Entretien avec Dominique Venner

Entretien avec Dominique Venner

Boreas Rising

Boreas Rising:
White Nationalism & the Geopolitics of the Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis, Part 1

By Michael O'MEARA

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/ 

 “History is again on the move.”
—Arnold Toynbee

For a half-century, we nationalists stood with the “West” in its struggle against the Asiatic Marxism of the Soviet bloc. There was little problem then distinguishing between our friends and our foes, for all evil was situated in the collectivist East and all virtue in the liberal West.

Today, things are much less clear. Not only has the Second American War on Iraq revealed a profound geopolitical divide within the West, the social-political order associated with it now subverts our patrimony in ways no apparatchik ever imagined. Indeed, it seems hardly exaggerated to claim that Western elites (those who Samuel Huntington calls the “dead souls”)[1] have come to pose the single greatest threat to our people’s existence.

For some, this threat was discovered only after 1989. Yet as early as the late forties, a handful of white nationalists, mainly in Europe, but with the American Francis Parker Yockey at their head, realized that Washington’s postwar order, not the Soviet Union, represented the greater danger to the white biosphere.[2] Over the years, particularly since the fall of Communism, this realization has spread, so that a large part of Europe’s nationalist vanguard no longer supports the West, only Europe, and considers the West’s leader its chief enemy.[3]

For these nationalists, the United States is a kind of anti-Europe, hostile not only to its motherland, but to its own white population. The Managerial Revolution of the thirties, Jewish influence in the media and the academy, the rise of the national security state and the military-industrial complex have all had a hand in fostering this anti-Europeanism, but for our transatlantic cousins its roots reach back to the start of our national epic. America’s Calvinist settlers, they point out, saw themselves as latter-day Israelites, who fled Egypt (Europe) for the Promised Land. Their shining city on the hill, founded on Old Testament, not Old World, antecedents, was to serve as a beacon to the rest of humanity. America began—and thus became itself—by casting off its European heritage. The result was a belief that America was a virtuous land, dedicated to liberty and equality, while Europe was mired in vice, corruption, and tyranny. Then, in the eighteenth century, this anti-Europeanism took political form, as the generation of 1776 fashioned a new state based on Lockean/Enlightenment principles, which were grafted onto the earlier Calvinist ones. As these liberal modernist principles came to fruition in the twentieth century, once the Christian, Classical vestiges of the country’s “Anglo-Protestant core” were shed, they helped legitimate the missionary cosmopolitanism of its corporate, one-world elites, and, worse, those extracultural, anti-organic, and hedonistic influences hostile to the European soul of the country’s white population.[4]

This European nationalist view of our origins ought to trouble white nationalists committed to a preserving America’s European character, for, however slanted, it contains a not insignificant kernel of truth. My intent here is not to revisit this interpretation of our history, but to look at a development that puts it in a different racial perspective. So as not to wander too far afield, let me simply posit (rather than prove) that the de-Europeanizing forces assailing America’s white population are only superficially rooted in the Puritan heritage. The Low Church fanatics who abandoned their English motherland and inclined America to a biblical enterprise, despite their intent, could not escape their racial nature, which influenced virtually every facet of early American life. Indeed, the paradox of America is that it began not simply as a rejection but also as a projection of Europe. Thus, beyond their ambivalent relationship to Europe, Americans (until relatively recently) never had any doubt that their race and High Culture were European. As such, they showed all the defining characteristics of the white race, taming the North American continent with little more than rifles slung across their backs, and doing so in the European spirit of self-help, self-reliance, and fearlessness. As Francis Parker Yockey writes: “America belongs spiritually, and will always belong to the [European] civilization of which it is a colonial transplantation, and no part of the true America belongs to the primitivity of the barbarians and fellaheen outside of this civilization.”[5]

As long, then, as Americans were of Anglo-Celtic (or European) stock, with racially conscious standards, their Calvinist or liberal ideology remained of secondary importance. Our present malaise, I would argue, stems less from these ideological influences (however retarding) than from a more recent development—the Second World War—whose world-transforming effects were responsible for distorting and inverting our already tenuous relationship to Europe. For once our motherland was conquered and occupied (what the apologists of the present regime ironically refer to as its “liberation”) and once the new postwar system of transnational capital was put in place, a New Class of powers with a vested interest in de-Europeanizing America’s white population was allowed to assume command of American life. The result is the present multiracial system, whose inversion of the natural order negates the primacy of our origins and promises our extinction as a race and a culture. The only possibility of escaping its annihilating fate would seem, then, to be another revolutionary transformation of the world order—one that would throw the existing order into crisis and pose an alternative model of white existence. The “Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis” formed during the recent Iraq war, I believe, holds out such a possibility.

Genesis of an Axis

As part of its Mobiles Géopolitique series, the Franco-Swiss publisher L’Age d’Homme announced in April 2002 the release of Paris-Berlin-Moscou: La voie de l’indépendance et de la paix (Paris-Berlin-Moscow: The Way of Peace and Independence). Authored by Henri de Grossouvre, the youngest son of a prominent Socialist party politician, and prefaced by General Pierre Marie Gallois, France’s premier geostrategic thinker, Paris-Berlin-Moscou argued that Europe would never regain its sovereignty unless it threw off American suzerainty and did so in alliance with Russia.

In recommending a strategic alliance between France, Germany, and Russia for the sake of a Eurasian federation stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, Grossouvre’s thesis seemed entirely utopian. For although the prospect of such an alliance had long animated the imagination of revolutionary nationalists, it seemed more fantasy than possibility, even when proposed by a well-connected and reputable member of the governing elites. Fantasy, however, rather unexpectedly took hold of the international arena. Within months of the book’s publication, its thesis assumed a life of its own, as the new Likudized administration in Washington started beating the drums for another war on Iraq.

The axis and the war it sought to avoid will be looked at in the following sections. Here, a few words on Grossouvre’s book are in order, for, besides being one of those novel cases where life seemed to imitate art, it stirred the European public, was extensively reviewed, led to the organization of several international conferences attended by diplomats, military leaders, and parliamentarians, and culminated in a website with over two thousand pages of documentation.[6] Its effect on the European—especially on the anti-liberal—spirit has been profound. If the axis it proposes is stabilized as an enduring feature of the international order (and much favors that), a realignment as significant as 1945 could follow.

Paris-Berlin-Moscou begins by acknowledging the common values linking America and Europe, the so-called Atlantic community, as well as the US role in guaranteeing European security during the Cold War. On both these counts, the author’s establishment ties are evident, for no anti-liberal views the Atlantic relationship in quite such uncritical terms. Nevertheless, in arguing that these two factors no longer justify Europe’s dependence on the United States, he breaks with the prevailing system (or at least what was the prevailing system) of strategic thought.

In Grossouvre’s view, Europe’s geopolitical relationship to the United States was fundamentally altered between 1989 and 1991, when Eastern Europe threw off its Soviet yoke, Germany reunified, and Russia called off the Communist experiment begun in 1917. Then, as Europe’s strategic dependence on the US came to an end, so too did its heteronomy.[7] Moreover, it is only a matter of time, Grossouvre predicts, before Russia recovers, China develops, and US power is again challenged. In the meantime, US efforts to perpetuate its supremacy, defend its neo-liberal system of global market relations, and stifle potential threats to its dominance are transforming it into a force of international instability. But even if this were not the case, Grossouvre contends that Europeans would still need to separate themselves from America’s New World Order (NWO), for their independence as a people is neither a luxury nor a vanity, but requisite to their survival.[8] For as Carl Schmitt contends, it is only in politically asserting itself that a people truly exists—conscious of its place in history, oriented to the future, and secure in its identity.[9]

Europe’s ascent—and here Grossouvre most distinguishes himself from the reigning consensus—will owe little to the European Union (EU). Although its GNP is now approaching that of the US; its share of world imports and exports is larger; its manufacturing capacity and productivity are greater; its population is larger, more skilled, and better educated; its currency, the euro, sounder; and its indebtedness qualitatively lower, the EU does not serve Europe in any civilizational sense.[10] Its huge unwieldy bureaucracy serves only Mammon, which means it lacks a meaningful political identity and hence the means to play an international role commensurate with its immense economic power. It indeed caricatures the “European idea,” representing a technocratic economism without roots and without memory, focused on market exchanges and financial orthodoxies that are closer in spirit to America’s neo-liberal model than to anything native to Europe’s own tradition. (As one French rightist argues, “Every time the technocrats in Brussels speak, they profane the idea of Europe.”)[11] The EU’s growth has, in fact, gone hand in hand with the weakening of its various member states—and the corresponding failure to replace them with a continental or federal alternative.[12] Given its current enlargement to twenty-five members, political unity has become an even more remote prospect, particularly in that many of the new East European members lack any sense of the European idea.

A strong centralized state, however, is key to Europe’s future. Since the Second World War, power is necessarily continental: Only a Großraum (large space), a geopolitically unified realm animated by a “distinct political idea,” has a role to play in today’s world.[13] Yet even with the dissolution of the East-West bloc, a continental state is not likely to emerge from the EU’s expanding market system. If earlier state-building is any guide (think of Garibaldi’s Italy, Kara-George’s Serbia, Pearse’s Ireland, or Washington’s America), political unification requires a vision, a mobilizing project, emanating from a history of blood and struggle. As Jean Thiriart writes: “One does not create a nation with speeches, pious talk, and banquets. One creates a nation with rifles, martyrs, jointly lived dangers.”[14] For Grossouvre, this mobilizing vision is De Gaulle’s Grande Europe: a political-civilizational Großraum pivoted on a Franco-German confederation (encompassing Charlemagne’s Francs de l’Ouest et Francs de l’Est), allied with Russia, and forged in opposition to the modern Carthage.

The three great continental peoples, he believes, constitute the potential “core” around which a politically federated Europe will coalesce. Like De Gaulle, who refused to accept his country’s defeat in 1940 and who fought all the rest of his life against the conquerors of 1945, Grossouvre views the entwined cultures of the French, Germans, and Russians as fundamentally different from les Anglo-Saxons (the English and the Americans), whose thalassocratic, Low Church, and market-based order favors a rootless, economic definition of national life. Accordingly, for most of her history, with the tragic exception of the 1870–1940 period, France’s great enemy was “perfidious Albion,” not Germany.[15] Then, after 1945, this larger historical relationship was resumed, as numerous cooperative ventures succeeded in blunting nationalist antagonisms—to the point that war between them is now inconceivable.[16] Finally, in 1963, when De Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer signed the Treaty of Elysée, their reconciliation was formalized on the basis of an institutionalized system of social, economic, and political collaborations. Their supranational commitment to Europe has since had a powerful synergetic effect, influencing virtually every significant measure undertaken in the name of continental unity. The complementary nature of these closely related peoples has, in fact, triumphed over the political disunity that came with the Treaty of Verdun (843).[17] While a confederation between France and Germany is probably still on the distant horizon, the history of the last 60 years suggests that their national projects are converging.[18] Until then, they are likely to continue to speak with a single voice, for France and Germany are more than two states among the EU’s twenty-five. In addition to being the crucible of European civilization, their combined populations (142 million), their economic power (41 per cent of the EU), and, above all, their capacity to transcend national interests make them special—the nucleus, the motor, the vanguard of a potentially united Europe. Whatever political organization the EU eventually achieves will undoubtedly be one of their doing.

A somewhat different convergence is also under way in the East. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and Germany’s ensuing reunification shifted Europe’s center of gravity eastward. The EU’s enlargement to Eastern Europe this year moved it even farther in this direction. The consolidation of Europe’s eastward expansion hinges, though, on Russia, whose white, Christian people, as the historian Dieter Groh argues, represents one of the great primeval stirrings of the European conscience.[19] (It was the Roman Catholic Church, in its schism with Orthodox Christianity in 1054, not Russia’s history, culture, or racial disposition that kept it from being recognized as a European nation.) France has ancient ties with Russia and today shares many of the same geopolitical interests. But it is Germany that is now most involved in Russian life. She is Russia’s chief trading partner, her banks are the chief source of Russian investment capital, and her 1800 implanted entrepreneurs the leading edge of Russian economic development.[20] Thanks to these ties, along with bimonthly meetings between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Germany’s Gerhard Schröder, Russia is presently engaged in numerous joint ventures with the EU. Together, they have put seven communications satellites into orbit, developed a global positioning system (Galileo) to rival the American one (GPS), signed numerous agreements in the field of aerospace research, given one another consultative voice in the other’s military operations, upgraded and expanded the roads, canals, and railways linking them, brokered a series of deals related to gas and energy, and established an elaborate system of cultural exchanges. Visa-free travel between Russia and the EU is expected by 2007. And though Russia is too big to be integrated into the EU, she is nevertheless developing relations with it that portend ones of even greater strategic significance.

Russia also sees its future in Europe. Since the collapse of Communism and the imposition of what critical observers characterize as a “Second Treaty of Versailles,” it has been on life-support.[21] The economy is in shambles, the state discredited, society afflicted with various pathologies, and its former empire shattered. The appointment of Vladimir Putin in 1999 and his subsequent election as president in 2000 and again in 2004 represent a potential turnaround (even if he is not the ideal person to lead Russia). Full recovery is probably still far off, but it has begun and Europe—its capital, markets, and expertise—is necessary to it. Putin also believes Europe’s growing estrangement from America’s unilateral model of hegemony will eventually lead it into a collective security pact with Russia.[22] Having distanced himself from the pro-American regime of the corrupt Yeltsin, whose liberal market policies were an excuse to plunder the accumulated wealth of the Russian people, and having had his various efforts at rapprochement rebuffed by the Bush administration (which continues to encroach on Russia’s historical spheres of interest), this Deutsche im Kreml now looks to exploit his German connections to gain a wedge in European affairs.[23]

His Eurocentric policies are already assuming strategic form, for Russia’s vast oil reserves have the potential of satisfying all of Europe’s energy needs. (As russophobes say, Russia will build her hegemony in Europe with pipelines.) To consolidate these emerging East-West exchanges, Russia has recently received a €400 million grant to modernize its institutional, legal, and administration apparatus to accord with the EU’s. At the same time, tariffs on Russian imports have been slashed (50 percent of Russian exports now go to the EU) and the EU is sponsoring Russia’s admission to the World Trade Organization. Putin’s arrest of the oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, one of the principal proponents of US-style “casino capitalism,” and the seizure of his massive Yukos oil concern, the resignation of the last Yeltsin holdovers, especially Alexander Voloshin; and an ongoing series of internal reforms, however incomplete, represent further steps toward a restoration of Russian state power.[24] Finally, Russia possesses the military capacity, even in its debilitated state, to guarantee Europe’s security, for in a period when America’s “new liberal imperialism” runs roughshod over European concerns, threatening endless conflicts detrimental to their interests, Russia suddenly becomes a credible defense alternative.[25]

Grossouvre concludes that an axis based on France’s political leadership, Germany’s world class economy, and Russia’s military might represent the potential nucleus of a future Eurasian state. Five distinct advantages, he argues, would follow from such a rapprochement: It would guarantee Europe’s independence from America, correct certain imbalances in the globalization process, enhance the EU’s security, solve its energy needs, and complement the different qualities of its allied members. If such an axis draws the chief continental powers into a more enduring alliance, it will inevitably reshape the international order, making the white men of the North—the Boreans—the single most formidable force in the world.[26] It should come as no surprise, then, that Grossouvre’s most strident critics are to be found in those former left-wing Jewish ranks (as represented by Bernard-Henri Lévy, André Gluckmann, Alain Finkielkraut, etc.), who, like our home-grown neocons, champion the raceless, deculturated policies of Washington’s New World Order.

Notes

1. Samuel P. Huntington, Who Are We? The Challenge to America’s National Identity (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004), pp. 264ff.

2. Francis Parker Yockey, The Enemy of Europe (Reedy, W.V,: Liberty Bell Publications, 1981). In this same period, a related argument can be found in the works of Maurice Bardèche, Julius Evola, Otto Strasser, and, later, Jean Thiriart.

3. For example: Claudio Finzi, “‘Europe’ et ‘Occident’: Deux concepts antagonistes,” Vouloir (May 1994); Guillaume Faye, Le système à tuer les peuples (Paris: Copernic, 1981).

4. For example, Robert de Herte (Alain de Benoist) et Hans-Jürgen Nigra (Giorgio Locchi), “Il était une fois l’Amérique,” Nouvelle Ecole 27–28 (Fall 1975); Robert Steuckers, “La menace culturelle américaine” (January 16, 1990), http://foster.20megsfree.com ^[2]; Reinhard Oberlercher, “Wesen und Verfall Amerikas” (n.d.), http://www.deutsches-kolleg.org ^[3]

5. Francis Parker Yockey, “The Destiny of America” (1955), http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/06/the-destiny-of-america/ ^[4]

6. See http://www.paris-berlin-moscou.org ^[5]

7. Emmanuel Todd, Après l’empire: Essai sur la décomposition du système américain (Paris: Gallimard, 2002); Charles A. Kupchan, The End of the American Era: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the 21st Century (New York: Knopf, 2002).

8 Henri de Grossouvre, Paris-Berlin-Moscou: La voie de l’indépendence et de la paix (Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme, 2002), p. 47.

9 Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, tr. by G. Schwab (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 53.

10 Robert Went, “Globalization: Can Europe Make a Difference?,” EAEPE 2003 conference paper, http://eaepe.infomics.nl/papers/Went.pdf ^[6]

11. Louis Vinteuil, “Discours sur l’Europe” (July 20, 2004), http://www.voxnr.com

12. Pierre-Marie Gallois, Le consentement fatal: L’Europe face aux Etats-Unis (Paris: Seuil, 2001).

13. In 1943, at the height of the Second World War, Pierre Drieu La Rochelle wrote: “The national era has come to an end and an age of [continental] empires is dawning.” See Révolution Nationale: Articles 1943–44 (Paris: L’Homme Libre, 2004), p. 7. Theoretically, the notion of a European Großraum was worked out in Carl Schmitt, Der Nomos der Erde im Völkerrecht des Jus Publicum Europaeum (Cologne: Greven Verlag, 1950); its most impressive programmatic formulation is Jean Thiriart, Un empire de 400 millions d’hommes: L’Europe (Brussels, 1964).

14. Jean Thiriart, For the European Nation-State (Paraparaumu, NZ: Renaissance Press Pamphlet,  n.d.).

15. Pauline Schnapper, La Grande Bretagne et l’Europe: Le grand malentendu (Paris: Eds. Presses de Sciences Po, 2000); Christian Schubert, Grossbritannien: Insel zwischen den Welten (Munich: Olzog, 2004).

16. Brigitte Sauzay, “L’Allemagne et la France: Quel avenir pour la coopération?” (n.d.), http://geogate.geographie.uni-marburg.de ^[7]

17. This treaty divided Charlemagne’s empire, separating the Germanic tribes of the West from those of the East. In one respect, the fratricidal history of nineteenth and twentieth century nationalism was a history of this separation.

18. Blanine Milcent, “La ‘Françallemagne’ attendra,” L’Express, December 11, 2003.

19. Dieter Groh, Russland und das Selbstverständis Europas (Neuwied: Luchterhand Verlag, 1961). Also see Georges Nivat, Russie-Europe: La fin du schisme (Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme, 1993); Andreas-Renatus Hartmann, “Die neue Nachbarschaftspolitik der Europäischen Union” (April 16, 2004), http://www.boschlektoren.de ^[8]

20. Klaus Thörner, “Das deutsche Spiel mit Russland” (February 2003), http://www.diploweb.com

21. Nikolai von Kreitor, “Russia and the New World Order” (1996). Published years before the Iraq war, Kreitor’s article is perhaps the single most important analysis to have been made of the international situation leading up to the war. My views here are much indebted to it.

22. Wladimir Putin, “Russland glaubt an die große Zukunft der Partnerschaft mit Deutschland,” Die Zeit (April 10, 2002).

23. Alexander Rahr, “Ist Putin der ‘Deutsche’ im Kreml?” (September 2002), http://www.weltpolitik.com ^[9]

24. Jacques Sapir, “Russia, Yukos, and the Elections” (February 2004), worldoil.com ; “Poutine restaure l’Etat: Un entretien avec Jacques Sapir,” Politis 774 (November 6, 2002); Wolfgang Strauss, “Putin oder Chodorkowski: 14. März, eine Niederlage Amerikas” (March 29, 2004), http://staatsbriefe.de ^[10]

25. One sign of this capacity is the fact that in 2003, Russia became the world’s number one arms exporter. See P. Schleiter, “Defense, securité, relations internationales” (April 25, 2004), http://www.polemia.com ^[11]; also Yevgeny Bendersky, “Keep a Watchful Eye on Russia’s Military Technology” (July 21, 2004), http://www.pinr.com ^[12]

26. The notion of a possible northern imperium of white men is taken from Guillaume Faye, Le coup d’Etat mondial: Essai sur le Nouvel Impérialisme Américain (Paris: L’Æncre, 2004), pp. 183ff. On the myth of the Boreans (or Hyperboreans), see Jean Mabire, Thulé: Le soleil retrouvé des hyperboréens (Lyon: Irminsul, n.d.).

Boreas Rising:
White Nationalism & the Geopolitics of the Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis, Part 2

A Defensive Alignment

The Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis arose in reaction to the Second American War on Iraq. It needs thus to be understood in the context of that war, which the Bush administration treated as the second phase of its war on terror, the first being the invasion of Afghanistan and the assault on the Taliban regime harboring bin Laden’s al-Qa’ida (both of which, incidentally, were, via the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI, made in the USA).[1] However much it resembled the Anglo-Afghan and Russo-Afghan wars of the nineteenth century, the American assault on Afghanistan did not provoke the kind of opposition that Iraq would, for there was still enormous sympathy for the US after “9/11.” “Victory,” moreover, came quickly, as it had for all former conquerors. The Taliban were chased from Kabul and the warring tribes associated with the US-supported Northern Alliance, which did most of the fighting on the ground, soon gained control of the countryside. While Afghanistan has since reverted to a pre-state form of regional, tribal rule (ideal for narco-terrorists) and most al-Qa’ida fighters succeeded in dispersing, the Bush administration was nevertheless able to broadcast publicly satisfying TV images of swift, forceful action.[2]

Buoyed up by the nearly effortless rout of the medieval Taliban, Bush adopted the policies recommended by his neoconservative advisers,[3] whose neo-Jacobin assertion of American power not only has nothing to do with fighting Islamic terrorism, but cloaks a Judeo-liberal vision of global domination which threatens to turn the entire Middle East into something akin to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Key to their vision is Iraq, whose threat to Israel has been repackaged by such Jewish propaganda mills as the Project for the New American Century as a threat to US security. Besides promoting a peculiar blend of liberal statist and Zionist strategic concerns that represents a turn (not a break) in US foreign policy, the Krauthammers, Wolfowitzes, and other sickly neocon types advising the administration seek to “Sharonize” Washington’s strategic culture. To this end, military force is designated the option of choice, and a moralistic Manichaeanism which pits the US and Israel against the world’s alleged evils is used to legitimate the most dishonorable policies.[4] As the former wastrel of the Bush dynasty signed on to this Likud-inspired agenda, he began making a case for extending his antiterror crusade to Mesopotamia. Iraq’s “Hitler-like tyrant,” he claimed, had links with al-Qa’ida and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capable of reaching the United States.

While America’s TV-besotted masses had little difficulty swallowing his unsubstantiated argument, the rest of the world balked.[5] At this point in early 2002, the two shores of the Atlantic began pulling apart. German chancellor Gerhard Schröder was the first major European figure to oppose Bush’s war plans. He was soon joined by French president Jacques Chirac. In July 2002 they issued a joint declaration formally rejecting the US proposal, stating that the UN’s embargo and its inspectors were doing their job and that the proposed attack would only distract from the “real war on terror.” By September, Russia (whose economic situation required the good graces of Washington) hinted that it too would veto a UN resolution sanctioning war. Then, on February 10, 2003, Putin joined Chirac and Schröder in issuing a declaration condemning what one senior US intelligence officer later called “an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat.”[6]

The Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis thus originated as a temporary coalition organized around a single point of agreement. Convinced that Bush had failed to make his case for war, the French, Germans, and Russians thought the evidence for al-Qa’ida links and WMD was unconvincing (we know now, by the government’s own admissions, that it was a tissue of lies, distortions, and manipulations).[7] Their coalition was nevertheless more than a response to a momentary disturbance in the world system. As one high-level Russian analyst characterized it, the coalition was a “rebellion against a unilateral America unwilling to accommodate European interests.”[8] As such, it announced a possible geopolitical power shift from the Atlantic to Eurasia.

Globalism at Gunpoint

Since the Cold War’s end, international relations have undergone changes as fundamental as those following the world-historical realignment of 1945.[9] The neoconservatives influencing Bush, in their preemptive crusade for what is tendentiously labeled “global democracy,” have been anxious to take advantage of these “shifting tectonic plates in international politics . . . before they harden again.”[10] As Robert Kagan and William Kristol, two of the chief neocon publicists, argue: There is a danger today that an unassertive US will lose control of the world order it created in 1945. Beginning with the fall of the Soviet Union, when the field was cleared of possible rivals, they believe the US should have consolidated its “benevolent hegemony,” turning the unipolar moment into the unipolar era. Instead, George I and Clinton allegedly failed to exploit the moment, further ensnaring the US in multilateral relations that compromised its power and interests.[11]

Against this trend, the Bush administration has carried out what some characterize as a “revolution in foreign policy.” Without abandoning Washington’s objective of developing a global market system based on American-style liberal-democratic principles, it now employs hegemonist methods, codified in the new Bush Doctrine, that change the way the US asserts its power abroad.[12] In this vein, the administration dismisses international laws and institutions, as it asseverates America’s unilateral right to alter the world system however it wishes, including attacking and overthrowing states deemed a threat to its security. Traditional strategies of deterrence and containment have consequently been supplanted by a proactive policy of prevention and preemption, just as ad hoc coalitions are given precedence over established alliances and collective security arrangements, regime change over negotiations with “failed” states, and ideological goals over previous notions of the national interest.[13]

The entire tenor of American power has thus altered, but against those who claim Bush has abandoned the core assumptions of the liberal internationalist tradition, the conservative Andrew J. Bacevich points out that his foreign policy innovations are largely methodological in character. For the past half century, no matter which party occupied the White House, US policy has pursued a single overarching goal: “global openness”—as in Hay’s “Open Door” imperialism—which promotes the movement of goods, peoples, and fashions into and out of world markets for the sake of US capitalist concerns.[14] Moreover, in assuming responsibility for this integrated international trading system—this “empire”—the US wins the right not only “to sell Big Macs and Disney products round the world,” but to govern the system itself.

While Bacevich’s argument is an excellent foil to those seeking to portray Bush as a revolutionary—somehow different from the Democrats who have manipulated the United States into most of the 20th century wars and played a leading role in semantically transforming “democracy” and “human rights” into the totalitarian double-speak of the NWO—Bacevich nevertheless ignores the different ways in which the two parties implement their liberal internationalist principles. Republicans, especially since Reagan, are inclined to see the growth of US national power as the precondition for sustaining their imperial system, while Democrats look to the universalization and institutionalization of their liberal principles. This disposes Republicans to a unipolar model of liberal internationalism based on military supremacy, unlike Democrats, who favor a world-government model emphasizing the economic facets of globalization and the need for international regulation. (Lately, though, the Democratic world-government types, if such influential liberal internationalists as those associated with Richard Haas of the Council on Foreign Relations and Helmut Sonnenfeldt of the Brookings Institution are any guide, seem increasingly disposed to the unipolar model; John Kerry’s neocon cloning of Bush’s foreign policy also suggests a shift toward the Republican vision.) But whether pursued by Republicans or Democrats, this liberal internationalist agenda, with its emphasis on the antitraditional and anti-Aryan forces of free trade, free markets, and open societies, has been a bane to white people everywhere—for it wars against “the fundamental value of blood and race as creators of true civilization.”[15]

In pressing into areas which were off-limits during the Cold War, Washington’s imperial market system has become increasingly aggressive. Under Clinton, the Weinberger/Powell Doctrine of avoiding military engagements unless absolutely necessary was discarded, as the “unipolar moment” ushered in by the Soviet collapse was treated as a blank check for “intervening practically wherever and whenever it chose.” In this spirit, Clinton’s Secretary of State contemplated invading Iraq and disparaged the principle of national sovereignty. Her distinction between war and the use of military force has since reoriented US policy, as military interventions overseas cease being labeled wars and become armed forms of “humanitarianism.”[16] Finally, the Clinton Doctrine of Enlargement, in championing the worldwide spread of US-style democracy and free markets (that is, the globalist assault on national identity and national institutions), privileged unilateralism (rechristened “assertive multilateralism”) over containment and disarmament.[17]

Although he avoided Bush’s swaggering brand of leadership, Clinton was only slightly less coercive in promoting the totalitarian ideology of openness.[18] It is hardly irrelevant that Iraq was bombed nearly every day of his administration, that Bosnia was turned into a US military protectorate, and that unilateral military action, in one of the great “war crimes” of the 20th century, was taken against Serbia. Though smaller in scale than Operation Iraqi Freedom, the terrorist air assault on this proud little country (whose historical role was the defense of the white borderlands) aimed at “spreading democracy” for the sake of openness. Symptomatic of the “openness” Washington favors, the Albanian Liberation Front (UCK), an Islamic, drug-smuggling, terrorist mafia with links to al-Qa’ida, was armed and trained by Clinton’s government and a quarter million Christian Serbs, whose nationalist aspirations represented an affront to the New World Order, were ethnically cleansed from Kosovo.[19] These interventions by the Clintonistas also played a leading role in destabilizing the international state system, giving rise to new stateless groups whose megaterrorism is historically unprecedented. The horror of 9/11 and the unfathomable massacre of Russian children at Beslan, not to mention numerous lesser affronts to our humanity, have roots in Clinton’s Yugoslavian intervention. Bush has simply accelerated this process, which is nourishing new, more nihilistic forms of terrorism.[20]

Although he came into office complaining of Clinton’s immodest foreign policy, Bush II has actually gone further, introducing methods which removed the existing restraints on Washington’s use of military force and whatever reservation it might have in violating national sovereignty.[21] Like Clinton, he is a man beholden to alien and dishonorable interests, and inspired by a juvenile notion of power. His “faith-based foreign policy,” like the alley-cat policies of his predecessor, privileges the liberalization of global trade relations, imposes the cosmopolitan imperatives of his corporate supporters on virtually every issue pertinent to the nation’s biocultural welfare, rejects the American tradition of “isolationism,” and runs roughshod over whoever resists an order hostile to ethnocultural particularisms (unless they take innocuous folkloric forms). He might differ with Clinton in favoring a missile defense system, a different approach to China, and a Likudnik rather than a Laborite Zionism, but he is no less committed to a global system of market democracies “open to trade and investment, and policed by the United States.” As one Marxist puts it: “Playboy Clinton, Cowboy Bush, same policy.”[22] With his “Judeo-Protestant” rhetoric of American exceptionalism and his willingness to remove the velvet glove from America’s mailed fist, Bush’s “jackbooted Wilsonianism” differs from that of his predecessor mainly in linking economic globalization to “military modernization.”

As the neoconservatives Thomas Barnett and Henry Gaffney argue, the Bush Doctrine ought to be viewed as a necessary complement to the globalizing process. They claim that before 9/11 globalization (which much of the world identifies with Americanization) was mainly economic, thought best left to business. The collapse of the Twin Towers has since (allegedly) triggered a more serious reflection on America’s role as globalism’s “system administrator.” In their view, bin Laden’s al-Qa’ida, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and all the “rogue states”—Bush’s “axis of evil”—act as “dangerous disconnects” from a world based on interdependence and a single framework of economic governance. (Although they refrain from taking their argument to its logical conclusion, globalization here is inadvertently revealed as the harbinger of global terror.)[23] Faced with these threats to its one-world system, the market not only needs to be policed, the US has a responsibility to maintain its harmonious functioning. Bush’s unilateralist use of force, in applying military power whenever violent “disconnects” interrupt the international flow of labor, raw materials, and energy, Barnett and Gaffney argue, aims at ensuring the security and operability of the globalizing process.[24] But what they do not mention is that once economic globalization is joined with “military globalization,” the globalizing process is not so much ensured as altered, becoming less a neutral extension of economic trends (not that it ever was simply that) and more a classic expression of imperial power. In Iraq, for instance, the American army had no sooner occupied Baghdad than its neoconservative viceroy, Paul Bremer, began to dismantle the Iraqi state, privatize the economy, open the borders to unrestricted imports (unless they came from France or Germany), and, within two weeks of his arrival, had declared that Iraq was “now open for business.”[25]

September 11, then, did not change the long-range goal of US foreign policy (global openness), only the way in which it was pursued. The restraints on military force, already compromised under Clinton, were formally thrown off and a proactive doctrine of preemption superseded the more reactive methods of containment and disarmament. At the same time, Clinton’s human rights rhetoric and “humanitarian” militarism were jettisoned for the bellicose language of “strategic vital interests” and “imperial responsibilities.” It would be misleading, however, to think the transatlantic rift was due solely to Bush’s militaristic assertion of US global interests. Long before 9/11, real policy differences had begun to emerge: over trade; agriculture; armament exports; relations with Cuba, Iran, and Korea; the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; the Echelon economic espionage system monitoring European faxes, e-mails, and phone calls; the Kyoto Protocol; globalization; the abrogation of the ABM treaty; the euro and the dollar, etc. All these differences, in one way or another, reflected Europe’s unwillingness to remain a pawn on Washington’s global chessboard.[26] In the year leading up to Iraq, as Europe sought to check Bush’s unilateralist moves, the transatlantic relationship went into crisis, forcing France and Germany to assert their autonomy sooner than they might otherwise have intended.[27]

Notes

 

1. Alexandre del Valle, Islamisme et Etats-Unis: Une alliance contre l’Europe (Laussanne: L’Age d’Homme, 1999).

2. Justin Raimondo, “Afghanistan: The Forgotten War” (June 21, 2004), http://antiwar.com; Elaine Sciolino, “NATO Chief Offers Bleak Analysis,” New York Times, July 3, 2004.

3. Louis R. Browning, “Bioculture: A New Perspective for the Evolution of Western Populations,” The Occidental Quarterly 4(1) (Spring 2004).

4. There is still no satisfactory treatment of neocon foreign policy. One of the better recent ones, although highly flawed, especially in ignoring its Jewish roots, is Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: Neo-Conservativism and the Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). On neoconservatism’s racial basis, see Kevin MacDonald, “Understanding Jewish Influence III: Neoconservatism As a Jewish Movement,” The Occidental Quarterly 4(2) (Summer 2004). The previous, and in many ways, still existing strategic basis of U.S. policy is perhaps best represented by Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (New York: Basic Books, 1997). On the larger historical contours of U.S. foreign policy, see Walter A. McDougall, Promised Land, Crusader State: The American Encounter with the World since 1776 (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1997).

5. John Le Carré, “The United States Has Gone Completely Mad,” London Times, January 15, 2003. With some irony, one Russian general, Leonid Ivashov, characterized the U.S. media coverage of the war debate (and not simply that of Fox News) as something one might expect in a “police state.” See Johannes Voswinkel, “Schmallippig im Kreml,” Die Zeit (15/2003). For one of the more interesting critiques of the controlled media’s role in mobilizing the population behind Bush’s crusade, see David Miller, “Caught in the Matrix” (April 26, 2004), http://www.scoop.co.nz ^[2]

6. The anonymous author of Imperial Hubris (2004), quoted in Julian Borgen, “Bush Told He Is Playing into Bin Laden’s Hands,” The Guardian, June 19, 2004.

7. Andrew Buncombe, “Carter Savages Bush and Blair,” The Independent, March 27, 2004; David Corn, The Lies of George W. Bush (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2004); F.-B. Huyghe, “Pour en finir avec les ADM” (February 2004), http://vigirak.com ^[3]; the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “WMD in Iraq” (January 2004), http://www.ceip.org ^[4]

8. Viatcheslav Dachitchev, “La Turkie doit-elle faire partie de l’Europe?” (July 8, 2004), http://www.voxnr.com ^[5]

9. Gabriel Kolko, “The U.S. Must Be Contained: The Coming Elections and the Future of American Global Power” (March 12, 2004), http://www.counterpunch.org ^[6]; Robert L. Hutchins, “The World after Iraq” (April 8, 2003), http://www.cia.gov

10. Norm Dixon, “What’s behind War on Terrorism? (September 2002), www.globalresearch.ca ^[7]

11. Robert Kagan and William Kristol, “The Present Danger,” The National Interest 59 (Spring 2000).

12. The Bush Doctrine was elaborated in three key documents, which can be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov ^[8].  They are: “Presidential Speech of 17 September 2001,” “President Bush Delivers Graduation Speech at West Point” (June 1, 2002), “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America” (September 2002).

13. François Géré, “La nouvelle stratégie des Etats-Unis” (May 2002), http://www.diploweb.com ^[9]; Ivo H. Daalder and John M. Lindsay, America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2003), p. 13; Chalmers Johnson, “Sorrows of Empire” (November 2003), http://www.fpif.org ^[10]

14. Andrew J. Bacevich, American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002).

15. Julius Evola, Three Aspects of the Jewish Problem (N.P.: Thomkins & Cariou, 2003), p. 36.

16. Thomas W. Lippman, Madeleine Albright and the New American Diplomacy (Boulder: Westview Press, 2004). In his treatment of the subject, James Mann suggests (correctly, in my view) that the move to military assertiveness begins, haphazardly, with George I. See Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet (New York: Viking, 2004), pp. 179–97.

17. Phillipe Grasset, “Finalement, Clinton sera-t-il réélu?” (June 25, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org ^[11]

18. Nikolai von Kreitor, “American Political Theology” (n.d.), http://foster.20megsfree.com ^[12]; Mann, Rise of the Vulcans, pp. 214–15.

19. Michael A. Weinstein, “Containment or Concessions: The Eclipse of Regime Change” (June 28, 2004), http://www.yellowtimes.org ^[13]; Hunt Tooley, “The Bipartisan War Machine” (September 17, 2003), http://www.mises.org ^[14]; Pierre M. Gallois, La sang du pêtrole: Bosnie (Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme, 1996).

20. Brendan O’Neill, “Beslan: The Real International Connection” (8 September 2004), http://www.spiked-online.com ^[15]; David Halberstam, War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton and the Generals (New York: Scribner, 2001).

21. Bacevich, American Empire, p. 199; Daalder and Lindsay, America Unbound, pp. 36–40.

22. Samir Amin, “Le contrôle militaire de la planète” (February 17, 2003), http://www.alternatives.ca ^[16]

23. “Globalization inevitably generates global terror. For if the U.S. claims the entire planet as its sphere of vital interests, then all the territory of the U.S. becomes a possible sphere of vital interests for global terrorists.” See Alexander Dugin, “Premiers signes de l’apocalypse” (October 18, 2004), http://www.voxnr.com ^[17]

24. Thomas Barnett and Henry Gaffney, “Operation Iraqi Freedom Could Be the First Step toward a Larger Goal: True Globalization,” Military Officer 1(5) (May 2003); also Thomas Barnett, The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the 21st Century (New York: Putnam, 2004). Cf. Alain Joxe, “Les enjeux stratégiques globaux après la guerre d’Iraq” (May 27, 2003), http:www.ehess.fr ^[17]

25. Naomi Klein, “Baghdad Year Zero: Pillaging Iraq in Pursuit of a Neocon Utopia,” Harper’s Bazaar (September 2004).

26. Charles A. Kupchan, “The End of the West,” The Atlantic Monthly (November 2002).

27. Europe’s growing alienation from the U.S. is thus not just about the latter’s unilateralist bullying. In addition to the above cited issues, it also touches on the drug-running, mafia, terrorist, and espionage networks that the U.S. operates in Europe. For example, see Rémi Kaufer, L’arme de la désinformation: Les multinationales américains en guerre contre l’Europe (Paris: Grasset, 1999); Xavier Rauffer, Le grand réveil des mafias (Paris: Lattés, 2003); Karl Richter, Tödliche Bedrohung USA: Waffen und Szenarien der globalen Herrschaft (Tübingen: Hohenrain Verlag, 2004); Alexander del Valle, Guerres contre l’Europe (Paris: Syrtes, 2001); Robert Steuckers, “Espionage par satellites, guerre cognitive, manipulation par les mafias” (November 2003), http://www.centrostudaruna.it; Thierry Meyssen, “Propagande états-unien” (January 2, 2003), http://www.reseauvoltaire.net ^[18]

Boreas Rising:
White Nationalism & the Geopolitics of the Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis, Part 3

A Promising Rapprochement

In the last instance, the US-European rift of 2002–2003 followed from the Cold War’s end, which destroyed the rationale for the transatlantic alliance and hence the restraints on European autonomy. For without the Red Army on the Elbe, Europe was no longer obliged to take orders from the West Wing. Because NATO has outlived its usefulness and Bush’s unipolar security system made no accommodation to Europe’s post-Cold War status, the more self-confident Europeans have begun to distance themselves from Washington.

However headline-capturing, their modest assertion of autonomy has nevertheless been carried out in ways that are thoroughly inadequate to Europe’s independence, based as they are on principles of jurisprudence and ethics, rather than on more consequential forms of power. In Robert Kagan’s now famous characterization, Europeans are from Venus and Americans from Mars, with the former acting as if the world were governed by abstract Kantian principles, ignorant of or unwilling to acknowledge the violent Hobbesian reality which Americans, especially after 9/11, have been forced to confront.[1] In other words, Europeans look to negotiations, diplomacy, and international law to resolve international disputes, while Americans emphasize the importance of military force. These differing “perspectives and psychologies of power,” the anti-white Kagan suggests, explain something of what divides the two shores of the Atlantic.[2] But perhaps more debilitating than Europe’s “Kantianism” (which will not last) is the fact that its increasingly autonomous foreign policy is less an expression of its political identity (although it is that) than a symptom of its liberal evasion of what such an identity ought to entail.

In France, for instance, which is the sole continental country to have defended the European idea in the last half century, as well as maintained a nuclear arsenal and professional army worthy of a “power,” opposition to US unilateralism has been framed largely in liberal internationalist terms that draw attention away from the state’s failed domestic policies. Since De Gaulle’s death, France has been in decline. The population is aging, millions of inassimilable Muslim immigrants are colonizing its lands, and virtually all the major institutions are in need of reform. Having eyes only for the “poor immigrant,” the metastasizing state bureaucracy imposes unrealistic social laws that hamper production and serve as a force for national decline. At the same time, the historical sources of nationalism have been dissolved, the native French dispirited by the institutionalization of multiculturalism, and the country’s extraordinary military and diplomatic apparatus, the necessary basis of both French and European power, if not neglected, then underfunded.[3] The hoopla that comes with France’s resistance to Bush simply focuses attention away from these failures and toward geopolitical developments that are potentially key to Europe’s future, but whose import is limited by the state’s misconceived domestic policies. As Julius Evola puts it: “The measure of freedom is power.”[4] And because Europeans are now uncomfortable with the exercise of power, their freedom is necessarily limited.

It is worth recalling that Jacques Chirac was responsible for the totalitarian mobilization against the presidential candidacy of the nationalist Jean Marie Le Pen in 2002.[5] Like much of the European governing class, he is a product of the same plutocratic system that subordinates national interests to international finance, indifferent to everything associated with his people’s blood and soil.[6] Such a system, as our own experiences reveal, is incapable of producing anything other than mediocrities. In this spirit, Chirac’s opposition to Washington’s unipolar order orients to a multipolar model based on liberal market principles hostile to Europe’s unique bioculture. As Guillaume Faye points out, Chirac’s opposition to the Iraq war was motivated less by his Gaullist nationalism (which he routinely betrays) than by his pacifist and Third World politics.[7] With the 2007 presidential elections in view, his foreign policy seems, in fact, aimed at the new Muslim electorate, which thrives on his anti-American, Third World, and multilateralist posturing.[8]

Faye also claims that American power is ultimately a reflex of Europe’s refusal of power.[9] Like many commentators, he stresses that US power in this period is greatly exaggerated and goes unchecked mainly for want of challengers. Revealingly, Chirac has, for all his opposition to Bush, done little to rearm Europe and what he does do he does for the worst of reasons, neglecting Grande Europe in the name of a legalistic idealism that contradicts the biocultural foundations of European life. Rather than fixating on the illegalities and incivilities of American unilateralism (which has proven to be a paper tiger in Iraq), he and other establishment leaders would make a greater contribution to Europe’s destiny if they devoted more attention to its military, restored the basis of its national identity, and addressed the real dangers coming from the South. Worse, they wholeheartedly subscribe to the American model of ethnopluralism, communitarianism, and multiculturalism. Just as US leaders think nothing of sending troops halfway around the world to fight a war whose immediate beneficiary is Israel, ignoring the more serious security threat posed by the Third World’s incessant assaults on the country’s southern border, European elites (and the demonstrators massed behind them) trumpet their solidarity with the Islamic Middle East, whose immigrants are presently rending the fabric of European life. There are good reasons for opposing Bush’s war, but the liberal ones motivating Chirac cannot but come back to haunt the continent.

Germany’s relationship with the US is significantly different than France’s, but no less infused with noxious anti-identitarian influences. Germany was virtually remade by the Americans after 1945 and throughout the Cold War remained subservient to them. Yet Germany is slowly beginning to throw off her tutelage. Schröder nevertheless adheres to values and policies that qualify as examples of Kagan’s Kantianism (i.e., pure liberalism). More than Chirac, he upholds Washington’s earlier liberal internationalism, criticizing Bush for violating its principles.[10] (As one journalist for the Süddeutsche Zeitung writes: “We [Germans] owe a great debt to the US for contributing to our transformation into truly democratic citizens after World War II. . . . They [Americans] must forgive us if we have difficulty letting go some of the lessons we have learned.”)[11] It was thus his pacifism—his Social Democratic opposition to power per se—rather than any geopolitical ambition for a powerful Europe that seems to have prompted his opposition to the Iraq war.[12] And in this, alas, he resembles much of the German population, which prefers bourgeois comforts to those virtues that made earlier generations great. Finally, Schröder, like Chirac, supports Turkey’s admission to the EU and panders to the new “German Turk” electorate. He might therefore have been the first German chancellor since Hitler to frontally oppose Washington, but he has no intention of letting the old anti-liberal dream of white renaissance out of the bag.[13]

Despite the mediocre stature of these politicians, which makes them ill-suited to the great tasks at hand, I would argue that the “force of things”—the realities of power and the dictates of survival—is greater than those charged with carrying them out.[14] This seems especially evident in Europe’s rapprochement with Russia. For as France and Germany become increasingly alienated from the US, they lean eastward—even though French and German elites have much more in common with their American than their Russian counterparts.[15]

A rapprochement between the three great European peoples promises great things. As Karl Haushofer once said: “The day when Germans, Frenchmen, and Russians unite will be the last day of Anglo-Saxon [i.e., liberal] hegemony.”[16] Bush—and this is why his administration seems destined to achieve world-historical significance—has brought about what a century of US geostrategists have sought to prevent. Conversely, it is hardly coincidental that even at the Cold War’s height, a wing of the French military looked to Russia as a possible ally. In 1955, the prominent geostrategist, Admiral Raoul Castex, published an article titled “Moscou, rempart de l’Occident?” (Moscow, rampart of the West?), in which he wondered if Russia might not one day become “the vanguard of the white world’s defense.”[17] Today, in a period when Grande Europe—from Dublin to Vladivostok—is at peace, white nationalists in Europe and America again pose Castex’s question and again affirm the possibility that Russia has a leading role to play in the white race’s defense. Indeed, the question now possesses a qualitatively greater weight than it did a half century ago, before the Third World hordes, abetted by the West’s liberal elites, began their colonization of our lands. Russia, moreover, is not just the last white nation on earth, but the only one to have shown the slightest interest in defending its ethnoracial identity. (Our russophobic nationalists might be reminded that the former Soviet Union was the sole white power to define nationality racially.) Its heritage of nationalism, socialism, and anti-liberalism also lends it something of that “Prussian socialism” which Spengler and Yockey saw as the one viable antidote to Western liberalism.[18] In courting Russian support in their conflict with the US, French and German elites might think Putin will be converted to their misconceived Kantianism, but in the great racial-civilizational battles that lie ahead, it is far more likely that Russia’s ethnonationalism will prevail.[19]

America’s Future

Since the rise to world power of the United States, white America has been in decline. For most of the twentieth century, but especially since the end of the Second World War, the country’s overlords have taken one step after another to de-Europeanize its white population. To this end, white culture and identity have been socially re-engineered. White communities, schools, and businesses have been forced to integrate with races previously considered inferior and inimical. And, for the last 40 years, whites have been expected to replace themselves with Third World immigrants. As the biocultural identity of white Americans gives way to a universal, transnational, and global one (the ideological analogue of the New World Order), they are further alienated from who they are.[20] Against this de-Europeanization and the postnational, multiracial regime succeeding it, the small, isolated pockets of white resistance confront a seemingly impossible task—similar to the one King Canute faced when he tried to hold back the ocean tide. Because of this, I would argue that only a catastrophe will save white America. Only a catastrophic collapse of the political, institutional, and cultural systems associated with imperial America—call it the managerial state, liberal democracy, corporate capitalism, the NWO, or whatever label you prefer—holds out any possibility that a small, racially conscious vanguard of white Americans will succeed in defending their people’s existence.[21] With the Iraq war, Bush—”this Buster Keaton of the apocalypse”—has opened a Pandora’s box of catastrophes. He, in fact, has done more to discredit, weaken, and vilify the existing systems of liberal subversion than any previous president, inadvertently creating conditions that should give white Americans another chance to regain control of their destiny. In this spirit, his administration acts as “a lightning rod for catastrophes.”  As one foreign observer notes: “The paradox of the present situation is that the worse the crisis becomes, the more Washington reinforces the position that evokes so much resistance.”[22] Indeed, his “war on terror creates more monsters than its destroys.”[23] Lacking the cognitive and normative tools to deal with a complex area like the Mideast, the president ends up managing the Iraqi occupation “by the seat of his pants.”[24] And as he does, the real dangers threatening the country are totally ignored: the dangers posed by the mestizo and Asiatic colonization of our lands, the growth of US Muslim communities, the denationalization of the economy and the looming fiscal crisis of the state, the Zionist domination of the political and information systems, the replacement of truth with propaganda and disinformation, the deculturation and miscegenation of our people, and the unrelenting assault on everything associated with the “freedoms” he allegedly defends in Mesopotamia. Instead of inaugurating a new era of unchallenged American power and enhancing national security, Bush seems set on preparing their demise.[25] Since the murderous terror of 9/11, his administration has shattered the myth of American military omnipotence, tarnished the country’s moral authority, alienated its allies, squandered its once formidable diplomatic powers, created the basis of an anti-US realignment, and undermined America’s image not only as a force for democracy and order, but as a secure economic haven. This latter tendency is now causing overseas investors to think twice about sending their capital to the US, which, combined with the ballooning expenses of the Iraq war, is hastening the dollar’s decline and the country’s economic deterioration. But more than undermining American power and prestige, the Bush administration has discredited the liberal civilizational model associated with the United States, provoking, in the process, a worldwide revulsion against the “American way of life.”[26]

The simple-minded, dishonorable, and raceless character of Bush’s government—riddled with Israeli spies and unsavory influence peddlers and premised on the belief that truth is irrelevant to its political calculus—seems to epitomize nothing so much as the debilitated state of our governing classes and their inability to serve as a nation-bearing stratum. That for the first time in American history Europe is not the focus of US strategic thinking, but rather Israel, should say it all.[27] It would be misleading, though, to think the failures at the highest level of state are simply the result of an unusually incompetent administration or its alien controllers. For even the “opposition” party produces candidates who are but variants of the reigning mediocrity.[28] This suggests that the system itself is bankrupt. Not coincidentally, the telltale signs of blockage, symptomatic of regimes heading toward the abyss (or “staying the course,” as George II says), appear now with increased frequency. The great bard of our decline, H. Millard, likens America to a runaway train. “The Israel firsters, neurotics, low IQ PTA types, political opportunists, easily susceptible dupes, genocidal blenders, party loyalists, war profiteers, and opportunists of various stripes” who are at the controls either have no idea of what they are doing or an unwillingness to profess it publicly.[29]

Contrary to the pipedreams of both our conservatives and liberals, there will be no going back.[30] Like the Soviet Union in the 1980s, the US has become bogged down in a protracted war at the very moment its economy is in steep decline. The slash-and-burn policies Bush has introduced will also be extremely difficult to retract, no matter who captures the White House in 2008. But even if there were a desire to retract them, the means are lacking. For example, in 1956, when Dwight Eisenhower warned France and England not to retake the Suez Canal, after Egypt nationalized it, he was able to threaten the stability of their national currencies. Today, the dollar is itself threatened.[31] For all the fabled shock and awe of US power in this period, the country is qualitatively weaker than it was a generation ago, when it was able to rein in the largest European empires. This erosion of its economic, diplomatic, moral, and even military power, combined with the near universal opposition to its increasingly unilateral and militaristic foreign policy, cannot but provoke a geopolitical realignment. The prospect of the Iraq war spreading to Iran and elsewhere will simply compound these destabilizing forces.[32] Increased conflict abroad, growing dissent at home, and deep division within the government itself are also likely to foster decisional paralysis, further exacerbating the crisis.

But however this crisis plays out, America and Europe seem set on a collision course.[33] Already wary of Washington, France and Germany (along with Spain, Belgium, and Italy, once Berlusconi goes) will eventually have no choice but to reposition themselves in opposition to it, for their strategic imperatives are increasingly at odds. This is certain to trigger new conflicts and new alignments, compelling Europeans to reaffirm their sovereignty—and their distinct strategic identity. As they do, their cooperation is bound to deepen and their nationalist consciousness to grow. At the same time, certain mentalities will be forced to change and certain taboos to fall, including the postmodern ones that leave Europe powerless. The collapse of the Cold War alliance system also throws open the strategic-political parameters of the international arena. The future, as a consequence, now holds out several possible alternatives. The Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis may still lack credibility, but this is probably less important than the effect it has had—and will continue to have—on the European spirit. It thus promises a possible renewal. The big question is whether or not Europeans have the will and acumen to realize it.

Fundamental to virtually all schools of geopolitical thought is the notion that the augmentation of power in one part of the world inevitably comes at the expense of another part. If the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis continues to affect the continent and shift power out of the Atlanticist camp, this cannot but destabilize the United States, for without its omnipotent dollar and its domination of global markets, it will no longer be able to consume more than it produces, to live on credit, to afford the social-welfare measures that buy off the Africans and tame the Mexicans, to sustain the social-engineering schemes discriminating against the talents and energies of its white majority, to afford the police, the drugs, the TVs, and the computer toys that narcotize its cretinized masses. The institutionalization of such an axis is also likely to dislodge America’s dominant place in the world system, setting off economic disruptions that will make it impossible for whites to live in the old way, to lose themselves in vacuous material comforts, to accept the lies that fly in the face of reality. Once this point is reached, European-Americans will be forced to act like people elsewhere who are suddenly thrown into a do-or-die situation.[34]

Like the “American Century” Henry Luce announced in 1941, the “New American Century” of Washington’s current generation of schemers and chiselers promises an even greater holocaust of our people. The future they envisage might indeed be called the New Anti-White Century. For like the order issuing from their Second World War, the one planned for the period following Iraq will not serve white America, only the alien, plutocratic, and cosmopolitan interests aligned in the current Washington-London-Tel Aviv axis.

No one should be surprised, then, that when the inevitable collapse comes, white America’s front fighters will not mourn the eclipse of the so-called American Century, for they are nationalists not in the nineteenth century sense. They do not fight for the petty-statism of the so-called “nation-state”—which is now made up of peoples from many different nations. The American, German, and French states—none of these entities any longer represent the descendants of those who founded them. As Sam Francis puts it, “the state has become the enemy of the nation.”[35] And as a thousand years of European history demonstrate, whenever the state and the nation come into conflict, the latter inevitably proves the stronger. I think it is no exaggeration to claim that only on the ruins of the existing political order will white America be reborn—and reborn not as another constitutional “nation-state” which elevates abstract rights above biocultural imperatives, but as a northern imperium of white peoples who, as Bismarck exhorted, “think with their blood.”

Those who would dismiss the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis as a temporary happenstance, a product of convenience, inflated with purely speculative significance, should be reminded that the 21st century will decide if white people have a future or not. From this perspective, collapse and realignment are necessities—and necessities have a way of engendering the imagination appropriate to them. For when the world’s population reaches ten billion, when China, India, and all Asia challenge the white man’s dominance, when the colored multitudes crossing our borders are magnified by ten or a hundred, when oil is depleted and raw materials are used up, when all the forests have been cut down and all the cultivable lands claimed, and—hopefully—when the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis has established an alternative realm of white existence, the ensuing chaos cannot but sunder whatever misbegotten allegiance white Americans have had to the present system. Then, in alliance with their kinsmen in Europe and Russia, they—if they are to survive as a people—will have no choice but to accept that they are made not in the multihued images of a deracinated humanity, but in that of the luminous Boreans, whose destiny opposes the darkening forces of Bush’s America.

Let us prepare for the coming collapse.

Notes

1. Robert Kagan, Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order (New York: Knopf, 2003), p. 3. Actually, the unreferenced metaphor originates with Denis MacShane, “Europe and America Need Each Other More Than Ever,” http://www.post-gazette.com ^[2]

2. Kagan, Of Paradise and Power, p. 28.

3. Guillaume Faye, La colonisation de l’Europe: Discours vrai sur l’immigration et l’Islam (Paris: L’Æncre, 2000); Nicolas Baverez, La France qui tombe (Paris: Perrin, 2004).

4. Julius Evola, Imperialismo pagano: Il fascismo dinanzi al pericolo euro-cristiano (Padua: Ar, 1996), p. 45.

5. Yves Daoudal, Le tour infernal: 21 avril–5 mai (Paris: Godefroy de Bouillon, 2003).

6. Yves-Marie Laulan, Jacques Chirac et le déclin français 1974–2002 (Paris: François-Xavier de Guilbert, 2001); Emmanuel Ratier, Le vrai visage de Jacques Chirac (Paris: Facta, 1995).

7. Faye, Le coup d’Etat mondial, p. 113.

8. Omer Taspinar, “Europe’s Muslim Streets,” Foreign Policy (March–April 2003).

9. As Schröder says: “Es gibt nicht zu viel Amerika, es gibt zu wenig Europa.” See “Die Krise, die Europa eint: Ein Gespräch mit Gerhard Schröder,” Die Zeit (14/2003). Cf. Philippe Grasset, “Le dilemme stratégique des U.S.A: Sa faiblesse militaire” (June 15, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org

10. Günter Maschke, “Vereinigte Staaten sind die Macht der Unordnung,” Deutsche Stimme (June 2003).

11. Quoted in Richard Lambert, “Misunderstanding Each Other,” Foreign Affairs (March–April 2003).

12. Alexander Rar, “Europa ist Zerspaltet” (December 15, 2003), http://evrazia.org ^[3]

13. Edouard Husson, “Crise allemande, crise européenne?” (March 2003), http://www.diploweb.com ^[4]

14. As Joseph de Maistre said of the revolutionaries of 1789: “Ce ne sont point les hommes qui mènent la révolution, c’est la révolution qui emploie les hommes.” See Considérations sur la France (Lyon: Vitte, 1924), p. 7.

15. Maja Heidenreich, “Europa und Russland: Eine rückblickende und analysierende Darstellung” (n.d.), http://www.boschlektoren.de/ ^[5]

16. Quoted in Sacha Papovic, “De la dialectique géopolitique” (August 2003), http://www.voxnr.com.

17. Cited in “Russie-France-Allemagne” ( n.d.), http://www.paris-berlin-moscou.org ^[6]

18. Oswald Spengler, Preussentum und Sozialismus (Munich: Beck, 1919); K. R. Bolton, ed., Varange: The Life and Thoughts of Francis Parker Yockey (Paraparaumu, NZ: Renaissance Press, 1998), pp. 36–38. Also N. N. Alexeiev, “Raisons spirituelles de la civilisation eurasiste” (1998), http://www.voxnr.com ^[7]

19. W. Joseph Stoupe, “The Inevitability of a Eurasian Alliance” (August 17, 2004), http://atimes.com ^[8]

20. James Kurth, “The War and the West,” Orbis (Spring 2002).

21. Guillaume Faye, Avant-Guerre: Chronique d’un cataclysme annoncé (Paris: L’Æncre, 2002).

22. Philippe Grasset, “Comment Rumsfeld devient le garante de l’aventure irakienne” (May 11, 2004), http://www.dedefense.org ^[9]

23. François-Bernard Huyghe, Quatrième guerre mondiale: Faire mourir et faire croire (Paris: Rocher, 2004), p. 9.

24. D. Priest and T. E. Ricks, “Growing Pessimism on Iraq: Doubts Increase within U.S. Security Agencies,” The Washington Post, September 29, 2004.

25. Philippe Grasset, “La destruction méthodique de la puissance américaine” (September 27, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org ^[10]; Guatam Adhikari, “The End of the Unipolar Myth,” International Herald Tribune, September 27, 2004.

26. Philippe Grasset, “Comment l’américainisme est en train d’apparaître pour ce qu’il est: un problème de civilisation” (September 1, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org ^[10]

27. Brent Scowcroft, George I’s national security adviser, has publicly criticized George II for being “inordinately influenced by Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. ‘Sharon just has him wrapped around his little finger’, Scowcroft said. ‘I think the president is mesmerized.’“ See “Key GOP Figure Raps Bush on Mideast,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 17, 2004.

28. Ehsan Ahari, “How Bush, Kerry Are One and the Same” (September 2, 2004), http://www.latimes.com ^[11]

29. H. Millard, “Ridin’ the Runaway Train Named America” (2004), http://www.newnation.org ^[12]

30. Françoise Vergniolle de Chantal, “Les débats américains sur la relations transatlantiques” (2004), http://robert-schuman.org ^[13]

31. Ian Williams, “Deterring the Empire” (May 13, 2003), http://www.alternet.org ^[14]

32. David Wood, “U.S. to Sell Precision-Guided Bombs to Israel” (September 23, 2004), http://www.newhousesnews.com ^[15]

33. Ian Black, “The Transatlantic Drift,” The Guardian, September 20, 2004; Philippe Grasset, “L’UE: Une stratégie de rupture avec l’Amérique” (September 20, 2004), http://www.dedefensa.org ^[10]

34. Faye, Avant-Guerre.

35. Sam Francis, “When the State Is the Enemy of the Nation” (July 19, 2004), http://www.vdare.com ^[16] This is not to say that the state is inherently the enemy of the nation—only that this is the case with the existing liberal state. On the difference between statism and nationalism, see Walker Connor, Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994).

---

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

Guerre raciale et implosion du système

Guerre raciale et implosion du système

Pierre Vial

Ex: http://tpprovence.wordpress.com/

Immeubles incendiés, magasins et centres commerciaux dévalisés et vandalisés, rues jonchées de débris, de carcasses noircies de bus, de voitures, de véhicules de police… Ces images de Londres, de Birmingham, de Bristol, de Liverpool ont fait, en boucle, le tour du monde par télévisions interposées. Elles évoquaient bien ce que la députée travailliste Diane Abbott a appelé « une zone de guerre » (théâtre, reconnaît Le Monde du 10 août, d’une « guérilla urbaine »).

Les media français ont tout de suite voulu donner le ton pour interpréter ces événements : c’est la faute de tensions sociales dues à la réduction des financements publics en faveur des plus démunis, c’est la faute du chômage et donc du désoeuvrement… et c’est la faute, bien sûr, de la police britannique (« les gaffes de la police » a titré le quotidien conservateur Daily Mail, tout aussi faux cul que les journaux français). Tout s’explique… et les casseurs cagoulés sont des « jeunes » ayant du vague à l’âme. Bien organisés, tout de même (on est donc loin de la réaction spontanée, épidermique, de hooligans), avec un système de liaison bien au point pour relancer les vagues d’assaut pendant plusieurs jours.

Mais que faisait le gouvernement ? Le premier ministre Cameron, le ministre de l’intérieur, le ministre des finances, le maire de Londres étaient…en vacances (Cameron en Italie). Les casseurs sont décidément bien mal élevés de choisir un moment pareil. Ils auraient pu attendre la rentrée.

Il est incontestable que le climat social détérioré par un libéralisme débridé a de quoi susciter bien des rancoeurs.  Mais celles-ci sont venues se greffer sur une volonté d’affrontement racial. La mort d’un délinquant antillais au cours d’une opération montée par  la police contre les gangs antillais a été le prétexte du déchaînement des émeutes. Le premier foyer d’insurrection a été le quartier de Tottenham, qualifié gentiment de « multiethnique » et dont la majorité de la population est d’origine antillaise. Celle-ci a voulu montrer – et elle a réussi – qu’elle pouvait se rendre maîtresse de la rue, en défiant un pouvoir et un ordre blancs. Même Le Monde, malgré ses a priori idéologiques, a reconnu au passage (9 août) qu’il s’agissait « du plus sérieux affrontement racial au Royaume-Uni depuis les troubles d’Oldham en 2001 » et qu’il y avait donc bel et bien « émeute raciale ».

Ce qui fait voler en éclat ce multiculturalisme, présenté pendant longtemps comme le modèle britannique de réponse aux tensions raciales et dont Cameron reconnaissait récemment (tout comme Angela Merckel pour l’Allemagne) qu’il était un échec. Il était basé sur la conviction irénique que des communautés raciales diverses pouvaient cohabiter harmonieusement sur un même territoire. Illusion due à des présupposés idéologiques qu’on retrouve tant à droite qu’à gauche chez des intellectuels qui refusent tout simplement le poids des réalités. Des réalités trop dérangeantes pour leur confort mental et qu’il faut donc nier obstinément. Jusqu’au jour où elles vous rattrapent…

Ce jour est arrivé pour beaucoup de Britanniques. Comme le reconnaît Libération (16 août) ils suivent les conseils figurant sur de grandes affiches placardées par la police ou les inscriptions peintes sur les panneaux de contreplaqué remplaçant les vitrines brisées des commerces : il faut repérer et dénoncer « les rats à capuche » (en Angleterre comme en France les délinquants immigrés aiment pouvoir se dissimuler le visage pour éviter d’être identifiés).  Surtout, des milices d’autodéfense se sont mises en place pour assurer ordre et sécurité dans les quartiers menacés. Pour pallier l’inefficacité d’une police paralysée par les tabous du politiquement correct (aveu d’un bobby publié par Le Monde du 12 août : « L’ordre était d’intervenir avec circonspection pour éviter les accusations de brutalité, de racisme »).

Le Système en place, miné par ses contradictions internes, est en train d’imploser, la guerre raciale montrant qu’elle est désormais sous-jacente dans nombre de pays européens. C’est donc bien en dénonçant sans répit les ravages du capitalisme libéral et en prêchant une conception réaliste, c’est à dire racialiste, de la société que nous pourrons contribuer à la libération mentale et à la volonté de résistance et de reconquête de  nos frères européens.

Pierre Vial

Armin Mohler, l'homme qui nous désignait l'ennemi!

Thorsten HINZ:

Armin Mohler, l’homme qui nous désignait l’ennemi

 

Le Dr. Karlheinz Weissmann vient de sortir de presse une biographie d’Armin Mohler, publiciste de la droite allemande et historien de la “révolution conservatrice”

 

Armin Mohler ne fut jamais l’homme des demies-teintes!

 

Qui donc Armin Mohler détestait-il? Les libéraux et les tièdes, les petits jardiniers amateurs qui gratouillent le bois mort qui encombre l’humus, c’est-à-dire les nouilles de droite, inoffensives parce que dépouvues de pertinence! Il détestait aussi tous ceux qui s’agrippaient aux concepts et aux tabous que définissait leur propre ennemi. Il considérait que les libéraux étaient bien plus subtils et plus dangereux que les communistes: pour reprendre un bon mot de son ami Robert Hepp: ils nous vantaient l’existence de cent portes de verre qu’ils nous définissaient comme l’Accès, le seul Accès, à la liberté, tout en taisant soigneusement le fait que 99 de ces portes demeuraient toujours fermées. La victoire totale des libéraux a hissé l’hypocrisie en principe ubiquitaire. Les gens sont désormais jugés selon les déclarations de principe qu’ils énoncent sans nécessairement y croire et non pas sur leurs actes et sur les idées qu’ils sont prêts à défendre.

 

Mohler était était un type “agonal”, un gars qui aimait la lutte: sa bouille carrée de Bâlois l’attestait. Avec la subtilité d’un pluvier qui capte les moindres variations du climat, Mohler repérait les courants souterrains de la politique et de la société. C’était un homme de forte sensibilité mais certainement pas un sentimental. Mohler pensait et écrivait clair quand il abordait la politique: ses mots étaient durs, tranchants, de véritables armes. Il était déjà un “conservateur moderne” ou un “néo-droitiste” avant que la notion n’apparaisse dans les médiats. En 1995, il s’était défini comme un “fasciste au sens où l’entendait José Antonio Primo de Rivera”. Mohler se référait ainsi —mais peu nombreux étaient ceux qui le savaient— au jeune fondateur de la Phalange espagnole, un homme intelligent et cultivé, assassiné par les gauches ibériques et récupéré ensuite par Franco.

 

Il manquait donc une biographie de ce doyen du conservatisme allemand d’après guerre, mort en 2003. Karlheinz Weissmann était l’homme appelé à combler cette lacune: il connait la personnalité de Mohler et son oeuvre; il est celui qui a actualisé l’ouvrage de référence de Mohler sur la révolution conservatrice.

 

Pour Mohler seuls comptaient le concret et le réel

 

La sensibilité toute particulière d’Armin Mohler s’est déployée dans le décor de la ville-frontière suisse de Bâle. Mohler en était natif. Il y avait vu le jour en 1920. En 1938, la lecture d’un livre le marque à jamais: c’est celui de Christoph Steding, “Das Reich und die Krankheit der europäischen Kultur” (“Le Reich et la pathologie de la culture européenne”). Pour Steding, l’Allemagne, jusqu’en 1933, avait couru le risque de subir une “neutralisation politique et spirituelle”, c’est-à-dire une “helvétisation de la pensée allemande”, ce qui aurait conduit à la perte de la souveraineté intérieure et extérieure; l’Allemagne aurait dérogé pour adopter le statut d’un “intermédiaire éclectique”. Les peuples qui tombent dans une telle déchéance sont “privés de destin” et tendent à ne plus produire que des “pharisiens nés”. On voit tout de suite que Steding était intellectuellement proche de Carl Schmitt. Quant à ce dernier, il a pris la peine de recenser personnellement le livre, publié à titre posthume, de cet auteur mort prématurément. Dans ce livre apparaissent certains des traits de pensée qui animeront Mohler, le caractériseront, tout au long de son existence.

 

L’Allemagne est devenue pour le jeune Mohler “la grande tentation”, tant et si bien qu’il franchit illégalement le frontière suisse en février 1942 “pour aider les Allemands à gagner la guerre”. Cet intermède allemand ne durera toutefois qu’une petite année. Mohler passa quelques mois à Berlin, avec le statut d’étudiant, et s’y occupa des auteurs de la “révolution conservatrice”, à propos desquels il rédigera sa célèbre thèse de doctorat, sous la houlette de Karl Jaspers. Mohler était un rebelle qui s’insurgeait contre la croyance au progrès et à la raison, une croyance qui estime que le monde doit à terme être tout compénétré de raison et que les éléments, qui constituent ce monde, peuvent être combinés les uns aux autres ou isolés les uns des autres à loisir, selon une logique purement arbitraire. Contre cette croyance et cette vision, Mohler voulait opposer les forces élémentaires de l’art et de la culture, de la nationalité et de l’histoire. Ce contre-mouvement, disait-il, et cela le distinguait des tenants de la “vieille droite”, ne visait pas la restauration d’un monde ancré dans le 19ème siècle, mais tenait expressément compte des nouvelles réalités.

 

Dans un chapitre, intitulé “Du nominalisme”, le Dr. Karlheinz Weissmann explicite les tentatives de Mohler, qui ne furent pas toujours probantes, de systématiser ses idées et ses vues. Il est clair que Mohler rejette toute forme d’universalisme car tout universalisme déduit le particulier d’un ordre spirituel sous-jacent et identitque pour tous, et noie les réalités dans une “mer morte d’abstractions”. Pour le nominaliste Mohler, les concepts avancés par les universalismes ne sont que des dénominations abstraites et arbitraires, inventées a poteriori, et qui n’ont pour effets que de répandre la confusion. Pour Mohler, seuls le concret et le particulier avaient de l’importance, soit le “réel”, qu’il cherchait à saisir par le biais d’images fortes, puissantes et organiques. Par conséquent, ses sympathies personnelles n’étaient pas déterminées par les idées politiques dont se réclamaient ses interlocuteurs mais tenaient d’abord compte de la valeur de l’esprit et du caractère qu’il percevait chez l’autre.

 

En 1950, Mohler devint le secrétaire d’Ernst Jünger. Ce ne fut pas une époque dépourvue de conflits. Après l’intermède de ce secrétariat, vinrent les années françaises de notre théoricien: il devint en effet le correspondant à Paris du “Tat” suisse et de l’hebdomadaire allemand “Die Zeit”. A partir de 1961, il fut le secrétaire, puis le directeur, de la “Fondation Siemens”. Dans le cadre de cette éminente fonction, il a essayé de contrer la dérive gauchisante de la République fédérale, en organisant des colloques de très haut niveau et en éditant des livres ou des publications remarquables. Parmi les nombreux livres que nous a laissés Mohler, “Nasenring” (= “L’anneau nasal”) est certainement le plus célèbre: il constitue une attaque en règle, qui vise à fustiger l’attitude que les Allemands ont prise vis-à-vis de leur propre histoire (la fameuse “Vergangenheitsbewältigung”). En 1969, Mohler écrivait dans l’hebdomadaire suisse “Weltwoche”: “Le ‘Républiquefédéralien’ est tout occupé, à la meilleure manière des méthodes ‘do-it-yourself’, à se faire la guerre à lui-même. Il n’y a pas que lui: tout le monde occidental semble avoir honte de descendre d’hommes de bonne trempe; tout un chacun voudrait devenir un névrosé car seul cet état, désormais, est considéré comme ‘humain’”.

 

En France, Mohler était un adepte critique de Charles de Gaulle. Il estimait que l’Europe des patries, proposée par le Général, aurait été capable de faire du Vieux Continent une “Troisième Force” entre les Etats-Unis et l’Union Soviétique. Dans les années 60, certaines ouvertures semblaient possibles pour Mohler: peut-être pourrait-il gagner en influence politique via le Président de la CSU bavaroise, Franz-Josef Strauss? Il entra à son service comme “nègre”. Ce fut un échec: Strauss, systématiquement, modifiait les ébauches de discours que Mohler avait truffées de références gaulliennes et les traduisait en un langage “atlantiste”. De la part de Strauss, était-ce de la faiblesse ou était-ce le regard sans illusions du pragmatique qui ne jure que par le “réalisable”? Quoi qu’il en soit, on perçoit ici l’un des conflits fondamentaux qui ont divisé les conservateurs après la guerre: la plupart des hommes de droite se contentaient d’une République fédérale sous protectorat américain (sans s’apercevoir qu’à long terme, ils provoquaient leur propre disparition), tandis que Mohler voulait une Allemagne européenne et libre.

 

Le conflit entre européistes et atlantistes provoqua également l’échec de la revue “Die Republik”, que l’éditeur Axel Springer voulait publier pour en faire le forum des hommes de droite hors partis et autres ancrages politiciens: Mohler décrit très bien cette péripétie dans “Nasenring”.

 

Il semble donc bien que ce soit sa qualité de Suisse qui l’ait sauvé de cette terrible affliction que constitue la perte d’imagination chez la plupart des conservateurs allemands de l’après-guerre. Par ailleurs, le camp de la droite établie a fini par le houspiller dans l’isolement. Caspar von Schrenck-Notzing lui a certes ouvert les colonnes de “Criticon”, qui furent pour lui une bonne tribune, mais les autres éditeurs de revues lui claquèrent successivement la porte au nez; malgré son titre de doctorat, il n’a pas davantage pu mener une carrière universitaire. La réunification n’a pas changé grand chose à sa situation: les avantages pour lui furent superficiels et éphémères.

 

La cadre historique, dans lequel nous nous débattions du temps de Mohler, et dans lequel s’est déployée sa carrière étonnante, freinée uniquement par des forces extérieures, aurait pu gagner quelques contours tranchés et précis. On peut discerner aujourd’hui la grandeur de Mohler. On devrait aussi pouvoir mesurer la tragédie qu’il a incarnée. Weissmann constate qu’il existait encore jusqu’au milieu des années 80 une certaine marge de manoeuvre pour la droite intellectuelle en Allemagne mais que cet espace potentiel s’est rétréci parce que la gauche n’a jamais accepté le dialogue ou n’a jamais rien voulu apprendre du réel. Le lecteur se demande alors spontanément: pourquoi la gauche aurait-elle donc dialogué puisque le rapport de force objectif était en sa faveur?

 

Weissmann a donc résussi un tour de force: il a écrit une véritable “biographie politique” d’Armin Mohler. Son livre deviendra un classique.

 

Thorsten HINZ.

(article paru dans “Junge Freiheit”, Berlin, n°31/32-2011; http://www.jugefreiheit.de/ ).

Quel "nationalisme" pour les années 90 et le XXIème siècle?

Quel «nationalisme» pour les

 

années 90 et le XXIème siècle ?

 

par Robert STEUCKERS

 

Archives de SYNERGIES EUROPEENNES - 1991

 

Dans nos régions, nous avons coutume d'opposer deux formes de nationalisme, le nationalisme de culture (ou nationalisme populaire : volksnationalisme) et le nationalisme d'État (staatsnationalisme). Le nationalisme culturel/populaire tient compte essentiellement de l'ethnicité, en tant que matrice historique de valeurs précises qui ne sont pas transposables dans un autre humus. Le nationalisme d'État met l'ethnicité ou les ethnicités d'un territoire au service d'une machine administrative, bureaucratique ou militaire. Pour cette idéologie, l'ethnicité n'est pas perçue comme une matrice de valeurs mais comme une sorte de carburant que l'on brûlera pour faire avancer la machine. L'État, dans la perspective du staatsnationalisme, n'est pas une instance qui dynamise les forces émanant de la Volkheit mais un moloch qui les consomme et les détruit.

Les nationalismes culturels/populaires partent d'une vision plurielle de l'histoire, du monde et de la politique. Chaque peuple émet des valeurs qui correspondent aux défis que lui lance l'espace sur lequel il vit. Dans les zones intermédiaires, des peuples en contact avec deux grandes aires culturelles combinent les valeurs des uns et des autres en des synthèses tantôt harmonieuses tantôt malheureuses. Les nationalismes d'État arasent généralement les valeurs produites localement, réduisant la diversité du territoire à une logique unique, autoritaire et stérile.

 

Valoriser l'histoire, relativiser les institutions

 

Par tradition historique, noua sommes, depuis l'émergence des nationalismes vers l'époque de la révolution française, du côté des nationalismes culturels contre les nationalismes d'État. Mais au-delà des étiquettes désignant les diverses formes de nationalisme, noua adhérons, plus fondamentalement, à des systèmes de valeurs qui privilégient la diversité plutôt qu'à des systèmes d'action qui tentent de la réduire à des modèles simples, homogénéisés et, de ce fait même, stérilisés. Toute approche plurielle des facteurs historiques et politiques implique une relativisation des institutions établies ; celles-ci ne sont pas d'emblée jugées éternelles et indépassables. Elles sont perçues comme exerçant une fonction précise et doivent disparaître dès que cette fonction n'a plus d'utilité. Les approches homogénéisantes imposent un cadre institutionnel que l'on veut intangible. La vitalité populaire, par définition plurielle dans ses manifestations, déborde tôt ou tard ce cadre rigide. Deux scénarios sont alors possibles : a) les mercenaires au service du cadre répriment la vitalité populaire par violence ou b) le peuple met à bas les institutions devenues obsolètes et chasse ou exile les tenants têtus du vieil ordre.

Qu'en est-il de cette opposition entre pluralité et homogénéisation à la veille du XXIème siècle ? Il me semble inopportun de continuer à répéter tel quel les mots d'ordre et les slogans nés lors de l'opposition, au début du XIXème siècle, entre «nationalismes de culture» (Verlooy, Jahn, Arndt, Conscience, Hoffmann von Fallersleben) et «nationalismes d'État» (jacobinisme, bonapartisme). Pour continuer à exprimer notre opposition de principe aux stratégies d'homogénéisation, qui ont été celles du jacobinisme et du bonapartisme, noua devons choisir, aujourd'hui, un vocabulaire moderne, dérivé des sciences récentes (biocybernétique, informatique, physique etc.). En effet, les «nationalismes d'État» ont pour caractéristique d'avoir été forgés sur le modèle des sciences physiques mécanicistes du XVIIIème siècle. Les «nationalismes culturels», eux, ont voulu suggérer un modèle d'organisation politique calqué sur les principes des sciences biologiques émergentes (J.W. Ritter, Carus, Oken, etc.). Malgré les progrès énormes de ces sciences de la vie dans le monde de tous les jours, certains États (Belgique, France, Italie, URSS, Yougoslavie, «démocraties socialistes», Algérie, etc.) fonctionnent toujours selon des critères mécanicistes et demeurent innervés par des valeurs mécanicistes homogénéisantes.

 

Les leçons d’Alvin Toffler

 

Le nationalisme, ou tout autre idéologie, qui voudrait mettre un terme à cette anomalie, devra nécessairement être de nature offensive, porté par la volonté de briser définitivement les pouvoirs anciens. Il ne doit pas vouloir les consolider ni remettre en selle des modèles passés de nationalisme statolâtrique. La lecture du dernier livre d'un écrivain américain célèbre, Alvin Toffler, nous apparaît utile pour comprendre les enjeux des décennies à venir, décennies où les mouvements (nationalistes ou non) hostiles aux établissements devront percer sur la scène politique. Entendons-nous bien, ces mouvements, dans la mesure où ils sont hostiles aux formes figées héritées de l'ère mécaniciste/révolutionnaire, sont authentiquement «démocratiques» et «populistes» ; nous savons depuis les thèses de Roberto Michels que le socialisme a basculé dans l'oligarchisation de ses cadres. Nous savons aussi que ce processus d'oligarchisation a affecté le pilier démocrate-chrétien, désormais connecté à la mafia en Italie et partout éloigné du terreau populaire. Si bien que les élus socialistes ou démocrates-chrétiens eux-mêmes se rendent compte que les décisions sont prises, dans leurs partis, en coulisse et non plus dans les assemblées générales (les tripotages de Martens au sein de son propre parti en sont une belle illustration).

Ce phénomène d'oligarchisation, de gigantisme et de pyramidalisation suscite l'apparition de structures pachydermiques et monolithiques, incapables de capter les flux d'informations nouvelles qui émanent de la réalité quotidienne, de la Volkheit en tant que fait de vie. Je crois, avec Alvin Toffler, que ce hiatus prend des proportions de plus en plus grandes depuis le milieu des années 80 : c'est le cas chez nous, où le CVP s'effrite parce qu'il ne répond plus aux besoins des citoyens actifs et innovateurs ; c'est le cas en France, où les partis dits de la «bande des quatre» s'avèrent incapables de résoudre les problèmes réels auxquels la population est confrontée. Toffler nous parle de la nécessité de provoquer un «transfert des pouvoirs». Ceux-ci, à l'instar de ce qui s'est effectivement produit dans les firmes gigantesques d'Outre-Atlantique, devront passer, «des monolithes aux mosaïques». Les entreprises géantes ont constaté que les stratégies de concentration aboutissaient à l'impasse ; il a fallu inverser la vapeur et se décomposer en un grand nombre de petites unités à comptabilité autonome, opérationnellement déconcentrées. Autonomie qui les conduira inévitablement à prendre un envol propre, adapté aux circonstances dans lesquelles elles évoluent réellement. Les mondes politiques, surtout ceux qui participent de la logique homogénéisante jacobine, restent en deçà de cette évolution inéluctable : en d'autres termes, ils sont dépassés et contournés par les énergies qui se déploient au départ des diverses Volkheiten concrètes. Phénomène observable en Italie du Nord, où les régions ont pris l'initiative de dépasser le monolithe étatique romain, et ont créé des réseaux alpin et adriatique de relations interrégionales qui se passent fort bien des immixtions de l'État central. La Vénétie peut régler avec la Slovénie ou la Croatie des problèmes relatifs à la région adriatique et, demain, régler, sans passer par Rome, des problèmes alpins avec la Bavière, le Tyrol autrichien, la Lombardie ou le canton des Grisons. Ces régions se dégagent dès lors de la logique monolithique stato-nationale pour adopter une logique en mosaïque (pour reprendre le vocabulaire de Toffler), outrepassant, par suite, les niveaux hiérarchiques établis qui bloquent, freinent et ralentissent les flux de communications. Niveaux hiérarchiques qui deviennent ipso facto redondants. Par rapport aux monolithes, les mosaïques de Toffler sont toujours provisoires, réorientables tous azimuts et hyper-flexibles.

 

La «Troisième Vague»

 

Caractère provisoire, réorientabilité et hyper-flexibilité sont des nécessités postulées par les révolutions technologiques de ces vingt dernières années. L'ordinateur et le fax abolissent bon nombre de distances et autonomisent d'importantes quantités de travailleurs du secteur tertiaire. Or les structures politiques restent en deçà de cette évolution, donc en discordance avec la société. Toffler parle d'une «Troisième Vague» post-moderne qui s'oppose à la fois au traditionalisme des mouvements conservateurs (parfois religieux) et au modernisme homogénéisant. Aujourd'hui, tout nationalisme ou tout autre mouvement visant l'innovation doit être le porte-voix de cette «Troisième Vague» qui réclame une révision totale des institutions politiques établies. Basée sur un savoir à facettes multiples et non plus sur l'argent ou la tradition, la «Troisième Vague» peut trouver à s'alimenter au nationalisme de culture, dans le sens où ce type-là de nationalisme découle d'une logique plurielle, d'une logique qui accepte la pluralité. Les nationalismes d'État, constructeurs de molochs monolithiques, sont résolument, dans l'optique de Toffler, des figures de la «Seconde Vague», de l'«Âge usinier», ère qui a fonctionné par monologique concentrante ; preuve : devant les crises actuelles (écologie, enseignement, organisation du secteur de santé, transports en commun, urbanisme, etc.), produites par des étranglements, des goulots, dus au gigantisme et à l'éléphantiasis des structures datant de l'«âge usinier», les hommes politiques, qui ne sont plus au diapason, réagissent au coup par coup, c'est-à-dire exactement selon les critères de leur monologique homogénéisante, incapable de tenir compte d'un trop grand nombre de paramètres. Les structures mises en place par les nationalismes d'État sont lourdes et inefficaces (songeons à la RTT ou la poste), alors que les structures en mosaïques, créées par les firmes qui se sont déconcentrées ou par les régions nord-italiennes dans la nouvelle synergie adriatique/alpine, sont légères et performantes. Tout nationalisme ou autre mouvement innovateur doit donc savoir s'adresser, dès aujourd’hui, à ceux qui veulent déconcentrer, accélérer les communications et contourner les monolithes désormais inutiles et inefficaces.

 

Les «lents» et les «rapides»

 

Toffler nous parle du clivage le plus important actuellement : celui qui distingue les «lents» des «rapides». L'avenir proche appartient évidemment à ceux qui sont rapides, ceux qui peuvent prendre des décisions vite et bien, qui peuvent livrer des marchandises dans les délais les plus brefs. Les pays du Tiers-Monde appartiennent évidemment à la catégorie des «lents». Mais bon nombre de structures su sein même de nos sociétés «industrielles avancées» y appartiennent également. Prenons quelques exemples : l'entêtement de plusieurs strates de l'establishment belge à vouloir commercer avec le Zaïre, pays hyper-lent parce qu'hyper-corrompu (tel maître, tel valet, serait-on tenté de dire...) relève de la pure aberration, d'autant plus qu'il n'y a guère de profits à en tirer ou, uniquement, si le contribuable finance partiellement les transactions ou les «aides annexes». Quand Geene a voulu infléchir vers l'Indonésie, pays plus rapide (dont la balancé commerciale est positive !), les flux d'aides belges au tiers-monde, on a hurlé au flamingantisme, sous prétexte que l'Insulinde avait été colonie néerlandaise. Pour toute perspective nationaliste, les investissements doivent, comme le souligne aussi Toffler, opérer un retour au pays ou, au moins, se relocaliser en Europe. Deuxième exemple : certains rapports de la Commission des Communautés européennes signalent l'effroyable lenteur des télécommunications en Belgique (poste, RTT, chemin de fer, transports en commun urbains, etc.) et concluent que Bruxelles n'est pas la ville adéquate pour devenir la capitale de l'Europe de 1992, en dépit de tout ce que Martens, les banques de l'établissement, la Cour, etc. ont mis en œuvre pour en faire accepter le principe. Hélas pour ces «lents», il y a de fortes chances pour que Bonn ou Strasbourg emportent le morceau !

 

Partitocratie et apartheid

 

Des démonstrations qui précédent, il est facile de déduire quelques mots d'ordre pour l'action des mouvements innovateurs :

- lutte contre toutes les formes d'oligarchisation issues de la partitocratie ; ces oligarchisations ou pilarisations (verzuiling) sont des stratégies de monolithisation et d'exclusion de tous ceux qui n'adhérent pas à la philosophie de l'un ou l'autre pilier (zuil). Sachons rappeler à Paula d'Hondt que ce ne sont pas tant les immigrés qui sont des exclus dans notre société, qui seraient victimes d'un «apartheid», mais qu'une quantité impressionnante de fils et de filles de notre peuple ont été ou sont «exclus» ou «mal intégrés» à cause des vices de fonctionnement de la machine étatique belge. Ne pas pouvoir être fonctionnaire si l'on n'est pas membre d'un parti, ou devoir sauter plus d'obstacles pour le devenir, n'est-ce pas de l'«apartheid» ? Conclusion : lutter contre l'apartheid de fait qu'est la pilarisation et rapatrier progressivement les immigrés, après les avoir formés à exercer une fonction utile à leur peuple et pour éviter précisément qu'ils soient, à la longue, victimes d'un réel apartheid, n'est-ce pas plus logique et plus humain que ce qui est pratiqué actuellement à grands renforts de propagande ?

- abattre vite toutes les structures qui ne correspondent plus au niveau actuel des technologies ; un nationalisme de culture, parce qu'il parie sur les énergies inépuisables du peuple, n'est forcément pas passéiste.

- s'inscrire, notamment avec la Lombardie et la Catalogne, dans les stratégies interrégionales en mosaïques ; tout en sachant que l'obstacle demeure la France, dont le conseil constitutionnel vient de décider que le peuple corse n'existait pas ! Ne dialoguer en France qu'avec les régionalistes et renforcer par tous les moyens possibles le dégagement des régions de la tutelle parisienne. Solidarité grande-néerlandaise avec la région Nord-Pas-de-Calais et grande-germanique avec l'Alsace. Pour la Wallonie, si d'aventure elle se dégage de la tutelle socialiste et maçonnique (pro-jacobine), solidarité prioritaire avec les cantons romans de la région Nord-Pas-de-Calais et avec la Lorraine, en tant que régions originairement impériales et romanes à la fois (la Wallonie traditionnelle, fidèle à sa vocation impériale, a un devoir de solidarité avec les régions romanes de l'ancien Reich, la Reichsromanentum, victime des génocides perpétrés par Louis XIV en Lorraine et en Franche-Comté, où 50% de la population a été purement et simplement massacrée ; les énergies de la Wallonie post-socialiste devront se porter le long d'un axe Namur/Arlon/Metz/Nancy/Genève). Appui inconditionnel aux régionalismes corse, breton, occitan et basque, si possible de concert avec les Irlandais, les Catalans, les Lombards et les Piémontais. Forcer les Länder allemands à plus d'audace dans les stratégies de ce type.

- diplomatie orientée vers les «rapides». Ne plus perdre son temps avec le Zaïre ou d'autres États corrompus et inefficaces. Les relations avec ce pays ne sont entretenues que pour défendre des intérêts dépassés, que l'on camoufle souvent derrière un moralisme inepte.

- combattre toutes les lenteurs intérieures, même si nous ne souhaitons pas que Bruxelles devienne la capitale de l'Europe. Si les institutions européennes déménagent ailleurs, les projets de Martens s'effondreront et son régime autoritaire, appuyé notamment sur la Cour et non sanctionné par la base de son propre parti, capotera. L'effondrement du CVP, comme son tassement annoncé, permettra l'envol d'un néo-nationalisme futuriste, tablant sur la longue mémoire et sur la vitesse. Car l'une n'exclut pas l'autre. Un peuple qui garde sa mémoire intacte, sait que l'histoire suit des méandres souvent imprévus et sait aussi quelles réponses ses ancêtres ont apportées aux défis insoupçonnés de l'heure. La mémoire garantit toujours une réponse modulée et rapide aux défis qui se présentent. L'ordinateur n'est-il pas précisément un instrument performant parce qu'il est doté d'une mémoire ? Donc, le nationalisme culturel/populaire, plurilogique, est un bon logiciel. Gardons-le et sachons l'améliorer.

 

Robert STEUCKERS

Source : Alvin Toffler, Les Nouveaux Pouvoirs : Savoir, richesse et

 

violence à la veille du XXlème siècle, Fayard, 1991, 658 p., 149 FF.

 

Ce texte de R. Steuckers a d'abord été publié en langue néerlandaise dans la revue «RevoIte» (été 1991). Il entrait dans le cadre d'un débat sur le nationalisme en Flandre.

Life After the Collapse

How whites will emerge from the rubble.

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

reviewed by Thomas Jackson

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

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

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

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

The importance of race

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disaster upon disaster

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

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

Illegal immigrants in France.

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

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

Archaic, not conservative

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new world order

Dr. Faye speaking at the 2006 American
Renaissance conference.

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

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

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

Always entertaining

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

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

Articles de R. Steuckers sur "centrostudilaruna.it"

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

 La décision dans l’œuvre de Carl Schmitt

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

L’œuvre de Herman Wirth (1885-1981)

Evola and Spengler

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

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

L’itinéraire d’Edgar Julius Jung

L’utopie conservatrice de Knut Hamsun

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

La contribution à Il Regime Fascista de Wilhelm Stapel

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

Religiosité indo-européenne

L’influence d’Oswald Spengler sur Julius Evola

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

L’itinéraire de Knut Hamsun

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

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

Géopolitique et spiritualité du principe “Reich”

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

Geopolitica e spiritualità del principio “Reich”

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

Révolution Conservatrice, forme catholique et ordo æternus romain

L’itinerario di Knut Hamsun

The New Jewish Question of Guillaume Faye

The New Jewish Question of Guillaume Faye

By Michael O'MEARA

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

Guillaume Faye
La nouvelle question juive  
Chevaigné: Editions du Lore, 2007

“I don’t know whether God loves or hates the English; I only know that they must be driven out of France.”— Saint Joan

In his critique of this controversial book, the Swiss “revisionist” scholar Jürgen Graf, now exiled in Russia, writes that Guillaume Faye has permanently discredited himself “in racial nationalist and nationalist circles worthy of the name.”[1] The reason: His “dishonest” and defamatory attack on those who challenge the Holocaust story and on those who uphold the traditional “Judeophobic” orientation of the nationalist right.

“The New Jewish Question” (henceforth NJQ) may indeed mark the end of Faye’s career as a leading identitarian and nationalist ideologue among certain segments of the racially conscious community—though by no means all of it, maybe not even the majority of it. For the sharp differences pitting the Holocaust-debunking exile against the militant anti-Islamic Frenchman reflect differences that divide nationalists throughout Europe, as long-standing historical-theoretical identities closely associated with the anti-liberal wing of the nationalist right clash with the electoral imperatives of national-populist parties endeavoring to stem the pro-immigrant policies of their respective states.[2] The white man’s future may well hinge on how these differences are resolved.

The Argument

Faye’s anti-revisionism is part of a larger argument related to what he claims is the changing Jewish relationship to white society.

Central to this change is the Third World colonization of the European heartland—and all the world-destroying effects that have followed in its wake.

Since the late 1990s, as the colonizers became bolder and more assertive, attacks on French Jews (in the form of vandalized synagogues, school violence, murders, etc.) have steadily risen. The Mainstream Media routinely denounce the “radical right,” but these attacks are largely the work of Muslim immigrants. Still of “low intensity,” Faye claims they are symptomatic of a new, more virulent anti-Semitism, which mixes anti-Zionist politics with the Koran’s traditional ethnocidal aversion to the Jews, threatening in this way to move Europe ever closer to Eurabia.

In appraising this new phenomenon, Faye, who has long been persecuted by Jewish advocacy groups for his nationalism, professes to be neither pro- nor anti-Jewish. His single avowed concern as a writer and activist is the survival of Europe. In his treatment of the NJQ, he thus fully acknowledges that the Jews are not “white” (i.e., not of Aryan or European Christian descent) and that their relationship to European society has often been negatively affected by their “schizophrenic” attitude toward Europeans (or what Kevin MacDonald more forthrightly calls their ethnocentric “double standard”).[3] He also acknowledges that the Jewish Question was once “pivotal to the issue of European, especially French, identity, for, historically, the Jews were seen as the métèque [i.e., the ‘wog,’ the ‘wop,’ the offensive foreigner] who threatened the corruption of the nation’s blood and morals” (p. 23).

Given the present Third-World inundation, the Jews, he argues, can no longer seriously be taken as either an alien menace or a métèque, especially considering that more and more of them are allegedly beginning to doubt the wisdom of open borders. Not a few nationalists and identitarians have consequently abandoned their traditional anti-Semitism. The Vlaams Belang, Europe’s most successful nationalist formation, has, for example, formed a tacit alliance with the Jewish community of Flanders in order to stem the nation’s Islamization; he also cites the Jews’ role in Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance and could have mentioned Griffin’s BNP, Fini’s National Alliance, Kjaersgaard’s Danish People’s Party, and many others.

Anti-Jewish sentiment nevertheless persists on the nationalist right, in Faye’s view distorting its movement and distracting it from its principal tasks.

He also claims that nationalist and far right anti-Semites have, in face of the invasion, altered their view somewhat, seeing Jews less as an immediate physical threat than a pernicious influence—as Zionism and elite social engineering—responsible for policies, immigration preeminently, that threaten white survival. Contemporary anti-Jewish ideology, as a result, now rests on three general tenets: That (1) the Jews dominate the world through the cultural and financial powers they wield; that (2) they are the principal force promoting white decadence; and that (3) they immunize themselves to criticism through their manipulation of the Holocaust Story. Much of the NJQ seeks to refute these tenets, revealing not just their alleged political inappropriateness to the nationalist cause, but their role in occultating the challenges facing it. More specifically, the NJQ seeks to sever all association with historic anti-Semitism, the Third Reich, and everything else that might alienate whites from joining nationalists in repelling the Muslim advance. In the name of political realism, then, Faye makes a case for abandoning principles and positions that Graf, among others, considers essential to the nationalist project.

Decadence

The poorly researched and poorly argued case Faye makes in support of his argument, especially regarding the third tenet, is amply demonstrated in Graf’s review and need not be rehashed here. Two larger and equally serious questions raised by Faye do, however, deserve revisiting: Namely (1) are the Jews, traditional purveyors of anti-ethnic and anti-racial principles, the cause of the white man’s present decline, and (2) are the Jews, as the most powerful group in society, the principal enemy in the battle for white survival?

In respect to the first question, Faye says that though white or European decadence may have been promoted by certain Jewish intellectuals, its real origins lie in the inner recesses of the European soul—specifically in the secular and religious distillations of Christianity. Jews, in other words, have only exacerbated tendencies already indigenous to white life.

The French Catholic Church, he points out, dwarfs French Jewish efforts in promoting not just open borders, race mixing, and pro-immigrant policies, but cosmopolitanism, universalism, and a self-denying love of the Other.

Faye’s argument here is certainly correct in claiming that the ultimate responsibility for our race replacement lies with ourselves and that Christianity, along with its various secular offshoots (egalitarianism, individualism, universalism, etc.), has had a terrible effect on white identity, helping foster processes destructive of both the race’s organic and cultural substratum.

The problem with this aspect of his argument is that Catholicism, like other forms of Christianity, is a temporal institution subject to history. And as a historical subject, it has been different things in different periods. Thus it was that Bishop Turpin in La Chanson de Roland confronted the “Saracens” as a “Christian” warrior bearing the arms of the Frankish hero cult, while antebellum Episcopalians defended the legitimacy of negro slavery with chapter and verse. Even if the argument is only that the deep structure of Christian belief harbors an anti-white or anti-ethnic impetus, it still doesn’t explain why for centuries it served an opposite purpose. Finally, and most importantly, it was the secularization of Christian belief, associated with modernization, that provoked (or, at least, marked the beginning of) the “crisis of Western man” and the subsequent assault on the unique worth of his specific being—and not Christianity itself.[4]

In a similar way, this historical factor also affects the anti-Semitic argument. When Jew-hatred shed its religious forms in the latter part of the nineteenth century, becoming an “anti-Semitism” (implying a critique of Jewish behavior) instead of an anti-Judaism (implying a critique of Jewish religion), it did not explain why the Jews’ anti-gentile disposition (which, after all, had been around since the Hellenistic Age) was suddenly becoming hegemonic. Many of the great anti-Semites (e.g., Proudhon, Dühring, Drumont, Sombart, etc.) consequently directed their critique not just against the Jews but against those white elites who collaborated with them and especially against the emerging social-economic order which fostered such collaboration and made Jewish subversion possible. (Hence also the prominence of anti-Semites in nineteenth- and twentieth-century anti-modernist movements). The point here is that this people “that shall dwell alone” may have evolved a psychology destructively opposed to white society—a psychology, given its biological foundation, that transcends historical contingencies—but in itself this doesn’t explain why in one period Jews were fleeing pogroms and in another managing the White House.

Faye is much more convincing when he emphasizes those larger processes that turned Europeans against themselves, noting that the history leading to the white man’s present self-destruction—the history whose distant origins reside in the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the French Revolution and whose most imposing forms were philosophically expressed in the Enlightenment, politically in liberalism, and economically in capitalism—was part of a long, complex chain of causes and effects that cannot seriously be attributed to a Jewish conspiracy. Egalitarianism, human rights, materialism, individualism, and the categorical imperative, moreover, may all have been promoted by Jewish intellectuals at the white man’s expense, but to think that they are not preeminently products of European culture is possible only through an ignorance of that heritage. The sources of what Faye calls the present decay lie, as a consequence, as much in ourselves as elsewhere.[5] Since Jews, then, are only the occasional instrument of this historical subversion, they are no worse than the multitude of whites who also serve the subversive forces. To blame them for the predicament we’re in is not only false, Faye insists, but dishonorable.

There is a truth in this, just as vulgar or obsessive anti-Semitism which attributes all the white man’s woes to the “highly-ethnocentric, Christian-hating” Jews is something of a bugaboo, justifying its critics’ contempt. But there is nevertheless sound reason for seeing the forces assaulting white life and culture as Judaic in spirit—in the sense that they either stem directly from the Jews’ innate hostility to white existence, reflect the white man’s embrace of Jewish behavioral norms, represent what it means to be “modern” in Yuri Slezkine’s use of the term and “postmodern” in the current multicultural sense, or constitute part of the Jews’ historic campaign against Europe’s traditions, aristocracies, symbols, and transcendent values.[6] Relatedly it is hardly coincidental that for millennia European peoples designated the esprit juif—the spirit of “rule breakers, border crossers, and go-betweens”—as not just alien to their own, but destructive to their unique “synthesis of spirituality and virility.” (The more extreme forms of this designation went so far as to link Jews with “those cosmic forces which are destructive and evil and inimical to human life.”) This still doesn’t make the Jews the chief source of white decadence, and Faye is certainly correct in emphasizing that Europeans have never needed them to engage in ethnomasochist behavior—for the entire course of modern, especially twentieth-century, history has been cause enough. But it does suggest that white and Jewish spirits are fundamentally opposed and that the hegemony of the latter cannot but have a distorting effect on white being. Indeed, it is the white man’s alienation from his spirit that causes him, as Heidegger says, to “fall out of being” and thus into decay, decline, and decadence.[7]

Revealingly, Faye ignores the fact that anti-Semitism appears in virtually every period of European history. He understands the Jewish Question only as a facet of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century developments and does so without actually examining the nature of our increasingly Hebraicized world. Moreover, it is only the Jews’ “schizophrenia,” the divided loyalties they harbor toward Europe, that he sees as arousing European hostility and provoking gentile opposition. Though acknowledging the often negative offshoots of this “schizophrenia,” he also claims it is nowhere near as threatening as the menace posed by Islam and that it is frequently mitigated by the Jews’ identification with “Western Civilization.” Faye thus joins those nationalists who seek “freedom from history” in order to pursue anti-immigrant politics without being associated with the demobilizing tags of anti-Semitism, Nazism, and extremism, dismissing, in effect, the contention that it is the anathematization of these earlier expressions of European being that empowers and legitimatizes the system’s anti-European policies.

It would be historically unserious, I believe, to dispute Faye’s claim that the Jews are not wholly responsible for the white man’s decline. But at the same time it is quite another thing to then claim, as Faye does, that the Jewish Question is today passé and of no political interest to the struggle for white survival. There’s a difference he ignores between discarding the baggage of past failures and avoiding the challenges the past poses for the present. A case in point is the Holocaust Story, whose misrepresentation, as Graf, among many others, points out, is used to defame Europe’s greatest people, the Germans, demonizing not only their history and ethnos, but that of all Europeans. A European or white nationalist movement to stave off the race’s destruction by accepting this defamation and demonization, along with the lies, propaganda, and repression accompanying them, might arguably enhance its electoral prospects, but the proponents of such a system-accommodating movement never seem to concern themselves with the kind of “nationalism” it would represent or the sort of goals it could possibly achieve—or if it would actually be able to address the real sources of European decay. Following Heidegger, I would go further and argue that Europe and the “West” will never be reborn without the spiritual rebirth of the Germans and that this is impossible as long as they are forced to cower in the shadow of the Holocaust Story.

The Enemy

Of even greater concern for Faye is his belief that nationalists and identitarians fixated on the Jewish Question ignore the real enemy: The non-white, Muslim-led hordes encamped on Europe’s southern border who threaten to replace the indigenous European population.

Confronted with six million non-whites inside France and the millions to arrive in the near future, Faye argues that 600,000 French Jews (the largest Jewish community in Europe) are hardly an enemy. He even argues that the power and influence of France’s Jewish minority, virtually omnipotent in anti-Semitic eyes, are waning. Unlike the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century, Jews no longer dominate the nation’s financial heights, having been supplanted by the holders of Anglo-American pension funds, Arab petro-dollars, and the new East Asian economies; he also stresses that none of the world’s top fifty banks are Jewish owned. Likewise, in French education, the judiciary, the unions, and the civil service, Jewish power is marginal and in French politics, ideas, and media, while still prominent, is hardly dominant. Possessing powers incommensurate with their demographic weight, these powers are not, then, what they once were. Future trends (world opinion’s increasingly negative image of Israel, European Islamization, and the rise of the East Asian powers and a non-Eurocentric world order, etc.), Faye insists, will exacerbate this tendency. At the same time, Jews are allegedly becoming less and less supportive of mass Third World immigration.[8] In a period when Europe is under assault by Islam, revisionism and other anti-Jewish engagements, he argues, are “a typical example of a phony problem, a strategy of avoidance, of taking shelter in the past” (p. 171).[9] Anti-Semitism, in a word, has become “an ideological relic of a dead past,” irrelevant to the great challenge posed by the rising tide of color.

I imagine TOQ readers will find this a strange argument, given that Jewish power in the United States has never been greater or more destructive and that even France, the one European country not completely subject to American hegemony, has recently been captured by “semi-neocons.”[10] How, then, can Faye, given his history and publishing record, make such a claim?  One obvious reason, touched on above, is that anti-Jewish politics have the effect of politically marginalizing nationalists and that for them to break out of their ghetto they need to conform to the system’s underlying principles or else risk continued irrelevance. His argument (which is not entirely wrong) nevertheless rests on the assumption that the European situation is roughly analogous to the American one. Jewish power in Europe, however, has never been as great as its American counterpart and has a different nature, for it is a product of the American-centric system introduced in 1945—a system, I would argue, whose deracinating, globalizing, and totalizing economic and technological tendencies are preeminently Jewish, though it takes an ostensibly American form (Graf describes it as “a Frankenstein monster with a non-Jewish body and a Jewish head”).[11]

Given the power of this system’s centripetal forces and the degree to which the old European order was destroyed during the Second World War (and thus the degree to which it is no longer possible to speak of Europe as an autonomous actor), Faye in my view underestimates the external (American) sources of Jewish influence. For this system—which today subjects the entire planet to its “democratic” terrorism—is geared to the transnational imperatives of U.S. planners, which has the effect of subordinating Europe to its inherently Judeo-American logic. When Faye points out that France’s pro-immigration policies were mainly the work of gentiles and that countries like Sweden, Ireland, and Spain, with negligible or non-existent Jewish communities, have enacted similar ethnocidal policies, he is quite right to argue that Jewish involvement, if any, was peripheral. Nevertheless, the anti-European system prompting the implementation of these policies—the system which transferred sovereignty from the nation-state to the New World’s global economic order—is very much Jewish in depriving whites of everything that might prevent their submersion in its great coffee-colored market.[12] In effect, Europe’s philosemitic policies are facets of the “invisible empire” to which its comprador elites are irreparably tied, and this empire (with its liberal-capitalist impetus and often Jewish leadership) is inherently disposed to destroying the white man’s “racial and blood values.” Faye, in fact, has himself in numerous previous works emphasized the degree to which the United States has lobbied, if not compelled, Europeans to promote multiculturalism, mass Third World immigration, and Muslim Turkey’s admission to the EU.[13]

All this is mentioned by way of getting to Faye’s most important question: Who is the enemy?

From the Schmittian perspective of twentieth-century nationalism, the designation of the enemy is at the heart of every grande politique. “The enemy,” Carl Schmitt writes, “exists only when . . . one fighting collectivity of people confronts a similar collectivity.”[14] Historically, the enemy was a rival state that threatened one’s survival. But the political—which poses man’s highest existential tasks—is invoked whenever friend and enemy polarities come into play, as one adversary “intends to negate his opponent’s way of life.”[15] That the question of race replacement touches on the continued existence of the white biosphere makes racial politics “political” in the highest sense.

Even though “some” Jews continue to employ their double standard, Faye believes they are not the life and death threat that the non-white invaders pose. And though their open border advocacy and their pathologization of white identity have helped foster conditions facilitating the replacement of the indigenous white population, Faye questions if this makes the Jews a greater threat than the Third World interlopers—who are presently ethnically cleansing neighborhoods, disrupting traditional ways of life, and de-Europeanizing Europe. Worse, an obsession with Jews has caused not a few nationalists to ally with their enemy—the Muslims, who are qualitatively more anti-white and supremacist than the Jews. (The latest, most disastrous example of this was the 2007 presidential campaign of Le Pen’s National Front.) He claims, moreover, that the Jews (specifically their intellectuals) are not solely responsible for opening the gates to the “barbarians,” that they have in fact been joined by other, often more consequential, white culprits, and that to waste energy focused on their gate-opening activities is to neglect the real danger lurking in the suburbs and on the border. If nationalists are to mount an effective resistance to the anti-European forces, it is imperative, Faye insists, that they jettison their anti-Semitism and wage their struggle within the system’s philosemitic terms.

There is both a political and a theoretical issue at stake here. In our postmodern age, when the jus publicum Europaeum has given way to globalism’s anti-European order, nationalists confront a situation where they are obliged to fight a multi-front, asymmetrical war: Against an external enemy, the non-white hordes replacing Europeans, and against an internal enemy, those liberal elites, Jewish and otherwise, who promote and make possible this replacement. Faye and the reformists focus on the external enemy, his critics, like Graf, on the internal enemy. And, as in every multi-front war, the question inevitably arises: Who is the principal enemy, the gate keepers or the gate crashers?

For Faye, it’s the non-white immigrants, and every distraction from this realization is a step closer to the European’s impending Islamization. For Graf, it is the system responsible for the Third World invasion. “Effective struggle against immigration within the current framework,” he writes, “is totally impossible. In order to stop the invasion the system has to be overthrown either by a popular insurrection or a coup d’état.” This is a revolutionary answer that strikes at the root of the problem.[16] Of course, such an anti-institutional answer is one that neither Faye nor the conservative majority in nationalist ranks is presently willing to entertain—if for no other reason than it slights the visible enemy in our midst and complicates white efforts to reform existing policies.

How one sees the system, then, affects how one defines the principal enemy. And how one sees the Jews in relation to the system decides if this makes them the principal enemy or not. To the degree, therefore, that the esprit juif is the system’s spirit and favors specifically Jewish interests at the expense of white ones, the Jews are the real danger. But—and this is the qualification that muddies the waters—to the degree that it is the system itself, independent of the Jews, that is responsible for our predicament and thus the degree to which the Jews are only one of its instruments, then they are just facets of a larger, more complex web of subversion—which makes them an adversary to be sure, and one with a very distinct visage, but not, in themselves, the principal enemy.[17]

There is, admittedly, nothing neat and tidy in this, yet it is characteristic of late twentieth-century struggle that nationalists, compelled to fight both foreign invaders and their own collaborating ruling class, face nearly insurmountable challenges under the worst possible conditions.[18] The totalizing character of such struggle, with its universalization of enmity and its confusion of opponents, again owes a great deal to the breakdown of the Eurocentric system of nation-states after 1945, for this breakdown, in addition to threatening the existence of white people and denying a future to their children, completely undermined the traditional European “bracketing” of war—to such an extent that it now increasingly pits the state against the nation, conflates the forces of civil war, revolution, and national liberation, and entails a struggle that is as much about class as it is about race.[19] This makes it very difficult to designate the principal enemy. Relatedly, it raises a question of the highest political order, which Faye neglects entirely: For instead of exonerating the Jews, whose collaboration with the system is either necessary or sufficient to its purpose, and instead of abandoning our European past, which offers numerous historical examples of successfully waged anti-system struggles, Faye might have asked if anything meaningful can possibly be accomplished within a system which he himself once described as “the destroyer of nations” (le tueur des peuples).

Notes

[1] Jürgen Graf, “The New Jewish Question, or The End of Guillaume Faye,” http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/LEGAL2006/Faye.htm ^[2]; my quotations come from the French original, “La nouvelle question juive ou la fin de Guillaume Faye,” http://www.juergen-graf.sled.name/articles/graf-la-fin-de-guillaume-faye.html ^[3]. Cf. “Dr. Robert Faurisson on Guillaume Faye,” http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2007/ 11/23/dr-robert-faurisson-on-guillaume-faye-2/ ^[4]; Michael O’Meara, “Guillaume Faye and the Jews ^[5].”

[2] For disclosure’s sake, I should mention the divided loyalties affecting my review of this work. Revisionism, especially as disseminated by Mark Weber’s IHR, played a major role in shaping my work as a professionally trained historian and as a racial nationalist; relatedly, revisionist ideas led to the termination of my short-lived academic career. My identification with Graf is thus both personal and intellectual. At the same time, I helped introduce English-speaking nationalists to Faye’s ideas, which I continue to think are an invaluable contribution to the coming European Revolution.

[3] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique (Bloomington, Ind.: 1stBooks, 2002).

[4] This is not an apology, but a simple historical observation—one, moreover, made with the knowledge that most non-Orthodox distillations of Christianity are today objectively anti-white and that, at the same time, any credible nationalist movement in America cannot be anti-Christian.

[5] In probing the sources of European decay, our greatest thinkers are closer to Faye than to the anti-Semitic vulgate: Think of Nietzsche’s theory of nihilism, Weber’s Iron Cage, Heidegger’s evasion of being, Spengler’s organic cycles, or Evola’s loss of Tradition—all of which emphasize the self-destructive tendencies inherent in European culture. Kevin MacDonald’s own work, in considering the role that individualism, weak ethnocentrism, and moral universalism have played in making whites vulnerable to Jewish subversion, also acknowledges the effects of these European sources (though he tends to emphasize the primacy of the Jewish ones).

[6] When Slezkine argues (further substantiating MacDonald’s argument in The Culture of Critique) that the “Modern Age is the Jewish Age,” he affirms, in effect, the essentially Judaic character of the existing system. Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004). Julius Evola, whom I consider the most profound anti-Jewish critic of the twentieth century, actually ended up abandoning his anti-Semitism after 1945 because he thought it “absurd” to continue posing the Jewish Question when the “negative behavior attributed to Jews had become that of the majority of Aryans.” Julius Evola, Il Camminino del Cinabro (Milan: Scheiwiller, 1972). See also Michael O’Meara, “Evola’s Anti-Semitism ^[6].”

[7] Martin Heidegger, Introduction to Metaphysics, trans. by G. Fried and R. Polt (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000).

[8] As evident in the immigration policies of Nicolas Sarkozy, French Jews are becoming less supportive of the present Afro-Arab immigration, which is the principal source of the growing anti-Semitism. But this does not mean, as Faye assumes, that they are beginning to oppose Third World immigration tout court. Rather, Sarkozy’s “select immigration” is increasingly oriented to East Asians, who are both less of a welfare charge and indifferent to Judaism. See Michael O’Meara, “Racial Nationalism and the French Presidential Election of 2007,” http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?p=1703 ^[7].

[9] This argument bears comparison to the argument he makes against European anti-Americanism. See Guillaume Faye, Le coup d’Etat mondial: Essai sur le Nouvel Impérialisme Américain (Paris: L’Æncre, 2004); Michael O’Meara, “Europe’s Enemy: Islam or America? ^[8]”

[10] “Semi” because Sarko l’Américain has on several occasions threatened (and threatens still) to mutate into Sarko l’Européen—given that the geopolitical imperatives of France’s leadership of Europe overrides the pro-Americanism of his neocon ideology. See “Candide postmoderne, avec Ray-Bans, jeans et ‘esprit apocalyptique’” (1-11-08), http://www.dedefensa.org/article.php?art_id=4819 ^[9].

[11] The history of this system has yet to be written. It was anticipated as early as 1950 in Carl Schmitt, The Nomos of the Earth, tr. by G. L. Ulmen (New York: Telos Press, 2006). Its origins have been examined in Jean-Gilles Malliarakis, Yalta et la naissance des blocs (Paris: Eds. du Trident, 1982, 1995). One of its better recent theoretical conceptualizations is Alexandre Zinoview, La grande rupture: Sociologie d’un monde bouleversé (Lausanne: Eds. L’Age d’Homme, 1999). Faye himself attempted to grasp the system’s nature in one of his more important early works, Le Système à tuer les peuples (Paris: Ed. Copernic, 1981).

[12] Julius Evola, Three Aspects of the Jewish Problem (NP: Thompkins & Cariou, 2003).

[13] “What we call Americanism is nothing else . . . than the Jewish spirit distilled.” Werner Sombart, The Jews and Modern Capitalism, trans. by M. Epstein (New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1982). Writing at the end of the twentieth century, Kevin MacDonald makes a similar contention in The Culture of Critique. The difference is that Sombart believed the liberal-capitalist core of American civilization was inherently Judaic, while MacDonald contends that it was imposed.

[14] Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, trans. by G. Schwab (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).

[15] Schmitt, Concept of the Political.

[16] Cf. Michael O’Meara, “The Defeat of the Jewnited States as Imagined by H. A. Covington,” http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?p=1936; and “Through the Barrel of a Gun or Not at All,” http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?p=2236.

[17] For decades now, the Jewish spirit has obviously influenced the “hostile elite” managing America’s world system, but whether this elite is Jewish in essence is something that anti-Jewish critics have yet to prove.

[18] Think of France in the early Sixties, when General Salan’s Organisation Armée Secrète had to fight a non-white enemy in Algiers and a French enemy in Paris; or the situation today in Iraq, as Sunni insurgents simultaneously battle Shi’ites, the puppet government in Baghdad, and the foreign army of occupation.

[19] Carl Schmitt, “Theory of the Partisan,” Telos no. 127 (Spring 2004).

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/08/the-new-jewish-question-of-guillaume-faye/

Guillaume Faye and the Jews

Guillaume Faye & the Jews

By Michael O'Meara 

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

Few postwar thinkers in my view have played a greater role in ideologically resisting the forces assaulting Europe’s incomparable bioculture than Guillaume Faye. This was publicly evident at the international conference on “The White World’s Future” held in Moscow in June 2006, which he helped organize. It’s even more evident in the six books he’s written in the last seven years and in the innumerable articles, interviews, and conferences in which he’s alerted Europeans to the great challenges threatening their survival.

In this spirit he has developed an “archeofuturist” philosophy that takes its inspiration from the most primordial and Faustian urgings of our people’s spirit; he has incessantly warned of the threat posed by the Third World, specially Islamic, invasion of the former white homelands; he has promoted European collaboration with Russia and made the case for a white imperium stretching from Dublin to Vladivoskov; he privileges biopolitics over cultural or party politics; he’s developed a theory of the interregnum that explains why the existing system of subversion will soon collapse; and he’s successfully promoted anti-liberal ideas and values in a language and style that transcends the often ghettoized discourse of our movement. But despite his incomparable contribution to the forces of white resistance, he has always remained suspiciously silent on certain key issues, particularly regarding the Jews, the so-called Holocaust, and the interwar heritage of revolutionary nationalism — even though he is routinely referred to in the MSM as a fascist, a racist, and a negationist. On those few occasions he has spoken of Israel or the Jews, it has been to say that their cause is not ours and that we need to focus on the dangers bearing down on us. To this degree, his silence was tolerable. Recently, however, he’s broken this silence and taken a stance likely to alienate many of his supporters.

The occasion was an interview granted to the Zionist France-Echos — now posted at subversive.com. When asked in the interview about anti-Semitism in the “identitarian” movement he leads, Faye responded in explicitly philosemitic terms:

Anti-Judaism (a term preferable to anti-Semitism) has melted away like snow in the sun. There are, of course, pockets of resistance . . . . But this tendency is more and more isolated . . . because of the massive problem posed by Islamizaton and Third World immigration. In these circumstance, anti-Judaism has been forgotten, for the Jew no longer appears as a menace. In the milieux I frequent, I never read or hear of anti Jewish invectives. . . . [A]nti-Judaism is a political position that is obsolete, unhelpful, out of date, even when camouflaged as anti-Zionism. This is no longer the era of the Dreyfus Affair. Anti-Jews, moreover, are caught in an inescapable contradiction: they despise Jews, but claim they dominate the world, as if they were a superior race. This makes anti-Judaism a form of political schizophrenia, a sort of inverted philosemitism, an expression of resentment. One can’t, after all, detest what one aspires to . . . . My position is that of Nietzsche: To run down the Jews serves no purpose, it’s politically stupid and unproductive.

Besides ignoring the fact that Jewish influence has never been more dominant and more destructive of white existence, three questions are raised in this quote:

(1) Is it that the problems posed by immigration and Islam have trivialized those once associated with the Jews?

(2) Or is it that Islam and immigration reveal that the Jews are not (and never were) a problem, that the anti-Judaism of the Dreyfus era, like other historical expressions of anti-Judaism, was simply a product of a culture whose traditionalism or resentment “stupidly” demonized the Jew as the Other?

(3) Or is it that one can’t have two enemies at the same time, that the threat posed by Islamic immigration is greater than whatever threat the Jews might pose, making it strategically necessary to focus on the principal enemy and to relegate the other to a lesser degree of significance?

Faye tends to conflate these questions, leaving unsaid what needs to be said explicitly. He assumes, moreover, that the Islamic or Third World threat (both in the form of the present invasion and internationally) is somehow unrelated to the Jews. He acknowledges, of course, that certain Jews have been instrumental in promoting multiracialism and immigration. But the supposition here is that this is just a tendency on the part of certain Jews and that to think otherwise is to commit the error of seeing them in the way that “old-fashioned” anti-Semites once did. At first glance, his argument seems to be that of Jared Taylor and American Renaissance, being a tactical decision to take the path of least resistance (which many of us don’t support but nevertheless can live with). Faye, though, goes beyond Taylor, making claims about the Jews that will inevitably compromise our movement.

The anti-Islamism and philosemitism that Faye here combines reflect a deep ideological divide in French nationalist ranks. This divide is symptomatic of a larger schism that is rarely discussed by white nationalists, but has had worldwide ramification for our movement. Since 1945, when the anti-white forces of triumphant American liberalism and Russian Communism, in alliance with Zionism, achieved world hegemony, the hounded and tattered ranks of the nationalist right, in Europe and America, split into a number of divergent, if not contradictory tendencies. With the advent of the Cold War and the formation of the Israeli state, these tendencies tended to polarize around two camps. One tendency, including certain ex-Nazis, allied with postwar anti-Communism, viewing the Russian threat as the greater danger to Western Civilization. Given Israel’s strategic place in the Cold War alignment, these anti-Communists treated organized Zionism as an ally and downplayed the “anti-Semitism” that had traditionally been part of their anti-liberal nationalism. This tendency was opposed by another, which also included former Nazis, but it saw Russian Communism in terms of Stalin’s alleged anti-Semitism and nationalism. This led it to assume an anti-American, anti-Zionist, and pro-Third World position.

The legacy of this polarization continues to affect white nationalist ranks, even though elements of it have been jumbled and rearranged in recent years. As ideal types, however, neither tendency is completely supportable nor insupportable. White nationalism, I suspect, will succeed as a movement only in synthesizing the positive, pro-white elements in each tendency. For a long time, I thought Faye represented this synthesis, for he was both pro-Russian without being hysterically anti-American, anti-Third World without supporting the globalist super-structure dominating the “West.” More impressive still, his orientation was to a revolutionary, racially conscious, and archeofuturist concept of the European race that refused any accommodation to the existing regime.

Recently, however, his anti-Islamism seems to have morphed into a Zionism that cannot but trouble our movement. In the France-Echos interview he says in reference to his nationalist critics that it is nonsensical to call him a Zionist since he is not a Jew. But in the same breath he adds:

How could I be anti-Zionist . . . . Unlike Islamism, Communism, Leftism, human rights, and masochistic, post-conciliar Christianity, Zionism neither opposes nor restrains in any significant way the ideals I defend, that is, the preservation of [Europe's biocultural] identity. How would the disappearance of Israel serve my cause? For a European identitarian to think that the Hebrew state is an enemy is geopolitically stupid.

He goes on to argue that those who are viscerally anti-American and anti-Zionist are implicitly pro-Islam, pro-Arab, and immigrationist, allies in effect of the Left’s Third-Worldism. Pointing to Alain de Benoist’s GRECE, Christian Bouchet’s revolutionary nationalist movement, and those “Traditionalist” European converts to Islam, all of whom are fascinated by Iran’s new leadership and by Hezbollah, he claims, with some justice, that these anti-Zionists are in the process of abandoning their commitment to Europe.

Faye’s contention that Islam (the civilization) is a mortal threat to Europe is solidly grounded. While one might appreciate Amadinehjad’s critique of Zionist propaganda, especially as it takes the form of the Holocaust, or Nasrallah’s humbling of the IDF, to go from there to supporting Iran’s Islamic Republic or Islamic insurgents in general (think of the Paris Ramadan riots of November 2005) is, for white nationalists, a betrayal of another sort. Faye here acts as an important bulwark against those in our ranks who would leave it to others to fight our battles — others, if history is any guide, who won’t
hesitate to subjugate us once the opportunity arises.

Where Faye crosses the line in my view is in arguing that Jews ought to be considered part of European civilization, that the defense and reinforcement of the Israeli state is a vital imperative for Europe, and that Israel is the vanguard in the struggle against “our common enemy.” The collapse of Israel, he claims, would “open the door to the total conquest of Europe.” He concludes by declaring that he is no Judeophile. “I consider the Jews allies, as part of European civilization, with a very particular and original status as a people apart.” He rejects anti-Judaism “not because it is immoral, but because it is unuseful, divisive, infantile, politically inconsistent, out dated.” For ostensively strategic reasons, then, he rejects anti-Judaism.

It is not my intention here to critique Faye’s new-found Zionism (which I find insupportable) — that would require a format different from this report. It is also not my intention to put his other ideas in doubt, for I continue to believe that he has made an incomparable intellectual contribution to the cause of white resistance. I do, however, question how Faye can consider a non-European people like the Jews to be part of our biocivilization; how he can ignore the destructive role they have played in European and especially American history; how he can dismiss their role in fostering the anti-white forces of multiculturalism, globalism, and the existing regime; and how he can think that Israel is not a geopolitical liability to Europe and Russia?

Finally, I can’t help but recall an earlier occasion when Faye argued that our survival as a people depends on “ourselves alone” — and not on appeals to those whose interests are inevitably served at our expense.

From VNN, July 31, 2006

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/08/guillaume-faye-the-jews/

Articles de Jean Mabire sur "centrostudilaruna"

Articles de Jean Mabire

sur http://www.centrostudilaruna.it/

Jean Mabire (Paris 8 février 1927 - Saint-Malo 29 mars 2006), était un écrivain, journaliste et critique littéraire français, engagé des milieux régionalistes normands et de la Nouvelle droite. Il est l'auteur de nombreux livres consacrés à l'histoire, notamment à la Seconde Guerre mondiale.

Pierre Guillaume

Louis Boussenard, un écrivain-aventurier dans le meilleur sillage de Jules Verne

Christian de la Mazière

De quelques écrivains-guerriers

La maîtrise des mers

Petite guerre dans les Bayous

Charles Maurras et sa préhistoire

Pauwels l’admirable

À la rencontre des dieux maudits

Jean Raspail: “La hache des steppes”

Flaubert, contestataire et “nietzschéen”

Hoe ontstaan revoluties?

Hoe ontstaan revoluties?

Peter LOGGHE

Ex: Nieuwsbrief Deltastichting - Nr. 50 - Augustus 2011


Hoe revoluties ontstaan, is een vraag die men zich al heel lang stelt. De actualiteit van de zogenaamde Arabische Lente in 2011 heeft ondertussen geleerd dat er geen antwoorden bestaan, die het fenomeen op zich volledig verklaren. Maar het Franse tijdschrift, La Nouvelle Revue d’Histoire, fraai uitgegevendoor Dominique Venner en één van de beste van zijn soort, heeft het nodig gevonden om hieraan een dossier te wijden. Een dossier dat net op tijd komt, want net rond deze periode werd ook het hoofdwerk van José Ortega y Gasset , La Rebelion De Las Masas (vertaal in het Nederlands als De Opstand der Horden, verschenen bij Nijgh & Van Ditmar met ISBN-nummer 9789023655671) opnieuw in het Frans uitgegeven.
 
Auteur Jean Michel Baldassari vraagt zich af op welke manier men het belang van een boek kan afmeten en geeft hierop als antwoord: “Als men het boek lang na de publicatie nog kan herlezen, zonder de indruk te hebben dat men verraden werd of bij de neus genomen”.  De Opstand der Horden, dat in 1929 in Spanje werd gepubliceerd, voldoet volkomen aan deze stelregel en – wat meer is – geeft daarenboven eeninteressante inkijk in het wezen en het ontstaan van revoluties. Een boek dat velen irriteert, want hetgaat helemaal in tegen de lineaire conceptie van de geschiedenis, die de vooruitgang van de mensheid afmeet aan de doorbraak van de democratie.

Voor deze Spaanse filosoof is democratie geen doel op zichzelf, maar slechts een middel van emancipatie, dat de beschaving ter beschikking stelt van het individu, zodat hij uit zijn apathie kanbreken. Europa kende op dat moment een beschaving waarbij de macht en de leiding van de maatschappij werd uitgeoefend door aldan niet verlichte minderheden. Maar tussen 1800 en 1914 groeide debevolking in Europa van 180 naar 460 miljoen mensen. Daarmee deed demassa haar intrede in het publieke leven. Samen hiermee ontwikkelde het onderwijs zichenorm en zorgden democratische rechten ervoor dat een ongekende situatie ontstond. Voor de eerste keer in de geschiedenis “oefenden individuen, die onverschillig stonden tegenover verleden en toekomst, die geen bijzondere ambitie of passie hadden, het recht uit om het lot van de wereld in een bepaalde richting te sturen” (Jean Michel Baldassari, pag. 35).

Beschouwde Ortega y Gasset de democratie dan niet als een vooruitgang? Natuurlijk wel, al waarschuwde hij er wel voor dat deze vooruitgang zich evengoed tegen zichzelf kon keren en in eennieuw barbarendom kon omslaan als de elites, anders gezegd diegenen die de zware verantwoordelijkheid op zich wilden nemen om de maatschappij te leiden, zich volledig zouden laten leiden door de blinde eisen van diegenen die hij met “massa’s” omschreef.

José Ortega y Gasset zal vooral de geschiedenis ingaan als de scherpe analyticus van het verschijnsel ‘massamens’.  Dit fenomeen is eigenlijk een agglomeraat van individuen zonder welomschreven groep of bijzonder talent, maar die zich soeverein opstellen, omdat men hen heeft laten geloven dat zij dat zijn.  “Want de gemiddelde mens heeft geleerd dat alle mensen wettelijk gezien gelijk zijn”, aldus de filosoof.  Verwaand in die mate dat hij elk hiërarchie als een agressie tegen zichzelf aanvoelt. Onverschillig tegenover de mogelijke plichten, kent hij maar al te goed zijn rechten.
 
Onvermijdelijk komen dan die andere groten in beeld: Alexis de Toqueville en Hannah Arendt. Want naar het voorbeeld van de Toqueville, die ongerust was over de gevolgen van de democratie, en Hannah Arendt, die in haar De oorsprong van het totalitarisme het spiritueel ontworteld individu beschrijft datzeer gevoelig is voor collectivistische avonturen, zo vreest ook Ortega y Gasset de irrationele kracht van massa. Hij stond dus eerder afkerig van het Italië van Mussolini, maar was bovenal een anticommunist.
 
Was hij een reactionair? Helemaal niet, hij observeerde gewoon wat hij zag. Maarin tegenstelling tot Oswald Spengler die de fatale ondergang van het Westen voorspelde, dacht de Spanjaard niet dat Europa ‘gedoemd’ was tot een onomkeerbare decadentie. De Europese naties, aldus Ortega y Gasset, bevonden zich natuurlijk wel in een neerwaartse spiraal, maar als ze zich maar verenigden in iets nieuw, kon er zeker een nieuwe wereldmacht groeien. Was hij het eens met liberale denkers in die tijd om te stellen dat geschiedenis niet op voorhand geschreven was en dat mensen hun eigen lot perfect in eigen handen konden nemen, dan was hij in zoverre niet meer akkoord met diezelfde liberalen en stelde zich dus eerder als een conservatief op, dat hij als voorwaarde hieraan verbond dat vrijheid betekende dat diegenen die geroepen waren om te “leiden”, dit dan ook moesten kunnen zonder aan allerlei zware democratische regels te zijn gebonden.

José Ortega y Gasset stond positief tegenover een humanistische en tezelfdertijd elitaire beschaving, maar zou heel weinig voeling hebben gehad met “wat de beschaving vandaag heeft voortgebracht, een libertaire maatschappij, puur op consumptie gericht”.
 
Enkele historici belichtten verder in dit nummer 55 de Franse revolutie van 1789, de val van de burgerkoning Louis-Philippe, het belang van het jaar 1848 voor de opstanden over gans Europa, en de revolutie van 1917 in Rusland. Tenslotte belicht Dominique Venner in een bijdrage “Wanneer de revolutie een religie wordt” de gelijkenissen tussen de twee totalitaire ideologieën van de 20ste eeuw, het fascisme en het communisme. In deze beide collectivistische stromingen merkt de auteur – terecht naar mijn inschatting – een honger naar nieuwe religiositeit, en gaat hij op zoek wat er van het geloof van de fiere zeloten is overgebleven.

Een nummerén een tijdschrift dat we alleen maar kunnen aanbevelen:

La Nouvelle Revue d’Histoire.
Avenue des Ternes, 88
F-75017 Paris (Frankrijk)

Webstek

  

(Peter Logghe)

Tomislav Sunic on the European New Right

Tomislav Sunic on the European New Right

Europe's Enemy: Islam or America?

Europe’s Enemy: Islam or America?
Guillaume Faye’s Le coup d’Etat mondial

Michael O'MEARA

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

Guillaume Faye
Le coup d’Etat mondial:
Essai sur le Nouvel Impérialisme Américain
(Global Coup d’Etat: An Essay on the New American Imperialism)
Paris: L’Æncre, 2004

 Fas est ab hoste doceri. (It is permitted to learn from the enemy.) — Ovid

This past spring, for the sixth time in six years, Guillaume Faye has published a book that redefines the political contours of European nationalism (“nationalism” here referring not to the defense of the nineteenth-century “nation-state,” but of Magna Europa). Like each of his previous works, Coup d’Etat mondial speaks to the exigencies of the moment, as well as to the perennial concerns of the European ethnos. In this spirit, it offers a scathing critique of the “new American imperialism” and the European anti-Americanism opposing it, while simultaneously contributing to a larger nationalist debate over Europe’s destiny. Framed in terms of Carl Schmitt’s Freund/Feind designation, this debate revolves around the question: Who is Europe’s enemy? For Schmitt, this question is tantamount to asking who threatens Europe’s state system and, by implication, who threatens its unique bioculture.

During the Cold War, the more advanced nationalists rejected the conventional view that Soviet Communism was the principal enemy and instead designated the United States. This is evident in the works of Francis Parker Yockey, Jean Thiriart, Adriano Romualdi, Otto Strasser, Alain de Benoist, and in the politics of the sole European statesman to have defended Europe’s independence in the postwar period: Charles de Gaulle.

It was not, however, America’s occupation of postwar Europe that alone aligned these nationalists against the U.S.—though this was perhaps cause enough. Rather, it was the liberal democratic basis of America’s postwar order, whose deculturating materialism was seen as corrupting the biocultural foundations of European life. The Soviets’ brutal occupation of Eastern Europe may therefore have broken the bodies of those opposing them, but America, for nationalists, threatened their souls.

Today, this anti-American opposition persists, but has come to signify something quite different. What has changed, and this starts to be evident in the late 1980s and even more so in the ’90s, is Third World immigration, which puts the American threat in an entirely altered perspective. In nationalist ranks, Faye stands out as the principal proponent of the view that Islam and its nonwhite immigrants now constitute Europe’s enemy and that America, though still an adversary, has become a less threatening menace.

For Faye, the New American Imperialism (NAI) associated with the Bush administration supplants the earlier, more implicit imperialism of the Cold War era. This imperialism, though, is not specifically Bush’s creation, for it arose in the Cold War’s wake and took form in subsequent aggressions on Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and now Iraq.

The older imperialism had a Wilsonian facade, legitimated with moral pronouncements and a naive, but occasionally sincere, effort to regulate the world according to its liberal principles. By contrast, the NAI rejects this “softer” (and actually more effective) variant of American power for a policy that aggressively asserts U.S. military might irrespective of “world opinion.” It ceases thus to pursue its interests through international organizations embodying its liberal world view and instead embraces a militaristic unilateralism that defies international convention in the name of America’s “vital interests.”

Against the arguments of its apologists, Faye claims the NAI is not the hard-headed, morally clear assertion of American power that they make it out to be, but rather a puerile, utopian, and unrealistic one based on the notion that tout est permis!— anything goes. The United States may be the world’s dominant power, but it lacks what Aristotle and the conservative tradition of statecraft understood as the enduring basis of power: prudence. For in confusing dominance with omnipotence, the NAI’s neoconservative executors, like all who draw the wages of hubris, inadvertently earn themselves—and America—the likelihood of a tragic fall.

In this vein, U.S. vital interests (what the present administration defines in Zionist, militarist, and globalist terms) are treated as the sole permissible basis of national sovereignty. A state—”rogue” or otherwise—that exercises its autonomy, fabricates weapons of mass destruction (i.e., weapons capable of ensuring its sovereignty), or resists Washington’s dictates is deemed an enemy and risks reprisal. Implicit in this redefinition of America’s world role is the assumption that the United States is the world’s gendarme, its lone sovereign power, obliged to uphold a law which is synonymous with its own strategic interests.

Moreover, the NAI’s assumption that the United States has the capacity to dominate the planet is, if nothing else, simpleminded. Its proponents might think they are breaking with the legalistic or Kantian postulates of liberal internationalism by pursuing hegemonist objectives with military methods (which, in itself, would be unobjectionable), but this readiness to substitute raw power for other forms of power (that is, for power exercised in the “thieves’ den” of the United Nations or through international regulatory agencies the United States created after 1945) is informed by the Judeo-Protestant illusion that America does God’s work in the world. This cannot but disconnect them from all they seek to dominate, for in applying their illusory principles to an intractable reality, they cannot but lurch from disaster to disaster.

The NAI’s peculiar mix of political Machiavellianism and millennial Calvinism has been especially prominent in Iraq, the conquest of which was to be a cakewalk. Not only did Bush and his advisers have no idea of what they were getting into, they completely misread the capacities of American power. If the U.S. Air Force possesses unparalleled firepower, the modern American soldier cannot fight on the ground. With half its army occupying a country with no military capacity and its helicopter gunships, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and body-armored ground troops arrayed against lightly-armed and untrained insurgents, it is stretched to the breaking-point.

Despite its imperialist ambitions, America is not Rome. Faye argues that it is more like a house of cards—an ephemeral economic-political enterprise—lacking those ethnic, religious, and cultural traits that go into making a great people and a great power.

As any white Californian will attest, there is, in fact, no longer anything particularly American about America, only people like the turbaned Sikh who drives the local cab, the Mexican illegal who mows our neighbors’ lawn, the Indian programmer who replaces his higher-paid white counterpart, the Chinese grocer who sells us beer and cigarettes late at night, the African who empties the bedpans in our nursing homes, the Africans of American birth who run our cities and public agencies, and the white zombies insulated in distant, manicured suburbs, where the voices of children are rarely heard. For Faye, this disparate hodgepodge is not a nation in any historical sense, only an artificial social system, whose members, as Lewis Lapham has written, are “united by little else except the possession of a credit card and password to the internet.” Why, it seems almost unnecessary to ask, would an American Gurkha risk his life for such an entity?

The military technology of Imperial America undoubtedly lacks an equal, but its centrality to U.S. power, Faye claims, testifies to nothing so much as the enfeebled cognitive abilities of its elites, who think their computerized gadgetry is a substitute for those primordial human qualities that go into making a people or a nation—qualities such as those that steeled not just Rome’s republican legions, but the Celtic-Saxon ranks of the Confederacy, the gunmen of the IRA, the indomitable battalions of the Wehrmacht, and the Red Army of the Great Patriotic War. In the absence of these qualities forged by blood and history, the NAI’s space-age military (whose recruiters now slip beneath the border to find the “volunteers” for its imperial missions) is a paper tiger, no match for a nation in arms—not even a pathetic, misbegotten nation like Iraq.

The hubris-ridden neoconservatives leading America into this costly adventure from which it is unlikely to recover did so without the slightest consideration of the toll it would take on the country’s already stressed and overtaxed institutions. Fighting for objectives that are everywhere challenged and with troops that are not only afraid to die, but have no idea of what they are dying for, the only thing they have actually accomplished is what they set out to combat: For they have inflamed the Middle East, enhanced Islam’s prestige, augmented bin Laden’s ranks, accelerated the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and turned the whole world against them.

Finally, Faye depicts the NAI as America’s last bloom. Both domestically and internationally, the signs of American decline, he observes, are more and more evident. For all that once distinguished America is now tarnished. Its melting pot no longer assimilates, its mixed-race population is inextricably Balkanized, its state is increasingly maniacal in its anti-white, anti-family, anti-community policies, and its market, the one remaining basis of social integration, is in serious difficulty, burdened by massive trade imbalances, unable to generate industrial jobs, hampered by astronomical debts and deficits, and increasingly dependent on the rest of the world. Even the country’s fabled democracy has ceased to work, with elections decided by the courts, fraudulent polling practices, and a pervasive system of spin and simulacrum. The virtuality of the political process seems, actually, to reflect nothing so much as the increasingly illusory authority of its reigning elites, whose oligarchic disposition and incompetent management necessitates a system of smoke and mirrors.

Internationally, America faces a no less bleak situation. Faye points out that the almighty dollar, for sixty years the world’s reserve currency, is now threatened by the euro (which means the country will soon no longer be able to live on credit); the European Union and Asia’s rising economic colossus are undermining its primacy in world markets; it faces the wrath of a billion Muslims worldwide and does nothing to stem the Muslim immigration to the United States; its occupation of Iraq is causing it to hemorrhage monetarily, morally, and militarily; and, not least, its image and integrity have been so damaged that raw power alone sustains its fragile hegemony.

Unlike the implicit imperialism of the Cold War era, the NAI is openly anti-European. In this vein, it opposes the continent’s political unification; treats its allies, even its British poodle, with contempt; practices a divide and conquer tactic which pits the so-called New Europe against the Old; and pursues a strategic orientation aimed at containing Europe and keeping it dependent on the U.S. security system.

In parallel with this anti-Europeanism, there has developed in Europe what Faye calls an “obsessional and hysterical anti-Americanism” (OHAA). He sees this development as so destructive of Europe’s self-interest that he factitiously suggests that it is probably subsidized by the CIA. For this anti-Americanism bears little relation to earlier forms of French anti-Americanism, which sought to defend France’s High Culture from the subversions of America’s culture industry. Nor are its right-wing proponents firmly in the pale of the “new revolutionary nationalism,” which designates liberalism’s cosmopolitan plutocracy as the chief enemy and resists its denationalization of capital, population, and territory. Instead, this OHAA not only does nothing to advance the European project, its fixation on the NAI inadvertently contributes to the Islamization and Third Worldization of the continent, hastening, in effect, its demise as a civilizational entity.

Touching the government and numerous nationalist tendencies, in addition to the perennially anti-identitarian Left, this OHAA is informed by a simpleminded Manichaeanism, which assumes that America’s enemy (Islam) is Europe’s friend. By this logic, America is depicted as a source of evil and Islam as a possible savior. In effect, these anti-Americans adopt not just Islam’s Manichaean world view, but that of the Judeo-Protestants who make up Bush’s political base. For like the neoconservative publicists and propagandists advising the administration and like the mullahs shepherding their submissive, but fanatical flocks, they too paint the world in black and white terms, the axis of good versus the axis of evil, with the enemy (America or Islam) seen as the source of all evil and our side (America or Islam) as the seat of all virtue.

And just as the liberal/neocon image of America is Hebraic, not Greco-European, these European anti-Americans carry in their demonstrations the flags of Iraq, Palestine, Algeria, and Morocco, shout Allah Akbar, and affirm their solidarity with Islam—all without the slightest affirmation of their own people and culture. This simple-minded Manichaeanism influences not only left-wing immigrationists bent on subverting Europe’s bioculture, but French New Rightists around Alain de Benoist, revolutionary nationalists around Christian Bouchet, traditionalists around the Austrian Martin Schwartz and the Italian Claudio Mutti, and various Eurasianists, as well as many lesser known tendencies. Worse, the politicians catering to this anti-Americanism oppose the NAI less for the sake of Europe’s autonomy than for that of its large Muslim minority. They thus refuse to be an American protectorate, but at the same time display the greatest indifference to the fact that they are rapidly becoming an Islamic-Arabic colony: Eurabia.

The economic and cultural war the United States wages on Europe, Faye stresses, ought to warrant the firmest of European ripostes, but to feel the slightest solidarity with Islam, even when “unjustly” attacked, is simply masochistic—for, if the last 1400 years is any guide, it seeks nothing so much as to conquer and destroy Europe. American plutocratic liberalism may be responsible for fostering transnational labor markets that import millions of Third World immigrants into the white Lebensraum, but if the latter are ignored for the sake of resisting the former, the end result may soon be that there will no Europeans left to defend. (Medically, this would be equivalent to fighting typhoid by ignoring the infectious bacillus assaulting the sufferer and instead concentrating exclusively on eliminating the contaminated food and water that transmit it —in which case the disease would be eradicated, but the patient not live to appreciate it).

The OHAA’s simpleminded politics, Faye argues, ends up not just misconceiving Europe’s enemy, but sanctioning its colonization, including the colonization of its mind. Like the “poor African” who is routinely portrayed as the victim of white colonialism, this sort of anti-Americanism makes the European the victim of U.S. imperialism. As we know from experiences on our side of the Atlantic, such a mentality takes responsibility for nothing and attributes everything it finds objectionable to the white man, in this case the American.

More pathetically still, in designating the United States as an irreconcilable enemy and Islam as a friend, these anti-Americans inadvertently dance to Washington’s own tune. Based on his La colonisation de l’Europe: Discours vrai sur l’immigration et l’Islam (2000) and in reference to Alexander del Valle’s Islamisme et Etats-Unis: Une alliance contre l’Europe (1999), Faye contends that since the early 1980s U.S. policy has aggressively promoted Europe’s Third Worldization—through its ideology of human rights, multiculturalism, and multiracialism, through its unrelenting effort to force the European Union to admit Turkey, but above all through its intervention on behalf of Islam in the Yugoslavian civil war. In all these ways fostering social, religious, cultural, and ethnic divisions that neutralize Europe’s potential threat to its own hegemony, it seeks to subvert European unity.

Looking to the Arab world to counter U.S. imperialism can only lead to national suicide. Those who advocate Europe’s alliance with the Third World are thus for Faye not simply naive, but neurotic. America may be a competitor, an adversary, a culturally distorting force, it may even be the principal international force for liberal cosmopolitanism, but in relation to the ethnocidal threat posed by Islam it is almost entirely innocuous. Europeans can always recover from the deculturation that comes from American domination, but not from the destruction of their genetic heritage, which Islam promises. Faye suggests that this anti-American neurosis, like the classic textbook pathology, designates America as its enemy for fear of acknowledging the danger looming under its very nose. As such, the anti-American Islamophiles refuse to see what’s happening in Europe, whose soft, dispirited white population is increasingly cowed by Islam’s conquering life-force. For however much American policy assaults Europe, it does not constitute the life-and-death danger which the invading Islamic colonizers do. To think otherwise is possible only by ignoring the primacy of race and culture. Instead, then, of pursuing chimerical relations with people whose underlying motive is the destruction of Europe as we know it, it would be wiser, Faye claims, for Europeans to view what’s happening in Iraq as the Chinese and Indians do: with cynical detachment and an eye to their own self-interest.

The greatest danger to Europe, and this idea is the axis around which Faye’s argument revolves, comes from the Islamic lands to the “South,” whose nonwhite immigrants are presently colonizing the continent, assuming control of its biosphere, and altering the foundations of European life. For European nationalists and governments to treat America, with its shallow, provisional power, as the enemy and Islam, with its nonwhite multitudes pressing on Europe’s borders, as its friend is the height of folly.

Not coincidentally, such an anti-Americanism is first cousin to the anti-white sensibility one finds in American liberal and neoconservative ranks. For just as those who try to convince us that America is a “creed,” not a white nation, these anti-Americans allying with Islam to fight the ricains betray their patrie—treating it as an abstraction and not a people. If Americans would be better off using their troops to defend their porous border instead of playing cowboy in Mesopotamia, as we white nationalists believe, Europeans loyal to their heritage would do better, Faye advises, to resist rather than to make common cause with those who are presently invading their lands.

To Faye, there can never be a total rupture between Europe and white America, given the blood bonds linking them. They might pursue divergent interests, over which dispute is inevitable, but the racial and cultural differences separating Europe from the Islamic world are insurmountable. In this spirit, he predicts that “the great clashes of the 21st century will not pit the United States against the rest of the world, but rather the Whitemen of the North against all the other racial-civilizational blocs.”

The culturally noxious effects of the liberal-democratic order of money imposed on Europe after 1945 caused European nationalists to define themselves in opposition not just to American-style liberalism, but to America as a nation. For those nationalists who continue to uphold this line, Third World immigration (which they do not favor) is viewed as an offshoot of a techno-economic system that dismisses biocultural qualities for the quantifying ones of the liberal market.

Only in fighting this system, and its chief sponsor, the United States, will Europe, they believe, be able to defend its heritage and its destiny. The Third World immigrants experiencing the deracination that comes with transnational labor markets cannot, then, be Europe’s enemy, for they too are its victim. Besides, their traditionalist, premodern culture makes them prospective allies in what is seen as a common struggle against America’s “cultureless civilization.”

But even in granting that there is a certain logic—even a certain justice—to this position, it rests upon two false premises, which Guillaume Faye has been almost alone in Europe in polemicizing: 1) that culture trumps race and 2) that race is unrelated, if not irrelevant, to culture.

His Coup d’Etat mondial offers, then, a powerful antidote to this false and potentially fatal reasoning. It demystifies the new American imperialism, revealing its tenuous character. It exposes the self-destructive character of an opposition refusing to recognize Europe’s real enemy. And, most important, in designating this enemy—the nonwhite colonizers who hope to turn Europe into a dar-al-Islam—it designates what is the single, most unavoidable, and absolutely necessary duty of white people everywhere: the defense of their homelands.

Source: TOQ, vol. 5, no. 3 (Summer 2005)

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/08/europes-enemy-islam-or-americaguillaume-fayes-le-coup-detat-mondial/

Can History Adress the Problems of the Future?

Can History Address the Problems of the Future?

Dominique VENNER

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

Translated by Greg Johnson

Men have always felt the need to peer into the future. The Greeks asked the Pythia of Delphi. The obscurity of the oracle’s pronouncements lent them to multiple interpretations. Bowing to custom, Alexander consulted her before undertaking the conquest of Asia. As she was slow to return to her tripod, the impatient Macedonian dragged her there by force. She exclaimed: “One cannot resist you . . .” Having heard these words, Alexander let her go, saying: “This prediction is enough for me.” He was a sage.

Every age has its prophets, soothsayers, haruspices, astrologers, palmists, futurologists, and other charlatans. Today we use computers. Then, they used mediums. Catherine de Medici consulted Nostradamus. Cromwell listened to William Lily. Stalin questioned Wolf Messing. Hitler questioned Eric Hanussen. Briand and Poincaré shared the talents of Mrs. Fraya . . . The destiny of an individual, however, is one thing; the destiny of a civilization is another.

Preceded by the optimism inherited from the Enlightenment, the 20th century began with promises of a glowing future, in the certitude that science and knowledge led to progress and wisdom. were progress factors and of wisdom.  Man would truly become, “Master and possessor of nature” and acquire self-mastery too. After the victory over things, peace and harmony between the men would establish themselves.

 ^[2]The pitiless 20th century shattered these illusions. Nobody, or almost nobody, had foreseen the catastrophic consequences of the murder in Sarajevo in the Summer of 1914. All the belligerents expected a short, fresh, happy war. It was interminable, terrible, and deadly as never before. It was the unforeseen gift of industrial progress and mass democracy to mankind—two new factors that had transformed the very nature of war. Beginning as a traditional conflict between States, it finished as an ideological crusade, dragging down the old European order, incarnated by the three great empires of the Center and the East. And the butchery of Europe and the conditions imposed on the vanquished after 1919 carried the germ of another more catastrophic war.

At the dawn of a new century and a new millennium, the illusions of progress have been partly dissipated, so much so that one hears about “fatal progress” or “economic horror.” Marxism and its certitudes foundered in the collapse of the system to which it had given birth. The optimism of yore often yields to a kind of overpowering pessimism, nourished by anxiety over a future we have every reason to fear. One turns to History to ask for answers.

But the interpretation of History escapes neither fashion nor reigning ideas. Thus one always needs strength of mind and character to free oneself from the weight of one’s own time. With a little drive, any curious, free, and cultivated spirit can grasp the unforeseeable character of History, which the last hundred years of facts make unavoidably clear, and see through the deterministic theories resulting from the Hegelian vision.

On January 22nd, 1917, a Lenin who was almost unknown and permanently exiled, spoke before a circle of socialist students: “We old men,” he said of himself, “will perhaps never see the decisive battles of the Revolution . . .” Seven weeks later, Tsarism was overthrown, and Lenin and the Bolsheviks had nothing to do with it. The “decisive battles” in which he no longer believed were commencing, to the misfortune of Russia and the whole world. I know few anecdotes so revealing of the difficulty of historical forecasts. This one is in a class by itself.

 ^[3]During the academic year 1975–1976, Raymond Aron, one of the most perspicacious minds of our time, gave a course at the Collège de France on “The Decline of the West,” which was already a whole curriculum. Here is his conclusion: “the decline of the United States of 1945 to 1975 rose from irresistible forces.” Let us note the word “irresistible.” In his Memories, published the year of his death, in 1983, Aron returned to this reflection and amplified it: “What I have observed since 1975 was the threat of disintegration of the American imperial zone . . .” To those who live under the shadow of the American world imperium, this analysis makes one question the author’s lucidity. And yet, he never doubted himself. Our astonishment is due to the fact that History galloped on unbeknownst to us, showing us a world today that is very different from what it was twenty years earlier, which nobody had foreseen.

By no means do I suggest ignoring the threats looming on our horizon: devouring globalization, demographic explosions, massive immigration, the pollution of nature, genetic engineering, etc. During an age of anxiety, it is healthy to repel happy illusions; it is salubrious to practice the virtues of active pessimism, those of Thucydides or Machiavelli. But it is just as necessary to reject the kind of pessimism that turns into fatalism.

The first error regarding future threats would be to regard them as inescapable. History is not the domain of fate but of the unforeseen. A second error would be to imagine the future as a prolongation of the present.  If anything is certain, it is that the future will be different from how one imagines it today. A third error would be to lose hope in intelligence, imagination, will, and finally ourselves.

Source: Le Figaro, January 19th, 2000

Online: http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/archive/2011/08/02/l-histoire-repond-elle-aux-problemes-de-l-avenir.html ^[4]

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/08/can-history-address-the-problems-of-the-future/

L'histoire répond-elle aux problèmes de l'avenir?

L’Histoire répond-elle aux problèmes de l’avenir ?

Ex: http://scorpionwind.hautetfort.com/

Par Dominique Venner (historien)

Toujours les hommes ont éprouvé le besoin de scruter l‘avenir. Les Grecs interrogeaient la pythie de Delphes. Elle savait rendre des oracles dont l’obscurité se prêtait à de multiples interprétations. Se pliant à l’usage, Alexandre vint la consulter avant d’entreprendre la conquête de l’Asie. Comme elle tardait à rejoindre son trépied, l’impatient Macédonien l’y traîna de force. Elle s‘exclama : « On ne peut te résister…» Ayant entendu ces mots, Alexandre la laissa choir, disant : « Cette prédiction me suffit. » C’était un sage.

Chaque époque eut ses prophètes, devins, haruspices, astrologues, chiromanciens, futurologues et autres charlatans. Autrefois, on faisait tourner des tables, aujourd’hui les ordinateurs. Catherine de Médicis s’en rapportait à Nostradamus. Cromwell écoutait William Lily. Staline interrogeait Wolf Messing. Hitler questionnait Eric Hanussen. Briand et Poincaré se partageaient les talents de Mme Fraya… Une chose cependant, est le destin individuel, une autre celui des civilisations.

Précédé par l’optimisme hérité des Lumières, le XXème siècle s‘était ouvert sur les promesses d’un avenir radieux, dans la certitude que la science et le savoir étaient des facteurs de progrès et de sagesse. L’homme devenu vraiment «maître et possesseur de la nature», allait acquérir la maîtrise de lui-même. Après la victoire sur les choses, la paix et l’entente entre les hommes s’établiraient d’elles-mêmes.

L’impitoyable XXème siècle a démenti ces illusions. Personne ou presque n’avait vu venir la catastrophe sortie du meurtre de Sarajevo à l’été 1914. Chez tous les belligérants, on croyait à une guerre courte, fraîche et joyeuse. Elle fut interminable, épouvantable et meurtrière comme jamais. C’était le cadeau imprévu fait aux hommes par le progrès industriel et la démocratie de masse, deux facteurs nouveaux qui avait transformé la nature même de la guerre. Commencée comme un conflit classique entre les Etats, elle finit en croisade idéologique, entraînant la destruction de l’ancien ordre européen, incarné par les trois grands empires du Centre et de l’Est. On sait que le charcutage de l’Europe et les conditions imposées aux vaincus après 1919 portaient le germe d’une autre guerre plus catastrophique encore.

A l’aube d’un nouveau siècle et d’un nouveau millénaire, les illusions du progrès se sont en partie dissipées, au point que l’on entend parler de «progrès meurtrier» ou «d’horreur économique». Le marxisme et ce qu’il charriait de certitudes se sont effrondés dans la débâcle du système qu’il avait enfanté. L’optimisme d’hier cède souvent devant une sorte de pessimisme accablé, nourri par l’inquiétude d’un avenir à biens des égards angoissant. On se tourne vers l’Histoire pour lui demander des réponses.

Mais l’interprétation de l’Histoire n’échappe ni aux modes ni aux idées dominantes. Un effort de l’intelligence et du caractère est donc toujours requis pour s’affranchir des pesanteurs de son époque. Avec un peu d’entraînement, tout esprit curieux, libre et cultivé peut y parvenir. A ne prendre que les cent dernières années les faits ne manquent pas, qui soulignent par exemple le caractère imprévisible de l’Histoire, n’en déplaisent aux théories déterministes issues de la vision hégélienne.

Le 22 janvier 1917, un Lénine quasi inconnu et toujours exilé, prit la parole devant le cercle des étudiants socialistes : « Nous, les vieux, dit-il en parlant de lui, nous ne verrons peut-être jamais les batailles décisives de la Révolution… » Sept semaines plus tard, le tsarisme était renversé sans que Lénine et les bolchéviks n’y fussent pour rien. Les « batailles décisives » aux quelles il ne croyait plus allaient commencer, pour le malheur de la Russie et du monde entier. Je connais peu d’anecdotes aussi révélatrices de la difficulté des prévisions historiques. Mais il en est d’autres dans un registre différent.

Durant l’année universitaire 1975-1976, Raymond Aron, l’un des esprits les plus perspicaces de sont temps, donna un cours au Collège de France sur « La Décadence de l’Occident », ce qui était déjà tout un programme. Voici sa conclusion : « l’abaissement des Etats-Unis de 1945 à 1975 découlait de forces irrésistibles ». Retenons « irrésistibles ». Dans ses Mémoires, publiées l’année de sa mort, en 1983, Aron revenait sur cette réflexion en l’amplifiant : « Ce que j’observais dès 1975, c’était la menace de désagrégation de la zone impériale américaine…» A nous qui vivons sous l’ombre portée de l’imperium mondial américain, cette analyse ferait douter de la lucidité de l’auteur. Et pourtant, celle-ci n’a jamais été mise en doute. Notre étonnement vient du fait que l’Histoire a galopé à notre insu, nous montrant aujourd’hui un monde très différent de ce qu’il était vingt ans plus tôt, ce que personne n’avait prévu.

Je ne suggère nullement d’ignorer les menaces inscrites à notre horizon : mondialisation dévorante, gonflement démographique, immigrations massives, pollution de la nature, manipulations génétiques, etc. Dans une période inquiétante il est sain de repousser les illusion béates, il est salubre de pratiquer les vertus du pessimisme actif, celui de Thucydide ou de Machiavel. Mais il est tout aussi nécessaire de rejeter la forme de pessimisme qui pousse au fatalisme. Devant les menaces du futur, une première erreur serait de les considérer comme inéluctables. L’Histoire n’est pas le domaine de la fatalité mais celui de l’imprévu. Une deuxième erreur serait d’imaginer l’avenir en prolongement du présent. S’il est une certitude, c’est que l’avenir sera différent de ce qu’on l’imagine aujourd’hui. Une troisième erreur serait de désespérer de l’intelligence, de l’imagination, de la volonté, et finalement de nous-mêmes.

source : Le Figaro du 19 janvier 2000

 

J. P. Arteault / F. Sainz: les racines anglo-saxonnes du mondialisme

J. P. Arteault / F. Sainz: Les racines anglo-saxonnes du mondialisme

1.

2.

3.

Tekos nr. 142/2011

 

Tekos nr. 142/2011

INHOUDSOPGAVE


Editoriaal


In memoriam dr. Carel Boshoff
door Peter Van Windekens

Eugene Terre’blanche en de Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (deel 4)
door Peter Van Windekens

In het derde en vorige gedeelte van deze artikelenreeks over Eugene Terre’blanche en de AWB kwamen de plannen van de beweging aan bod om het unitaire Zuid-Afrika om te vormen tot een “Boer Volkstaat”, gebaseerd op het principe van de gewezen Boerenrepublieken. De Engelstaligen dienden zich in de toekomstige staat volledig aan te passen aan het Afrikanerdom, de joden zouden er nooit dezelfde rechten als in Israël kunnen genieten. De meeste aandacht in dit derde gedeelte ging echter uit naar de ‘belevenissen’ van Eugene Terre’blanche en de Engelstalige journaliste Jani Allan. Hetgeen de reputatie van de ‘leier’ niet ten goede kwam en wat voor onvrede en zelfs voor dissidentie binnen de AWB zorgde. Terre’blanche trachtte zich daarom te rehabiliteren via de partijpolitiek (waarop hij nochtans steeds had neergekeken), maar hij kon geen plaats op de kieslijsten bemachtigen. Door de verkiezingsoverwinning van de Nasionale Partij in september 1989 werd de apartheidspolitiek voor een eerste keer aan het wankelen gebracht. De NP had zich immers voorgenomen drastische veranderingen door te voeren. De AWB was het (uiteraard) hiermee niet eens…

Bij de opening van het nieuwe AWB hoofdkwartier te Ventersdorp op 10 oktober 1989 nodigde Eugene Terre’blanche Staatspresident de Klerk uit tot een gesprek. Deze laatste had naar eigen zeggen reeds alle betrokken partijen – uitgezonderd de AWB en de hele rechtsradicale zijde – rond zich verzameld om (met hem) te discussiëren over de toekomst van Zuid-Afrika. De Klerk aanvaardde de uitnodiging en derhalve vond op 9 november 1989 een ontmoeting plaats. Terre’blanche kwam echter niet in zijn eentje. In zijn gezelschap vertoefden ook nog: Ernst van der Westhuizen, leider van de AWB in Pretoria (hij zou later plaatsvervangend leider van de AWB worden), Piet Cloete, voorman van de Transvaalse separatisten, Theunis “Rooi Rus” Swanepoel (1927-1998), een berucht politieman met als standplaats de zogeheten ‘zwarte woonwijk’ Soweto (afkorting voor South Western Townships) buiten Johannesburg, alsook Robert van Tonder en Piet Rudolph voor de BSP (deze organisatie telde nochtans niet meer dan 200 ‘leden’, dixit Jan Groenewald in een interview). De president was op zijn beurt vergezeld door Gerrit Viljoen (1926-2009), minister voor Constitutionele Ontwikkeling en Planning. De aanwezigen boorden zowat alle mogelijke thema’s aan. Maar de “plat de résistance” van de bijeenkomst vormde uiteraard de eis van de AWB om de oude Boerenrepublieken weer in ere te herstellen en dit territorium af te scheiden van de rest van Zuid-Afrika. De Klerk wees de eis met beslistheid van de hand, waarop Eugene Terre’blanche repliceerde dat de oude republieken wettelijk gezien de eigendom van “het volk” waren. Men kon bijgevolg moeilijk van de Boeren verwachten dat zij zomaar hun recht zouden opgeven om zichzelf en hun eigen grondgebied te besturen .....


Zijn meisjes en jongens gelijk?
door Dr. med. Rudolf Kemmerich


Turkije: het neo-ottomanisme.
Francis Van den Eynde

Het blinde geloof van een aantal Europeanen dat Bush, omdat hij ‘rechts’ gecatalogeerd werd, een politiek voerde die ook de belangen van ons oude continent op het oog had, wordt slechts geëvenaard door de naïeve overtuiging van weldenkend links Europa dat Obama een totaal ander beleid dan zijn voorganger wil tot stand brengen omdat hij zwart is en voor een ‘progressist’ doorgaat. Dat zij beiden slechts om Amerika bekommerd waren en zijn, is nochtans voldoende opvallend. Dit geldt o.m. voor wat de Amerikaanse houding t.o.v. de relaties tussen Turkije en Europa betreft. Meer dan eens werd door de Democraat Obama, net zoals door de Republikein Bush, met heel veel verve gepleit voor de aansluiting van Turkije bij de EU. Dit zou immers voor Amerika zeer goed uitkomen en dit om verschillende redenen:

-Turkije te vriend houden betekent eerst en vooral voor de VS dat ze een aanspreekpunt behouden in de islamitische wereld waarvan op zijn minst kan gezegd worden dat die hen meestal niet zeer gunstig gezind is en dat is altijd meegenomen.

-Turkije kan ook een sterke bondgenoot zijn aan de zuidgrens van Rusland: een groot en machtig land dat wel eens opnieuw de wereldhegemonie van de VS in het gedrang zou kunnen brengen. Wie bovendien olie en/of gas uit Centraal-Azië naar het westen wil krijgen zonder door dat niet helemaal betrouwbare Rusland te moeten, heeft trouwens buiten het Turkse alternatief weinig keuze.

-Turkije is een behoorlijk stabiel land in het voor het overige toch zeer woelige Midden-Oosten. Iets wat voor de VS, maar nog meer voor Israël, de bondgenoot waar ze zo veel voor over hebben, best van pas kan komen.

-Eenmaal Turkije, een land dat geografisch noch cultureel bij Europa hoort, de EU vervoegd zal hebben, zal bovendien niemand zich nog kunnen verzetten tegen de aansluiting van Israël vermits dat land weliswaar ook buiten Europa ligt, maar tenminste nog als westers kan worden beschouwd. Vanzelfsprekend is dit conform de Amerikaanse wensen. Israël krijgt er een stevige Europese veiligheidswaarborg bij en Washington loopt niet langer rond met het odium dat het de enige grootmacht is, die onvoorwaardelijk de toch zeer omstreden politiek van Israël steunt. Een schandvlek is minder pijnlijk als ook iemand anders er mee rond loopt.

Geen wonder dus dat Obama ook op dit vlak de lijn Bush trouw blijft volgen en met alle mogelijke middelen Turkije in de EU probeert binnen te loodsen. Ondermeer door de Britten, die steeds het Amerikaanse paard van Troje in de Europese constructie geweest zijn, te vragen de Fransen en de Duitsers die op dat vlak nog steeds dwars liggen, van de gegrondheid van de Turkse toetredingsaanvraag te overtuigen. Amerika heeft hier immers alle belang bij. De vraag is echter of dit voor Europa eveneens het geval is ......

Humboldt als crisismanager
door Heino Bosselmann

Vlaams Belang: nood aan ideologische herbronning
door Jan Sergooris

Sinds de laatste verkiezingsuitslag gaat het met het VB van slecht naar erger. De partij komt in de media alleen nog aan bod met uitvoerige berichtgeving over persoonlijke conflicten en ruzies tussen haar sterkhouders. Voor het eerst in de 30-jarige geschiedenis van de partij ontstaan er serieuze barsten in de samenhorigheid. Electoraal succes kent vele vaders, de nederlaag is een eenzame wees. Het jarenlang gevoerde cordon tegen de partij dat finaal tot politieke machteloosheid heeft geleid en de opkomst van enkele politieke nieuwkomers (LDD, N-VA) die haar rechtse en Vlaamsgezinde monopolie hebben doorbroken, leidden tot een uittocht van tienduizenden kiezers.

Sinds haar oprichting in 1978 heeft het VB de ideologische verdienste gehad om, naast haar Vlaams-nationaal programma dat haar ware ontstaansreden vormde (cfr het Egmontpact), ook enkele maatschappelijke problemen op de politieke agenda te hebben geplaatst, die tot dan genegeerd werden door de traditionele politiek en de journalistiek. Ze vertolkte daardoor de rol van seismograaf van maatschappelijk ongenoegen. De problematiek aangaande “migranten” en “veiligheid” werden op geen tijd de “core business” van de partij en hebben haar geen windeieren gelegd! Sinds 1987 heeft het VB geoogst wat de traditionele partijen decennia lang gezaaid hebben nl. de negatie van problemen die reëel voelbaar waren voor de gewone man in de straat. Doordat de partij vanaf 1987 verkiezingsoverwinning na verkiezingsoverwinning aan elkaar reeg, ontbrak elke stimulans om zich ideologisch te herbronnen, laat staan een koerswijziging te overwegen. Maar wat haar sterkte was in het verleden wordt vandaag haar grote zwakte ......

De groene hoek
door Guy De Maertelaere

Schrijvers en Lezers
door P.L, P.V.W. & P.J.V.

Urkultur 15: Moeller van den Bruck, conservadurismo revolucionario

URKULTUR Nº 15. MOELLER VAN DEN BRUCK: CONSERVADURISMO REVOLUCIONARIO

Ex: http://urkultur-imperium-europa.blogspot.com/ 

 

URKULTUR Nº 15.

MOELLER VAN DEN BRUCK:
CONSERVADURISMO REVOLUCIONARIO.

REVISTA ELECTRÓNICA:
Enlace con issuu.com

SUMARIO.

Editorial.
Arthur Moeller van den Bruck y la Nouvelle Droite
Sebastian J. Lorenz

Moeller van den Bruck: un rebelde conservador
Luca Leonello Rimbotti

Moeller van den Bruck: ¿un “precursor póstumo”?
Denis Goedel

Moeller y Dostoievski
Robert Steuckers

Moeller y la Kulturpessimismus de Weimar
Ferran Gallego

Moeller y los Jungkonservativen
Erik Norling

Moeller y Spengler
Ernesto Milá

Moeller y la Konservative Revolution
Keith Bullivant

Moeller van den Bruck
Alain de Benoist

 

Publicado por [e-mail]

La réception d'Evola en Belgique

 

Entretien avec Robert Steuckers sur la réception de l’œuvre de Julius Evola en Belgique

 

Propos recueillis par Denis Ilmas

 

Q. : Monsieur Steuckers, comment avez-vous découvert Julius Evola ? Quand en avez-vous entendu parler pour la première fois ?

 

RS : Dans la Librairie Devisscher, au coin de la rue Franz Merjay et de la Chaussée de Waterloo, dans le quartier « Ma Campagne », à cheval sur Saint-Gilles et Ixelles. « Frédéric Beerens », un camarade d’école, un an plus âgé que moi, avait découvert « Les hommes au milieu des ruines » dans cette librairie, l’avait lu, et m’en avait parlé tandis que nous faisions la queue pour commander d’autres ouvrages ou quelques manuels scolaires. Ce fut la toute première fois que j’entendis prononcer le nom d’Evola. J’avais dix-sept ans. Nous étions en septembre 1973 et nous étions tout juste revenus d’un voyage scolaire en Grèce. Pour Noël, le Comte Guillaume de Hemricourt de Grünne, le patron de mon père, m’offrait toujours un cadeau didactique : cette année-là, pour la première fois, j’ai pu aller moi-même acheter les livres que je désirais, muni de mon petit budget. Je me suis rendu en un endroit qui, malheureusement, n’existe plus à Bruxelles, la grande librairie Corman, et je me suis choisi trois livres : « L’Etat universel » d’Ernst Jünger, « Un poète et le monde » de Gottfried Benn et « Révolte contre le monde moderne » de Julius Evola. L’année 1973 fut, rappelons-le, une année charnière en ce qui concerne la réception de l’œuvre d’Evola en Italie et en Flandre : tour à tour Adriano Romualdi, disciple italien d’Evola et bon connaisseur de la « révolution conservatrice » allemande grâce à sa maîtrise de la langue de Goethe, décéda dans un accident d’auto, tout comme le correspondant flamand de Renato del Ponte et l’animateur d’un « Centro Studi Evoliani » en Flandre, Jef Vercauteren. Je n’ai forcément jamais connu Jef Vercauteren et, là, il y a eu une rupture de lien, fort déplorable, entre les matrices italiennes de la mouvance évolienne et leurs antennes présentes dans les anciens Pays-Bas autrichiens.

 

Je dois vous dire qu’au départ, la lecture de « Révolte contre le monde moderne » nous laissait perplexes, surtout Beerens, le futur médecin chevronné, féru de sciences biologiques et médicales : on trouvait que trop d’esprits faibles, après lecture de ce classique, se laisseraient peut-être entrainer dans une sorte de monde faussement onirique ou acquerraient de toutes les façons des tics langagiers incapacitants et « ridiculisants » (à ce propos, on peut citer l’exemple d’un Arnaud Guyot-Jeannin, tour à tour fustigé par Philippe Baillet, qui lui reprochait l’ « inculture pédante du Sapeur Camember »,  ou par Christopher Gérard, qui le traitait d’ « aliboron » ou de « chaouch »). Une telle dérive, chez les aliborons pédants, est évidemment tout à fait possible et très aisée parce qu’Evola présentait à ses lecteurs un monde très idéal, très lumineux, je dirais, pour ma part, très « archangélique » et « michaëlien », afin de faire contraste avec les pâles figures subhumaines que génère la modernité ; aujourd’hui, faut-il s’empresser de l’ajouter, elle les génère à une cadence accélérée, Kali Yuga oblige. L’onirisme fait que bon nombre de médiocres s’identifient à de nobles figures pour compenser leurs insuffisances (ou leurs suffisances) : c’est effectivement un risque bien patent chez les évolomanes sans forte épine dorsale culturelle.

 

Mais, chose incontournable, la lecture de « Révolte » marque, très profondément, parce qu’elle vous communique pour toujours, et à jamais, le sens d’une hiérarchie des valeurs : l’Occident, en optant pour la modernité, a nié et refoulé les notions de valeur, d’excellence, de service, de sublime, etc. Après lecture de « Révolte », on ne peut plus que rejeter les anti-valeurs qui ont refoulé les valeurs impérissables, sans lesquelles rien ne peut plus valoir quoi que ce soit dans le monde.

 

« Révolte » et la notion de numineux

 

Plus tard, « Révolte » satisfera davantage nos aspirations et nos exigences de rigueur, tout simplement parce que nous n’avions pas saisi entièrement, au départ, la notion de « numineux », excellemment mise en exergue dans le chapitre 7 du livre et que je médite toujours lorsque je longe un beau cours d’eau ou quand mes yeux boivent littéralement le paysage à admirer du haut d’un sommet, avec ou sans forteresse (dans l’Eifel, les Vosges, le Lomont, le Jura ou les Alpes ou dans une crique d’Istrie ou dans un méandre de la Moselle ou sur les berges de la Meuse ou du Rhin). « Masques et visages du spiritualisme contemporain » nous a apporté une saine méfiance à l’endroit des ersatz de religiosité, souvent « made in USA », alternatives très bas de gamme que nous fait miroiter un vingtième siècle à la dérive : songeons, toutefois dans un autre contexte, à la multiplication des temples scientologiques, évangéliques, etc. ou à l’emprise des « Témoins de Jéhovah » sur des pays catholiques comme l’Espagne ou l’Amérique latine, qui, de ce fait, subissent une subversion sournoise, disloquant leur identité politique.

 

Nous n’avons découvert le reste de l’œuvre d’Evola que progressivement, au fil du temps, avec les traductions françaises de Philippe Baillet mais aussi parce que les latinistes de notre groupe, dont le regretté Alain Derriks et moi-même, commandaient les livres non traduits du Maître aux Edizioni di Ar (Giorgio Freda) ou aux Edizioni all’Insegno del Veltro (Claudio Mutti). Je crois n’avoir atteint une certaine (petite) maturité évolienne qu’en 1998, quand j’ai été amené à prendre la parole à Vienne en cette année-là, et à Frauenfeld, près de Zürich, en 1999, respectivement pour le centième anniversaire de la naissance d’Evola et pour le vingt-cinquième anniversaire de son absence. L’idée centrale est celle de l’ « homme différencié », qui pérégrine, narquois, dans un monde de ruines. Evola nous apprend la distance, à l’instar de Jünger, avec sa figure de l’ « anarque ».

 

Q. : Quelques années plus tard, la revue « Totalité » sera la première, dans l’espace linguistique francophone, à publier régulièrement des textes d’Evola. De « Totalité » émergeront une série de revues, telles « Rebis », « Kalki », « L’Age d’Or », puis les Editions Pardès. Comment tout cela a-t-il été perçu en Belgique à l’époque ?

 

RS : Le coup d’envoi de cette longue série d’initiatives, qui nous ramène à l’actualité éditoriale que vous évoquez, a été, à Bruxelles du moins, une prise de parole de Daniel Cologne et Georges Gondinet, dans une salle de l’Helder, rue du Luxembourg, à un jet de pierre de l’actuel Parlement Européen, qui n’existait pas à l’époque. C’était en octobre 1976. Depuis, le quartier vit à l’heure de la globalisation, échelon « Europe », Europe « eurocratique » s’entend. A l’époque, c’était un curieux mixte : fonctionnaires de plusieurs ministères belges, étudiants de l’école de traducteurs/interprètes (dont j’étais), derniers résidents du quartier se côtoyaient dans les estaminets de la Place du Luxembourg et, dans les rues adjacentes, des hôteliers peu regardants louaient des chambres de « 5 à 7 » pour bureaucrates en quête d’érotisme rapide camouflé en « heures supplémentaires », tout cela en face d’un vénérable lycée de jeunes filles, qui faisait également fonction d’école pour futures professeurs féminins d’éducation physique (le « Parnasse »). En arrière-plan, la gare dite du Quartier Léopold ou du Luxembourg, vieillotte et un peu sordide, flanquée d’un bureau de poste crasseux, d’où j’ai envoyé quantité de mandats dans le monde pour m’abonner à toutes sortes de revues de la « mouvance » ou pour payer mes dettes auprès du bouquiniste nantais Jean-Louis Pressensé. En cette soirée pluvieuse et assez froide d’octobre 1976, Daniel Cologne et Georges Gondinet étaient venus présenter leur « Cercle Culture & Liberté », à l’invitation de Georges Hupin, animateur du GRECE néo-droitiste à l’époque. Dans la salle, il y avait le public « nouvelle droite » habituel mais aussi Gérard Hupin, éditeur de « La Nation Belge » et, à ce titre, héritier de Fernand Neuray, le correspondant belge de Charles Maurras (Georges Hupin et Daniel Cologne étaient tous deux collaborateurs occasionnels de « La Nation Belge »). Maître Gérard Hupin était flanqué du Général Janssens, dernier commandant de la « Force Publique » belge du Congo. J’étais accompagné d’Alain Derriks, qui deviendra aussitôt le correspondant belge du « Cercle Culture & Liberté ». Les contacts étaient pris et c’est ainsi qu’en 1977, je me retrouvai, pour représenter en fait Derriks, empêché, à Puiseaux dans l’Orléanais, lors de la journée qui devait décider du lancement de la revue « Totalité ». Il y avait là Daniel Cologne (alors résident à Genève), Jean-François Mayer (qui fera en Suisse une brillante carrière de spécialiste ès religions), Eric Vatré de Mercy (à qui l’on devra ultérieurement quelques bonnes biographies d’auteurs), Philippe Baillet (traducteur d’Evola) et Georges Gondinet (futur directeur des éditions Pardès et, en cette qualité, éditeur de Julius Evola).

 

Je rencontre Eemans dans une Galerie de la Chaussée de Charleroi

 

Tout cela a, vaille que vaille, formé un petit réseau. Mais il faut avouer, avec le recul, qu’il n’a pas véritablement fonctionné, mis à part des échanges épistolaires et quelques contributions à « Totalité » (une recension, un seul article et une traduction en ce qui me concerne…). Rapidement, Georges Gondinet deviendra le seul maître d’œuvre de l‘initiative, en prenant en charge tout le boulot et en recrutant de nouveaux collaborateurs, dont celle qui deviendra son épouse, Fabienne Pichard du Page. Lorsqu’il revenait de Suisse à Bruxelles, en passant par Paris, Cologne faisait office de messager. Il nous racontait surtout les mésaventures des cercles suisses autour du NOS (« Nouvel Ordre Social ») et de la revue « Le Huron », qu’il animait là-bas avec d’autres. Ainsi, en 1978, par un coup de fil, Cologne m’annonce avec fracas, avec ce ton précipité et passionné qui le caractérisait en son jeune temps, qu’il avait pris contact avec un certain Marc. Eemans, peintre surréaliste, historien de l’art et détenteur de savoirs voire de secrets des plus intéressants. A peine rentré dans la « mouvance », j’ai tout de suite eu envie de la sortir de ses torpeurs et de ses ritournelles : alors, vous pensez, un « surréaliste », un artiste qui, de plus, exposait officiellement ses œuvres dans une galerie de la Chaussée de Charleroi, voilà sans nul doute l’aubaine que nous attendions, Derriks et moi. J’étais à Wezembeek-Oppem quand j’ai réceptionné le coup de fil de Cologne : j’ai sauté sur mes deux jambes, couru à l’arrêt de bus et foncé vers la Chaussée de Charleroi, ce qui n’était pas une mince affaire à l’époque du « 30 » qui brinquebalait bruyamment, crachant de noires volutes de mazout, dans toutes les rues et ruelles de Wezembeek-Oppem avant d’arriver à Tomberg, première station de métro en ce temps-là. Il faisait déjà sombre quand je suis arrivé à la Galerie, Chaussée de Charleroi. Eemans était seul au fond de l’espace d’exposition ; il lisait, comme je l’ai déjà expliqué, « le nez chaussé de lunettes à grosses montures d’écaille noire ».  Agé de 71 ans à l’époque, Eemans (photo en 1930) m’a accueilli gentiment, comme un grand-père affable, heureux qu’Evola ait de jeunes lecteurs en Belgique, ce qui lui permettrait d’étoffer son projet : prendre le relais de Jef Vercauteren, décédé depuis cinq ans, sans laisser de grande postérité en pays flamand. Cologne disparu, amorçant sa « vie cachée » qui durera plus de vingt ans, le groupe bruxellois n’a pratiquement plus entretenu de liens avec l’antenne française du réseau « Culture & Liberté ». Il restait donc lié à Eemans seul et à ses initiatives. Gondinet, bien épaulé par Fabienne Pichard du Page, lancera « Rebis », « L’Age d’or », « Kalki » et les éditions Pardès (avec leurs diverses collections, dont « B-A-BA » et « Que lire ? »). Baillet continuera à traduire des ouvrages italiens (dont un excellent ouvrage de Claudia Salaris sur l’aventure de d’Annunzio à Fiume) puis participera à la revue « Politica Hermetica » et fera un passage encore plus bref que le mien au secrétariat de rédaction de « Nouvelle école », la revue de l’inénarrable de Benoist (cf. infra). Et les autres s’éparpilleront dans des activités diverses et fort intéressantes.

 

Q. : Parlez-nous davantage de Marc. Eemans…

 

RS : Eemans a donc lancé son « Centro Studi Evoliani », que nous suivions avec intérêt. La tâche n’a pas été facile : Eemans se heurtait à une difficulté majeure ; en effet, comment importer le corpus d’un penseur traditionaliste italien, de surcroît ancien de l’avant-garde dadaïste de Tristan Tzara, dans un contexte belge qui ignorait tout de lui. Quelques livres seulement étaient traduits en français mais rien, par exemple, de son œuvre majeure sur le bouddhisme, « La doctrine de l’Eveil ». En néerlandais, il n’y avait rien, strictement rien, sinon quelques reprints tirés à la hâte et en très petites quantités à Anvers : il s’agissait des éditions allemandes de ses ouvrages, dont « Heidnischer Imperialismus ». En français, l’œuvre n’était que très incomplètement traduite et nous n’avions aucun travail sérieux d’introduction à celle-ci, à part un excellent essai de Philippe Baillet (« Julius Evola ou l’affirmation absolue »), paru d’abord comme cahier, sous la houlette du « Centro Studi Evoliani » français, dirigé par Léon Colas. Ni Boutin ni Lippi n’avaient encore sorti leurs thèses universitaires solidement charpentées sur Evola. Gondinet et Cologne, dans le cadre de leur « Cercle Culture & Liberté » n’avaient édité que quelques bonnes brochures et les tout premiers numéros de « Totalité » étaient fort artisanaux, faute de moyens. En fait, Eemans n’avait pas de véritable public, ne pouvait en trouver un en Belgique, en une telle époque de matérialisme et de gauchisme, où les grandes questions métaphysiques n’éveillaient plus le moindre intérêt. Mais il n’a pas reculé : il a organisé ses réunions avec régularité, même si elles n’attiraient pas un grand nombre d’intéressés. Au cours de l’une de celle-ci, j’ai présenté un article de Giorgio Locchi sur la notion d’empire, paru dans « Nouvelle école », la revue d’Alain de Benoist. Dans la salle, il y avait Pierre Hubermont, l’écrivain prolétarien et communiste d’avant-guerre, auteur de « Treize hommes dans la mine », ouvrage couronné d’un prix littéraire à la fin des années 20.  Hubermont, comme beaucoup de militants ouvriers communistes de sa génération, avait été dégoûté par les purges staliniennes, par la volte-face des communistes à Barcelone pendant la guerre civile espagnole, où ils avaient organisé la répression contre les socialistes révolutionnaires du POUM et contre les anarchistes. Mais Hubermont ne choisit pas l’échappatoire facile d’un trotskisme figé et finalement à la solde des services anglais ou américains : il tâtonne, trouve dans le néo-socialisme de De Man des pistes utiles. Pendant la seconde conflagration intereuropéenne, Hubermont se retrouve à la tête de la revue « Wallonie », qui préconise un socialisme local, adapté aux circonstances des provinces industrielles wallonnes, dans le cadre d’un « internationalisme » non plus abstrait mais découlant de l’idée impériale, rénovée, en ces années-là, par l’européisme ambiant, notamment celui véhiculé par Giselher Wirsing. Hubermont était heureux qu’un gamin comme moi eût parlé de l’idée impériale et, avec une extrême gentillesse, m’a prodigué des conseils. D’autres fois, le Professeur Piet Tommissen est venu nous parler de Carl Schmitt et de Vilfredo Pareto. Une dame est également venue nous lire des textes de Heidegger, à l’occasion de la parution du livre de Jean-Michel Palmier, « Les écrits politiques de Heidegger ». Les thèmes abordés à la tribune du « Centro Studi Evoliani » n’étaient donc pas exclusivement « traditionalistes » ou « évoliens ». Eemans lance également l’édition d’une série de petites brochures et, plus tard, nous bénéficierons de l’appui généreux de Salvatore Verde, haut fonctionnaire italien de ce qui fut la CECA et futur directeur de la revue italienne « Antibancor », consacrée aux questions économiques et éditée par les Edizioni di Ar (cette revue éditera notamment en version italienne une de mes conférences à l’Université d’été 1990 du GRECE sur les « hétérodoxies » en sciences économiques, que l’inénarrable de Benoist n’avait bien entendu pas voulu éditer, en même temps que d’autres textes, de Nicolas Franval et de Bernard Notin, sur les « régulationnistes » ; je précise qu’il s’agissait de la « cellule » mise sur pied à l’époque par le GRECE pour étudier les questions économiques). Toutes les activités du « Centro Studi Evoliani » de Bruxelles ne m’ont évidemment laissé que de bons souvenirs.

 

 

Q. : Mais qui fut Eemans au-delà de ses activités au sein du « Centro Studi Evoliani » ?

 

RS : J’ai très vite su qu’Eemans avait été, après guerre, un véritable encyclopédiste des arts en Belgique. Plusieurs ouvrages luxueux sur l’histoire de l’art sont dus à sa plume. Ils ont été écrits avec grande sérénité et avec le souci de ménager toutes les susceptibilités d’un monde foisonnant, où les querelles de personnes sont légion. Ces livres font référence encore aujourd’hui. Dans un coin de son salon, où était placé un joli petit meuble recouvert d’une plaque de marbre, Eemans gardait les fichiers qu’il avait composés pour rédiger cette œuvre encyclopédique. Toutefois, il n’en parlait guère. Il m’a toujours semblé que la rédaction de ces ouvrages d’art appartenait pour lui à un passé bien révolu, pourtant plus récent que l’aventure de la revue « Hermès », qui ne cessait de le hanter. J’aurais voulu qu’il m’en parle davantage car j’aurais aimé connaître le lien qui existait entre cette peinture et ces avant-gardes et les positions évoliennes qu’il défendait fin des années 70, début des années 80. J’aurais aimé connaître les étapes de la maturation intellectuelle d’Eemans, selon une chronologie bien balisée : je suis malheureusement resté sur ma faim. Apparemment, il n’avait pas envie de répéter inlassablement l’histoire des aventures intellectuelles qu’il avait vécues dans les années 10, 20 et 30 du 20^ème siècle, et dont les protagonistes étaient presque tous décédés. Au cours de nos conversations, il rappelait que, comme bon nombre de dadaïstes autour de Tzara et de surréalistes autour de Breton, il avait eu son « trip » communiste et qu’il avait réalisé un superbe portrait de Lénine, dont il m’a plusieurs fois montré une vignette. Il a également évoqué un voyage à Londres pour aller soutenir des artistes anglais avant-gardistes, hostiles à Marinetti, venu exposer ses thèses futuristes et machinistes dans la capitale britannique : le culte des machines, disaient ces Anglais, était le propre d’un excité venu d’un pays non industriel, sous-développé, alors que tout avant-gardiste anglais se devait de dénoncer les laideurs de l’industrialisation, qui avait surtout frappé le centre géographique de la vieille Angleterre.

 

L’influence décisive d’un professeur du secondaire

 

Eemans évoquait aussi le wagnérisme de son frère Nestor, un wagnérisme hérité d’un professeur de collège, le germaniste Maurits Brants (1853-1940). Brants, qui avait décoré sa classe de lithographies et de chromos se rapportant aux opéras de Wagner, fut celui qui donna à l’adolescent Marc. Eemans le goût de la mythologie, des archétypes et des racines. Pour le Prof. Piet Tommissen, biographe d’Eemans, ce dernier serait devenu un « surréaliste pas comme les autres », du moins dans le landerneau surréaliste belge, parce qu’il avait justement, au fond du cœur et de l’esprit, cet engouement tenace pour les thèmes mythologiques. Tommissen ajoute qu’Eemans a été marqué, très jeune, par la lecture des dialogues de Platon, de Spinoza et puis des romantiques anglais, surtout Shelley ; comme beaucoup de jeunes gens immédiatement après 1918, il sera également influencé par l’Indien Rabindranath Tagore, lequel, soit dit en passant, était vilipendé dans les colonnes de la « Revue Universelle » de Paris, comme faisant le lien entre les mondes non occidentaux (et donc non « rationnels ») et le mysticisme pangermaniste d’un Hermann von Keyserlinck, dérive actualisée du romantisme fustigé par Charles Maurras.

 

 

Eemans a souvent revendiqué les influences néerlandaises (hollandaises et flamandes) sur son propre itinéraire intellectuel, dont Louis Couperus et Paul Van Ostaijen. Ce dernier, rappelle fort opportunément Tommissen, avait élaboré un credo poétique, où il distinguait entre la « poésie subconsciemment inspirée » (et donc soumise au pouvoir des mythes) et la « poésie consciemment construite » ; Van Ostaijen appelait ses éventuels disciples futurs à étudier la véritable littérature du peuple thiois des Grands Pays-Bas en commençant par se plonger dans leurs auteurs mystiques. Injonction que suivra le jeune Eemans, qui, de ce fait, se place, à son corps défendant, en porte-à-faux avec un surréalisme cultivant la provocation de « manière consciente et construite » ou ne demeurant, à ses yeux, que « conscient » et « construit ». A l’instigation surtout du deuxième manifeste surréaliste d’André Breton, lancé en 1929, un an après le décès de Van Ostaijen, Eemans explorera d’autres pistes que les surréalistes belges, dont Magritte, ce qui, au-delà des querelles entre personnes et au-delà des clivages politiques/idéologiques, consommera une certaine rupture et expliquera l’affirmation, toujours répétée d’Eemans, qu’il est, lui, un véritable surréaliste dans l’esprit du deuxième manifeste de Breton —qui évoque le poète romantique allemand Novalis—  et que les autres n’en ont pas compris la teneur et n’ont pas voulu en adopter les injonctions implicites. Si l’étape abstraite de la « plastique pure » a été une nécessité, une sorte d’hygiène pour sortir des formes stéréotypées et trop académiques de la peinture de la fin du 19^ème siècle, le surréalisme ne doit pas se complaire définitivement dans cette esthétique-là. Il doit, comme le préconisait Breton, s’ouvrir à d’autres horizons, jugés parfois « irrationnels ».

 

 

 

 

Quand Sœur Hadewych hérisse les surréalistes installés

 

Fidèle au credo poétique de Van Ostaijen (photo ci-dessus), Eemans s’était plongé, fin des années 20, dans l’œuvre mystique de Sœur Hadewych (13^ème siècle), dont il lira des extraits lors d’une réunion de surréalistes à Bruxelles. L’accueil fut indifférent sinon glacial ou carrément hostile : pour Tommissen, c’est cette soirée consacrée à la grande mystique flamande du moyen âge qui a consommé la rupture définitive entre Eemans et les autres surréalistes de la capitale belge, dont Nougé, Magritte et Scutenaire. Toute l’animosité, toutes les haines féroces qui harcèleront Eemans jusqu’à sa mort proviennent, selon Tommissen, de cette volonté du jeune peintre de faire franchir au surréalisme bruxellois une limite qu’il n’était pas prédisposé à franchir. Pour les tenants de ce surréalisme considéré par Eemans comme « fermé », le jeune peintre de Termonde basculait dans le mysticisme et les bondieuseries, abandonnait ainsi le cadre soi-disant révolutionnaire, communisant, du surréalisme établi : Eemans tombait dès lors, à leurs yeux, dans la compromission (qui chez les surréalistes conduit automatiquement à l’exclusion et à l’ostracisme) et dans l’idéalisme magique ; il trahissait aussi la « révolution surréaliste » avec son adhésion plus ou moins formelle et provocatrice à l’Internationale stalinienne. Pour Eemans, les autres restaient campés sur des positions figées, infécondes, non inspirées par la notion d’Amour selon Dante (à ce propos, cf. notre « Hommage à Marc. Eemans sur http://marceemans.wordpress.com/ ). Pour poursuivre leur œuvre de contestation du monde moderne (ou monde bourgeois), les surréalistes, selon Eemans, doivent obéir à une suggestion (diffuse, lisible seulement entre les lignes) de Breton : occulter le surréalisme et s’ouvrir à des sciences décriées par le positivisme bourgeois du 19^ème siècle. Breton, en 1929, en appelle à la notion d’Amour, telle que l’a chantée Dante. La voie d’Eemans est tracée : il sera le disciple de Van Ostaijen et du Breton du deuxième manifeste surréaliste de 1929. Pour concrétiser cette double fidélité, il fonde avec René Baert la revue « Hermès ».

Le surréalisme y est « occulté », comme le demandait Breton, mais non abjuré dans sa démarche de fond et sa revendication primordiale, qui est de contester et de détruire le bourgeoisisme établi, et s’ouvre aux perspectives de Dante et de la mystique médiévale néerlandaise et rhénane. Cette situation générale du surréalisme français (et francophone) est résumée succinctement par André Vielwahr, spécialiste de ce surréalisme et professeur de français à la Fordham University de New York : « Le surréalisme éprouvait depuis plusieurs années des difficultés insolubles. Il sombrait sans majesté dans le poncif. L’écriture automatique, l’activité onirique s’étaient soldées par un supplément de ‘morceaux de bravoure ‘ destinés à relever les œuvres où ils se trouvaient sans jamais fournir la clé ‘capable d’ouvrir indéfiniment cette boîte à multiple fond qui s’appelle l’homme » (in : S’affranchir des contradictions – André Breton de 1925 à 1930, L’Harmattan, Paris, 1998, p.339). Aller au-delà des poncifs et trouver le clé (traditionnelle) qui permet de découvrir l’homme dans sa prolixité kaléidoscopique de significations et de le sortir de toute l’unidimensionnalité en laquelle l’enferme la modernité a été le vœu d’Eemans. Qui fut sans doute, à son corps défendant, l’exécuteur testamentaire de Pierre Drieu la Rochelle qui écrivait le 1 août 1925 une lettre à Aragon pour déplorer la piste empruntée par le mouvement surréaliste : Drieu reconnaissait que les surréalistes avaient eu , un moment, le sens de l’absolu, « que leur désespoir avait sonné pur », mais qu’ils avaient renié leur intransigeance et, surtout, qu’ils « avaient rejoint des rangs » et n’étaient pas « partis à la recherche de Dieu » (A. Vielwahr, op. cit., pp. 66-67). Aragon avait reproché à Drieu que s’être laissé influencé par les gens d’Action Française, qui étaient, disait-il, « des crapules ». En quémandant humblement la lecture des écrits mystiques de Sœur Hadewych, Eemans, jeune et candide, s’alignait peu ou prou sur les positions de Drieu, qu’il ne connaissait vraisemblablement pas à l’époque, des positions qui avaient hérissé les « partisans alignés du surréalisme des poncifs ». Notons qu’Eemans travaillera sur les rêves et sur l’écriture automatique, notamment à proximité d’Henri Michaux, qui sera, un moment, le secrétaire de rédaction d’ « Hermès ». Il reste encore à tracer un parallèle entre la démarche d’Eemans et celles d’Antonin Artaud, Georges Bataille, Michel Leiris et Roger Caillois. Mais c’est là un travail d’une ampleur considérable…  

   

 

Eemans m’a souvent parlé de sa revue des années 30, « Hermès ». Il en possédait encore une unique collection complète. « Hermès » était une revue de philosophie, axée sur les alternatives au rationalisme et au positivisme modernes, dans une perspective apparemment traditionnelle ; en réalité, elle recourrait sans provocation à des savoirs fondamentalement différents de ceux qui structuraient un présent moderne sans relief et, partant, elle présentait des savoirs qui étaient beaucoup plus radicalement subversifs que les provocations dadaïstes ou les gestes des surréalistes établis : pour être un révolutionnaire radical, il fallait être un traditionnaliste rigoureux, frotté aux savoirs refoulés par la sottise moderne. « Hermès » voulait sortir du « carcan occidental » que dénonçaient tout à la fois les surréalistes et les traditionalistes, mais en abandonnant les postures provocatrices et en se plongeant dans les racines oubliées de traditions pouvant offrir une véritable alternative. Pour trouver une voie hors de l’impasse moderne, Eemans avait sollicité une quantité d’auteurs mais l’originalité première d’ « Hermès », dans l’espace linguistique francophone, a été de se pencher sur les mystiques médiévales flamandes et rhénanes. De tous ses articles dans « Hermès » sur Sœur Hadewych, sur Ruysbroeck l’Admirable, etc., Eemans avait composé un petit volume. Mais, malheureusement, il n’a plus vraiment eu le temps d’explorer cette veine, ni pendant la guerre ni après le conflit. Il faudra attendre les ouvrages du Prof. Paul Verdeyen (formé à la Sorbonne et professeur à l’Université d’Anvers) et de Geert Warnar (1) et celui, très récent, de Jacqueline Kelen sur Sœur Hadewych (2) pour que l’on dispose enfin de travaux plus substantiels pour relancer une étude générale sur cette thématique. Notons au passage qu’une exploration simultanée de la veine mystique flamande/brabançonne, jugée non hérétique par les autorités de l’Eglise, et des idées de « vraie religion » de l’Europe et d’ « unitarisme » chez Sigrid Hunke, qui, elle, réhabilitait bon nombre d’hérétiques, pourrait s’avérer fructueuse et éviter des dichotomies trop simplistes (telles paganisme/catholicisme ou renaissancisme/médiévisme, etc. empêchant de saisir la véritable « tradition pérenne », s’exprimant par quantité d’avatars).

 

Mystique flamando-rhénane et matière de Bourgogne

 

Dans l’entre-deux-guerres, l’exploration de la veine mystique flamando-rhénane, entreprise parallèlement à la redécouverte de l’héritage bourguignon, avait un objectif politique : il fallait créer une « mystique belge », non détachée du tronc commun germanique (que l’on qualifiait de « rhénan » pour éviter des polémiques ou des accusations de « germanisme » voire de « pangermanisme ») et il fallait renouer avec un passé non inféodé à Paris tout en demeurant « roman ». Les tâtonnements ou les ébauches maladroites, bien que méritoires, de retrouver une « mystique belge », chez un Raymond De Becker ou un Henry Bauchau, trop plongés dans les débats politiques de l’époque, nous amènent à poser Eemans, aujourd’hui, comme le seul homme, avec son complice René Baert, qui ait véritablement amorcé ce travail nécessaire. Autre indice : la collaboration très régulière à « Hermès » du philosophe Marcel Decorte (Université de Liège) qui donnait aussi des conférences à l’école de formation politique de De Becker et Bauchau dans les années 1937-39. Le lien, probablement ténu, entre Decorte, Eemans, Bauchau et De Becker n’a jamais été exploré : une lacune qu’il s’agira de combler. Les travaux sur l’héritage bourguignon ont été plus abondants dans la Belgique des années 30  (Hommel, Colin, etc.), sans qu’Eemans ne s’en soit mêlé directement, sauf, peut-être, par l’intermédiaire de la chorégraphe Elsa Darciel, disciple des grandes chorégraphes de l’époque dont l’Anglaise Isadora Duncan. Elsa Darciel avait entrepris de faire renaître les danses des « fastes de Bourgogne ». Malheureusement, ni l’un ni l’autre ne sont encore là pour témoigner de cette époque, où ils ont amorcé leurs recherches, ni pour évoquer le vaste contexte intellectuel où les cénacles conservateurs belges et ceux du mouvement flamand cherchaient fébrilement à se doter d’une identité bien charpentée, qui ne pouvait bien sûr pas se passer d’une « mystique » solide. Sur l’Internet, les esprits intéressés découvriront une étude substantielle du Prof. Piet Tommissen sur la personne d’Elsa Darciel, notamment sur ses relations sentimentales avec le dissident américain Francis Parker Yockey, alias Ulrick Varange.

 

Pendant la seconde guerre mondiale, Eemans a eu des activités de « journaliste culturel ». Cette position l’a amené à écrire quantité de critiques d’art dans la presse inféodée à ce qu’il est désormais convenu d’appeler la « collaboration », phénomène qui, rétrospectivement, ne cesse d’empoisonner la politique belge depuis la fin de la seconde guerre mondiale. On ne cesse de reprocher à Marc. Eemans et à René Baert la teneur de leurs articles, sans que ceux-ci n’aient réellement été examinés et étudiés dans leur ensemble, sous toutes leurs facettes et dans toutes leurs nuances (repérables entre les lignes) : Eemans se défend en rappelant qu’il a combattu, au sein d’un « Groupe des Perséides », la politique artistique que le IIIe Reich cherchait à imposer dans tous les pays d’Europe qu’il occupait. Cette politique était hostile aux avant-gardes, considérées comme « art dégénéré ». Eemans racontait aux censeurs nationaux-socialistes qu’il n’y avait pas d’ « art dégénéré » en Belgique, mais un « art populaire », expression de l’âme « racique » (le terme est de Charles de Coster et de Camille Lemonnier), qui, au cours des quatre premières décennies du 20^ème siècle, avait pris des aspects certes modernistes ou avant-gardistes, mais des aspects néanmoins particuliers, originaux, car, in fine, l’identité des « Grands Pays-Bas » résidait toute entière dans son génie artistique, un génie que l’on pouvait qualifier de « germanique », donc, aux yeux des nouvelles autorités, de « positif », les artistes d’avant-garde dans ces « Grands Pays-Bas » étant tous des hommes et des femmes du cru, n’appartenant pas à une quelconque population « nomade », comme en Europe centrale. La « bonne » nature vernaculaire de ces artistes, en Flandre, ne permettait à personne de déduire de leurs œuvres une « perversité » intrinsèque : il fallait donc les laisser travailler, pour que puisse éclore une facette nouvelle de « ce génie germanique local et particulier ». L’énoncé de telles thèses, sans doute partagées par d’autres analystes collaborationnistes des avant-gardes, comme Paul Colin ou Georges Marlier, avait pour but évident d’entraver le travail d’une censure qui se serait avérée trop sourcilleuse. Finalement, on reprochera surtout à Eemans et à Baert d’avoir rédigé des articles pour le « Pays Réel » de Léon Degrelle. Baert assassiné en 1945, Eemans reste le seul larron du tandem en piste après la guerre. Il sera arrêté pour sa collaboration au « Pays Réel » et non pour d’autres motifs, encore moins pour le contenu de ses écrits (même s’ils portaient souvent la marque indélébile de l’époque). « Je faisais partie de la charrette du ‘Pays Réel ‘ », disait-il souvent. Après la fin des hostilités, après la levée de l’état de guerre en Belgique (en 1951 !), après son incarcération qui dura quatre années au « Petit Château », Eemans revient dans le peloton de tête des critiques d’art en Belgique : ses « crimes » n’ont probablement pas été jugés aussi « abominables » car le préfacier de l’un de ses ouvrages encyclopédiques majeurs fut Philippe Roberts-Jones, Conservateur en chef des Musées royaux d’art de Belgique, fils d’un résistant ucclois mort, victime de ses ennemis, pendant la seconde grande conflagration intereuropéenne.

 

« Hamer », Farwerck et De Vries

 

Sous le IIIe Reich, les autorités allemandes ont fondé une revue d’anthropologie, de folklore et d’études populaires germaniques, intitulée « Hammer » (« Le Marteau », sous-entendu le « Marteau de Thor »). Pendant l’été 1940, on décide, à Berlin, de créer deux versions supplémentaires de « Hammer » en langue néerlandaise, l’une pour la Flandre et l’autre pour les Pays-Bas (« Hamer »). Quand on parle de néopaganisme aujourd’hui, surtout si l’on se réfère à l’Allemagne nationale-socialiste ou aux innombrables sectes vikingo-germanisantes qui pullulent aux Etats-Unis ou en Grande-Bretagne, tout en influençant les groupes musicaux de hard rock, cela fait généralement sourire les philologues patentés. Pour eux, c’est, à juste titre, du bric-à-brac sans valeur intellectuelle aucune. C’est d’ailleurs dans ce sens qu’Eemans adoptera les thèses d’Evola consignées, de manière succincte, dans un article titré « Le malentendu du néopaganisme ». Mais ce reproche ne peut nullement être adressé aux versions allemande, néerlandaise et flamande de « Hammer/Hamer ». Des germanistes de notoriété internationale comme Jan De Vries, auteur des principaux dictionnaires étymologiques de la langue néerlandaise (tant pour les noms communs que pour les noms propres, notamment les noms de lieux) ont participé à la rédaction de cet éventail de revues. Eemans était l’un des correspondants de « Hamer »/Amsterdam à Bruxelles. Cela lui permettait de faire la navette entre Bruxelles et Amsterdam pendant le conflit et de s’immerger dans la culture littéraire et artistique de la Hollande, qu’il adorait. Il est certain que l’on a rédigé et édité des études sur « Hammer » en Allemagne ou en Autriche, du moins sur sa version allemande ou sur certains de ses principaux rédacteurs. Je ne sais pas si une étude simultanée des trois versions a un jour été établie. C’est un travail qui mériterait d’être fait. D’autant plus que la postérité de « Hamer »/Amsterdam et « Hamer »/Bruxelles n’a certainement pas été entravée par une quelconque vague répressive aux Pays-Bas après la défaite du IIIe Reich. De Vries est demeuré un germaniste néerlandais, un « neerlandicus », de premier plan, ainsi qu’un explorateur inégalé du monde des sagas islandaises. Son œuvre s’est poursuivie, de même que celle de Farwerck, que l’on n’a commencé à dénoncer qu’à la fin des années 90 du 20^ème siècle ! De l’écolier de Termonde influencé par Brants, son professeur wagnérien, du cadet de famille influencé par Nestor, son aîné, autre Wagnérien, au disciple attentif de Van Ostaijen et du lecteur scrupuleux du deuxième manifeste surréaliste de Breton au directeur d’Hermès et au rédacteur de « Hamer », du réprouvé de 1944 au fondateur du « Centro Studi Evoliani » et au collaborateur d’ « Antaios » de Christopher Gérard, il y a un fil conducteur parfaitement discernable, il y a une fidélité inébranlable et inébranlée à soi et à ses propres démarches, face à l’incompréhension généralisée qui s’est bétonnée et a orchestré le boycott de cet homme à double casquette : celle du dadaïste-surréaliste-lénino-trostkiste et celle du wagnéro-mystico-évoliano-traditionaliste. Et pourtant, il y a, derrière cette apparente contradiction une formidable cohérence que sont incapables de percevoir les esprits bigleux. Ou pour être plus précis : il y a chez Eemans, surréaliste et traditionaliste tout à la fois, une volonté d’aller au « lieu » impalpable où les contradictions s’évanouissent. Un lieu que cherchait aussi Breton dès son second manifeste.  

        

 

Après la guerre, Eemans participe à la revue « Fantasmagie » ; l’étude de « Fantasmagie » mérite, à elle seule, un bon paquet de pages. L’objectif de « Fantasmagie » était de faire autre chose que de l’art bétonné en une nouvelle orthodoxie, qui tenait alors le haut du pavé, après avoir balayé toute interrogation métaphysique. Dans les colonnes de « Fantasmagie », les rédacteurs vont commenter et valoriser toutes les œuvres fantastiques, ou relevant d’une forme ou d’une autre d’ « idéalisme magique ». On notera, entre bien d’autres choses, un intérêt récurrent pour les « naïfs » yougoslaves. Quant à Eemans, il se chargeait de la recension de livres, notamment ceux de Gaston Bachelard. Je compte bien relire les exemplaires de « Fantasmagie » qui figurent dans ma bibliothèque mais je n’écrirai de monographie sur cette revue, ou sur l’action et l’influence d’Eemans au sein de sa rédaction, que lorsque j’aurai dûment complété ma collection, encore assez lacunaire.

 

Harcèlement et guéguerre entre surréalistes

 

L’après-guerre est tout à la fois paradis, purgatoire et enfer pour Eemans. Dans le monde de la critique d’art, il occupe une place non négligeable : son érudition est reconnue et appréciée. En Flandre, on ne tient pas trop compte des allusions perfides à sa collaboration au « Pays Réel » et à « Hamer ». En revanche, dans l’univers des galeries huppées, des expositions internationales, des colloques spécifiques au surréalisme en Belgique et à l’étranger, un boycott systématique a été organisé contre sa personne : manifestement, on voulait l’empêcher de vivre de sa peinture, on voulait lui barrer la route du succès « commercial », pour le maintenir dans la géhenne du travail d’encyclopédiste ou dans l’espace marginal de « Fantasmagie ». Son adversaire le plus acharné sera l’avocat Paul Gutt (1941-2000), fils du ministre des finances du cabinet belge en exil à Londres pendant la seconde guerre mondiale. En 1964, Paul Gutt organise un chahut contre deux conférences d’Eemans en diffusant un pamphlet en français et en néerlandais contre notre surréaliste mystique et traditionaliste, intitulé « Un ton plus bas ! Een toontje lager ! » et qui rappelait bien entendu le « passé collaborationniste » du conférencier. Le même Paul Gutt s’était aussi attaqué au MAC (« Mouvement d’Action Civique ») de Jean Thiriart, futur animateur du mouvement « Jeune Europe », en distribuant un autre pamphlet, intitulé, lui, « Haut les mains ! ». En 1973, Eemans intente un procès, qu’il perdra, à Marcel Mariën qui, à son tour, pour participer allègrement à la curée et traduire dans la réalité bruxelloise les principes de la « révolution culturelle » maoïste qu’il admirait, avait rappelé le « passé incivique » de Marc. Eemans. L’avocat de Mariën était Paul Gutt. En 1979, dans son livre sur le surréalisme belge, qui fait toujours référence, Marcel Mariën, pour se venger, exclut totalement le nom de Marc. Eemans de son gros volume mais encourt simultanément, mais pour d’autres motifs, la colère de Georgette Magritte et d’Irène Hamoir, ancienne amie d’Eemans et veuve du surréaliste « marxiste pro-albanais » (poncif !) Louis Scutenaire. Marcel Mariën ne s’en prenait pas qu’à Eemans quand il évoquait l’époque de la seconde occupation allemande : dans ses souvenirs, publiés en 1983 sous le titre de « Radeau de la mémoire », il accuse Magritte d’avoir fabriqué dans ses caves de faux Braque et de faux Picasso, « pour faire bouillir la marmite »…. ! Plus tard, en 1991, le provocateur patenté Jan Bucquoy brûlera une peinture de Magritte lors d’un « happening », pour fustiger le culte, à son avis trop officiel, que lui voue la culture dominante en Belgique. On le voit : le petit monde du surréalisme en Belgique a été une véritable pétaudière, un « panier à crabes », disait Eemans, qui ne cessait de s’en gausser. 

 

 

Q. : Mais existe-t-il une postérité « eemansienne » ? Que reste-t-il de ce travail effectué avant et après la création du « Centro Studi Evoliani » de Bruxelles ?

 

RS : Eemans était désabusé, en dépit de sa joie de vivre. Il était un véritable pessimiste : joyeux dans la vie quotidienne mais sans illusion sur le genre humain. Cette posture s’explique aisément en ce qui le concerne : ses efforts d’avant-guerre pour réanimer une mystique flamando-rhénane, pour réinjecter de l’Amour selon Dante dans le monde, pour faire retenir les leçons de Sohrawardi le Perse, n’ont été suivi d’aucuns effets immédiats. De bons travaux ont été indubitablement réalisés par quantité de savants sur ces thématiques, qui lui furent chères, mais seulement, hélas, au soir de sa vie, sans qu’il ait pu prendre connaissance de leur existence, ou après sa mort, survenue le 28 juillet 1998. L’assassinat par les services belges de son ami René Baert, dans les faubourgs de Berlin fin 1945, l’a profondément affecté : il en parlait toujours avec un immense chagrin au fond de la gorge. Un embastillement temporaire et des interdictions professionnelles ont mis un terme à l’œuvre d’Elsa Darciel, qui n’aurait plus suscité le moindre intérêt après guerre, comme tout ce qui relève de la matière de Bourgogne (à la notable exception du magnifique « Je soussigné, Charles le Téméraire, Duc de Bourgogne » de Gaston Compère). Eemans s’est plongé dans son travail d’encyclopédiste de l’histoire de l’art en Belgique et dans « Fantasmagie », terrains jugés « neutres ». Ces territoires, certes fascinants, ne permettaient pas, du moins de manière directe, de bousculer les torpeurs et les enlisements dans lesquels végétaient les provinces flamandes et romanes de Belgique. Car on sentait bien qu’Eemans voulait bousculer, que « bousculer » était son option première et dernière depuis les journées folles du dadaïsme et du surréalisme jusqu’aux soirées plus feutrées (mais nettement moins intéressantes, époque de médiocrité oblige…) organisées par le « Centro Studi Evoliani ». Eemans avait en effet bousculé la bien-pensance comme les garçons de son époque, avec les foucades dadaïstes et surréalistes, auxquelles Evola lui-même avait participé en Italie. Comme Evola, il a cherché une façon plus solide de bousculer les fadeurs du monde moderne : pour Evola, ce furent successivement le recours à l’Inde traditionnelle (Doctrine de l’Eveil, Yoga tantrique, etc.) et au Tao Te King chinois ; pour Eemans, ce fut le recours à la mystique flamando-rhénane, destinée à secouer le bourgeoisisme matérialiste belge, qui n’avait pas voulu entendre les admonestations de ses écrivains et poètes d’avant 1914, comme Camille Lemonnier ou Georges Eeckhoud, et s’était empressé d’abattre bon nombre de joyaux de l’architecture « Art Nouveau » d’Horta et de ses disciples, jugeant leurs audaces créatrices peu pratiques et trop onéreuses à entretenir ! Eemans aimait dire qu’il était le véritable disciple d’André Breton, dans la mesure où celui-ci avait un jour déclaré qu’il fallait s’allier, si l’opportunité se présentait, « avec le Dalaï Lama contre l’Occident ». Pour Evola comme pour Eemans, on peut affirmer, sans trop de risque d’erreur, que le « Dalaï Lama » évoqué par Breton, n’est rien d’autre qu’une métaphore pour exprimer nostalgie et admiration pour les valeurs anté-modernes, donc non occidentales, non matérialistes, qu’il convenait d’étudier, de faire revivre dans l’âme des intellectuels et des poètes les plus audacieux.

 

Le « Centro Studi Evoliani » : la déception

 

Une fois son travail d’encyclopédiste achevé auprès de l’éditeur Meddens, Eemans voulait renouer avec cette audace du « bousculeur » dadaïste, en s’arc-boutant sur le terrain d’action prestigieux que constituait l’espace de réflexion évolien, et en provoquant les contemporains en reliant à l’évolisme de la fin des années 70 ses propres recherches entreprises dans les années 30 et pendant la seconde guerre mondiale. Il a été déçu. Et a exprimé cette déception dans l’entretien qu’il nous a accordé, je veux dire à Koenraad Logghe et à moi-même (et que l’on peut lire un peu partout sur l’Internet, notamment sur http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com et sur http://www.centrostudilaruna.it , le site du Dr. Alberto Lombardo). Pourquoi cette déception ? D’une part, parce que la jeune génération ne connaissait plus rien des enthousiasmes d’avant-guerre, ne faisait pas le lien entre les avant-gardes des années 20 et le recours d’Evola, Guénon, Corbin, Eemans, etc. à la « Tradition », n’avait reçu dans le cadre de sa formation scolaire aucun indice capable de l’éveiller à ces problématiques ; d’autre part, l’espace ténu des évoliens était dans le collimateur de la nouvelle bien-pensance gauchiste, qui étrillait aussi Eemans quand elle le pouvait (alors qu’on lui avait foutu royalement la paix dans les années 50 et 60). Etre dans le collimateur de ces gens-là peut être une bonne chose, être indice de valeur face aux zélotes furieux qui propagent toutes les « anti-valeurs » possibles et imaginables mais cela peut aussi conduire à attirer vers les cercles évoliens des personnalités instables, politisées, simplificatrices, que la complexité des questions soulevées rebute et lasse. En outre, toute une propagande médiatisée a diffusé dans la société une fausse « spiritualité de bazar », où l’on mêle allègrement toute une série d’ingrédients comme le bouddhisme californien, la cruauté gratuite, le nazisme tapageur, l’occultisme frelaté, le monachisme tibétain, la runologie spéculative, etc. pour créer des espaces de relégation vers lesquelles on houspille trublions et psychopathes, les rendant ainsi aisément identifiables, criminalisables ou, pire encore, dont on peut se gausser à loisir (exemple : « extrême-droite » = « extrême-druides », intitulé tapageur d’une émission de la RTBF). Sans compter les agents provocateurs de tous poils qui font occasionnellement irruption dans les cercles non-conformistes et cherchent à prouver qu’on est en train de ressusciter des « ordres occultes », préparant le retour de la « bête immonde ».

 

Eemans, âgé de 71 ans quand il lance le « Centro Studi Evoliani » de Bruxelles, n’avait nulle envie de répéter à satiété le récit des phases de son itinéraire antérieur face à un public disparate qui était incapable de faire le lien entre monde des arts et écrits traditionalistes ; ensuite, lui qui avait connu une revue de qualité dans le cadre du « national-socialisme » des années 40, comme « Hammer », n’avait nulle envie d’inclure dans ses préoccupations les fabrications anglo-saxonnes qui lancent dans le commerce sordide des marottes soi-disant « transgressives » un « occultisme naziste de Prisunic ». Il a décidé de mettre un terme aux activités du « Centro Studi Evoliani », car celui-ci ne pouvait pas, via l’angle évolien, ressusciter l’esprit d’ « Hermès », faute d’intéressés compétents. Une « Fondation Marc. Eemans » prendra le relais à partir de 1982, dirigée par Jan Améry. Elle existe toujours et est désormais relayée par un site basé aux Pays-Bas (http://marceemans.wordpress.com/), qui affiche les textes d’Eemans et sur Eemans dans leur langue originale (français et néerlandais). Au début des années 80, toutes mes énergies ont été consacrées à la nouvelle antenne néo-droitiste « EROE » (« Etudes, Recherches et Orientations Européennes »), fondée par Jean van der Taelen, Guibert de Villenfagne de Sorinnes et moi-même en octobre 1983, quasiment le lendemain de ma démobilisation (2 août), de mon premier mariage (25 août & 3 septembre) et de la défense de mon mémoire (vers le 10 septembre). 

 

La réception d’Evola en pays flamand est surtout due aux efforts des frères Logghe : Peter Wim, l’aîné, et Koenraad, le cadet. Peter Wim Logghe, au départ juriste dans une compagnie d’assurances, a fait connaître, de manière succincte et didactique, l’œuvre d’Evola dans plusieurs organes de presse néerlandophones, dont « Teksten, Kommentaren en Studies », l’organe du GRECE néo-droitiste en Flandre, et a traduit « Orientations » en néerlandais (pour le « Centro Studi Evoliani » d’Eemans). Koenraad Logghe, pour sa part, créera en Flandre un véritable mouvement traditionnel, au départ de sa première revue, « Mjöllnir », organe d’un « Orde der Eeuwige Werderkeer » (OEW) ou « Ordre de l’Eternel Retour ». Allègre et rigoureuse, païenne dans ses intentions sans verser dans un paganisme caricatural et superficiel, cette publication, artisanale faute de moyens financiers, mérite qu’on s’y arrête, qu’on l’étudie sous tous ses aspects, sous l’angle de tous les thèmes et figures abordés (essentiellement le domaine germanique/scandinave, l’Edda, Beowulf, etc. , dans la ligne de « Hamer » et du grand philologue néerlandais Jan de Vries ; une seule étude sur Evola y a été publiée dans les années 1983-85, sur « Ur & Krur » par Manfred van Oudenhove). Koenraad Logghe fondera ensuite le groupe « Traditie », suite logique de son OEW, avant de s’en éloigner et de poursuivre ses recherches en solitaire, couplant l’héritage traditionnel de Guénon essentiellement, à celui du Néerlandais Farwerck et aux recherches sur la symbolique des objets quotidiens, des décorations architecturales, des pierres tombales, etc., une science qui avait intéressé Eemans dans le cadre de la revue « Hamer », dont les thèmes ne seront nullement rejetés aux Pays-Bas et en Flandre après 1945 : de nouvelles équipes universitaires, formées au départ par les rédacteurs de « Hamer » continuent leurs recherches. Dans ce contexte, Koenraad Logghe publiera plusieurs ouvrages sur cette symbolique du quotidien, qui feront tous autorité dans l’espace linguistique néerlandais.

 

 

Eemans participera également à la revue « Antaios » que Christopher Gérard avait créée au début des années 90. Il avait repris le titre d’une revue fondée par Ernst Jünger et Mircea Eliade en 1958. Gérard bénéficiait de l’accord écrit d’Ernst Jünger et en était très fier et très reconnaissant. Lors de la fondation de l’ « Antaios » de Jünger et Eliade, ceux-ci avaient demandé la collaboration d’Eemans : il avait cependant décliné leur offre parce qu’il était submergé de travail. Dommage : la thématique de la mystique flamando-rhénane aurait trouvé dans la revue patronnée par l’éditeur Klett une tribune digne de son importance. Eemans écrivait parfaitement le français et le néerlandais mais non l’allemand. J’ai toujours supposé qu’il n’aurait pas aimé être trahi en étant traduit. C’est donc dans la revue « Antaios » de Christopher Gérard, publiée à Bruxelles/Ixelles, à un jet de pierre de son domicile, qu’Eemans publiera ses derniers textes, sans faiblir ni faillir malgré le poids des ans, jusqu’en ce jour fatidique de la fin juillet 1998, où la Grande Faucheuse l’a emporté.

 

Personnellement, je n’ai pas suivi un itinéraire strictement évolien après la dissolution du « Centro Studi Evoliani », dans la première moitié des années 80. Eemans m’en a un peu voulu, beaucoup au début des années 80, moins ultérieurement, et finalement, la réconciliation définitive est venue en deux temps : lors de la venue à Bruxelles de Philippe Baillet (pour une conférence à la tribune de l’EROE, chez Jean van der Taelen) puis lorsqu’il m’a invité à des vernissages, surtout celui qui fut suivi d’une magnifique soirée d’hommage, avec dîner somptueux fourni par l’édilité locale, que lui organisa sa ville natale de Termonde (Dendermonde) à l’occasion de ses 85 ans (en 1992). Pourquoi cette animosité passagère à mon égard ? Début 1981, a eu lieu à Bruxelles une conférence sur les thèmes de la défense de l’Europe, organisée conjointement par Georges Hupin (pour le GRECE-Belgique) et par Rogelio Pete (pour le compte d’une structure plus légère et plus éphémère, l’IEPI ou « Institut Européen de Politique Internationale »).

 

La rencontre Eemans/de Benoist

 

En marge de cette initiative, où plusieurs personnalités prirent la parole, dont Alain de Benoist, l’excellent et regretté Julien Freund, le Général Robert Close (du Corps des blindés belges stationnés en RFA), le Colonel Marc Geneste (l’homme de la « bombe à neutrons » au sein de l’armée française), le Général Pierre M. Gallois et le Dr. Saul Van Campen (Directeur du cabinet du Secrétaire Général de l’OTAN), j’avais vaguement organisé, en donnant deux ou trois brefs coups de fil, une rencontre entre Marc. Eemans et Alain de Benoist dans les locaux de la Librairie de Rome, dans le goulot de l’Avenue Louise, à Bruxelles, sans pouvoir y être présent moi-même (3). Visiblement, l’intention d’Eemans était de se servir de la revue d’Alain de Benoist, « Nouvelle école », dont j’étais devenu le secrétaire de rédaction, pour relancer les thématiques d’ « Hermès ». A l’époque, malgré quelques rares velléités évoliennes, Alain de Benoist n’était guère branché sur les thématiques traditionalistes ; il snobait délibérément Georges Gondinet, qualifié de « petit con qui nous insulte » (remarquez le « pluriel majestatif »…), tout simplement parce que le directeur de « Totalité » avait couché sur le papier quelques doutes quant à la pertinence métapolitique des écrits du « Pape » de la ND, marqués, selon le futur directeur des éditions Pardès, de « darwinisme ». De Benoist reprochait surtout à Gondinet et à son équipe la parution du n°11 de « Totalité », un dossier intitulé « La Nouvelle Droite du point de vue de la Tradition ». De Benoist, qui a certes eu des dadas darwiniens, sortait plutôt d’un « trip » empiriste logique, de facture anglo-saxonne et « russellienne », dont on ne saisit guère l’intérêt au vu de ses errements ultérieurs. Il tâtait maladroitement du Heidegger et voulait écrire sur le philosophe souabe un article qui attesterait de son génie dans toutes les Gaules (on attend toujours ce maître article promis sur le rapport Heidegger/Hölderlin… est germanomane par coquetterie parisienne qui veut, n’est pas germaniste de haut vol qui le prétend…). Sur les avant-gardes dadaïstes et surréalistes, de Benoist ne connaissait rien et classait tout cela, bon an mal an, dans des concepts généraux, dépréciatifs et fourre-tout, tels ceux de l’ « art dégénéré » ou du « gauchisme subversif », car, en cette époque bénie (pour lui et son escarcelle) où il oeuvrait au « Figaro Magazine », le sieur de Benoist se targuait d’appartenir à une bonne bourgeoisie installée, inculte et hostile à toute forme de nouveauté radicale, comme il se targue aujourd’hui d’appartenir à un filon gauchiste, inspiré par le Suisse Jean Ziegler, un filon tout aussi rétif à de la véritable innovation car, selon ses tenants et thuriféraires, il faut demeurer dans la jactance contestatrice habituelle des années 60 (comme certains surréalistes se complaisaient dans la jactance communisante des années 30 et n’entendaient pas en sortir).

 

En ce jour de mars 1981 donc, Alain de Benoist dédicaçait ses livres dans la Librairie de Rome et Eemans s’y est rendu, joyeux, débonnaire, chaleureux et enthousiaste, à la mode flamande, sans doute après un repas copieux et bien arrosé ou après quelques bon hanaps de « Duvel » : on est au pays des « noces paysannes » de Breughel, du « roi boit » de Jordaens et des plantureuses inspiratrices de Rubens ou on ne l’est pas ! Cette truculence a déplu au « Pape » de la « nouvelle droite », qui prenait souvent, à cette époque qui a constitué le faîte de sa gloire, les airs hautains du pisse-vinaigre parisien (nous dirions de la « Moeijer snoeijfdüüs »), se prétendant détenteur des vérités ultimes qui allaient sauver l’univers du désastre imminent qui l’attendait au tout prochain tournant. Pour de Benoist, la truculence breughelienne d’Eemans était indice de « folie ». Les airs hautains du Parisien, vêtu ce jour-là d’un affreux costume de velours mauve, sale et tout fripé, du plus parfait mauvais goût, étaient, pour le surréaliste flamand, indices d’incivilité, de fatuité et d’ignorance. Bref, la mayonnaise n’a pas pris : on ne marie pas aisément la joie de vivre et la sinistrose. Le courant n’est pas passé entre les deux hommes, éclipsant du même coup, et pour toujours, les potentialités immenses d’une éventuelle collaboration, qui aurait pu approfondir considérablement les recherches du mouvement néo-droitiste, vu que la postérité d’ « Hermès » débouche, entre bien d’autres choses, sur les activités de « Religiologiques » de Gilbert Durand ou sur les travaux d’Henri Corbin sur l’islam persan, et surtout qu’elle aurait pu démarrer tout de suite après l’écoeurante éviction de Giorgio Locchi, germaniste et musicologue, qui avait donné à « Nouvelle école » son lustre initial, éviction qu’Eemans ignorait : les arts et la musique ont de fait été quasiment absents des spéculations néo-droitistes qui ont vite viré au parisianisme jargonnant et « sociologisant » (dixit feu Jean Parvulesco), surtout après la constitution du tandem de Benoist/Champetier à la veille des années 90, tandem qui durera un peu moins d’une douzaine d’années.

 

La brève entrevue entre le « Pape » de la « nouvelle droite » et Eemans, à la « Librairie de Rome » de Bruxelles, n’a donc rien donné : un nouveau dépit pour notre surréaliste de Termonde, qui, une fois de plus, s’est heurté à des limites, à des lacunes, à une incapacité de clairvoyance, de lungimiranza, chez un individu qui s’affichait alors comme le grand messie de la culture refoulée. Cela a dû rappeler à notre peintre l’incompréhension des surréalistes bruxellois devant son exposé sur Sœur Hadewych…

 

Eemans m’en a voulu d’être parti, quelques jours plus tard, à Paris pour prendre mon poste de « secrétaire de rédaction » de « Nouvelle école ». Eemans jugeait sans doute que l’ambiance de Paris, vu le comportement malgracieux d’Alain de Benoist, n’était pas propice à la réception de thèmes propres à nos Pays-Bas ou à l’histoire de l’art et des avant-gardes ou encore aux mystiques médiévale et persane ; sans doute a-t-il cru que j’avais mal préparé la rencontre avec le « Pape » de la « nouvelle droite », qu’en ‘audience’ je ne lui avais pas assez parlé d’ « Hermès » ; quoi qu’il en soit, pour l’incapacité à réceptionner de manière un tant soit peu intelligente les thématiques chères à Eemans, notre surréaliste réprouvé avait raison : de Benoist se targue d’être une sorte d’Encyclopaedia Britannica sur pattes, en chair (flasque) et en os, mais il existe force thématiques qu’il ne pige pas, auxquelles il n’entend strictement rien ; de plus, Eemans estimait que « monter à Paris » était le propre, comme il me l’a écrit, furieux, d’un « Rastignac aux petits pieds » : ma place, pour lui, était à Bruxelles, et non ailleurs. Mais, heureusement, mon escapade parisienne, dans l’antre du « snobinard tout en mauve », n’a duré que neuf mois. Revenu en terre brabançonne, je n’ai plus jamais ravivé l’ire d’Eemans. Et c’est juste, la sagesse populaire ne nous enseigne-t-elle pas « Oost West - Thuis best ! » ?

 

Vienne et Zürich/Frauenfeld

 

Ma première activité strictement évolienne date de 1998, année du décès de Marc. Eemans. Evola suscitait à l’époque de plus en plus d’intérêt en Allemagne et en Autriche, grâce, notamment, aux efforts du Dr. T. H. Hansen, traducteur et exégète du penseur traditionaliste. Du coup, toutes les antennes germanophones de « Synergies Européennes » voulaient marquer le coup et organiser séminaires et causeries pour le centième anniversaire de la naissance du Maître. Au printemps de 1998, j’ai donc été appelé à prononcer à Vienne, dans les locaux de la « Burschenschaft Olympia », une allocution en l’honneur du centenaire de la naissance d’Evola ; on avait choisi Vienne parce qu’Evola adorait cette capitale impériale et y avait reçu, en 1945, pendant le siège de la ville, l’épreuve doublement douloureuse de la blessure et de la paralysie : un mur s’est effondré, brisant définitivement la colonne vertébrale de Julius Evola. A Vienne, il y avait, à la tribune, le Dr. Luciano Arcella (qui a tracé des parallèles entre Spengler, Frobenius et Evola dans leurs critiques de l’Occident), Martin Schwarz (toujours animateur de sites traditionalistes avec connotation islamisante assez forte), Alexandre Miklos Barti (sur la renaissance évolienne en Hongrie) et moi-même. J’ai essentiellement mis l’accent sur l’idée-force d’ « homme différencié » et entamé une exploration, non encore achevée treize ans après, des textes d’Evola où celui-ci fut le principal « passeur » des idées de la « révolution conservatrice » allemande en Italie. Cette exploration m’a rendu conscient du rôle essentiel joué par les avant-gardes provocatrices des années 1905-1935 : il faut bien comprendre ce rôle clef pour saisir correctement toute approche de l’école traditionaliste, qui en procède tant par suite logique que par rejet. En effet, on ne peut comprendre Evola et Eemans que si l’on se plonge dans les vicissitudes de l’histoire du dadaïsme, du surréalisme et de ses avatars philosophiques non communisants en marge de Breton lui-même, et du vorticisme anglo-saxon. Les éditions « L’Age d’Homme » offrent une documentation extraordinaire sur ces thèmes, dont la revue « Mélusine » et quelques bons dossiers « H ». En 1999, à Zürich/Frauenfeld, j’ai prononcé à nouveau cette même allocution de Vienne, en y ajoutant combien la notion d’ « homme différencié », proche de celle d’ « anarque » chez Ernst Jünger, a été cardinale pour certains animateurs non gauchistes de la révolte étudiante italienne de 1968. En Italie, en effet, grâce à Evola, surtout à son « Chevaucher le Tigre », le mouvement contestataire n’a pas entièrement été sous la coupe des interprètes simplificateurs de l’ « Eros et la civilisation » d’Herbert Marcuse. Dans les legs diffus de cette révolte étudiante-là, on peut, aujourd’hui encore, aller chercher tous les ingrédients pratiques d’une révolte qui s’avèrerait bien vite plus profonde et plus efficace dans la lutte contre le système, une révolte efficace qui exaucerait sans doute au centuple les vœux de Tzara et de Breton…  

 

Deux mémoires universitaires ont été consacrés tout récemment en Flandre à Evola, celui de Peter Verheyen, qui expose un parallèle entre l’auteur flamand Ernest van der Hallen et Julius Evola, et celui de Frédéric Ranson, intitulé « Julius Evola als criticus van de moderne wereld » (4). Ranson prononce souvent des conférences en Flandre sur Julius Evola, au départ de son mémoire et de ses recherches ultérieures. En Wallonie, en Pays de Liège, l’homme qui poursuit une quête traditionnelle au sens où l’entendent les militants italiens depuis le début des années 50 ou dans le sillage de « Terza Posizione » de Gabriele Adinolfi est Philippe Banoy. La balle est désormais dans leur camp : ce sont eux les héritiers potentiels de Vercauteren et d’Eemans. Mais des héritiers qui errent dans un champ de ruines encore plus glauque qu’à la fin des années 70. Un monde où les dernières traces de l’arèté grec semblent avoir définitivement disparu, sur fond de partouze festiviste permanente, de niaiserie et d’hystérie médiatiques ambiantes et d’inculture généralisée.

 

Evola, Eemans et la plupart des traditionalistes historiques de leur époque sont morts. Jean Parvulesco vient de nous quitter en novembre 2010. Un mouvement authentiquement traditionaliste doit-il se complaire uniquement dans la commémoration ? Non. Le seul à avoir repris le flambeau, avec toute l’autonomie voulue, demeure un inconnu chez nous dans la plupart des milieux situés bon an mal an sur le point d’intersection entre militance politique et méditation métaphysique : je veux parler de l’Espagnol Antonio Medrano, perdu de vue depuis ses articles dans la revue « Totalité » de Georges Gondinet. Ce mois-ci, en me promenant pour la première fois de ma vie dans les rues de Madrid, je découvre une librairie à un jet de pierre de la Plaza Mayor et de la Puerta del Sol qui vendait un ouvrage assez récent de Medrano. Quelle surprise ! Il est consacré à la notion traditionnelle d’honneur. Et la jaquette mentionne plusieurs autres ouvrages d’aussi bonne tenue, tous aux thèmes pertinents (5). Aujourd’hui, il conviendrait de fonder un « Centre d’Etudes doctrinales Evola & Medrano », de manière à faire pont entre un ancêtre « en absence » et un contemporain, qui, dans le silence, édifie une œuvre qui, indubitablement, est la poursuite de la quête. 

 

Enfin, il ne faut pas oublier de mentionner qu’Eemans survit, sous la forme d’une figure romanesque, baptisée Arminius, dans le roman initiatique de Christopher Gérard (6), rédigé après l’abandon, que j’estime malheureux, de sa revue « Antaios ». Arminius/Eemans y est un mage réprouvé (« après les proscriptions qui ont suivi les grandes conflagrations européennes »), ostracisé, qui distille son savoir au sein d’une confrérie secrète, plutôt informelle, qui, à terme, se donne pour objectif de ré-enchanter le monde (couverture du livre de Christopher Gérard avec, pour illustration, le plus beau, le plus poignant des tableaux d'Eemans: le Pélerin de l'Absolu).

 

Pour conclure, je voudrais citer un extrait extrêmement significatif de la monographie que le Prof. Piet Tommissen a consacré à Marc. Eemans, extrait où il rappelait combien l’œuvre de Julius Langbehn avait marqué notre surréaliste de Termonde : « Au moment où il préparait son recueil ‘Het bestendig verbond’ en vue de publication, Eemans fit d’ailleurs la découverte, grâce à son ami le poète flamand Wies Moens, du livre posthume ‘Der Geist des Ganzen’ de Julius Langbehn (1851-1907) (…) Langbehn y analyse le concept de totalité à partir de la signification du mot grec ‘Katholon’. Selon lui, le ‘tout’ travaille en fonction des parties subordonnées et se manifeste en elles tandis que chaque partie travaille dans le cadre du ‘tout’ et n’existe qu’en fonction de lui. Le ‘mal’ est déviation, négation ou haine de la totalité organique dans l’homme et dans l’ordre temporel ; le ‘mal’ engendre la division et le désordre, aussi tout ce qui s’oppose à l’esprit de totalité crée tension et lutte. Pour que l’esprit de totalité règne, il faut que disparaisse la médiocrité intellectuelle car elle est le fruit d’hommes sans épine dorsale ou caractère et sans attaches avec la source de toute créativité qu’est la vie vraiment authentique de celui qui assume la totalité de sa condition humaine. Langbehn rappelle que les mots latins ‘vis’, ‘vir’ et ‘virtus’, soit force, homme et vertu, ont la même racine étymologique. Oui, l’homme vraiment homme est en même temps force et vertu, et tend ainsi vers le surhomme, par les voies d’un retour aux sources tel que l’entend le mythe d’Anthée ». Dans ces lignes, l’esprit averti repèrera bien des traces, bien des indices, bien des allusions…

 

(propos recueillis en avril et en mai 2011).

 

Bibliographie :

 

-          Gérard DUROZOI, Histoire du mouvement surréaliste, Hazan, Paris, 1997 (Eemans est totalement absent de ce volume).

-          Marc. EEMANS, La peinture moderne en Belgique, Meddens, Bruxelles, 1969.

-          Piet TOMMISSEN, Marc. Eemans – Un essai de biographie intellectuelle, suivi d’une esquisse de biographie spirituelle par Friedrich-Markus Huebner et d’une postface de Jean-Jacques Gaillard, Sodim, Bruxelles, 1980.

-          André VIELWAHR, S’affranchir des contradictions – André Breton de 1925 à 1930, L’Harmattan, Paris, 1998.

 

 

Notes :

 

(1)     Geert WARNAR, Ruusbroec – Literatuur en mystiek in de veertiende eeuw, Athenaeum/Polak & Van Gennep, Amsterdam, 2003 ; Paul VERDEYEN, Jan van Ruusbroec – Mystiek licht uit de Middeleeuwen, Davidsfonds, Leuven, 2003.

(2)     Jacqueline KELEN, Hadewych d’Anvers et la conquête de l’Amour lointain, Albin Michel, Paris, 2011. 

(3)     Mis à toutes les sauces, fort sollicité, j’ai également organisé ce jour-là un entretien entre Alain de Benoist et le regretté Alain Derriks, alors pigiste dans la revue du ministre Lucien Outers, « 4 millions 4 ». Soucieux de servir d’écho à tout ce qui se passait à Paris, le francophile caricatural qu’était Outers avait autorisé Derriks à prendre un interview du leader de la « Nouvelle Droite » qui faisait pas mal de potin dans la capitale française à l’époque. On illustra les deux ou trois pages de l’entretien d’une photo d’Alain de Benoist, les bajoues plus grassouillettes en ce temps-là et moins décharné qu’aujourd’hui (le « Fig Mag » payait mieux…), tirant goulument sur un long et gros cigare cubain.

(4)     Frederik RANSON, « Julius Evola als criticus van de moderne wereld », RUG/Gent ; promoteur : Prof. Dr. Rik Coolsaet – année académique 2009-2010 ; Peter VERHEYEN, « Geloof me, we zijn zat van deze beschaving » - de performatieve cultuurkritiek van Ernest van der Hallen en Julius Evola tijdens het interbellum », RUG/Gent ; promoteur : Rajesh Heynick – année académique 2009-2010.

(5)     Le livre découvert à Madrid est : Antonio Medrano, La Senda del Honor, Yatay, Madrid, 2002. Parmi les livres mentionnés sur la jaquette, citons : La lucha con el dragon (sur le mythe universel de la lutte contre le dragon), La via de la accion, Sabiduria activa, Magia y Misterio del Liderazgo – El Arte de vivir en un mondi en crisis, La vida como empressa, tous parus chez les même éditeur : Yatay Ediciones, Apartado 252, E-28.220 Majadahonda (Madrid) ; tél. : [phone]. La librairie de Madrid que j’ai visitée : Gabriel Molina – Libros antiguos y modernos – Historia Militar, Travesia del Arenal 1, E-28.013 Madrid – Tél/Fax : [phone] – [e-mail] . 

(6)     Christopher GERARD, Le songe d’Empédocle, L’Age d’Homme, Lausanne, 2003. 

          

Un essai italien sur Guillaume Faye

Archives de "Synergies Européennes" (2001)

 

Un essai italien sur Guillaume Faye

 

Ami de Guillaume Faye, Stefano Vaj est un jeune essayiste milanais à ses rares heures libres, que lui laisse un travail quotidien souvent fastidieux. Dans les colonnes de la revue L'Uomo libero (n°51, mai 2001), il vient de faire paraître un texte fort long sur celui qui fut l'espoir de la "Nouvelle Droite" française, mais qui en fut évincé selon des procédés abjects. Dans une préface à la nouvelle édition italienne du premier livre de Guillaume Faye, Le système à tuer les peuples, Robert Steuckers, autre évincé de la "Nouvelle Droite", avait dégagé les lignes de force de la pensée personnelle de Faye, puis expliqué, étape par étape, la procédure infâme de son éviction (éd. franç.: L'apport de Guillaume Faye à la "Nouvelle Droite" et petite histoire de son éviction, disponible gratuitement par voie électronique: [e-mail] ). Les deux essais concordent sur bien des points, preuve que les errements de la "Nouvelle Droite", et surtout de sa direction, sont désormais objets d'étude et qu'inexorablement, le temps réduira à néant les mensonges et les travestissements, les trahisons et les coups de Jarnac, qui ont émaillé l'histoire de cette mouvance, tout en étant camouflés par des virtuoses de la falsification. J'utilise ici à dessein le terme de "falsification", car c'est celui-là même qu'utilisent la direction de la ND/Canal historique, et les imbéciles qui l'écoutent, pour tenter, vaille que vaille, de barrer la route à l'objectivité, de sauver leurs supercheries de la faillite, d'éloigner le verdict de l'histoire. Les cercles raisonnables qui tentent de rétablir l'objectivité historique à Bruxelles sont dénoncés, par un faux théologien roulant des yeux fous, à la façon des cocaïnomanes, comme étant les "usines bruxelloises de la falsification", voire comme l'expression de la "mafia belge" (... censuré par charité...)  A la suite de l'essai de Vaj, voilà que surgiront sans doute du sol lombard des "usines milanaises de la falsification" et une "mafia padanienne". Et demain, si à Vienne ou à Minsk, ou à Bucarest ou à Amsterdam, d'autres examineront le corps pantelant et moribond de la ND/Canal historique en posant un diagnostic sérieux et objectif, les usines de falsification couvriront le continent tout entier, augmentant proportionnellement les délires paranoïdes et narcissiques de la direction du dit "Canal historique".

 

Egalement disponibles: les trois critiques dextristes du "Cercle Gibelin", qui avait tenté vainement en mai et juin 2000, de replacer l'église au centre du village; le texte de Patrick Canavan intitulé "Du dextrisme"; les questions de Pierre Maugué à la ND; pour avoir gratuitement un dossier complet, envoyer un courriel à: [e-mail] ).

 

En attendant, par souci de transparence, il nous semble que le public français mérite de prendre acte de certains passages judicieux de l'essai de Vaj. Les voici:

 

«A l'époque les interventions critiques [de Faye] sur la question religieuse et sur les positions du GRECE en la matière étaient déjà "fortes".

 

C'est une expérience commune [à tous ceux qui ont vécu la ND/Canal historique de près] de constater que, dans le terme "néo-paganisme", le préfixe "néo" en vient à être graduellement oublié, si bien qu'on voit émerger aisément l'obsession pour la "positivité" et la "légitimation".

 

[…] la religion, du point de vue païen, est ce qui "lie ensemble" un peuple, ou ce qui le liait aux origines. Or, à partir du moment, où le paganisme, incontestablement, n'est plus une religion positive, ou s'il a le courage tragique et zarathoustrien de tenter, en toute conscience, de créer des formes originales et de nouvelles "tables de valeurs", certes inspirées du passé qu'il s'est choisi, mais néanmoins distinctes de ce passé, alors la recherche d'une "légitimation" de quelque type que ce soit devient absolument centrale. Raison pour laquelle les traditionalistes évoliens ou guénoniens finissent, à intervalles réguliers, par devenir des ésotéristes ("Les récits secrets", le Roi de la montagne, la tradition occulte, etc.), ensuite par déboucher souvent dans l'Islam, ou dans quelques variétés minoritaires du christianisme catholique ou orthodoxe, ou, pire, par tomber dans des syncrétismes vaguement maçonniques ou relevant du New Age.

 

Pour le GRECE, dès lors, comme avant lui pour le mouvement völkisch des années 30 en Allemagne, une telle recherche de légitimation était, et est, non pas d'ordre métaphysique, mais d'ordre essentiellement "sociologique", et porte à valoriser comme "politiquement" importants ces quelques fossiles de croyance ou ces habitudes populaires pour lesquelles on peut avancer l'hypothèse qu'elles ont une origine autochtone, pré-chrétienne ou simplement a-chrétienne, depuis la "fête du lapin" jusqu'aux "statuettes de la félicité", engageant ainsi le mouvement dans une voie de folklorisation.

 

Face à tout cela, ce fut une nouvelle fois Guillaume Faye qui revendiqua, dans un article important paru dans Eléments, les fondements d'un paganisme laïque, solaire et postmoderne, ouvertement nietzschéen, qui se distinguait nettement des obsessions sur la “nymphe derrière chaque buisson" et des manies du "catholicisme inversé" de bon nombre de composantes de la ND, bien trop conditionnées par la rivalité entre elles et les confessions chrétiennes pour ne pas finir par singer celles-ci.

 

Ce fut un article prophétique, quand on tient compte des "évolutions" ultérieures d'un de Benoist, qui, s'intéressait au départ à l'empirio-criticisme et à l'épistémologie de Russell ou de Popper, pour finir paradoxalement, après son livre Comment peut-être païen? et une parenthèse heideggerienne, dans des débats avec des chrétiens ou des juifs sur une métaphysique ou des valeurs communes, de matrice substantiellement néo-platonicienne ou néo-stoïque; ces débats visent évidemment à attribuer la palme de la supériorité morale tantôt à Sénèque, tantôt à Paul de Tarse, ou, mieux, pour s'opposer de concert à la sécularisation (voir par exemple, L'éclipse du sacré).

 

***

 

Si nos lecteurs souhaitent connaître quelques détails sur la fin du rêve (néo-droitiste), ils doivent lire les pages de la nouvelle et longue introduction de Robert Steuckers  à la deuxième édition italienne du Système à tuer les peuples, introduction qui s'ajoute à la mienne, imprimée dans la première édition.

 

Vers la fin de l'année 1986, la crise [du GRECE et de la ND/Canal historique] annoncée par Giorgio Locchi («Tout ce qui relève de la mode passe de mode…») arrive à maturation. Les animateurs des débuts du GRECE, s'ils n'ont pas été tout simplement récupérés par le système, se sont, d'un côté, enfermés dans une dimension de pur témoignage, ou, d'un autre côté, se sont mis toujours davantage en marge de la vie quotidienne de l'association, en demeurant fidèles à des bureaucrates occupés à récolter de l'argent pour payer un personnel chargé de récolter à son tour des fonds, pour payer un personnel également chargé de récolter de l'argent, et ainsi de suite, dans un processus de dégénérescence du style de l'église de scientologie. D'autres ont décidé de jouer la carte du Front National de Le Pen, qui, en ses temps de vaches maigres, avait été snobé avec rudesse par les néo-droitistes, et qui, depuis ses succès, peut se permettre, à son tour, de snober la ND, qui, en fin de compte, finit par ne plus être perçue comme un sujet animé par un projet historique ou politique, pour ne paraître plus que comme un instance productrice de conférences et de publications aux ambitions limitées.

 

Les thèmes des publications du milieu ND (en substance Eléments, Nouvelle école et son doublon au titre malheureux de Krisis) ont été de moins en moins variés et toujours de plus en plus littéraires. Et de Benoist lui-même, dans une sorte de régression romantique, confessa à Faye, vers le milieu des années 80, de s'intéresser graduellement de plus en plus aux "images" plutôt qu'aux "idées". Faye, dans une conversation privée avec nous, à la même époque, décrivait l'opposition au sein du mouvement comme celle entre "les germanomanes non surhumanistes" et "les surhumanistes non germanomanes".

 

Parmi les conséquences de cette dérive, nous noterons une tendance extrême à se réclamer et à survaloriser les composantes et les secteurs les plus biscornus de la révolution conservatrice, pour autant que ceux-ci puisse se revendiquer d'une certaine dissidence par rapport aux régimes fascistes des années 30. Ensuite, la concentration graduelle des efforts de recherche sur les thèmes de caractère essentiellement historique, littéraire et mythique s'est effectuée au détriment des grands thèmes sociologiques, techniques, scientifiques, politiques et économiques, sur lesquels, quelques années auparavant, le mouvement n'avait pas hésité à prendre des positions très originales et innovatrices.

 

Face à la pression croissante de la censure et de la "pensée unique", le mouvement ND a répondu par une tendance croissante à la compromission sur des thématiques pourtant décisives; tendance paradoxalement accompagnée par une crispation sur des questions secondaires voire par des "fuites en avant", difficilement compréhensibles pour le public de base de cette ND historique, dont notamment les clins d'œil au philo-soviétisme à la Jean Cau, qui furent des onirismes, rapidement liquidés par l'évolution historique de surcroît. Enfin, la capacité à ne pas se laisser enfermer dans les antithèses du débat politique contemporain (nationalisme/cosmopolitisme, libéralisme/socialisme, oui à l'avortement/non à l'avortement, écologisme/anti-écologisme, féminisme/anti-féminisme, impérialisme/anti-colonialisme, communisme/anti-communisme, etc.) pour opposer des catégories propres à la ND et originales, a fait place à une incapacité à prendre position sur les problèmes centraux de notre temps ou à un goût pour les formules brillantes ou pour les slogans qui ne sont que des fins en soi.

 

Passons maintenant au peigne fin les erreurs en politique et en propagande qui ont été commises. Avant toute chose, l'obsession d'être pris pour une sorte d'"Internationale noire", et la mécompréhension totale des potentialités d'une dimension véritablement internationale, alors que cela aurait été parfaitement possible; une telle dimension, par exemple, aurait conféré au mouvement la capacité de dépasser les crises locales contingentes, de réduire la vulnérabilité face à une répression potentielle et face au black-out médiatique; enfin, le mouvement aurait pu se donner la possibilité d'une mobilisation mythique des militants. Deuxièmement, le videment progressif des postes fonctionnels centraux du GRECE a pesé lourd dans la balance (le GRECE est progressivement devenu la proie du micro-léninisme de ses fonctionnaires, décrits plus haut, micro-léninisme toujours plus asphyxiant dans sa tentative de se survivre à lui-même dans le cadre de son improductivité métapolitique). Ce videment et ce refus de l'internationalisation ont empêché la création d'un "courant" ou d'une "communauté", dont les limites et l'identité n'ont nul besoin d'être bornées, car il vaut mieux agir pour créer et maintenir la richesse, la variété et l'organicité typiques des grands mouvements culturels et des lames de fonds civilisationnelles; mais l'internationalisation aurait surtout permis d'éviter les coups de la réaction, de pénétrer plus facilement les centres nerveux du pouvoir culturel et d'éviter, enfin, cette épouvantable "transformation en secte". Finalement, pour beaucoup, cette ambiguïté face aux problèmes de la politique réelle a fini par devenir insupportable, même si la direction de la ND considérait ces problèmes comme inessentiels à juste titre; mais ce désintérêt a fini par conditionner négativement, à cause d'un "angélisme", d'une "neutralité", d'un "maniérisme", toutes les prises de position publiques d'Alain de Benoist qui, pourtant, dans les années 70, n'avait pas hésité, sous les auspices de Maurizio Cabona, à assumer une rubrique dans Candido de Giorgio Pisani, un journal qui ne faisait pas précisément dans l'idyllique.

 

Guillaume Faye ne pouvait pas remédier seul à cette involution. Il animait sans cesse des initiatives toujours plus personnelles et "parallèles": de l'émission radiophonique postmoderne "Avant-Guerre" à la création de structures (éphémères) comme l'"Institut Européen des Arts et des Lettres" ou le "Collectif de Réflexion sur le Monde Contemporain", toutes initiatives que Faye a portées à bout de bras, sans recevoir un sou de salaire, un appui moral ou un financement ponctuel; ces belles initiatives, de grande qualité intellectuelle, ont été regardées d'abord avec indifférence, avec suffisance et puis, progressivement, avec une hostilité croissante par les chefs du mouvement, qui, s'ils ne s'occupaient pas de comptabilité, s'intéressaient en apparence plus aux vicissitudes de l'art moderne, à la poésie des elfes dans la Saxe du 15^ième siècle ou aux débats "décisifs" avec Thomas Molnar pour savoir si le divin s'exprime "dans" le monde ou "à travers" le monde.

 

L'abandon final de Faye est devenu ainsi le symbole de la fin d'un cycle  —tout comme le décès de Locchi, qui avait quitté le mouvement depuis plusieurs années déjà, au moment où la ND, apparemment, avait atteint son apogée. Fin d'un cycle mais aussi début d'une période de relative démobilisation dans toute l'Europe, où certains anciens se sont enfermés dans la politique traditionnelle, d'autres se sont retirés dans leur sphère privée ou dans de confortables chapelles locales, avec des contacts de plus en plus réduits avec l'extérieur. Sans animer de scission, sans tenter d'emporter le moindre franc ou la moindre adresse d'un fichier, sans tenter de "se convertir" à la Marco Tarchi, Faye s'est retiré dans l'ombre pendant une dizaine d'années, tandis que le GRECE à continuer à utiliser ses écrits, bien sûr sans lui payer des droits d'auteur, mais en répandant à qui voulait l'entendre des ragots, où Faye était tour à tour devenu fou, avait le cerveau brûlé par la drogue ou avait été recruté par la CIA».

 

Extrait de l'étude de Stefano VAJ, «Per l'autodifesa etnica totale. Riflessioni su "La colonisation de l'Europe" di Guillaume Faye», in: L'Uomo Libero, n°51, Milan, mai 2001.

 

         

François Mitterrand & the French Mystery

François Mitterrand & the French Mystery

Dominique Venner

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

Translated by Greg Johnson

In the center of all the questions raised by the sinuous and contradictory path of François Mitterrand is the famous photograph of the interview granted to a young unknown, the future socialist president of the Republic, by Marshall Philippe Pétain in Vichy, on October 15th, 1942.

This document was known to some initiates, but it was verified by the interested party only in 1994, when he saw that his life was ending. Thirty years earlier, the day before the presidential election of 1965, the then Minister of the Interior, Roger Frey, had received a copy of it. He demanded an investigation which went back to a former local head of the prisoners’ association, to which François Mitterrand belonged. Present at the time of the famous interview, he had several negatives. In agreement with General de Gaulle, Roger Frey decided not to make them public.

Another member of the same movement of prisoners, Jean-Albert Roussel, also had a print. It is he who gave the copy to Pierre Péan for the cover of his book Une jeunesse française (A French youth), published by Fayard in September 1994 with the endorsement of the president.

Why did Mitterrand suddenly decide to make public his enthusiastic Pétainism in 1942–1943, which he had denied and dissimulated up to that point? It is not a trivial question.

Under the Fourth Republic, in December 1954, from the platform of the National Assembly, Raymond Dronne, former captain of the 2nd DB, now a Gaullist deputy, had challenged François Mitterrand, then Minister of the Interior: “I do not reproach you for having successively worn the fleur de lys and the francisque d’honneur [honors created by the Third Republic and Marhsall Pétain’s French State respectively – Trans.] . . .” “All that is false,” retorted Mitterrand. But Dronne replied without obtaining a response: “All that is true, and you know very well . . .”

The same subject was tackled again in the National Assembly, on February 1st, 1984, in the middle of a debate on freedom of the press. We were now under the Fifth Republic and François Mitterrand was the president. Three deputies of the opposition put a question. Since the past of Mr. Hersant (owner of Figaro) during the war had been discussed, why not speak about that of Mr. Mitterrand? The question was judged sacrilege. The socialist majority was indignant, and its president, Pierre Joxe, believed that the president of the Republic had been insulted. The three deputies were sanctioned, while Mr. Joxe declared loud and clear Mr. Mitterrand’s role in the Résistance.

This role is not contestable and is not disputed. But, according to the concrete legend imposed after 1945, a résistant past is incompatible with a Pétainist past. And then at the end of his life, Mr. Mitterrand suddenly decided to break with the official lie that he had endorsed. Why?

To be precise, before slowly becoming a résistant, Mr. Mitterrand had first been an enthusiastic Pétainist, like millions of French. First in his prison camp, then after his escape, in 1942, in Vichy where he was employed by the Légion des combattants, a large, inert society of war veterans. As Mitterrand found this Pétainisme too soft, he sought out some “pure and hard” (and very anti-German) Pétainists like Gabriel Jeantet, an old member of the Cagoule [the right-wing movement of the late 1930s dedicated to overthrowing the Third Republic – Trans.], chargé in the cabinet of the Marshal, one of his future patrons in the Ordre de la francisque.

On April 22nd, 1942, Mitterrand wrote to one his correspondents: “How will we manage to get France on her feet? For me, I believe only in this: the union of men linked by a common faith. It is the error of the Legion to have taken in masses whose only bond was chance: the fact of having fought does not create solidarity. Something along the lines of the SOL,[1] carefully selected and bound together by an oath based on the same core convictions. We need to organize a militia in France that would allow us to await the end of the German-Russian war without fear of its consequences . . .” This is a good summary of the muscular Pétainism of his time. Quite naturally, in the course of events — in particular after the American landing in North Africa of November 8th, 1942 — Mitterand’s Pétainism evolved into resistance.

The famous photograph published by Péan with the agreement of the president caused a political and media storm. On September 12th, 1994, the president, sapped by his cancer, had to explain himself on television under the somber gaze of Jean-Pierre Elkabbach. But against all expectation, the solitude of the accused, as well as his obvious physical distress, made the interrogation seem unjust, causing a feeling of sympathy: “Why are they picking on him?” It was an important factor that reconciled the French to their president. It was not an endorsement of a politician’s career. It was Mitterrand the man who had suddenly became interesting. He had acquired an unexpected depth, a tragic history that stirred an echo in the secret of the French mystery.

Note

1. The SOL (Service d’ordre légionnaire) was constituted in 1941 by Joseph Darnand, a former member of the Cagoule and hero of the two World Wars. This formation, by no means collaborationist, was made official on January 12th, 1942. In the new context of the civil war which is then spread, the SOL was transformed into the French Militia on January 31st, 1943. See the Nouvelle Revue d’Histoire, no. 47, p. 30, and my Histoire de la Collaboration (History of collaboration) (Pygmalion, 2002).

Source: http://www.dominiquevenner.fr/#/edito-nrh-54-mitterrand/3845286 ^[3]

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/05/francois-mitterrand-and-the-french-mystery/

Terre & Peuple n°47: l'enjeu démographique

 

Terre & Peuple n°47

 

L'enjeu démographique

 

Dans le numéro 47 de TERRE & PEUPLE Magazine, bâti autour du thème ‘L’enjeu démographique’, Pierre Vial accuse de haute trahison ceux qui continuent de débattre du multiculturalisme face au cataclysme du tsunami migratoire. Et il enchaîne sur l’islamophilie d’une certaine extrême-droite, d’Alain Soral à Christian Bouchet en passant par Alain de Benoist.  Il en profite pour exécuter Franco Cardini, catho tradi qui s’efforce d’infiltrer le politiquement correct au moyen d’impostures historiques, sur la nature et l’objet des croisades, sur l’origine de la chevalerie, sur les ordres militaires, sur la fameuse ‘magnanimité’ du Sultan Saladin et sur la prétendue insignifiance de la bataille de Poitiers.

A propos de l’euthanasie, Monique Delcroix s’aventure, à approuver celle-ci en prenant appui sur la certitude qu’on aurait de faire ‘le bien’ lorsqu’on achève un animal blessé. Le bien de l’animal ? Ou le bien de l’homme que l’image dérange ? Ou le bien des vivants unis à tenir ensemble la mort à distance ?

A propos de l’émission de TV ‘Les enfants d’Abraham, Pierre Vial, encore, rappelle que les religions monothéistes retirent à l’homme la liberté de juger de ce qui est bon ou mauvais pour lui.

Jean Leblancmeunier regrette que l’argent corrupteur ‘footbalise’ le rugby, sport viril gâché par le marketing-spectacle. Alors que, en Nouvelle –Zélande, c’est encore l’austère mystique qui règne : « Le ballon qu’on passe au moment de tomber, c’est comme la vie qu’on transmet. »

C’est avec le national socialisme et le communisme que Claude Perrin poursuit son étude des mythes. Pour emporter l’adhésion du peuple, le premier lui propose une Weltanschauung, ‘porte ouverte sur autre chose’. Le Fuhrer, entraîneur, reste une énigme : il se croit prophète, aimant « qui attire l’acier du peuple ».  Le mythe du sang est le principe structurant et c’est le mérite qui définit la nouvelle aristocratie. Le svastika est devenu le symbole national. L’auteur souligne que l’image du nazisme résiste au dépérissement pour entrer de plus en plus vivace dans le mythe. A ce mythe du sang, les communistes opposent celui de la lutte des classes, qui débouche sur l’assassinat de la bourgeoise et sur la dictature d’un seul homme. Mis à part Salvador Allende, ces hommes défendent rarement les armes à la main leurs régimes, lesquels meurent de gangrène. Le mythe égalitaire du suffrage universel n’est qu’un ersatz incapacitant et la concurrence électorale accule à ce qui recueille la popularité facile : la corruption et la décadence. Mais les mythes survivent dans nos rêves, où murmure notre nature. Tout mythe implique une transcendance, appel des temps anciens. La jeunesse actuelle est en manque : on ne lui propose que le Veau d’Or , lequel n’est d’ailleurs réservé en réalité qu’à une super-classe.

Pierre Vial ouvre le dossier de la démographie en soulignant que faire des enfants témoigne de la confiance en soi.

Alain Cagnat assume quatre des six articles du dossier. Il note qu’en moins de trente ans tous les grands dictionnaires ont rompu avec les définitions classiques du concept de race, qu’ils qualifient de ‘scientifiquement aberrantes’, au moment même où des marqueurs génétiques permettent de situer la région d’origine de nos ancêtres, où Cavalli Sforza suggère neuf subdivisions d’homo sapiens et où les génomes permettent de distinguer des races dans l’espèce humaine. Le deuxième article relève que l’antiracisme a pour objet la disparition des Blancs, par la haine de soi érigée en vertu, aux fins d’installer une religion nouvelle : celle de la gouvernance mondiale. Paradoxe apparent, au moment où on protège l’identité des minorités visibles contre le racisme des ‘petits Blancs’, on prône le métissage. C’est contraire à l’opinion de Levy-Strauss dont pourtant les anti-racistes se réclament : celui-ci ne voit en effet de ‘civilisation mondiale que dans une coalition de cultures’ et il avertit avant tout contre l’explosion démographique.  Celle-ci fait le thème du troisième article : jusqu’au XXe siècle, les équilibres démographiques étaient réalisés parce que les taux élevés de mortalité étaient compensés par une grande fécondité (6 à 8 enfant par femme). Mais l’hygiène, la médecine et une meilleure alimentation provoquent une explosion démographique : le délai pour ajouter un milliard d’unités à l’humanité ne cesse de diminuer. Les optimistes croient à une ‘transition démographique’. La richesse des pays industrialisés et la générosité de leurs régime sociaux produit sur les populations misérables du tiers monde l’effet d’une pompe aspirante.  Dans le même temps, les ressources, alimentaires comme énergétiques, se tarissent et la fécondité des Européens ne cesse de baisser, alors que celle de ses envahisseurs ne baisse toujours pas. Le quatrième article dénonce cette invasion ‘pacifique’ comme une stratégie de destruction de l’identité européenne, pôle de déséquilibre d’un mondialisme qui vise un profond métissage.  Le prétexte est qu’il faut remédier au vieillissement de l’Europe, ce qui d’après l’ONU nécessiterait, pour la seule France, une ‘migration de remplacement’ annuelle de 1,5 millions de 2010 à 2025 et de 2,4 millions de 2025 à 2050 ! Ce serait un ras de marée parfaitement inutile au grand patronat demandeur de main d’œuvre peu payée, car les permis de séjour au motif de ‘travail’ ne sont qu’une infime minorité et une fraction croissante d’emplois restent vacants. D’autre part, le métissage est heureusement un échec, car la femme blanche n’a plus la cote et les immigrés s’orientent de plus en plus vers l’endogamie.  Cependant, il est devenu impossible de dissimuler des coûts et des nuisances qui crèvent les yeux.

Pierre Vial, soulignant l’importance primordiale de la démographie, rappelle la mise en place en 1941 du Service national des statistiques sous la direction d’Alexis Carrel. Alfred Sauvy qui lui succède (1945-1962) dénoncera la dénatalité (la ‘peste blanche’ selon Pierre Chaunu) due à la saignée de la première guerre mondiale et il prophétisera l’actuelle invasion sud-nord. Le gouvernement de Vichy avait sacralisé la famille et pratiqué une politique nataliste (aide aux familles nombreuses, forte prime à la première naissance), qui a été continuée par Sauvy, avec comme résultat le baby-boom qui commence en 1942. L’indice de fécondité sera encore de 2,0 enfants par femme en 1964, lorsque se dessine le baby-krach, conséquence de la déruralisation, du chômage des jeunes et de l’individualisme narcissique. Le dossier se clôture sur les réflexions de cinq jeunes ménages de notre communauté qui ont des enfants.

Jean-Patrick Arteault poursuit sa dissection des ‘Racines du mondialisme occidental’ en situant le rôle et l’influence de la Société Fabienne, cénacle sélectif qui servira de caution morale aux décisions souvent cyniques des politiques.  Mais les Fabiens ne sont pas les rêveurs que dénoncent les marxistes. La fameuse ‘ruse fabienne’ consiste à préférer une gradation réaliste de la socialisation, pour amener le peuple au socialisme par des réalisations concrètes, partielles et imparfaites. Car le vulgaire n’est capable de véritablement assimiler la théorie que par la pratique.  Parmi les vulgarisateurs fabiens, il y a pourtant pas mal de grandes pointures :

-         Georges Bernard Shaw, futur Prix Nobel de littérature, qui traite notamment le thème de l’éducation du peuple dans sa pièce Pygmalion. Il est fasciné autant par Mussolini que par Staline.

-         Herbert George Wells : auteur fantastique, très féru d’un ‘nouvel ordre mondial’, une république universelle à gouverner par les savants.

-         Annie Besant : co-auteur des ‘Essais fabiens’, réformatrice de l’enseignement primaire, théosophe et fondatrice de l’obédience maçonnique du Droit Humain.

-         Sydney Webb : grand organisateur de la Société Fabienne. Il est à l’origine du parti travailliste et il a fondé la London School of Economics and Political Sciences, homologue de Science Po qui collabore avec le Groupe Milner. Il découvre dans le stalinisme ‘les idées fabiennes en acte’ et n’en démordra pas jusqu’à sa mort en 1947.

La finalité fabienne est ‘démocratique’ : appropriation des moyens de production par l’Etat, mais le gouvernement doit aller, non pas au peuple, mais à des individualités héroïques. Les capitaines d’industrie et les experts, qui se sont désignés par leur mérite, sont les garants moraux de l’ordre et du progrès. Le peuple ouvrier est incapable de s’abstraire de ses intérêts à court terme. Webb a une conception organique de la société : les individus ne sont pas définis par leur relation avec leur gouvernement, mais par leur coopération au sein de la structure industrielle dans le cadre de l’Etat.  Les Fabiens sont réfractaires au référendum, sauf au niveau municipal pour entretenir la participation de la base. Ils sont opposés au libre-échangisme. La rupture aurait dû être irrémédiable avec les manipulateurs de masse du Groupe Milner, très proches du Bloc de l’aristocratie terrienne, mais ils ont en commun  l’héritage platonicien de John Ruskin : un état gouverné par les philosophes, et qui pilote bien sûr l’économie. La Guerre des Boers va être un révélateur : une forte minorité souhaite la victoire des Boers et une crise consécutive de l’impérialisme ; une minorité plus faible approuve la guerre, par solidarité nationale ; la majorité avec G.B. Shaw, propose une tierce voie plus subtile : l’impérialisme n’est contestable que s’il recherche la puissance par l’exploitation coloniale, pas s’il vise le bénéfice de la communauté mondiale. En attendant que celle-ci se réalise, il faut se satisfaire des fédérations impériales les plus responsables.  Les membres pacifistes et anti-impérialistes quittent alors la société fabienne, laquelle se rapproche au contraire du Groupe Milner, notamment au sein du Coefficents Club, fondé par les Webb pour rapprocher les fabiens et les impérialistes sociaux. L’osmose de la société avec les Américains va se faire par les écrivains Jack London et Upton Sinclair, et par Graham Wallas, l’universitaire du groupe des fondateurs, qui va être invité à enseigner à l’université Harvard, à Cambridge Massachusetts.

G. Faye: Why we fight

Why We Fight

Guillaume Faye
Why We Fight: Manifesto of the European Resistance
Translated by Michael O’Meara
Arktos Media, 2011

People

An ethnic ensemble — biological, historical, cultural — with a territory, its fatherland, in which it is rooted.

‘The people’ — the very term is suspect to the cosmopolitan Left, which sees it as bordering on the politically incorrect — is not any statistical ‘population’; it’s an organic community embracing a transcendent body made up of ancestors, the living, and their heirs. Though marked with a certain spirituality, a people is diachronically rooted in the past and projects itself into the future — it’s submerged in biological and genetic matter, but at the same time it’s a historical, and spiritual, reality.

It’s belonging to a specific people that distinguishes a man and makes him human. Though modern Western egalitarian doctrines reduce peoples to indifferent socioeconomic aggregates, peoples actually constitute the organic bases of the human race; similarly, such doctrines conceive of the ideal man as an individual ‘emancipated’ from his organic attachments — like an undifferentiated cell in a human magma.

It’s necessary to recall, especially for certain Christians, that a people’s attachment is incompatible with Christianity’s present cosmopolitanism. The claim, for example, that ‘I am closer to an African Catholic than I am to a non-Christian European’ is a universalistic claim that relegates a people’s nation to something of secondary significance. This is, indeed, the great drama of European Christianity, marked as it is by Pauline universalism. A Catholic attached to his people and conscious of the biological and cultural dangers threatening them might instead say, ‘I respect all the Christians of the world, but hic et nunc I fight for my people above all, whatever their religion’.

The Jesuit spirit might resolve the contradiction in reference to the Old Testament’s Hebraic tradition: ‘Babel — the mélange of disparate peoples — is a punishment from God, Who wants His peoples to be separate and diverse — humanity is one in Heaven, but multiple on Earth’.

Arab Islam has no difficulty reconciling the notion of people (the ‘Arab nation’) with that of its universalism. The Jews, on their side, have similarly reconciled a ferocious defence of their ethnicity — their singularity — with their religion, however theoretically monotheistic and universalist it may be. At no moment have Judaism and Islam, unlike the Christian Churches today, engaged in doubting, guiltstroking diatribes against ‘xenophobia’ and ethnocentrism. They are not masochistic . . .

* * *

Like every anthropological notion, ‘people’ lacks mathematical rigour. A people doesn’t define itself as a homogeneous biocultural totality, but as a relationship. It’s the product of an organic alchemy that brings various ‘sub-peoples’ together. The Bretons, Catalans, Scots, etc., can be seen thus as the sub-peoples of a larger people — the Europeans.

* * *

We ought to highlight the ambiguity that touches the notion of the people. The universalist ideology of the French Revolution confused the idea of the people with that of an ‘ensemble of inhabitants who jurisdictionally possess nationality’, whatever their origin. Given the facts of mass immigration and naturalisation, the notion of the French people has been greatly diluted (as have the British or German peoples, for the same reason). This is why (without broaching the unresolvable issue of what constitutes a ‘regional people’ or a ‘national people’), it’s advisable to dialectically transcend semantic problems — and affirm the historic legitimacy of a single, European people, historically bound, whose different national families resemble one another in having, for thousands of years, the same ethnocultural and historical origins. Despite national, linguistic, or tribal differences, haven’t African Blacks, even in Europe, been called on by Nelson Mandela or the Senegalese Mamadou Diop to ‘think like one people’? From Nasser to al-Qadhafi, by way of Arafat, haven’t Arabs been urged to see themselves as an Arab people? Why don’t Europeans have the same right to see themselves as a people?

As for ‘regional peoples’, it’s necessary to oppose Left-wing regionalists, self-professed anti-Jacobins and anti-globalists, who unhesitatingly accept the concept of French or American jus soli — who confuse citizens and residents, and who recognise as Bretons, Alsatians, Corsicans, etc., anyone (even of non-European origin) who lives in these regions and chooses to accept such an identity.

* * *

In belonging to a people, its members are emotionally inclined to define themselves as such, which implies political affiliation. For this reason, we say that a people exists at that point where biological, territorial, cultural, and political imperatives come together. But in no case does mere cultural or linguistic attachment suffice in making a people, if they have no common biological roots. Alien immigrants from people X who are installed on the territory of people Y — even if they adopt cultural elements of their host people — are not a part of Y. As De Gaulle thought, there might be minor exceptions for small numbers of compatible (White) minorities, capable of being assimilated, but this could never be the case for, say, French West Indians.

Similarly, in defining the notion of a people, territorial or geopolitical considerations must also be taken into account. A people is not a diaspora: the Jews felt obliged to reconquer Palestine as their ‘promised land’ because, as Theodor Herzl argued, ‘without a promised land, the Jews are just a religious diaspora, a culture, a union, but not a people’.

There’s a good deal of talk today, on the Left and the Right, about people being ‘deterritorialised’. In reality, there’s nothing of the kind. Every healthy people, even if they possess an important diaspora (Chinese, Arabs, Indians, etc.), maintains close relations with its fatherland.

* * *

Modernist gurus have long claimed that the future belongs not to peoples, but to humanity conceived as a single people. Again, there’ll be nothing of the kind. Despite globalisation and in reaction to it, the Twenty-first century will more than ever be a century of distinct peoples. Only Europeans, submerged in the illusions of their decadence, imagine that blood-based peoples will disappear, to be replaced by a miscegenated ‘world citizen’. In reality what is at risk of disappearing are Europeans. Tomorrow will be no twilight of peoples.

On the other hand, the twilight of several peoples is already possible. One often forgets that Amerindians or Egyptians have disappeared — hollowed out internally and overrun. For history is a cemetery of peoples — of weak peoples — exhausted and resigned.

* * *

A caution is necessary here: Right and Left-wing theoreticians of ‘ethnopluralism’, opposed to humanity’s homogenisation, speak of ‘the cause of peoples ^[3]’, as if every people must be conserved. In reality, the system that destroys peoples — the title of one of my books that was misunderstood by certain intellectuals — only threatens unfit peoples, i.e., present-day Europeans. It also threatens those residu peoples, whose fate is of interest only to museum-keepers. It seems perfectly stupid and utopian to believe that every people can be conserved in history’s formaldehyde. What a pacifistic egalitarian vision.

The main threat to the identity and existence of great peoples occurs, in contrast, through the conjunction of deculturation and the colonising invasion of alien peoples — which we’re presently experiencing. The Western globalist ‘system’ will never threaten strong peoples. Are Arabs, Chinese, or Indians threatened? On the contrary. It reinforces their identity and their desire to conquer, by provoking their reaction to it.

The people in danger — largely because of its own failings — is our people, for reasons as much biological as cultural and strategic. That’s why it’s necessary to replace the egalitarian ideology of ‘the cause of peoples’ with the ‘cause of our people’.

* * *

There are three possible positions: first, peoples don’t exist, or no longer exist — it’s an obsolete category — only humanity counts (the thesis of universalistic egalitarianism); second, all peoples ought to exist and be conserved (the utopian — also egalitarian — ethnopluralist position — completely inapplicable to our age); and third, only strong, wilful peoples can subsist for long historical periods — periods of selection in which only the most apt survive (the voluntarist, realist, inegalitarian thesis). We obviously support the third position.

What’s essential is reappropriating the term ‘people’ and progressively extending it to the entire Eurosiberian Continent. The present understanding of ‘European’ by the reigning ideology at Brussels is inspired by French Jacobin ideology. This ideology makes no reference to an ethno-historical Great European people, only to a mass of disparate residents inhabiting European territory. This tendency needs to be radically replaced.We propose that European peoples become historical subjects again and cease being historical objects. In the tragic century that’s coming, it’s especially crucial that Europeans become conscious of the common dangers they face and that, henceforth, they form a selfconscious community of destiny. This is well and truly a matter of forging a ‘new alliance’ that — through resurrection, metamorphosis, and historical transfiguration — will lead to a refounding of a Great European people and, in the midst of decline, succeed — not without pain, of course — in giving birth again to the phoenix.

Available from Arktos Media ^[4]

---

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

D. Venner's "Le siècle de 1914"

Foundations of the Twenty-First Century: Dominique Venner's Le Siècle de 1914.

by Michael O'Meara

Ex: http://www.wermodandwermod.com/ 

A White Nationalist Reading of . . .

Dominique Venner
Le Siècle de 1914: Utopies, guerres et révolutions en Europe au XXe siècle
Paris: Pygmalion, 2006

“To recreate a new aristocracy is the eternal task of every revolutionary project.” –Guillaume Faye

At the beginning of twentieth century, peoples of European descent ruled the world. They made up a third of its population, occupied half its landmass, controlled Africa, India, Southeast Asia, and parts of coastal China; their industry and technology, along with their philosophy, science, and art, had no rival; the world was theirs and theirs alone.

A century later, all was changed: Peoples of European descent had fallen to less than 9 percent of the world’s population; their lands were everywhere inundated by non-Whites; their industry and technology outsourced to potential enemies; their state, social system, and media taken over by parasitic aliens; and, in the deepest demographic sense, they faced the not-too-distant prospect of biological extinction.

To understand this catastrophic inversion requires some understanding of the period responsible for it. We’re fortunate that after a lifetime studying its key movements, Dominique Venner, our greatest identitarian historian, has set out to chart its biopolitical contours.

Before the Deluge

As a historical (rather than a chronological) period, the twentieth century begins in 1914, with the onset of the First World War, whose devastating assault on European existence shook the continent in every one of its foundations, destroying not just its ancien régime, but ushering in what Ernst Nolte calls the “European Civil War” of 1917-45 or what some call the “Thirty Years War” of 1914-45. For amidst its storms of fire and steel, there emerged four rival ideologies — American liberalism, Russian Communism, Italian Fascism, and German National Socialism — each of whose ambition was to reshape the postwar order according to its own scheme for collective salvation. Our world, Venner argues, is a product of these contentious ambitions and of the ideological system — liberalism — that prevailed over its rivals.

Before the war of 1914 political ideologies lacked the “religious” fervor of their twentieth-century counterparts. Europe then was more than a geographic assortment of different peoples and states identified with different political creeds. It constituted a single biocivilization (a Race-Nation), whose ethnonational variants embodied alternative facets of the genetic-spiritual legacy bequeathed by the Greeks, the Aryans, and the Cro Magnons. Not a single great phenomenon experienced by any one European people, it followed, was not also experienced by the others: From the megalithic culture of the stone age, to medieval chivalry, to the rise of nationalism. In the modern period, the ties of blood and spirit linking the different European nations took institutional form in the Westphalian state system of 1648, which, with the exception of the revolutionary period (1789-1815), limited their numerous wars and conflicts to family disputes.

The greatest casualty of what contemporaries called the Great War would be the destruction of this system — and of the aristocratic elites who were its incarnation.

On the war’s eve, the aristocracy still represented that historic body whose function was to command, to fight, and to defend. In fact, in one form or another, it had always dominated European life — at least since the Aryans, that offshoot of the White race whose existence was premised on the rule of the “noble.” Though property-based and attached to the permanences of family, tradition, and rank, the pre-war aristocracy bore little resemblance to the decadent hereditary ruling class of liberal historiography. For Venner, it was, as an ideal type, an ever-renewing estate infused with the spirit of honor, duty, and loyalty to what was highest in White existence. As such, it typified its people’s essence, associating nobility with those who put their people’s interests before their own.

Except for republican France and Switzerland, all of Europe’s pre-war monarchical and imperial states were governed by aristocrats, whose Prussian spirit exalted simplicity, austerity, duty, and political incorruptibility. Against the leveling aspersions cast by liberals and democrats, Venner emphasizes the aristocracy’s dynamic, modernist, and genial character — opposed in essence to bourgeois democratic societies, which subordinate everyone to money (the realm of the Jews).

Cataclysm

No one in 1914 quite understood the type of the war they had gotten into. All the general staffs anticipated a short, decisive engagement like the “cabinet wars” of the eighteenth and ninteenth centuries — not realizing it might resemble the American War of Succession, whose closing stages anticipated the “Second-Generation War” of 1914 (a generation of war based on massed firepower, where “artillery conquers, infantry occupies”).

Though a traditional conflict between rival states at the start, by 1917, once the United States entered it, the war had been transformed not just into an industrial and social mobilization of unprecedented scope, but into an ideological crusade between democratic and authoritarian regimes. Worse, the democratic crusaders wouldn’t let the war end the way previous European wars had ended, when the jus publicum europaeum of the Westphalian system mitigated White strife and ensured the integrity of rival states. In the absence of this noble restraint, Europe was mutilated at its core: Nine million combatants were killed, the Hohenzollern, Hapsburg, and Romanov empires shattered, and an even greater hecatomb prepared for the next generation.

In the glow of this holocaust, Woodrow Wilson, the American champion of an anti-aristocratic, anti-European “democratism,” stepped upon the Old World’s stage to proclaim a new order based on liberal governance, free markets, and the egalitarian principle that the sovereign individual takes precedence over community, culture, history, and (in time) race — an order whose underlying principle rested on the rule of money — and, though Venner doesn’t say it, on money’s Chosen Ones.

The untenable Wilsonian settlement of 1918-19 collapsed soon enough, but it was hastened, in some cases provoked, by its ideological rivals. For Wilson’s plutocratic democracy did not go unopposed. In Russia, Communists proposed a more radically egalitarian version of his liberal utopia, a version whose methods differed from America’s market principles, but nevertheless upheld the same raceless materialist commitments born of Enlightenment liberalism. In Germany and Italy, a defensive Europeanism gave rise to more forthrightly anti-liberal ideologies to challenge the anti-Aryan or Jewish ethic of American capitalism and Russian Communism.

In this spirit, Mussolini’s Fascists called for a strong state exalting “authority, order, and justice” to unite Italian producers and soldiers in a national destiny free of the community-killing forces of liberal individualism and Communist collectivism. In a different way, Hitler’s National Socialists fought for a racial order, a Volksgemeinschaft, to overturn the Diktat of the Wilsonian peace, beat back the liberals’ assault on the body and spirit of the nation, and return Germany to its rightful place on the world stage. Both these movements opposing the anti-White subversions of the Wilsonians and Leninists did so, despite their plebeian-Caesarian politics, in a spirit akin to Europe’s ancient warrior aristocracies, whose tradition exalted personal power and regalian purpose.

Wilson’s Democratism

The focus of Venner’s history is the interwar struggle between liberalism, Communism, Fascism, and National Socialism. The focus in this reading is Wilson’s liberal democratism, whose “mission” it was to champion the plutocratic democracy of American capitalist enterprise, as it endeavored to wipe the historical slate clean of its European (especially its German and Catholic) accouterments.

Wilson’s crusading democratism stemmed from the dominant Puritan strain of America’s national tradition. Having settled their New Israel far from the morally compromised Europe they had fled and having identified their election with economic success, the Puritans defined themselves not in terms of their ancestor’s blood and heritage, but (once the spirit of capitalism overwhelmed their Protestant ethic) in terms of the Lockean “pursuit of happiness” — the very notion of which was alien to any sense of history and destiny. Such a Hebraic form of Christianity imbued the Wilsonians with the belief that their system was not only more virtuous than that of other peoples, but that it made them immune to their failings. (Though formally a Southerner, Wilson’s approach to Europe followed in the steps of earlier Northeastern Yankee elites, whose secularized Puritanism, in the form of Unitarian/Social Gospel humanism, motivated their century long assault on the religious and racial practices of the American South.)

The clash between aristocratic and democratic values — between Europe and America — reflected, of course, a more profound clash. Venner explains it in terms of Oswald Spengler’s Prussianism and Socialism (1919), which argues that the sixteenth-century Reformation produced two opposed visions of Protestant Christianity — the Calvinism of the English and the Lutheran Pietism of the Germans. The German vision rejected the primacy of wealth, comfort, and happiness, exalting the soldier’s aristocratic spirit and the probity this spirit nurtured in Prussian officialdom. English Protestants, by contrast, privileged wealth (a sign of election) and the external freedoms necessary to its pursuit. This made it a secularizing, individualistic, and above all economic “religion,” with each individual having the right to interpret the Book in his own light and thus to justify whatever it took to succeed.

Given England’s influence on America’s formation, Venner sees an analogous process at work in the United States. In the twentieth century, this process took the form of a money-driven variant of Calvinism, whose impetus has been to enfranchise those Puritan/Jewish/liberal/New Class projects that have been such a bane to white existence in the twentieth century: Those projects proposing a rupture with the past, the destruction of historic identities, and the creation of a new world where everything was possible — a new world where Jerusalem takes precedent over Athens, where the Brotherhood of Man is proclaimed with ethnocidal conviction, and America is celebrated as an anti-Europe.

So armed, the Wilsonians set out to destroy Europe’s ancient empires and aristocracies.

The New World

The war’s Wilsonian settlement (premised on the lie of German war guilt) left the traditional order in ruins, but, of even greater consequence, it prepared Europeans for future catastrophes, preeminently the Second World War (1939-45) — which would subject them to Soviet and American occupation and to a Judeo-corporate system intent on de-Europeanizing them by re-programming their morals and mentalities, deconstructing their thought and art, decolonizing their Asian and African empires, and eventually opening their gates to the Third World. The destruction of Europe’s aristocratic heritage had, in effect, been prelude to the ensuing assault on its blood and spirit.

Before the US entered the new world war set off by the failures of the Wilsonian peace, the promulgation of the Atlantic Charter (August 1941) called for another liberal crusade. In this spirit, the Charter’s democratic principles envisioned a postwar order based on monied interests, Anglo-American commerce, and liberal democracy — the foundations of which have become the present anti-White system. As an alliance combining the democratists’ most starry-eyed ideals and hard-headed interests, the US led coalition (the “United Nations”) aimed at destroying not just German Nazism, but the German nation, whose Prussian spirit rebuked everything the Wilsonians represented.

Eisenhower’s “Crusade in Europe” was accordingly waged with a ferocity unknown in European history. The two extra-European powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, were thus each ideologically committed to uprooting whatever remained of Europe’s living heritage. Their “anti-fascist” crusade was especially intent on criminalizing the Entente powers and the European values they embodied. The Nuremberg trials following the war would be the most conspicuous example of this crusading anti-Europeanism, but so too was the Allies’ effort to hunt down, silence, or kill their wartime opponents and to level Europe’s inherently anti-egalitarian order. (In France alone, 600,000 people were imprisoned following the “Liberation” and more than 40,000 summarily executed.)

Broken, demoralized, occupied, Europe in 1945 was ripe for re-education. The occupying powers’ culpablizing crusade would be especially effective in overcoming resistance to the new liberal utopia, even after the former allies embarked on their so-called Cold War (1947-89). Revealingly, American democratists were qualitatively more subversive than their more racially-conscious Russian counterparts. In the western half of the postwar’s US-SU Condominium, the culpabilitization of defeated Germany was extended to all of Western and Central Europe. (In the language of our little black brothers and sisters, original sin now became “a white thing.”) Europeans were henceforth expected to do penance for having once been powerful and creative, for having founded empires, for privileging rank, nobility, and valor, but above all for having been White and favored their own interests at the expense of Jews and other non-Europeans. The very idea of a White or European identity would, in fact, be treated hereafter as a pathology.

Japan, by contrast, suffered no such culpabilitization — not only because it experienced less of it, but also because Japanese culture refused to accept the victors’ image of itself. The culpabilitization of Europeans was so effective not simply because of the occupiers’ unchallenged power, but because it converged with a secularizing Christianity (a Judeo-Christianity?), whose Concordant with Caesar’s realm now sought to turn Europe’s former self-confidence into a form of self-loathing. The “irony” of this culpability (if irony is the word) was that the Europeans’ alleged guilt was a fraud: They had had no monopoly on so-called “crimes against humanity.” (The Anglo-American carpet bombing of civilians and the indiscriminate destruction of Europe’s great cities, the mass population transfers, the organized starvation campaigns, the unprecedented horrors associated with Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki — nothing of this affected the anti-European balance of Allied justice or brought Russian, English, or American war criminals into the dockets).

The Iron Cage

Following the Cold War, in which Europeans were mere spectators, a new view of history was programmed for popular consumption: The view that saw the history of twentieth-century Europe in terms of its struggle for the cause of Holy Democracy, with its market utopia of general prosperity, the limitless liberties of its private life, the glories of its occupiers’ Semitically fabricated mass culture, and its rainbow mixture of diverse races and cultures.

Accordingly, the Soviets’ command economy and totalitarian controlled society gave way after 1989 not to utopia, but to a system animated by the forces of consumption, bureaucracy, spectacle, and sex. For though the democratists’ methods differed from those of the Communists, they too aspired to a raceless economic paradise and, to that end, now resort to totalitarian measures to criminalize, demonize, or pathologize whoever opposes their subversions.

In 1920, in his most famous book, Max Weber pointed out that a modernity subject solely to the market’s economic criteria engenders a ruthless rationalization of human life — what he called “the iron cage.” Venner argues that since 1945 Washington has imposed its version of the iron cage on Europe.

This has especially been the case in the European Union (EU). Though the idea of unification was an old one, Wilson’s heirs favored a model geared not just to Europe’s democratic re-education, but to its transformation into a US economic protectorate, closely integrated into the transnational super-structures which Washington and New York set in place during the course of the Cold War. The Marshall Plan, for example, dictated greater economic cooperation and integration centered on US regulated international trade, while Jean Monnet, the principal architect of the “common market,” was a Wall Street insider, friend to New York Jewish banking interests. Then, after America’s cat paw, Britain, entered the EU in 1972, Europe’s homegrown democratists (”the American Party” which has governed Europe since 1945) gave themselves over entirely to the liberal project, turning Europe into a free-trade zone subject to purely economic consideration. In this spirit, they now define Europe in anti-political (i.e., liberal) terms indifferent to all those historic, traditionalist, and national barriers obstructing the race-mixing imperatives of their monetary reign.

Venner calls the global order born of post-1945 Wilsonianism a “cosmocracy.” The cosmopolitan plutocracy of this cosmocracy, which became globally hegemonic after Communism’s collapse, makes the nation state obsolete, denationalizes its elites, and racially mixes incompatible peoples and cultures in the name of an abstract, quantitatively-defined Humanity indifferent to the survival of European peoples. Heir to liberalism’s inherent cosmopolitanism, as well as to Communist internationalism and the Judeo-Christian distortion of White identity, the collective culpabilitization that has been used since 1945 to manipulate the European conscience remains one of the cosmocracy’s most important supports. For to deflect criticism and squelch resistance, liberals and ex-Communists (whose chief distinction is their indifference to race, breeding, and every qualitative ascriptions resistant to the Judeo-liberal conception of democracy) need only appeal to their “anti-hate” laws and “human rights” to silence whoever challenges their inquisitional reign.

 

 

Having been guilty of the Holocaust, colonialism, and other so-called forms of racism, Europeans are now expected to open their arms to the refuse of the overpopulated Third World. The colored invasion now transforming Europe is gradually compelling Europeans to awake to what is happening to them and to take steps, however tentative at this point, toward the Reconquest of their imperiled homeland. But no one in their “democratic” ruling elites — these bloodless executors of that transnational super structure whose Hebraic spirit champions the interests of the Bilderbergers and Trilaterals, the established parties, the MSM, the NGOs, and the universities, whose guiding arm is the Jewish dominated banking system headquartered in New York, and whose principal geopolitical orientation is the Washington-London-Tel Aviv axis — no one in these elites has the slightest understanding of what is happening under their very noses, seemingly oblivious or indifferent to what the importation of millions of Africans and Asians means to Europe.

Fortunately for Europe’s scattered remnant (and it was a remnant that reconquered Spain), the cosmocracy is creating a crisis of such massive proportion that it is likely to provoke a catastrophic collapse that will give Whites one last chance to regain control of their destiny.

The Beginning that Stands Before Us

Europeans after 1945 fell into dormition, losing all consciousness of who they were as a people. Like Germans after the original Thirty Years Wars (1618-48), their thirty-year blood expenditure left them totally depleted, forcing them off the historical stage and into the arms of everything that today threatens their existence.

Dormition, though, is not death. This seems especially the case in that the democratists’ utopia has come to rest on increasingly uncertain foundations. Its objective failures, I think it is fair to argue, are more and more imposing themselves on the collective consciousness, while, subjectively, Europe’s once cowed and beaten nations are gradually beginning to reject the democratists’ cosmopolitan agenda, as national-populist parties snip away at the authority of the established regime. The rebellion of May 2005, in which the French, then the Dutch electorates, rejected the proposed EU constitution — and did so against all the concerted forces of the existing system — was a revenge of sorts on May 1945 and on the Judeo-liberal vision of a Europe indifferent to its own genetic-cultural heritage. Other, more meaningful rebellions have also begun to stir.

Bad as things have become, there is thus still reason for hope. Venner stresses that history never ends — wars are never decisively won. Fukuyama had no sooner proclaimed “the end of history” — the undisputed triumph of Wilson’s market model of world order — than Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations predicted that the end of the Cold War’s ideological strife would lead to even more apocalyptic conflicts.

Few defeats, then, are irredeemable, but only as long as the defeated remain heroic: For our vision of the past (our vision of who we were) inevitably shapes what we are to become. Venner’s study is cause, though, not for optimism, but for caution and circumspection. Every European of good stock, he claims, cannot but admire the reckless heroism of Homer’s Achilles, but the greatest Homeric hero is Ulysses — Ulysses of the thousand guises, who used all his patience and cunning to regain his home.

Historically, resistance, reconquest, and renaissance are the Ulyssean work of small groups bound by the asceticism of ancient military orders and inspired by a will for action, thought, and decision. Not coincidentally, the struggles such groups wage create new aristocracies, for war is the most merciless of the selective forces. Only this, Venner believes, will enable us to regain our lands and all that we once were.

As Europeans enter the twenty-first century, one thing alone seems clear: The future will not resemble the present. The unimaginable is already waiting in the wings. But though history is full of the unforeseeable, the forces of culture, race, and history never cease to weight on a people’s destiny, as they intersect with present circumstance to affect the future’s course. In this Venner finds hope. For his Europe (which has existed for 30,000 years) is the Europe whose spirit struggles for all that is noble.

Source: VNN, 21 June 2007.

Robert Steuckers: Answers given to the Scandinavian Group "Oskorei"

Robert Steuckers:

Answers Given to the Scandinavian Group and Internet Forum “Oskorei / motpol.nu”)

 

Picture: Walking along Heidegger's path in Todtnauberg, Germany, July 2010 (Photo, copyright: AnaR).

 

Why did you found « Synergies Européennes » ?

 

Initially I had no intention to found any group or subgroup in the broad family of New Right clubs and caucuses. But as, for many reasons, cooperation with the French branch around Alain de Benoist seemed to be impossible to resume, I first decided to retire completely and to devote myself to other tasks, such as translations or private teaching. This transition period of disabused withdrawal lasted exactly one month and one week (from December 6^th, 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 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 “euro-synergies.hautetfort.com” in seven languages with new texts every day and with “vouloir.hautetfort.com” 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. Postage costs were in the end too high to let the printed stuff survive. The efforts of our American friend Greg Johnson, excellent translator from French into English, has opened us new horizons in the world, where English is more largely known than other European languages, except Spanish. The translations of Greg can be read on “counter-currents.com”. Tomislav Sunic with all his connections in the New World, in England and Scandinavia has played a key role in this step forward. He will force me to write in English in the next future, just as you do now, and to abandon my habit to write mainly in French and sometimes in German, languages that I master better that English. The next long interview in English will be the one that Pavel Tulaev submitted to me some days ago (January 2011). In fact, when I entered as a full member the New Right groups in September 1980, after having been drilled during a special summer course in Provence in July 1980 in the frame of the so-called “Temistoklès Savas Promotion” (T. Savas was a Greek friend who had just died in a motorbike accident in the Northern Greek mountains), I promised to Prof. Pierre Vial, who was at that time one of the main leaders of the celebrated GRECE-group, to lead a metapolitical battle till my last breath. So things are still going on as they ought to.

 

The marvellous water bridge of Rocquevafour were formerly the GRECE Summer Courses were given

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.

 

Provence village of Lourmarin where three Summer courses of "Synergies Européennes" were held

 

How do you view the proper relationship between the national state and the European Community?

 

Well, it depends which national state you are talking about. Some states have a strong political personality, born out of their own history. Others are remnants of former greater empires, like many states in Central Europe, which once upon a time were parts of the Austrian-Hungarian Habsburgs Empire. France, Britain and Sweden, for instance, have such a well-defined strong personality. Belgium, the country in which I was born, is a more or less artificial state, being a remnant entity of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and of the medieval German Holy Roman Empire but having been strongly under the influence of France due to the use of French language in the Southern part of the kingdom and among the elites, even in Flemish speaking provinces. Croatia has been part of the Hungarian Crown’s Lands within the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and still desires to have closer links with Austria, Germany and Italy. Bosnia cultivates both the nostalgia of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and of the Ottoman Empire. The Netherlands has certainly a stronger identity than Belgium or Croatia but this identity has the tendency to develop in two very different directions: a see-oriented direction towards Britain and the United States, or a land-oriented direction towards Germany and Flanders in Belgium. Countries with a weaker identity have the tendency to be more pro-European than the ones that have this strong history born personality I’ve just mentioned. But on the other hand Britain is experimenting nowadays a process of devolution, especially in Scotland and in a lesser extent in Wales. France is still theoretically the embodiment of a strongly centralised state but regional and local identities are flourishing as an alternative to the official universalistic ideology of the “République”, leading to a compelled acceptation of mass immigration imposed to the native populations, that, as a result, instinctively take up local or regional roots, which look more genuine and gentle, being seen as in complete accordance with one’s “deepest heart”.

 

To theorise the “proper relationship” between the national state and the European Union, you have to look out for a functioning model, in which several types of identities, be they linguistic or confessional, are overlapping and displaying a kind of mosaic patchwork on a smaller scale than Europe, which is obviously such a patchwork, especially in its central continental areas. The only functioning model we have is the Swiss model. This democratic model was born in an intersection area in the middle of the European continent, where three main European languages and one local language meet as well as two different Christian faiths, Protestantism and Catholicism, Swiss Protestantism being once more divided between Lutherans in German speaking Basle and Calvinist in French speaking Geneva, with remnants of Zwingli’s Protestantism around Zurich. Most German speaking Swiss are otherwise Roman Catholics, while most French speaking Swiss are Protestants except in the Canton of Jura. To coordinate optimally all these differences, what could lead to endless conflicts, the Swiss political system invented a form of federalism that allowed people to live in peace while keeping their differences alive. This could be a model for all European states and for regions within these states. The federal level in Switzerland is a “slim” and efficient level. Most matters are left in the hands of local politicians and officials. Moreover the Swiss system foresees the referendum as a decision making instrument at both federal and cantonal levels. The people can introduce a claim at local or national level, leading to the organisation of a referendum for all kind of matters: the building of a bridge, ecological problems, introduction or suppression of a railway or a bus connection, etc. In 2009 and in 2010, two referendums took place at federal level: the first one was introduced by a rightist populist party to forbid the building of minarets in Swiss cities and towns, in accordance to the very old ecological and town-planning laws of the Swiss Confederation, mostly accepted or introduced by leftist “progressive” political forces in former times. In November 2010, also very recently, people voted to expel all criminal foreigners out of the country, avoiding in this way the most painful effects of mass immigration. Such people’s initiatives would be impossible in other European countries, despite the fact that expelling criminals cannot be considered as “racist” (as non criminal foreigners cannot be expelled) or as hostile to particular religious faiths, as no religion tolerates crimes as acceptable patterns of behaviour.

 

Therefore, the possible adoption of this Swiss model, beyond its latest anti-immigration aspects, would allow other European peoples to vote in order to coin a policy-making decision about actual problems and so to avoid being arrogantly ordained by ukases imagined by the fertile fantasy of Eurocratic eggheads in Brussels. The adoption of the Swiss model implies of course to reduce most of the biggest states in Europe into smaller entities or to adopt a federal system like in Spain, Austria, Belgium or Germany, plus the possibility to organise referendums like in Switzerland, as this is not the case in the otherwise complete federal states I’ve just mentioned. This is a lack of democracy. The main problem would be France, where this kind of federalism and of democracy has never been introduced. Nevertheless, the demand for the referendum system is growing in France, as you can read it on www.polemia.com, where former New Right exponent Yvan Blot is currently resuming all his ideas, suggestions and critics about this topic.

 

Picture: The Splügenpass at the Italian-Swiss boarder where Synergon's Summer Course 1996 was held (Photo: RS)

 

The introducing of a general federal system in Europe with broad devolution within the existing states is not accepted everywhere. In Italy, where the federalist Lega Nord is continuously successful in the Northern provinces of the country, partisans of a strong state argue that a balkanization in the disguise of a general federalisation would weaken many state’s instruments that have been firmly settled in former times and enable the present-day state foundations or practices to avoid absorption by globalist American-lead agencies or concerns. This is of course an actual risk. So all the state institutions having been developed in Europe to enhance autarky (self-sufficiency) at whatever level possible must be kept out of any dissolution process implied by any form of devolution.

 

A policy consisting of introducing a referendum to avoid people being crushed by too centralised states or by eurocrats, of a devolution allowing this genuine form of democracy to be established everywhere and of keeping alive all institutions aiming at self-sufficiency was perhaps the hope of Solzhenitsyn for his dear old Russia. Such a policy ought to be made secure according to historical Russian and Swiss models, but cannot of course be implemented by the current political personnel. Needless to say that such a personnel is corrupt but not only that. It is brainwashed and duped by all kind of silly ready-made ideologies or blueprints, invented mostly in American think tanks, their European counter-parts and the main media agencies. To summarize it, these ideologies aim at weakening the societies by mocking their traditional patterns of behaviour, at generalizing the ideological assets of neo-liberalism in order to let globalization be thoroughly implemented in every corner of the world and at reducing Europe to remain once for ever a disguised colony of the United States.

 

Therefore, there is the need to replace such a deceiving personnel by new teams in every European country. These new teams cannot be the usual populist alternative parties as they are mostly unaware of the dangers of neo-liberalism, i.e. the new universalistic ideology suggested and imposed by the most dangerous think tanks of the left and of the establishment: from the camouflaged Trotskites within the social-democratic parties to the “new philosophers” in France, who paved the way to a subtle mixture of “political correctness”, apparent libertarianism, an apparently vehement and staunch defence of the human rights, avowed antifascism and anticommunism (communism being the result of a worship of mostly German “thought masters” (“maîtres-à-penser”) like Hegel  or Marx). The usual populist parties never managed to develop a discourse about and against this real danger jeopardizing Europe’s future. They were each time trapped by one aspect or another of this subtle mixture, especially all the anticommunist aspects.

 

A “new team” should give following answer to the now well-established official ideology of the main medias:

-          A defence of the social systems in Europe or of an adaptation/modernization of them, erasing the corruptions that deposited during several decades; the model would be of course the partnership existing since the foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany between workers and bosses; the investment model called the “Rhine Model” by the French thinker Michel Albert, where the capital is permanently invested in new technologies, in Research & Development, in academic think tanks, etc. The defence of the so-called socialist social systems in Europe aims essentially at preserving the families’ patrimony (especially modest working-class families because it gives them a safe security net in case of recession), at securing the future of the school and academic networks (now disintegrating under the iron heel of the banksters’ neoliberalism) and at securing a free and good functioning medical system in all European countries. It has often been said that the “non merchant sectors” were suffering due to all kind of imposed shortages (in the name of an alleged economic efficiency) and to the poor salaries earned by teaching or medical personnel. The “anti-shopkeeper” mentality of the so-called “right” or “new right” is an old heritage linking us to the ideals of the Scotsman Thomas Carlyle and the American poet Ezra Pound. If we want to translate these core ideas into a political programme, we’ll have to elaborate in each European country a specific defence of the “non merchant sectors”, as a civilization is measured not by material and transient productions but by the excellence of its medical and academic systems. We always were defenders of the primacy of culture against the iron heel of banks and economics.

The Varese Lake, Lombardia, where Synergon's Seminar 1995 and Synergon's Summer Course 2000 was held

 

-          The notion of human rights, as they are propagated by the mainstream medias and by the official American think tanks, is a would-be universalistic ideology, aiming at replacing all the old messianic faiths, be they a religious bias or a Hegelian or Marxist tinted ideology (“the main narratives” of Jean-François Lyotard). But the mainstream notion of human rights are not merely an ideology, it is an instrument fabricated by strategists at the time of President Jimmy Carter, in order to have a constant opportunity to meddle in the affairs of alien countries, in order to weaken them (a strategy already suggested by Sun Tzu). The Chinese could observe very early that drift from a pious reference to human rights towards manipulation and subversion and reacted in arguing that every civilization should be permitted to adapt the notion of human rights to its own core cultural patterns. If the Chinese have the right to adapt, why wouldn’t we Europeans not be entitled to give our own interpretation of human rights within the frame of our own civilization? And above all to be allowed to make a clear distinction, when human rights are evoked, between what is genuine in the true defence of citizens’ rights and obligations and what is the result of an offensive attack perpetrated by an alien “soft power” in order to destabilize our countries’ policy in whatever matters. We should have the courage to denounce every abuse in the manipulating of the human rights’ topic when they are solemnly summoned up only in order to promote any American imperialist project in Europe, as, for instance, the war against Yugoslavia in 1999 was. The justification put forward to start this war was the so-called breach of human rights committed by the Serbian government against the Albanians composing the majority of Kosovo’s population. But in the end it brought to power an infamous gang in this American-backed secessionist province of Kosovo, currently accused of trafficking human organs, weapons and prostitutes. Where are the rights of the people having been bereft of their organs by force or of the poor girls attracted by seducing work contracts in Western Europe, then beaten, locked up in some dreary cellar and finally forced to be on the game? All the media orchestrated humbug about human rights promoted by Carter, Clinton and Albright ended exactly in the worst breaches in common law, that were deleterious for thousands and thousands of victims. The American discourse about human rights is deceitfulness and cant and nothing else. The real purpose was to establish a gigantic military base in Kosovo, namely “Camp Bondsteel”, in order to replace the abandoned bases in Germany after the Cold War and the German reunification and to occupy the Balkans, an area which, since Alexander the Great, allows every audacious conqueror to control Anatolia and all areas beyond it, namely Iraq and Persia. A “new team” in Europe should ceaselessly stigmatize and vilify these abuses and clearly tell the public opinion of their respective countries what are the real purposes behind each American human rights policy. The “new team” should work a bit like Noam Chomsky in the United States, who indefatigably reveals what is Washington’s hidden agenda in every part of the world.

 

To adopt a Swiss model with referendum at local and national level, to reject vehemently the anti-autarky policies induced by the neo-liberal ideology and economical theory, to reject also the mainstream bias of “political correctness” and to perceive the real geopolitical and strategic intentions hidden behind each American step are not capabilities that the political personnel in Europe can currently display. Therefore you won’t have a proper relationship between the national states (and the people as an ethnic reality) and the highest institutions of the European Union, as long as a fooled political pseudo-elite is ruling these latest. You need “new teams” to induce a “proper relationship”.            

 

What is your analysis of the current European Union and it’s future and potential?

 

The answer to the question you ask here could be the stuff of a whole book. Indeed to answer it properly and in a complete way, you need to evoke the all story of the European integration process, starting with the founding act of the CECA/EGKS, i.e. the “European Community of Coal and Steel”, in 1951. After that you had the “Treaty of Rome” in 1957, launching the so-called “Common Market” and, later, the “Treaty of Maastricht” and the “Treaty of Lisbon”.  It seems useless to resume now the entire history of the European “Eurocratic” institutions, especially at a present time when they are totally degenerated by liberal and neo-liberal ideas that of course weaken them and make them in a certain way superfluous. The core idea at the very beginning was to create an “autonomous market”, leading to a certain autarky, which was absolutely possible when the six founding countries possessed large parts of Africa and could so exploit the most important industrial and mineral resources. The decolonization and the support that the United States provided to the independence movements in Africa bereft Europe of a direct access to the main resources. The core idea of an autarky within a certain “Eurafrican” commonwealth has no real significance anymore. This new situation could already have been foreseen in October 1956 when the United States tolerated (and indirectly supported) the Soviet invasion of Hungary despite the opinion of their main allies in Europe and condemned the French-British intervention in Egypt. The year 1956 announced the fate of Europe: the European powers had no right to intervene within Europe itself, as Hungary had freed itself from Soviet yoke and as the treaties signed after 1945 foresaw the withdrawal of all Soviet troops out of the country after some months. The European powers, including Britain, had no right anymore to intervene in Africa in order to keep order.

 

The decolonization process left Europe without a necessary “Ergänzungsraum”, i. e. a “complementary space”, that could be administrated from European capitals and give African people the efficiency of well drilled executives, what they lack since then, precipitating the whole Black continent into a terrible misery. But autarky doesn’t mean the direct access to mineral resources: it means first of all “food autarky”. Few European countries are (or were at the end of the 80s, just before the collapse of the Soviet block) really independent at food level or are now able to produce food excesses. Only Sweden, Hungary, France and Denmark were. For the excellent French demographist Gaston Bouthoul Denmark is the best example of a well-balanced agriculture. This small Scandinavian country is able to produce food excesses that make of it an “agricultural superpower” in Europe: one should simply remember that Danish peasants furnished 75% of the food for the German Wehrmacht during WW2. Without the Danish food excesses, Hitler’s armies wouldn’t have resisted so long in Russia, in Northern Africa and in the West (Italy).

Perugia, Umbria (Italy) where the common "New Right" Conference (with Dr. Marco Tarchi, Dr. Alessandro Campi, Alain de Benoist, Michael Walker and Robert Steuckers) was held in February 1991 and where Synergon's Summer Course 1999 took place

 

The core idea of autarky survived quite long within the European institutions. We should remember the last plan trying to materialise autarky, the so-called “Plan Delors”, proposing a policy of large scaled public works and of favouring telecommunications and public transports within the EU area. The EU has no future if it remains what American economists called “a penetrated system” at the time of the Weimar Republic in Germany when American big business tried a disguised colonisation of the defeated Reich through the Young and Dawes Plans. The EU is now a penetrated system where not only American multinationals are carving important segments of the inner European market but also the new Chinese State’s companies and where the textile industry is now entirely dependant from delocalized factories settled in Turkey or Pakistan. Unemployment reaches astronomical figures in Europe because of delocalisation.

 

Recently the German weekly magazine “Der Spiegel” has published figures showing that Europe is experimenting now a real decay. More and more European countries are leaving the hit parade of the 20 most important economies on the world. The results of the PISA inquiry about the levels reached by school systems reveals also a general decay of the European standards. University teacher and former student and translator of Carl Schmitt, Julien Freund, thought us in his important book “La fin de la Renaissance” (1981) that decay comes when you begin to hate yourself, to despise what you are and to abhor your own past. The whole “Vergangenheitsbewältigung” not only in Germany but in all European countries, where children and teenagers are subtly induced to loathe themselves and their fatherlands, has repercussions on the general economics of the entire continent. The EU can only survive when it finds its ideological roots again, i. e. the very notion of autarky. Otherwise the process of decay will amplify tremendously and lead to the complete disappearance of the European peoples and civilisation. In this process the EU area may become, as a kind of new “Eurabia” or Euro-Turkey or Afro-Europe, an appendix of a “Transatlantic Union” under US leadership. 

 

Well, let us now turn to the real question, the question that matters. Are we socialists or not? If we are, what’s the difference between us and the conventional socialists or social democrats?  What’s the difference between the synergist anti-liberal with his New Right background and the Marxist or Post-Marxist we find in all the parliaments in Europe and of course in the European Parliament where they constitute the second main group after the Christian Democrats of the EPP? Well, the conventional socialists would say that they get their inspiration from their holy icon Marx and from his followers of the 2^nd International, even if a born-again Marx would fiercely mock their liberal and permissive bias with the acidity he always used to lash verbally his foes. The problem is that the socialism of the direct heirs of the 2^nd International is a type of socialism without a frame, consisting mainly of irresponsible promises emitted by cynical politicians in order to grasp as many mandates or seats as possible. Long before Marx wrote his well-known communist manifesto, there was an economical genius in Germany called Friedrich List, who opposed the free trade ideology of Britain at that time. Free trade meant in the first half of the 19^th Century a generalized colonial system in the entire world, where Britain would have been the world only workshop or factory, while the rest would have remained underdeveloped only producing raw materials for the Sheffield or Manchester mills. Included all European countries of course. List asserted that every country had the genuine right to develop its own territorial assets. As the British fleet was the instrument enabling the British Crown to be ubiquitous and reach the harbours on all shores where it could get the raw materials and sell the products of England’s factories, List suggested an inner development of all countries in the world by inner colonization (fertilization and cultivation of all abandoned lands), building of railways and canals in order to boost communications. List inspired the German government under the leading of Bismarck, the small Belgian kingdom which was an economical power having experimented an actual industrial revolution immediately after Britain, the French positivists for the necessity of starting an inner agricultural colonization of the former Gallic mainland and above all the US government that had to face the huge problem of developing the gigantic land space between the Atlantic and the Pacific. List is the intellectual father of the Transcontinental Railway and of the canals linking the Lakes and the Saint Lawrence River. He is the real intellectual father of the industrial power of the United States. On the other hand he inspired anti-colonialists in the former Third World, especially India and China: Gandhi, who wanted the Indians to cultivate cotton and weave their own clothes with it, and Dr. Sun Ya Tsen, founder of the Chinese Republic in 1911, were more or less inspired by List’s theories and practical suggestions. The Chinese National-Republican economist Kai Sheng Chen, who theorized the very important notion of  “armed economy”, was a pupil of List and of Ludendorff, who adapted the peaceful ideas of List in the context of WW1. Taiwan and South Korea have proved that Kai Sheng Chen’s ideas can be successfully realized.

 

In the present-day United States the caucus around Lyndon LaRouche has produced an excellent analysis of the opposition between the Free Trade system and List’s practical views of a world of free autarkic areas. You can find a long documentary on the Internet about this dual interpretation given by the LaRouche’s group. Many Europeans would of course object that LaRouche’s vision of the economical history of the Western World during these two last centuries is quite over-simplified. Of course it is. But the core of this interpretation is correct and sound, whereas the over-simplification made of the all corpus a good didactical instrument. There is indeed an opposition between Free Trade (neo-liberalism, reaganomics, thatcherite economics, Chicago Boys, Hayek’s theories, etc.) and List’s idea of a harmonious juxtaposition of autarkies on the world map. The LaRouche caucus never quotes List (as far as I know) and says Lincoln and McKinley were opponents to the Free Trade, a position that, according to Lyndon LaRouche, explains their assassinations. Both were killed after a plot aiming at cancelling all political steps towards a North American autarkist system. Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were supporters of the Free Trade system and of a British-American alliance along the lines theorized by an almost forgotten proponent of geopolitics, Homer Lea, author of a key book, “The Day of the Saxons”. Lea, having got a degree in West Point, had been dismissed for medical reasons and turned to pure theory, advocating an eternal alliance of Britain and the United States. We can read in his book today the general principles of a control of the South Asian “rimlands” by both Anglo-Saxon sea powers, especially Afghanistan, and of a control of the Low Countries and Denmark to avoid any push forward of Germany in the direction of the North Sea or any push forward of France in the direction of the harbours of Antwerp and Rotterdam.

 

The LaRouche caucus aims obviously at emphasizing the role in history of some icon figures of America like Abraham Lincoln of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Nevertheless Free Trade and Continental Autarky are truly a couple of opposites that you cannot deny, even if the binary antagonism isn’t certainly so sharp as explained by LaRouche’s team. For instance, it is true that F. D. Roosevelt started his career as a US President by launching the huge project of the “Tennessee Valley”, foreseeing the building of a series of colossal dams to tame the violent waters of the Tennessee, Mississippi and Missouri rivers. The New Deal and the “Tennessee Valley Project” were distinctly continental purposes but they were torpedoed by the proponents of Free Trade, who in the end imposed a new Free Trade policy, an alliance with Britain, despite the fact that Chamberlain tried to create an inner Commonwealth autarky. This shift in Roosevelt’s policy lead to war with Japan and Germany because the failure of the New Deal policy implied to choose for exportations and to abandon the project of developing the inner Northern American market. If you have to prevent other areas in the world to develop their own closed markets, you must destroy them, according to the good old colonial logics, and get them as exportation markets. So the United States were doomed to destroy the European system of the Germans and the “Co-Prosperity Sphere of East Asia” under the leadership of Japan.

 

To summarize our position, let us remember that Russia developed and came out of underdevelopment under the “Continental Project” of Serguei Witte and Arkady Stolypin, who were either dismissed after a gossip campaign or assassinated by a crazy revolutionist. China after its communist isolation under Mao turned to a form of autarkist model under Deng Xiao Ping, leading the country to an unchallenged economical success. Putin in Russia is trying, with less success, to adopt the same guidelines. But the “Continental Autarkists” are assembling nowadays under the direction of the informal Shanghai Group or of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China). Europe and the United States will have to adapt in order to avoid complete decay. The key idea to successfully perform this adaptation is the good old project of Friedrich List. And the American can refer to one of his most brilliant students: Lawrence Dennis, who coined a project for “continental autarky”, being influenced by the “continentalist” school of South America, where he lived for a quite long time as a diplomat.

 

The Flemish village of Munkzwalm where many technical meetings and several Spring Courses were held between 1989 and 1995

 

Q.: Is it important for the pro-European activist to be familiar with geopolitics?

 

Of course. If you are a pro-European activist, you should perceive Europe as a geopolitical entity, surrounded by possible foes and having to control militarily its periphery, for instance by preventing the North African states to become sea powers again or to prevent any alien power to provide them sea power tools or missiles able to strike the Mediterranean coasts of Europe. The whole history of Europe is the history of a long defence battle against Barbary Coast pirates and their Ottoman rulers. Once this danger eliminated, Europe could develop and prosper. Nowadays mass immigration within the boarders of European countries replace the external danger of Barbary Coast piracy or of Ottoman threat by introducing parallel economical circuits and mafia systems of drug bosses, the so-called “diaspora mafias”, who weaken the whole social system by literally milking money from the well established European social security system and by earning colossal fortunes from drug dealing (Moroccan cannabis which amounts to 70% of the entire European consumption or Central Asian heroin dispatched by Turkish mafias). The type of danger has changed but comes always from the very next periphery of Europe. Racialist as well as so-called anti-racist arguments are preposterous in such matters, as you don’t need to develop a “racialist argumentation” to criticize mass immigration: you simply have to stress the fact that international authorities like the UNESCO or the UNO have urged the EU to finance alternative crops in Morocco, in order to replace the huge fields of cannabis in the Northern parts of the country by useful plantations. But the money given by the EU has been used to triple the area where cannabis crops are cultivated! So Morocco, the Moroccan citizens or the European citizens of Moroccan origin who trust drugs from the Rif area are lawbreakers in front of the EU, UNESCO and UNO policy. Anti-racist arguments, caucuses and legislations, trying to crush all people criticizing mass immigration, are in fact tools in the hand of the secret lobbies and the drug bosses that try to weaken Europe and to maintain our homelands in a permanent state of debility and decrepitude.

 

For you Swedes, as fellow countrymen of Rudolf Kjellén and Sven Hedin, geopolitics is of course a genuine part of your political and cultural heritage. Moreover the Russian Yuri Semionov, author of a tremendously interesting book on Siberia, was a refugee in Sweden in the Thirties. In Swedish libraries you must find a lot about the first theories on geopolitics (as it was Kjellén who coined the word), about the travelogues of Hedin, explorer of Central Asia and Tibet, and maybe about Semionov’s works. At the very beginning of the so-called New Right project, geopolitics was still taboo. There was certainly an implicit geopolitics among diplomats or generals, which was not genuinely different from the former geopolitical endeavours of the previous decades, but the very word was taboo. You couldn’t talk about geopolitics without being accused of trying to resume Nazi geopolitics, which had been set once for all as “esoteric”. Karl Haushofer, the German pupil of Kjellén, had been depicted as a crazy mystical mage having disguised his belonging to a so-called secret society of the “Green Dragon” behind a weak discourse about history, geography and international affairs. When you read Haushofer and his excellent “Zeitschrift für Geopolitik” (which survived him under the name of “Geopolitik” in the Fifties), you find comments on current affairs, reasonable reflections about frontiers within and outside Europe, interviews of foreign diplomats and excellent analyses about the Pacific area but no pseudo-Chinese or neo-Teutonic esoteric humbug. At the end of the Seventies, things changed. In the United States, Colin S. Gray decided to break definitively the taboo on geopolitics. As an Anglo-Saxon proponent of geopolitics, Gray was of course a pupil of Sir Halford John MacKinder, of Homer Lea and of their pupil Spykman. But he explained that Haushofer’s geopolitics was a continental reaction against MacKinder’s sea power geopolitics. Haushofer was so rehabilitated and could be studied again as a normal proponent of geopolitics and not as a mystical crackpot.

 

In the group of students, who followed the works of the New Right groups in Brussels at the end of the Seventies and was lead by late Alain Derriks, we had of course purchased a copy of Gray’s book but, at the same time, we discovered the book of an Italian general, Guido Giannettini, “Dietro la Grande Muraglia” (“Beyond the Great (Chinese) Wall”). This book was extremely well written, offered simultaneously a historical approach and present-day analyses, and opened wide perspectives. Giannettini had observed how the whole international chessboard had been turned upside down in 1972, when Kissinger and Nixon had coined a new implicit alliance with communist China. Formerly, the American lead Western world had faced a giant Eurasian communist block, embracing China and the USSR, even when the relationship between Moscow and Beijing wasn’t optimal anymore or could even become sometimes frankly antagonist (with a clash between both armies along the River Amur in Far Eastern Siberia). After the defeat of Germany in 1945, Europe had been divided, according to the rules settled at Teheran and Yalta, into a Western part dominated by NATO and an Eastern part under the direction of the Warsaw Pact. At that time Euro-nationalists around my fellow countryman Jean Thiriart, rejected both systems and pleaded for an alliance with China and the Arab world (Egypt, Syria and Iraq) in order to loose the choking entanglement of both NATO and Warsaw Pact. In Thiriart’s clearly outlined strategy for his Europe-wide but tiny movement, Chinese and Arabs would have had for task to keep Americans and Soviets busy outside Europe, so that the pressure would be lighter to bear in Europe and lead, if possible, to a successful liberation movement, aiming at restoring Europe’s independence and sovereignty. When Americans and Chinese joined their forces to contain and encircle Soviet Russia, the wished Euro-Chinese alliance to disentangle Yalta’s yoke in Europe became a sheer impossibility. On the other side, the Arabs were too weak and not interested in a European revival, as they feared a come back of the colonial powers in their area, as during the Suez affair in October 1956. Giannettini’s option for a Euro-Russian block became the only possible choice. Thiriart agreed. So did we. But our views about a possible future Euro-Russian alliance were confused at the very beginning: we couldn’t accept the occupation of Eastern Europe and even less the partition of Germany that is, geographically speaking, the core of Europe. On the other hand, the American disguised occupation was also for us an unacceptable situation, especially after De Gaulle’s breach with NATO and the new independent course in international affairs that it induced, according to Dr. Armin Mohler. After the Israeli victory of June 1967 with the help of Mirage III fighters and bombers, France’s new world policy lead to the exportation of Dassault jet fighters in Latin America, South Africa, India and Australia. It could have generated a new European based aeronautical industry, as in 1975 the Scandinavian and Low Countries air forces had the choice between the Mirage IV, the Saab Viggen jet, a new model produced by a future common French-Swedish project, or the American F-16. European independence was only possible if Europe could build an independent aeronautical industry, based on merges between already existing aeronautical companies. The fact that after corruption affairs the Scandinavian and Low Countries armies opted for the American F-16 jet ruined the possibility of a jointed independent European aeronautical industry. It was the purchase of the F-16 jets and the subsequent ruin of a possible French-Swedish fighter project that induces our small group to reject definitively all forms of pendency in front of the Western hegemonic power. But what else if the Iron Curtain seemed to be not removable and if the inner European situation was apparently a stalemate, bound to remain as such eternally?

 

Other readings helped us to improve our views. I’ll quote here two key books that shifted unequivocally our viewpoints: Prof. Louis Dupeux’ doctor paper on German “national bolshevism” at the time of the Weimar Republic in the Twenties and Prof. Alexander Yanov’s UCLA paper on the Russian “New Right” in the last years of Soviet rule, at the end of Brezhnev’s era and just before Gorbachev’s perestroika. Dupeux helped us to understand the relevancy of the Soviet-German tandem in the Twenties, starting with the Rapallo Treaty of 1922 (between Rathenau and Chicherin). This relevancy could explain us the cause of the ephemeral Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact of August 1939. A European-Russian tandem could therefore offer the possibility of independence and Continental-Eurasian strength. But such a tandem was impossible under communist rule. But was communism as monolithic as it was described in the Western press and medias? In his paper Yanov divided Soviet-Russian political thought into two categories and each of these two categories again in two others: the Zapadniki (the Westerners) and the Narodniki (the proponents of Russian identity). You could find dissident Zapadniki in the emigration and pro-regime Zapadniki within the Soviet institutions (i. e. Marxist of the old school as Marxism was a Western importation). You could also find dissident Narodniki in the emigration, such as Solzhenitsyn, and pro-regime Narodniki in the Soviet-Russian academic world, such as the writer Valentin Rasputin, who wrote “rural” novels criticizing the reckless industrialisation and “electrification” of old traditional Russian villages or areas. For Yanov the Russian New Right was incarnated in all the Narodniki, be they dissidents or not, and all Narodniki were of course dangerous compeers and rascals as they challenged dominant Western as well as Soviet principles. So our position, and the one staunchly defended in Germany by former Gulag prisoner Wolfgang Strauss (arrested during the East German riots of June 1953), was to hope for a Narodniki political or metapolitical revolution in Russia and in Eastern Europe, giving the possibility to create an International of Narodniki, from the Atlantic coasts to the Pacific Ocean, challenging the Western hemisphere and its liberal leftist ideology. Meanwhile after Reagan’s election in November 1981 the missile crisis swept all over Europe. The piling up of missiles on both sides of the Iron Curtain risked in case of war to destroy definitively all European countries. The reaction was passionate especially in Germany: more and more puzzled voices required a new neutrality status, to avoid implication in a military system of warmongers, and pleaded for a withdrawal from NATO, as the Treaty’s Organisation was lead by an external hegemonic power, which didn’t care for the safety of Europe and was ready to unleash a horrible nuclear apocalypse upon our countries. A neutrality status, as suggested by General Jochen Löser in Germany (in “Neutralität für Mitteleuropa”), implied also to promote a kind of “Third Way” system, which would have been a synthesis between state socialism and market capitalism. “Wir Selbst” of Siegfried Bublies (Koblenz) was the leading magazine, which backed a policy of NATO withdrawal and Central European neutrality, a “Third Way” (for instance the one theorized by the Slovak economist Ota Sik), a reconciliation with Russia (according to Ernst Niekisch or Karl-Otto Paetel as dissidents both of the Weimar Republic and of the Third Reich), the devolution movements in Western and Eastern Europe, and the new dissidents in the Soviet dominated block. The magazine had been created in 1979 and remained till the very beginning of the 21^st Century the main forum for alternative thought with a humanist touch in all Europe. I mean “humanist” in the sense given to this word by the main non Westernized dissidents of Eastern Europe, being no Narodniki in the narrow sense of this expression. The years 1982 and 1983 were determined by the pacifist revolt throughout Europe, especially in Germany around an interesting thinker like air force Lieutenant-Colonel Alfred Mechtersheimer, and in the Low Countries but also in Britain, where huge demonstrations were held to prevent the dispatch of American missiles. Our small group supported the pacifist movement against the conventional positions of many other Rightist or even New Right clubs (including de Benoist at that time, who accused us of being the “Trotskites” of the movement, positioning himself as a kind of Stalin-like Big Brother!). The new pacifism and neutralism ceased to thrive when Gorbachev declared he intended to launch a glasnost and perestroika policy to soften the Soviet rule. Once Gorbachev promised a new policy, we could only wait and see, without abandoning all necessary scepticism. 

 

During the second half of the Eighties, we hoped for a new world, in which the Iron Curtain would one day disappear and the dominant systems would gently evolve towards a “Third Way”. In 1989, when the Berlin Wall was suppressed, we all thought very naively that the liberation of Europe and of Russia was imminent. The Gulf War and the dissolution of Yugoslavia, the invasion of Iraq and of Afghanistan proved that Europe was in fact totally unable to take an original decision in front of the world events, with the slight exception of the short French, German and Russian opposition to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, an opposition naively hailed as the new “Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axe” but an Axe that couldn’t of course prevent the unlawful invasion of Saddam Hussein’s country. So we still are in a desolate state of subjugation despite the fact that Europe now counts 27 states in full membership.

 

Let us come back to geopolitical theory. In 1979, when we discovered Giannettini’s book, I read General Heinrich Jordis von Lohausen’s book “Mut zur Macht”, which was a very good summary and actualisation of Kjellen’s ideas, as well as of all notions formerly defined by Haushofer and his broad team (Walter Pahl, Gustav Fochler-Hauke, Otto Maull, Walter Wüst, R. W.  von Keyserlingk, Erich Obst, etc.). I wrote a small paper for my end examination of “International Affairs”, which was read with interest by the teacher, who found Lohausen’s positions interesting but still “dangerous”. Geopolitics in June 1980, date when I passed the examination with brio (18/20! Thank you, dear General von Lohausen!), was still taboo in “poor little Belgium”. It wouldn’t last a long time before this “dangerousness” would definitively belong to the past. The French intellectual world produced successively many excellent geopolitical studies: I’ll only quote here Yves Lacoste’s journal “Hérodote”, the accurate maps of Michel Foucher, the encyclopaedic studies of Hervé Coutau-Bégarie and the courses of Ayméric Chauprade (who, as a teacher in the French High Military Academy, was recently sacked by Sarközy because he couldn’t accept the coming back of France in the commanding structures of NATO as a full member state). In the Anglo-Saxon world, the best books on the matter are those produced by the British publishing house “I. B. Tauris” (London).

 

You cannot concentrate only on geopolitics as a mean strategic way of thinking. To use the tools properly you need an accurate knowledge in history that the shelves in Anglo-Saxon bookshops offer you in abundance. Then to be a good proponent of geopolitics you need to study lots of maps, especially historical maps. I therefore collect historical atlases since I got the first one in my life, the official one you had to buy when you reached the third year in the secondary school. When I was 15, I bought my very first German book, volume two of the “DTV-Atlas zur Weltgeschichte”, at Brussels’ flea market. The book lies now since about forty years on my desk! Indispensable tools are also the atlases of the British University teacher Colin McEvedy, which were translated into Dutch for Holland’s schools. McEvedy sees history as a regular succession of collisions between “core peoples” (Indo-Europeans, Turkish-Mongolic tribes, Semitic nomads of the Arabic peninsula, etc.), which he perceives as balls moving on a kind of huge billiard table, which is Eurasia with all its highways across the steppes. By reading McEvedy’s comments on the maps he draws we can understand history as permanent systolic and diastolic movements of “core peoples” (together with assimilated alien tribes or vanquished former foes) against each other, in order to control land, highways or sea accesses to them. And what is European history if not a long process of resisting more or less successfully Mongolic or Turkish assaults in the East and Hamito-Semitic incursions in the South? Next to McEvedy, the most interesting historical atlas in my collection is the one that a Swiss professor produced, namely Jacques Bertin’s “Atlas historique universel – Panorama de l’histoire du monde”, where you’ll find even more precise maps than the ones of McEvedy. Also, the German DTV-Atlas (which exists in an English version published at Penguin’s publishing house in Britain), McEvedy’s works and Bertin’s panorama are the tools that I use since many years. They have been my paper companions since I was a teenager.

 

What is your analysis of the actual and ideal relationship of Europe and Russia, Turkey and the United States?

 

To answer your question here in a complete and satisfying way, I should rather write a couple of thick books instead of babbling some insufficient explanations!  Indeed your question asks me in fact to summarize in some short sentences the whole history of mankind. I suppose that, for historical reasons, Swedes don’t perceive Russia and Turkey as citizens of Central or Western Europe would perceive these countries. Swedes must remember the attempt of King Charles XII to restore what was seen as the “Gothic Link” between the Baltic and the Black Sees by becoming the heir of the Polish-Lithuanian State in decay at his time: therefore he had to wage war against Russia and try to obtain the Turkish alliance. During the Soviet-Finnish war of winter 1939-40, Swedes were terribly worried because the move of Stalin’s Red Army to recuperate Finland as a former Tsarist province implied a future Soviet control of the Baltic See reducing simultaneously Swedish sovereignty and room for manoeuvre in these waters. It was also jeopardizing the fragile independence of the Baltic States.

 

Vlotho, Low Saxony (Germany) where a lot of meetings, conferences and Summer courses took place

 

Russia still wants to have access to the Atlantic via the Baltic see routes but in a less aggressive way than in Soviet times, when a messianic ideology was running the agenda. After the disappearing of the Iron Curtain, we are back to the situation we had in 1814. Once Napoleon Bonaparte had been eliminated and together with him the tone-downed Bolshevism of his time, i. e. the blood drenched French revolution ideology, Europe was a more or less united block nicknamed in Ancient Greek language the “Pentarchy” (The “Five Powers”), stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific coasts. We often forget nowadays that Europe was a strategic united block between 1814 and 1830, i. e. only during fifteen years. This unity allowed the pacification of Spain in 1822-23, the Greek independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1828 and later the crushing of Barbary Coast piracy by the landing of French troops in present-day Algeria in 1832. But the “Pentarchy” ceased to be a harmonious symphony of allied traditional powers when Belgium become independent from the King of Holland: indeed, Britain (in order to destroy the sea power of Holland, the industrial capacities in present-day Belgium’s Walloon provinces and the potentialities of the Indonesian colonial realm of the United Low Countries Kingdom) and France (aiming at recuperating Belgium and the harbour of Antwerp as well as a portion of the Mosel Valley in Luxemburg, leading to the very middle of German Rhineland in Koblenz) supported the rather incoherent Belgian independence movement while the other powers (Prussia, Austria and Russia) supported the Dutch King and his United Kingdom of the Low Countries. France, which started in the Thirties of the 19^th Century to carve its African Empire not only in Algeria but also in present-day Gabon and Senegal, and Britain, which was already a world empire whose cornerstone was India, became very soon Extra-European realms deriving their power from wealthy colonies and were therefore not more interested in the strategic unity of Europe, as the genuine civilisation area of all the people of our Caucasian kinship. The competition between European powers to get colonies implied that colonial rivalries could perhaps end in inner European conflicts, what happened indeed in 1914. The spirit of 1814 was kept alive by the “Drei Kaisersbund”, the “Alliance of the three Emperors” (United Germany after 1871, Austria-Hungary and Russia), which unfortunately started to disintegrate after Bismarck’s withdrawal in 1891 and due to the French-Russian economical-financial alliance under Tsar Alexander III (cf. the limpid book of Gordon Craig and Alexander L. George, “Zwischen Krieg und Frieden. Konfliktlösung in Geschichte und Gegenwart”, C. H. Beck, Munich, 1984; this book is a history of European diplomacy from the Treaty of Vienna in 1814 to WW1, where the authors describe the gradual disintegration of the “Pentarchy”, leading to the explosion of 1914; both authors remember also that Nixon and Kissinger tried to re-establish a kind of “Pentapolarity”, with China, Japan, the United States, Europe and Soviet Russia, but the attempt failed or was reduced to nought by the new human rights’ diplomacy of Carter. The only possible present-day “Pentapolarity” is represented by the “BRIC”-system, with Brazil, Russia, Iran, India, China and maybe, in a next future, post-Mandela South Africa).

 

Sababurg Castle, along the "Märchenstrasse" ("Fairy Tales Road"), Hessen (Germany), where the German friends usually held their regular meetings

 

In the first decade of the 20^th Century, the “Entente” was not an obvious option at the very beginning: Russia and Britain were still rivals in Central Asia and on the rimland of South Asia; Britain and France were rivals in Sudan as Britain couldn’t tolerate a French military settlement on the Nile River (the Fashoda incident in 1898), a situation which would have cut the British possessions in the Southern part of Africa from the Egyptian protectorate in the North; we should remember here that Cecil Rhodes’ project was to link Cape Town to Cairo by a British managed Trans-African railway, after the elimination of the German colony of Tanganyka or a possible occupation of Belgian Katanga. Even if already grossly decided in 1904, the French-British-Russian alliance, known as the Entente, was far to be a sure fact before the fatidic year of 1914. The Anglo-Russian dispute in Persia had still to be settled in 1907. Moreover the three Entente powers hadn’t yet shared their part of the pie on the rimlands, as France had to accept first the de facto English protectorate in Egypt. In return for this acceptation, Britain accepted to support France’s interests in Morocco against the will of the German Emperor, who wanted to extend the Reich’s influence to the Sherifan Kingdom in North Africa, threatening to close the Mediterranean and to reduce to nought the key strategic importance of Gibraltar. For all these reasons, it is obviously not sure that Russian efficient ministers as Witte or Stolypin would have waged a war, as Russia was still economically and industrially to weak to sustain a long term war against the so-called Central Powers, i.e. Austria, Germany and the Ottomans, especially as China and Japan could possibly take advantage in the Far East of a debilitated Russia on the European stage.

 

The problem is that we Europeans cannot escape the necessity of using the Siberian raw materials and the gas and oil of the Caucasian, Central Asian and Russian fields. The weakness of Europe lays in its lack of raw materials (nowadays 90% of the rare earths, indispensable for high tech electronic devices, have to be bought in China). Europe could save itself from the Ottoman entanglement by conquering America and by circumnavigating Africa and arriving in the Indian harbours without having to pass through Islam dominated areas. Europeans aren’t visceral colonialists: they carved colonial empires despite their will, simply to escape an Ottoman-Muslim invasion.

 

The European-Turkish relationship has always been conflictual and remains today as such. It is not a question of race or even of religion, although both factors ought of course to be taken reasonably into account. Religion played certainly a key role as the Seldjuks had turned Muslim before attacking and beating the Byzantine Empire in 1071 but one forgets too often that at the same time other Turkish tribes, known as the Cumans, attacked Southern Russia and moved in the direction of the Low Danube without having turned Muslim: their faith war still Pagan-Shamanic. They nevertheless coordinated their wide scale action with their Muslim cousins. Muslim and Pagan-Shamanic Turks took the Pontic area (Black Sea as Pontus Euxinus) in a tangle: the Pagan Cumans in the North, the Muslim Seldjuks in the South. It is neither a question of race as present-day Turkey is a mix of all possible neighbouring peoples, tribes and ethnic kinships. It isn’t a joke to say that you have now Turks of all colours, like on an advertisement panel of Benetton! The European Danubian, Balkanic (Bosnians, Greeks, Albanians) and Ukrainian contribution to the ethno-genesis of the present-day Turkish population is really important, as are the parts of converted local Byzantine Greeks or Armenians or as are also the Sunni Indo-European Kurds. The Arab-Syrian influence is also clear in the South. The Turkish danger is that the Turks, whatever their real origin may be, still see themselves as the heirs of all the Hun, Mongolic and Turkish tribes that moved westwards to the Atlantic. Sultan Mehmed, who took Constantinople in 1453, kept in his mind the idea of the general move of Turkish tribes westwards but added to his geopolitical vision the one that moved the Byzantine general Justinian, who wanted at the beginning of the 7^th Century to conquer again all the Mediterranean area till the shores of the Atlantic. Mehmed’s vision was also a merge of Turkish and Byzantine geopolitics. In his own eyes, he was the Sultan and the Byzantine Basileus at the same time and wanted to become also Pope and Emperor, once his armies would have taken both Rome (“the Red Apple”) and Vienna (“the Golden Apple”). Mehmed even thought that one day such a shift as a “translatio imperii ad Turcos” could happen, like there had been a “translatio imperii ad Francos” and “ad Germanos”, just after the definitive crumbling down of the Roman Empire.  

 

The idea of moving westwards is still alive among Turks. The strong Turkish desire to become a full member of the EU means the will to pour the Anatolian demographic overpopulation into the demographically declining European states and to transform them in Muslim Turkish dominated countries. This statement of mine is not a mean reflection of an incurable “Turkophobic” obsession but is purely and simply derived from an analysis of Erdogan’s speech in Cologne in February 2008. Erdogan urged the Turkish immigration in Germany and in other European countries not to assimilate, as “assimilation is a crime against mankind” because it would wipe out the “Turkishness” of Turkish people, and urged also to create autonomous Turkish communities within the European states, that would welcome the new immigrants by marriage of by so-called “family gathering”. Later Erdogan and Davutoglu threaten to back the Turkish mafias in Europe, would the authorities of the EU postpone once more the admission of Turkey as a full member state. Every serious political personality in Europe has to reject such a project and to struggle against its possible translation into the everyday European reality. A migration flood of totally uneducated workforces into Europe would lead to high joblessness and let the social security systems collapse definitively. It would mean the end of the European civilisation.

 

The Turks are plenty aware of the key position their country has on the world map. Would I be a Turk, I would of course staunchly support Erdogan and Davutoglu. But I am not and cannot identify myself to such an alien vision of geopolitics. I wouldn’t care if all the efforts of the new Turkish geopolitics would be directed towards the Near East, as the Near East needs a hegemonic regional power to get rid of the awful chaos in which it is now desperately squiggling. It wouldn’t perhaps not be so easy for the Turks to become again the hegemonic power in an Arab Near East as conflicts were frequent between Ottomans and Arab nationalists, especially since the end of the 19^th Century when Sultan Abdulhamid started a centralisation policy, which was achieved by the strongly nationalist Young Turks in power since 1908. Arab liberal nationalists contended this new Young Turkish nationalist rule, which was not more genuinely Islamic, universal and Imperial-Ottoman but strictly Turkish national, stressing the superiority of the Turks within the Ottoman Empire, reducing simultaneously the Arabs to second-class citizens. The challenging Arab nationalists were severely crushed at the eve of WW1 (public hangings of Arab liberal intellectuals were common in Syrian or Lebanese towns at that time). But a renewed Turkish policy in the Near East cannot in principle collide frontally with the vital and paramount European interests, except of course if it would dominate the Suez Canal zone and control this essential portion of the sea route leading from West Europe to the Far East: one should not forget that the Zionist idea, i. e. the idea of settling Jews in the area between Turkish Anatolia and Mehmet Ali’s successful Egypt of the first half of the 19^th Century, that was supported by France, was an idea shaped in the late 1830s in the English press and not in the mind of Rabbis in Eastern European ghettos. The idea had already been evoked by Prince Charles de Ligne during the war between the Ottoman Empire and the coalition of Russia and Austria in the 1780s as a means to weaken the Turks and to create a focal point of troubles on another front, far from the Balkans, Crimea and the Caucasus; Napoleon wanted also to settle Jews in Palestine in order to prevent a future Turkish domination in the Suez area, as the French at that time, by supporting the Mameluks of Egypt against their Turkish masters, already had the intention to dig a canal between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. Zionism is also not a genuine ideology born in Jewish ghettos but an idea forged artificially by the British to use the Jews as mere puppets. This role of Israel as a simple puppet state explains also why the relationship between Turkey and Israel are worsening now as the renewed Ottoman diplomacy of Davutoglu induces the Turkish state to resume his previous influences in the Arab Near East or Fertile Crescent. This could lead to a complete reverse of alliances in the region: voices in the United States are pleading for a new Iranian-American tandem between Mesopotamia and the Indus River which would fade or dim the usual alliance between Ankara, Washington and Tel Aviv. Such a shift would be as important as the Nixon-Kissinger renewed diplomacy of 1971-72, when suddenly China, the former “rogue state”, turned instantaneously to be the best ally of the States. It would also rule out many oversimplifying ideologists who have opted for cartoonlike pro-Zionist, pro-Palestinian (or pro-Hamas or pro-Hizbollah) or pro-Iranian positions in order to support either a Western Alliance or an Anti-Western/Anti-American coalition on the international chessboard. Things might or even may be completely turned upside down within a single decade. The Anti-American pro-Iranian ideologist of today may become a pro-Zionist Anti-American tomorrow if he wants to remain Anti-American and if he is not turned still crazier by the crumbling down of his too schematic worldview as many Western Maoists did in the 1970s, when their former anti-American anti-imperialist perorations coined on the Chinese model of Mao’s cultural revolution became totally outdated and preposterous once Kissinger had forged an alliance with communist China, that wasn’t ready anymore to support Maoist zealots and puppets in the Western world. Indeed, the United States would better than now contain Russia, China and India in case of a renewed alliance with Teheran. And using the quite wide influence sphere of the “Iranian civilization” (as the former Shah used to say), they could extend more easily their preponderance in Central Asia, in the Fertile Crescent, in Lebanon (with the Shiite minority armed by the Hizbollah) and in the Gulf where Shiite minorities are important. But Iran would then become a too powerful ally, exactly like China, the new ally of 1972, does. And before Iran would become a new China and develop naval capacities in the Gulf and in the Oman Sea, i. e. in one of the main areas of the Indian Ocean, like China wants to control entirely the Southern Chinese Sea in the Pacific, Europe would have to unite with Russia and India to contain a pro-American Iran! Stephen Kinzer, former “New York Times” bureau chief in Turkey, celebrated analyst of Iran’s turmoil in 1953 (the Mossadegh case) and International relations teacher at Boston University, pleads in his very recent book “Reset Middle East” for a general alliance on the Near East, Middle East and South Asian rimlands between Turks, Iranians and Americans (which would include also Pakistan and so re-establish the containing bolt that the Bagdad Treaty formerly was). When you are interested in geopolitics you should have fine observing skills and foresee all possible shifts in alliances that could occur in a very near future. It is also obvious that if Washington continues to treat Teheran as a “rogue state”, the Iranians will be compelled to play the game with Russia that remains nevertheless historically a foe of the Persians. Each Russian-Persian tandem would split in its very middle the rimland’s room that was organised by the Bagdad Treaty of the Fifties and give the Russians indirectly a broad “window” on the Indian Ocean, which is a state of things totally contrary to the principles settled by Homer Lea in 1912 and since then cardinal to all the Anglo-Saxon sea powers.  

 

The relationship with the United States is a quite complex one. Two main ideas must be kept in mind if you want to understand our position:

1)       Like the British historian Christopher Hill brilliantly demonstrated in his books “The World Turned Upside Down – Radical Ideas During the English Revolution” and “Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England”, the core ideas that lead to the foundation of the British Thirteen Colonies in the Northern part of the New World was “dissidence” in front of all the European political systems inherited from the past. Later Clifford Longley in “Chosen People – The Big idea that Shapes England and America” produced an very accurate historical analysis of this Biblical idea of a Chosen People that leads Britons and Americans to perceive themselves not as a particular people of the European Caucasian family but as a “lost tribe of Israel”. Longley explains us that state of affairs by writing that Britons and Americans don’t have an identity, as other European people have, but thinks that they have a particular destiny, i. e. to build an aloof “New Jerusalem” and not a concrete defensive Empire of the European people, that would be born out of the genuine historical traditions of the subcontinent and simultaneously the legitimate, syncretic, Continental and Insular (Britain, Ireland, Sicily, Crete, Cyprus, etc.) heir of the Roman Empire and of the medieval Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. The very idea of incarnating a “New Jerusalem” leads to despise the “non chosen”, even if they are akin people having importantly contributed to the ethno-genesis of the English or American nation (Dutch, Flemings, Northern Germans as Hanovrian or Low Saxons, Danes and Norwegians). Kevin Phillips, former Republican strategist in the United States and political commentator in leading American papers, in his fascinating book “American Theocracy – The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil and Borrowed Money in the 21^st Century”, criticizes the new political theology induced by the several Bush’s Administrations between 2000 and 2008, that have bereft the Republicans from the last remnants of traditional diplomacy, leading to what he calls an “Erring Republican Majority”. Indeed each chosen people’s theology introduced in the events of the international chessboard destroys all the traditional ways of practising diplomacy, as surely as French Sans-Culottes’ Republicanism or Bolshevism did or Islam Fundamentalism does. Europe, as a continent that has a long memory, cannot admit a scheme that rejects vehemently all the heritages of the past to replace them by mere artificial myths, that were moreover imported from the Near East in Roman times and have received a still faker interpretation in the decades just after Reformation.

 

2)       The second main fact of history to keep in mind in order to understand the complex Euro-American relationship is the effect the Monroe Doctrine had on the international chessboard from the second quarter of the 19^th Century onwards. In principle the Monroe Doctrine aimed at preventing European interventions in the New World or the Western Hemisphere as the Spanish “creole” countries had rebelled against Madrid and gained their independence and as the British had burnt Washington in 1812, after having invaded the States from Canada, and the Russians were still formally in California and Alaska. Monroe feared a general intervention of the “Pentarchy” powers everywhere in the new World that would have prevented the former Thirteen Colonies to develop and would synchronously have choked any attempt to rise as a Northern American continental and bi-oceanic power. Indeed the young Northern American Republic faced at that time a huge Eurasian block that seemed definitively indomitable, with British room projections in India and Southern Africa. The American historian Dexter Perkins in his book “Hands off: A History of the Monroe Doctrine” (1955) explains us that President Monroe got the audacity to challenge the European/Eurasian block at a time when the United States couldn’t actually assert any well-grounded power on the international chessboard. Monroe’s bold affirmation created US power in the world, simply because a pure will, expressed in plain words, can really anticipate actual power, be the very first step towards it. It is not a simple matter of chance that Carl Schmitt stressed the uttermost importance of the Monroe Doctrine in the genesis of the geopolitical shape of present-day world. Jordis von Lohausen says in his book “Mut zur Macht” that if Monroe wanted to preserve the New World from any European intervention, he wanted simultaneously to keep this New World for the USA themselves as sole hegemonic power. But if the New World is united under the leadership of Washington, it must control the other banks of the Oceans in a way or another to prevent any concentration of power able to disturb US hegemony or to regain authority in Latin America, be it directly political (like during the attempt of Maximilian of Hapsburg to create a European-dominated Empire in Mexico in 1866-67 with the support of France, Belgium, Spain and Austria) or indirectly by trade and economical means (as Germany did just before the two World Wars). So in the end effect, the Monroe Doctrine implies that the United States have to control the shores of Western Europe and of Morocco and the ones of Japan, China, Indochina and the Philippines in order to survive a the main superpower in the world.

 

The critical attitude we always have developed in front of the US American fact derives from these two core ideas. We cannot accept a Biblical ideology refusing to take into account our real roots and reducing all the institutions generated by our history to worthless rubbish. We can neither accept an affirmation of power that denies us the right to be ourselves a power on political, military and cultural levels. Would America get rid of the former British dissident ideology and adopt the principles of continental autarky, as Lawrence Dennis taught to do, there wouldn’t be any problem anymore. It would even be of great benefit for the US American population itself.

 

In your many articles you have exhibited an impressive knowledge of European thinkers from Hamsun and Evola to Spengler and Schmitt. Do you consider some of them more important, and a good starting-point for the pro-European individual?

 

The study of our “classical” heritage of authors is a must if we want to create a real alternative worldview (“Weltanschauung”). Moreover, Evola, Spengler and Schmitt are more linked to each other than we would imagine at first glance. Evola is not only the celebrated traditional thinker who is worldwide known as such. He was an intrepid alpinist who climbed the Northern wall of the Lyskamm in the Alps. His ashes were buried in the Lyskamm glacier by his follower Renato del Ponte after he had been cremated in Spoleto (a town that remained true to Emperor Frederick Hohenstaufen) after his death in 1974. Evola was a Dadaist at the very beginning of his career as an artist, a thinker and a traditionalist. His was totally involved in the art avant-gardes of his time, as he himself declared during a very interesting television interview in French language that you can watch now on your internet screen via “you tube” or “daily motion”. This position of him was deduced from a thorough rejection of Western values as they had degenerated during the 18^th and 19^th Centuries. We have to get rid of them in order to be “reborn”: the Futurists thought we ought to perform promptly this rejection project in order to create a complete new world owing absolutely nothing to the past; the Dadaists thought the rejection process should happen by mocking the rationalist and positivist bigotry of the “stupid 19^th Century” (as Charles Maurras’ companion Léon Daudet said). Evola after about a decade thought such options, as throwing rotten tomatoes at scandalized bourgeois’ heads or as exhibiting an urinal as if it was a masterwork of sculpture, were a little childish and started to think about an exploration of “the World of Tradition” as it expressed itself in other religions such as Hinduism, the Chinese Tao Te King, the first manifestations of Indian Buddhism (“the Awakening Doctrine”), the Upanishads and Tantric Yoga. For the European tradition, Evola studied the manifestations and developed a cult of Solar Manly Tradition being inspired in this reasoning by Bachofen’s big essay on matriarchal myth (“Mutterrecht”). Thanks to the triumph of the Solar Tradition, a genuine Traditional Europe could awaken on the shores of the Mediterranean and especially in the Romanized part of the Italic peninsula, invaded by Indo-European tribes having crossed the Alps just before the Celts did after them. Besides, he was the translator of Spengler and reviewed a lot of German books written by authors belonging to what Armin Mohler called the “Konservative Revolution”. In Italy Evola is obviously very well known, even in groups or academic work teams that cannot be considered as “conservative-revolutionist”, but the role he played as a conveyer of German ideas into his own country is often neglected outside Italy. But still today people rediscover in Latin countries figures of the German “Konservative Revolution” through the well-balanced reviews Evola once published in a lot of intellectual journals from the 1920s to the 1960s. As his comments on these books and publications were very well displayed on didactical level, he can also be still very helpful to us today.

 

Evola was also a diplomat trying to link again to Italy the countries having belonged to the Austrian-Hungarian empire. He was active in Prague, in Vienna (a City he loved) and in Budapest. He also had contacts with the Romanian Iron Guard, which he admired as a kind of citizens’ militia controlling severely the bends of petty politics limping towards corruption and “kleptocracy”. Even if he was mobilized when he was still a very young man as an artillery officer in the Italian army during WW1, Evola disapproved the war waged against traditional Austria and didn’t agree with the Futurists, d’Annunzio and Mussolini who were hectic interventionist warmongers. He was aware that the destruction of the Holy Roman Imperial Tradition in the centre of Europe would be a catastrophe for European culture and civilization. And it was indeed a catastrophe that we still can grasp today: a contemporary author like Claudio Magris, born in Trieste, explains it very well in his books, especially in “Danube”, a kind of nostalgic travelogue, written during peregrinations from one place to another in this lost Empire of former times, now torn into many scattered pieces belonging to thirteen different countries.

 

Carl Schmitt in several books or articles expresses the nostalgia of a kind of “Empire’s secret Chamber” regulating the general policy of a “greater room” (“Grossraum”): for him the members of such a Chamber, if it ever becomes reality, would find inspiration from Bachofen’s ideas and their interpretations, from Spengler pessimistic decay philosophy and from the analyses of all possible teams devoted to geopolitics (Haushofer and others). Carl Schmitt just as Evola was also deeply interested in art avant-gardes.

 

My interest for Hamsun comes from the implicit anthropology you find in his works: the real man is a peasant running an estate. He is free: what he owns is his own production; he is never defined or bound by others, i. e. by alien capitalists or by State’s servants or by foreign rulers or by the eager members of a ruling and crushing party (Orwell’s pigs in “Animal Farm”). The general urbanization process that started in the historical cities of Europe (especially Paris, London and Berlin) and in the new hectic cities of the United States lead to the emerging of an enslaved mankind, unable to coin its own destiny with the only help of his own inner and physical forces. Spengler and Eliade both say also that true mankind is incarnated in the “eternal peasant”, who is the only type of man that can generate genuine religion. David Herbert Lawrence’s most important book for us is without any doubt “Apocalypse”: this English author laments the disappearing of “cosmic forces” in man’s life, due to the bias inaugurated by Reformation, Deism (mocked by Jonathan Swift), 18^th Century Enlightenment and political extremism derived from the blueprints (Burke) of the French Revolution. Man became gradually detached from the cosmic frame in which he was embedded since ever. He’s lost also all his links to the natural communities in which he was born, like the poor immigrant Hamsun was in Chicago or Detroit, limping from one miserable job to another, bereft of all youth friends and family members. The cosmic frame Lawrence was talking about receives a comprehensive and understandable translation for the humble in the aspect of a religious liturgy and calendar (or almanac), expressing symbolically the rhythms of nature in which each man or woman lives. Although Flanders has been urbanized since the Middle Ages and had important industrial cities like Bruges and Ghent, the anthropological ideal of the 19^th Century romantic or realist Flemish literature is the one of the independent peasant (“Baas Gansendonck” in Hendrik Conscience’s novel, the unfortunate and stubborn Father figure in Stijn Streuvels’ “Vlaschaard”, the heroes of Ernst Claes’ and Felix Timmermans’ rural novels and short stories, etc.). In Russian literature too, the rural element of the population is perceived as doomed under any communist or Westernized regime but simultaneously perceived as the only force able to redeem Russia from its horrible past. Solzhenitsyn pleaded for a general liberation of the Russian peasantry in order to restore the Ukrainian “Corn Belt” in the “Black Earth” area, giving Russia back the agricultural advantages it potentially had before the total destruction of the “Kulaks” by the Bolsheviks.

 

But we can talk for hours and hours, write full pages of interpretations of our common literary heritage; I cannot answer your question thoroughly as it would need writing a good pile of books. Let us conclude by saying Tradition or literary “ruralism” (be it Flemish, Scandinavian or Russian) are good things provided you don’t remain glued into it. Futurism is a dynamic necessity also, especially in societies like ours, where the countryside isn’t the only life frame anymore. Marinetti and more recently Guillaume Faye stressed the fact that in order to be able to compete on the international chessboard we have the imperious task to get rid of archaisms. But if Faye is obviously more futurist that “archaist”, I plead for a good balance between immemorial past and audacious future (like Claes did in his marvellously filmed novel “Mira”, in which a backward rural community refuses the building of a bridge that would link the village to the next important town; the young sensual prostitute Mira, treated as a witch by the village bigots, having just come back from Paris, where she was on the game, falls in love with the handsome engineer, the bridge is built and the village dwellers linked to the rest of the people’s community without abandoning their roots – the ideal balance between past and future, between demure morality and forgiven sin, is realised). To put it in realistic arguments: we need both a sound rural population (crushed nowadays by the EU-ukases) and a high tech engineering elite (able to create super-weapons) to become a re-born superpower, which would not be unnecessarily aggressive or feverish  “imperialist” (in the bad sense of the word), but calmly civilian (Zaki Laïdi) and simply powerful by its plain presence in the world. Mentally, we, as the forerunners of the needed “new teams” in present-day messy and derelict Europe, should be real and staunch “archeo-futurists”, mastering our roots and planning boldly our future. The rest is only mean and petty trifles.    

(Answers given in Forest-Flotzenberg, March 2011).