Mardaga, Bruxelles, 1970.

-          Florian GROSSER, Revolution Denken – Heidegger und das Politische – 1919-1969, C. H. Beck, Munich, 2011.

-          Emil KETTERING, Nähe – Das Denken Martin Heideggers, Günther Neske, Pfullingen, 1987.

-          Bernd MARTIN, Martin Heidegger und das “Dritte Reich” – Ein Kompendium, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 1989.

-          Michael ROTH, The Poetics of Resistance – Heidegger’s Line, Northwestern University Press, Evanston/Illinois, 1996.

-          Rainer SCHÜRMANN, Le principe d’anarchie – Heidegger et la question de l’agir, Seuil, Paris, 1982.

-          Hans SLUGA, Heidegger’s Crisis – Philosophy and Politics in Nazi Germany, Harvard University Press, 1993.

 

 

dimanche, 05 janvier 2014

R. Steuckers : Identité(s) Européenne(s) et actualité internationale

 

Entretien accordé au "Cercle des Volontaires"

Robert Steuckers :

Identité(s) Européenne(s) et actualité internationale

 

Le Cercle des Volontaires est allé à la rencontre de Robert Steuckers, grande figure de ce qu’on appelle la « Nouvelle Droite », ancien membre du mouvement GRECE et fondateur du mouvement « Synergies européennes ».

 

Voici les sujets qui ont été traités par Robert Steuckers :
- L’identité européenne
- L’identité européenne influencée à travers les relations avec les autres peuples
- Une ou des identités européennes ?
- Une identité menacée ?
- Puritanisme américain et néoconservatisme
- Ukraine/UE et l’Axe Paris-Berlin-Moscou
- Nucléaire iranien et bouclier anti-missiles de l’OTAN

 

Nous vous signalons que nous publierons dans les prochains jours une version écrite de cet entretien et qui sera illustrée par énormément de documentation afin d’aller plus en profondeur dans l’analyse des sujets traités.

Anass

jeudi, 26 décembre 2013

Le « rapport sur l’Intégration » : texte raciste

front-de-gauche-marianne.jpgLe « rapport sur l’Intégration » : texte raciste

Guillaume Faye

Ex: http://www.gfaye.com

Remis au Premier ministre à sa demande, ce rapport effarant, rédigé en novlangue par des Trissotins, publié en ligne par Matignon et qui a créé le scandale  est en fait inspiré des idées du groupe de pression et de ”réflexion” gauchiste chic lié au PS Terra Nova. L’objectif est la destruction pure et simple de l’identité française. Il vise à substituer à l’assimilation et à l’intégration une forme de communautarisme où les Français de souche seraient objectivement infériorisés, sommés de s’adapter aux mœurs des nouveaux arrivants, et où il faudrait « assumer la dimension arabe-orientale de la France ».

 Inutile d’énumérer les axes politiques proposés par ce rapport ethnomasochiste et culpabiliste qui vise non seulement à défranciser, déseuropéaniser la société mais à accentuer encore la pression migratoire en instaurant une véritable préférence étrangère. 

Il est plus intéressant de s’attarder sur deux passages qui relèvent du sectarisme de la police de la pensée de gauche et de ce racisme implicite si souvent observé dans la vulgate antiraciste. Tout d’abord, il est recommandé d’interdire et de sanctionner judiciairement, notamment dans les médias, toute mention (« description stigmatisante ») de l’origine des personnes, notamment en cas de délit (1) (« nationalité, origine, couleur de peau, religion, culture… »). Cette interdiction est étendue aux « partis politiques et institutions publiques » dans bien d’autres circonstances. 

 Admirons la contradiction : l’origine ethno-culturelle est niée mais en même temps la France doit devenir « arabe-orientale ». Mais implicitement, le fait d’être qualifié par son nom et son prénom d’origine africaine ou arabe, par exemple, serait subrepticement une insulte. Inconsciemment, les auteurs (vieux gauchistes) du rapport  considèrent que de dire à/de quelqu’un qu’il est ”Arabe” est une « stigmatisation », un « délit de harcèlement racial ». Or, ne pas mentionner l’origine des gens, par pseudo-respect, c’est dévaloriser cette origine. On nage dans une contradiction totale, la bêtise raciste/antiraciste de cette gauche à la fois gouvernementale, soixante-huitarde et intellectuellement à gaz pauvre. (2)

Le second passage fait allusion à la ”race blanche”, alors qu’officiellement les races n’existent pas. Il est en effet proposé de ne plus se référer dans l’enseignement de l’histoire à « des figures incarnées qui demeurent très largement des grands hommes, mâles, blancs et hétérosexuels ». (3)  Évident racisme anti-Blancs et aversion contre les hétérosexuels de la part de personnes qui sont elles-mêmes majoritairement des Blancs hétérosexuels. Ça relève de la psychiatrie – ou de la psychanalyse.

Cette gauche antiraciste est complètement obsédée par l’idée de ”race”, comme les puritains étaient obsédés par l’idée de sexe. Le paradigme racial est obsessionnel dans la gauche ”antiraciste”. 

Une telle idéologie à la fois xénophile, pétrie de bêtise et/ou de mauvaises intentions, est la porte ouverte à la guerre civile ethnique, lot endémique du Maghreb et du Proche-Orient arabe, et de toute société hétérogène et pluri-ethnique.

Mais hélas, ce rapport tire en réalité la conclusion dramatique, cynique et souriante de quarante ans d’immigration incontrôlée, au terme de laquelle s’opère un bouleversement démographique, où toute ”intégration” ou ”assimilation” de minorités qui n’en sont plus est devenue une chimère et où le petit peuple de souche est prié par ses élites grasses et protégées (”socialistes”) de se plier à la loi des colonisateurs présentés comme des victimes, est sommé de se taire et de devenir Invisible. Devant l’histoire, les politiciens, parfaitement antidémocrates et antirépublicains, responsables de ce fait, devront répondre d’une tragédie annoncée.

Notes:

 

(1) C’est implicitement reconnaître l’origine immigrée très majoritaire de la criminalité.

(2) La pensée de gauche, intellectualiste et déconnectée du réel, héritière inconsciente en fait de l’idéalisme platonicien (auquel s’oppose le réalisme aristotélicien)  souffre moins de bêtise que de pathologie, d’origine psychologique. Vouloir construire un méta-monde contre la réalité, une utopie, c’est à dire, étymologiquement, un lieu qui n’existe nulle part, un rêve.  

(3) Il faudra donc trouver dans les figures de l’histoire de France des personnes de couleur, féminines, bisexuelles ou homosexuelles ? Vous en connaissez ?