What does Michael Gove have in common with Ukraine’s Azov movement? Not much, one would think. There is surely very little commonality between the published work of the liberal Conservative statesman and the ideology of the armed group, far to the right of any Right-wing populist, which is currently insinuating itself into the institutions of the Ukrainian state, apart from one thing: a familiarity with the works of the obscure Right-wing thinker Guillaume Faye.
The recent bout of Twitter hysteria prompted by Gove’s wife, Sarah Vine, rashly sharing photographs of the family bookshelves, may just have been another pointless skirmish in the culture war, but it illustrated one thing very clearly: our self-appointed censors do not have even a passing familiarity with the political thought they seek to expurgate from the world.
By focussing their outrage on Gove’s ownership of a book by David Irving, Owen Jones and the other intellectual luminaries of Twitter progressivism skimmed over Gove’s far more interesting reading choices, namely works by Guillaume Faye and his partner in the French New Right, Alain de Benoist. One would think an engagement with the political thought of our nearest European neighbours would solicit, if not their approval, then at least their interest: but then there are few political movements as insular or intellectually incurious as late-stage British liberalism.
For their benefit, then, the French New Right, or Nouvelle Droite, began as a movement in the late 1960s to forge a new path for European conservatism, rejecting both the culturally dominant Marxism of the period, and the Atlanticism of the mainstream Right.
Influenced by the Konservative Revolution of pre-war Germany, particular the civilisational pessimism of Oswald Spengler, the merciless critique of liberal democracy assembled in the works of Carl Schmitt and the complex and hard to define body of work created by Ernst Junger, the Nouvelle Droite’s think tank GRECE (Groupement de Recherce et d’Études pour la Civilisation Européene, or Research and Study Group for European Civilisation) established itself, for a time, as an influential body on the French political scene.
In 1979, however, GRECE found itself cancelled by a campaign of demonstrative outrage in France’s liberal Le Monde newspaper, accusing the group of an entryist infiltratation of mainstream conservative institutions, particularly the Le Figaro newspaper. Marginal in electoral politics, GRECE nevertheless gained influence in the meta-political sphere, as part of what we could call the Gramscian Right; understanding that politics is downstream of culture, the Nouvelle Droite aimed to influence a new generation of Right-wing thinkers to reject the worldview of mainstream conservative and liberal thought in place of a standpoint quite outside standard Left-Right divisions.
The Nouvelle Droite rejected the domination of the European continent by what it characterised as an imperialist United States, which spreads capitalism and liberalism across the world through a vulgar and thuggish combination of hard and soft power, destroying individual societies and turning the world into an indistinguishable mush of rootless consumers.
Early enthusiasts of the work of Christopher Lasch, critiquing the emergent class of globalised elites, the Nouvelle Droite in some ways anticipated the current trend in both the United States and Europe towards post-liberal thought, though they followed this line of thought in another direction entirely.
Actively supporting Third World national liberation movements, decrying globalisation for its homogenising effects, and sounding urgent warnings of looming ecological collapse, de Benoist and Faye anticipated the anti-globalisation movement of the millennium, before it petered out into commodified pseudo-protest.
Equally, by warning that mass migration into Europe would lead inexorably to ethnic conflict and mass casualty terrorist attacks, and by railing against the moral and spiritual bankruptcy of globalisation and cosmopolitanism, the Nouvelle Droite anticipated much of the discourse of today’s populist Right, though they explicitly rejected what they saw as their petty nationalisms in favour of the unification of Europe and Russia into a single civilisational superpower.
Avowedly anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-globalisation and pro-European unification, there is, unfortunately for the online censors, therefore very little evidence of Nouvelle Droite influences on Gove’s personal politics. Indeed, many of its lines of thought can be traced more clearly in European politicians as superficially distinct as Macron and Orban than in any British figure.
Its concerns over the prospect of Islamist terrorism resulting from migration into Europe can perhaps be discerned in Gove’s Celsius 7/7, though even here there is a major point of difference. Gove’s book contrasts global jihadism with a Western liberal tradition he urges us to defend; the thinkers of the Nouvelle Droite, by contrast, saw liberalism as the root problem and jihadism as a natural, if culturally alien response, parallel to their own rejection of liberal values.
Unlike Gove, whose book is situated firmly within the tradition of Western liberalism, Faye echoes Islamist ideologues by asserting that: “The rise of radical Islam is the backlash to the excesses of the cosmopolitanism of modernity that wanted to impose on the entire world the model of atheist individualism, the cult of material goods, the loss of spiritual values and the dictatorship of the spectacle.”
Of the two books by Faye on Gove’s bookshelf, both published by the London-based Arktos publishing house, Europe’s leading disseminator of radical right-wing political thought, the most interesting by far is Archaeofuturism, a collection of essays from the late 1990s republished in book format. Writing at the same time as liberal ideologues were declaring the End of History and politicians were assuring their voters that globalisation would bring with it an endless period of global harmony and prosperity, Faye posited a pessimistic worldview of what is now startling immediacy.
By the year 2020, he claimed, as a result of the inherent fragility created by a globalised financial and political system, civilisation would buckle under a cascading set of interlinked crises. Waves of pandemics, of political disorder and state collapse in the Middle East and Africa, of global financial crashes and ecological degradation would rebound off each other, escalating the pressures upon the international system to the point that the world of the late 20th century would become impossible to sustain.
In Faye’s words, “a series of ‘dramatic lines’ are drawing near: like the tributaries of a river, and will converge in perfect unision at the breaking point (between 2010 and 2020), plunging the world into chaos. From this chaos- which will be extremely painful on a global scale- a new order can emerge based on a worldview, Archaeofuturism, understood as the idea for the world of the post-catastrophic age.”
Writing before the 9/11 attacks, the last global financial crash, the bloody cycle of wars precipitated by the Arab Spring and the COVID pandemic, Faye’s concern over what he termed the “convergence of catastrophes,” seemed as outlandish and unfashionable then as it now does topical. Yet since the beginning of this century, a greater awareness of what is known as global catastrophic risk has begun to creep into mainstream strategic thought, mostly with climate change in the foreground and Faye’s other fears placed as second order consequences.
The 2007 Age of Consequences paper, issued jointly by the Centre for International and Strategic Studies and American Centre for New American Security thinktanks, echoed Faye’s apocalyptic warnings in almost every respect, warning that severe climate change would lead to the forced movement of hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people from the worst-affected areas, the collapse of liberal democracy in the rest of the world as a consequence, the unchecked spread of pandemics and jihadist terrorism, and the outbreak of wars within and between states as the global order collapses.
In this scenario, the report warns, “nations around the world will be overwhelmed by the scale of change and pernicious challenges, such as pandemic disease. The internal cohesion of nations will be under great stress, including in the United States, both as a result of a dramatic rise in migration and changes in agricultural patterns and water availability. The flooding of coastal communities around the world, especially in the Netherlands, the United States, South Asia, and China, has the potential to challenge regional and even national identities. Armed conflict between nations over resources, such as the Nile and its tributaries, is likely and nuclear war is possible. The social consequences range from increased religious fervor to outright chaos. In this scenario, climate change provokes a permanent shift in the relationship of humankind to nature.”
Furthermore, the report echoes Faye by warning of such “a dramatically new global paradigm that it is virtually impossible to contemplate all the aspects of national and international life that would be inevitably affected. As one participant noted, “unchecked climate change equals the world depicted by Mad Max, only hotter, with no beaches, and perhaps with even more chaos.”
While such a characterization may seem extreme, a careful and thorough examination of all the many potential consequences associated with global climate change is profoundly disquieting. The collapse and chaos associated with extreme climate change futures would destabilize virtually every aspect of modern life. The only comparable experience for many in the group was considering what the aftermath of a U.S.-Soviet nuclear exchange might have entailed during the height of the Cold War.”
M
Only last year, a major Australian forecast warned that an apocalyptic near-future was at this point almost inevitable, describing its research as “a glimpse into a world of “outright chaos” on a path to the end of human civilisation and modern society as we have known it, in which the challenges to global security are simply overwhelming and political panic becomes the norm.”
Predictions equally dire as Faye’s have been made in less colourful language though with no less alarming conclusions by the medium-term strategic forecasts of the Ministry of Defence and by the Pentagon, all of which make for unsettling reading.
The European Union, similarly, links climate change to a cascading set of global security challenges , severely threatening both the global and European order. In its 2016 Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign And Security Policy, the overarching mission paper for the continental bloc’s approach to the near future, the EU’s strategists assert that:
“We live in times of existential crisis, within and beyond the European Union. Our Union is under threat. Our European project, which has brought unprecedented peace, prosperity and democracy, is being questioned. To the east, the European security order has been violated, while terrorism and violence plague North Africa and the Middle East, as well as Europe itself. Economic growth is yet to outpace demography in parts of Africa, security tensions in Asia are mounting, while climate change causes further disruption.”
Only last week, Poland’s Deputy Prime Minister, the Sociology professor Piotr Glinski, took to a two-page advertisement in the Wall Street Journal to warn that the COVID crisis was a glimpse into a future of civilisational collapse, explicitly likening the modern West to the late Roman Empire.
While the date Faye settled upon for the apocalypse is a decade or two in advance of these more sober warnings, his doomy vision of the medium-term future, is, unfortunately for us, worried over at the highest levels of British, American and European strategic thought.
But perhaps more interesting, not least for its presence on the bookshelf of such a senior British government minister, is Faye’s proposed solution, the Archaeofuturism of the book’s title. Likely influenced by the American political theorist Samuel P. Huntington, Faye unconvincingly suggests the current global system world will coalesce into distinct civilisational blocs: a Chinese-dominated one, a greater North America, a sub-Saharan African bloc, “a Euro-Siberian unit,” a greater Islamic world and a vaguely defined Pacific bloc for the rest.
Once this is achieved, the scene is set for the total reordering of global civilisation, according to “a revolutionary model based on a self-centred and inegalitarian world economy, which may be imposed upon us by historical events, but which it would be wise to foresee and plan for in advance”.
Noting, as is now a commonplace opinion, that “the utopia of ‘development’ open to ten billion people is environmentally unsustainable,” Faye proposes a system of jaw-dropping global re-ordering, worth quoting at length:
“First off, most of humanity would revert to a pre-technological subsistence economy based on agriculture and the crafts, with a neo-medieval demographic structure… Communitarian and tribal life would reassert its rights… Even in industrialised countries- India, Russia, Brazil, China, Indonesia, Argentina, etc- a significant portion of the population could return to live according to this archaic socio-economic model.”
Secondly, Faye asserts: “A minority percentage of humanity would continue to live according to the techno-scientific economic model based on ongoing innovation by establishing a ‘global exchange network’ of about a billion people.”
“Finally”, he notes, “these vast neo-archaic economic blocs would be centred upon a continental or multi-continental plan, with basically no mutual exchange between them. Only the techno-scientific portion of humanity would have access to the global exchange. This two-tier world economy thus combines archaism and futurism. The techno-scientific portion of humanity would have no right to intervene in the affairs of the neo-medieval communities that form the majority of the population, nor — most importantly — would it in any way be obliged to ‘help’ them.”
In a short story at the end of the book, Faye paints a vivid if outlandish picture of this proposed future, where a small, global technocratic global elite pursues rapid technological and scientific advances, while the majority of the world’s population lives in subsistence farming communities at a level of technology broadly equivalent to that of the Dark Ages.
Developing his ideas further in the wildly imaginative series of short science fiction tales which make up his follow-up work Archaeofuturism 2.0, Faye’s vision darkens. Some societies can survive, for a time, by fending off the encroaching chaos and maintaining the rudimentary technology of the early 20th century. But, over time, the darkness settles and mankind is destroyed utterly.
The excellent academic introduction to Faye’s life and work by Stephane Francois in the recent Key Thinkers of the Radical Right notes that Archaeofuturism entails “the dismissal of modernity, born from the Enlightenment, and conservatism, since modernity shows signs of fracture and conservatism leads to nothing.” Summarizing Faye’s vision, Francois notes that:
“To avoid civilisational and ecological collapse, he proposes putting in place an authoritarian regime under the auspices of a “born chief,” a dictator defined as a providential man who knows how to set his peoples in motion, and protects his peoples’ identity and ancestry.”
It is perhaps partly for this reason that Faye’s work has proved so popular with Ukraine’s extreme right-wing Azov Movement, an armed brigade fighting Russia in the contested regions of the country’s east as part of the Ukrainian Interior Ministry, which also provides policing functions — both officially, with the state’s blessing, and unofficially, as a competitor to the state — in the cities of Ukraine’s western heartlands.
Last year, shortly after Faye’s death, I interviewed Azov’s international secretary Olenya Somenyaka in the group’s headquarters just off Kyiv’s famous, central Maidan Square. Surrounded by bookcases filled with the works of the esoteric ultra-right writers currently undergoing a revival among disaffected Western conservatives, Semenyaka emphasised how central Faye’s work was in developing her worldview. In the world according to Somenyaka and Azov, Ukraine will play a starring role as a springboard for the reconquest of Europe from what she viewed as a collapsing liberal order, and lead the continent into a neo-pagan, Archaeofuturist dawn.
Presumably it is due to their unexpected popularity with a powerful armed force and challenge to liberal democracy in Ukraine that Faye’s works secured a place on Michael Gove’s bookshelf. Their placing next to an academic work on modern Ukraine would seem to indicate the politician’s interest in the country’s social and political development, laudable given the deployment of British soldiers there.
Indeed, Faye’s darkest warnings are echoed in British parliamentary politics only by the Green Party, one of whose most senior figures, the University of East Anglia’s professor of Philosophy and Extinction Rebellion spokesman Rupert Read, warns that: “We need to think about what comes after the likely collapse of this civilisation and plan accordingly. There are of course many sub-possibilities within this possible future, and some of them are very ugly. The successor civilisation could, for instance, be largely a reign of brutal warlordism. We have to try to do what we can to prepare our descendants for survival and for one of the better sub-possibilities.”
But even if we accept the proposition that Guardian columnists have the right to determine what books may and may not be read, it is unclear that Faye’s works deserve a place on their Index of forbidden knowledge. On the contrary, it is an encouraging sign that our senior politicians are reading obscure and outlandish works of political thought, given the times in which we live.
For good or ill, we are living in a springtime of ideologies, Gramsci’s “time of monsters”, where strange and unlikely political creeds proliferate on Twitter like sexual identities on Tumblr. Whatever the likelihood of our societies soon emulating Faye’s Archaeofuturistic vision — and it is presumably very unlikely — it is equally unlikely that we will return to the world of the near past.
The post-war global order enabled by American hegemony has gone, and will never return. The dominant category of books on Gove’s shelves, the autobiographies of American centrist politicians, represent a world as lost and irretrievable as the biographies of Europe’s absolute monarchs would have seemed exactly one century ago.
If we accept, as post-liberals as well as thinkers of far-left and far-right do, that the ideology of liberalism has exhausted itself, broken by its weak correspondence to reality, then we must accept that some successor ideology will eventually appear to replace it. Whatever that ideology will be, it most probably already exists, like Communism a century ago, as an obscure fringe belief waiting for a crisis in which to assert itself.
In the United States, discussions over the merits of Catholic Integralism are raging through mainstream conservatism, despite the minuscule likelihood of the American state reordering itself in such a direction. In Britain as well as continental Europe, citizens have been slaughtered by adherents of Salafi Jihadism, another radical challenge to liberal beliefs which posits itself as a successor ideology.
The merits and challenges posed by fringe ideologies such as these, rather than the petty concerns of party competition, are the grand matter of political thought, and it is reassuring rather than disturbing that our elected representatives are alert to them.
Some of the shrillest Twitter analysts of Gove’s bookshelves have spent years agitating for the political success of devotees of a murderous 20th century fringe ideology, itself now jettisoned on the wreckage of history. The radical left-wing publisher Verso — as far to the left of centrist thought as Faye is to the right, though more socially acceptable — has published all manner of strange and unlikely manifestos in recent years, from demanding the abolition of the family to asserting that we can live in a world of endless growth and consumption derived from mining asteroids.
Both ideas are absurd, but while we can be grateful that the last election saw their advocates firmly shunted away from political power, neither book should be banned, only considered on its own merits and then ridiculed. The existence of eccentric works like these is, however, broadly positive, in that it shows people are giving serious consideration to what should replace the intellectual and political framework dying all around us.
We should be pleased that our political representatives are reading offbeat ideas, not necessarily because they believe them, but because they represent the strange intellectual and political ferment of the early 21st century. The idea that There Is No Alternative to the neoliberal consensus is long gone. There are, if anything, too many alternatives, and they represent a future as dangerous as it is exciting.
As well as reading Faye, Gove and other British politicians should be investigating a wide variety of radical thinkers of left and right, from the post-anarchist work of Murray Bookchin to the idiosyncratic Marxist cultural criticism of Mark Fisher, the Catholic critiques of liberal democracy of Patrick Deneen and Ryszard Legutko, the rejection of modernity wrought in fiction by Michel Houellebecq and Paul Kingsnorth, and whatever other responses to what we can call the crisis of the 21st century are now circulating in the marketplace of ideas. After all, as Faye himself archly notes in Archaeofuturism, “modernity already belongs to a past that is over.”
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Russia has been hit by the pandemic in a relatively mild form. I can not say that the measures the government has undertaken were (or are) exceptionally good but the situation is nevertheless not as dramatic as elsewhere. From the end of March, Russia began to close its borders with the countries most affected by coronavirus. Putin then mildly suggested citizens stay home for one week in the end of March without explaining what the legal status of this voluntary measure actually was. A full lockdown followed in the region most affected by pandemic. At the first glance the measures of the government looked a bit confused: it seemed that Putin and others were not totally aware of the real danger of the coronavirus, perhaps suspecting that Western countries had some hidden agenda (political or economic). Nonetheless, reluctantly, the government has accepted the challenge and now most regions are in total lockdown.
On one hand, many experts claim that the disease has artificial origin and was leaked (accidently or on purpose) as an act of biological warfare. Precisely in Wuhan there is allegedly one of the top biological laboratories in China. In the US, many people, including President Trump, pursue this hypothesis or suggest this is all part of the plan of a select group of globalists (like Bill Gates, Zuckerberger, George Soros and so on) to expand the deadly virus in order to impose the vaccination and eventually introduce microchips into human beings around the world. The surveillance methods already introduced to control and monitor infected people and even those who are still healthy seem to confirm such fears. There is a conspiracy theory which suggests that China has been set up as a scapegoat. We might laugh at the inconsistency of such myths and their lack of proof, but belief in such theories – especially during moments of deep crises – are easily accepted and become the basis for real actions, and could even lead to war. 
Hinsichtlich der „Umvolkung“ oder des „Bevölkerungsaustausches“ sollte man darauf hinweisen, daß es dies immer schon gegeben hat und immer geben wird. Vor kurzem gab es mehrere kleine Bevölkerungs-Austauschaktionen im ehemaligen Jugoslawien, wobei viele Kroaten, muslimische Bosniaken und Serben in Bosnien ihre ehemaligen Wohnorte verlassen mußten. Vertreibung wäre hier ein besseres Wort für diese Aktion, da dieser Bevölkerungsaustausch in Ex-Jugoslawien mitten im Kriege stattgefunden hat.
Deswegen ist jegliche Kritik an der Masseneinwanderung ohne eine vorhergehende Kritik am liberalen Handel bzw. am Kapitalismus sinnlos. Und umkehrt. Die kleinen kriminellen Migrantenschlepper, die meistens aus dem Balkan stammen, sind nur ein Abbild der großen Gutmenschen-Migrantenschlepper, die in unseren Regierungen sitzen. Auch unsere Politiker, ob sie in Brüssel oder in Berlin sitzen, befolgen nur die Regeln des freien Marktes. 
Natürlich könnte der heutige Bevölkerungsaustausch von jedem europäischen Staat jederzeit gestoppt oder auch rückgängig gemacht werden, solange Politiker Mut zur Macht haben, solange sie politische Entscheidungen treffen wollen, oder anders gesagt, solange sie die Entschlossenheit zeigen, den Zuzug der Migranten aufzuhalten.
Demzufolge stellt sich die Frage, was bedeutet es heute, ein guter Europäer zu sein? Ist ein Bauer im ethnisch homogenen Rumänien oder Kroatien ein besserer Europäer, oder ist ein Nachkomme der dritten Generation eines Somaliers oder Maghrebiners, der in Berlin oder Paris wohnt, ein besserer Europäer?
Die einzige Waffe, sich gegen den heutigen Völkeraustausch zu wehren, liegt in der Wiedererweckung unseres biologisch-kulturellen Bewußtseins. Ansonsten werden wir weiterhin nur die hohlen Floskeln der christlichen, liberalen oder kommunistischen Multikulti-Ideologie wiederkäuen. So richtig es ist, die Antifa oder den Finanzkapitalismus anzuprangern, dürfen wir nicht vergessen, daß die christlichen Kirchen die eifrigsten Boten des großen Bevölkerungsaustauschs sind.
E' un fenomeno irripetibile, inquadrabile in tutto e per tutto nel XX secolo e figlio della palingenesi collettiva della prima guerra mondiale, che forgiò una generazione in quella che Benito Mussolini definirà come “trincerocrazia”, mito fondativo di una nuova gioventù che tornava a casa dopo quattro anni di trincea. Il fascismo mussoliniano è figlio della Grande Guerra, l’evento che ha mutato per sempre la storia, l’Europa e il mondo, e senza la quale non avremmo avuto né il nazionalsocialismo in Germania né la Rivoluzione d'Ottobre in Russia. E' nel suo mezzo, e qui aveva ragione Ernst Nolte, che scoppia la “europäische Bürgerkrieg” (1917 - 1945) fra due diverse concezioni del mondo, fra quella materialista storica incarnata nel marxismo-leninismo a quella romantica, idealista e volontarista incarnata dai fascismi. E' quel carnaio a creare l'idea che sarebbe nata un’aristocrazia guerriera venuta fuori direttamente dalla gerarchia della trincea, la trincerocrazia, cioè
Diverso il discorso della Nouvelle Droite o la Quarta Teoria Politica di Aleksandr Dugin, che è una riattualizzazione della konservative Revolution, che non punta alla creazione di uno stato totalitario (a differenza del fascismo, che è figlio della modernità) ma piuttosto organico, federale e continentale, pescando dal pre-moderno, dall'arcaismo, dal tradizionalismo, dai valori iperborei, dalle identità ancestrali che il cosiddetto "mondialismo", figlio della post-modernità, sta cancellando. L'alt-right invece è strettamente legata alla mentalità liberale e ai modelli di produzione capitalistici. Insomma, certi storici americani è meglio che studino altro!
Marco Fraquelli, autore del volume A destra di Porto Alegre. Perché la Destra è più no-global della Sinistra (Rubbettino, 2005) sottolinea – pur essendo egli stesso di sinistra e discepolo del politologo Giorgio Galli – che i movimenti noglobal, nati a Seattle nel 1999 e protagonisti di importanti battaglie storiche, come la nascita nel 2001 del Social Forum di Porto Alegre in contrapposizione al World Economic Forum di Davos, e la contestazione del G8 di Genova, tendono “a contestare la globalizzazione convinti comunque che si tratti di un fenomeno che, attraverso opportuni correttivi, possa virare verso orizzonti positivi”, “che possa esistere insomma una globalizzazione ‘dal volto umano’, che sia possibile in altri termini, definire e imporre una nuova governance (e questo spiega per esempio le istanze per l’applicazione della Tobin Tax, per la cancellazione del debito contratto dai Paesi poveri, ecc.)” (1): ciò mostra che questi movimenti accettano le implicazioni della globalizzazione, rifiutando solamente il lato economico (“la Sinistra ha come obiettivo la mondializzazione senza il mercato” scrive Jean-François Revel), essendo figli dell’universalismo.
La nouvelle droite svilupperà le prime analisi sul mondialismo, che non declinerà mai nel cospirazionismo, descrivendolo come un tratto ontologico del capitalismo stesso, che per sua natura non può rimanere relegato entro i confini di un singolo Stato ma ha la tendenza a ‘mondializzarsi’. L’analisi del fenomeno viene fatta nel 1981 dall’esponente del Grece Guillaume Faye nel libro Le système à tuer les peuples (Il sistema per uccidere i popoli), dove l’autore, citando Weber, Schmitt, Habermas e la Scuola di Francoforte – ergo, non intellettuali di destra – spiega che dal 1945 si sarebbe sviluppato globalmente un Sistema, descritto in questi termini: “La caratteristica precipua del Sistema, che oggi esercita la sua azione alienante e repressiva in gradi diversi su tutti i popoli e tutte le culture, è in effetti quella di essere costituito da un insieme di strutture di potere – di carattere principalmente economico e culturale, ma anche direttamente politico, tramite le grandi potenze e le istituzioni internazionali – completamente inorganico, funzionante in modo meccanico, senza altro significato che la propria sopravvivenza ed espansione in vista di un’uscita definitiva dell’umanità dalla storia [...] le espressioni particolari del suo potere sociale sono [...] il monopolio dell’informazione e l’uso repressivo del potere culturale” (4). Una descrizione che ricorda la Megamacchina “tecno-socio-economica” analizzata negli anni Novanta da Serge Latouche, “un bolide che marcia a tutta velocità ma [che] ha perso il guidatore”, i cui effetti determinano “conseguenze distruttive non solo sulle culture nazionali, ma anche sul politico e, in definitiva, sul legame sociale, tanto al Nord quanto al Sud” (5). La principale arma usata dal Sistema per “uccidere l’anima” (l’identità) è una subdola forma di penetrazione culturale che omologa i costumi e, in conformità al vigente complesso economico, i consumi. Gli Stati Uniti, visto il loro carattere antitradizionale (è una nazione giovane nata dall’immigrazione e dal melting pot di popoli diversi fra loro) sono vittime stesse del Sistema da loro creato, che procede da solo per mezzo di una “classe tecnocratica cosmopolita” (manager, amministratori delegati, decisori finanziari) che dirige una politica ormai svuotata da ogni potere: “Contrariamente alle tesi marxiste, nessun ‘direttore d’orchestra’ più o meno occulto ci governa. Nessuna volontà coscientemente programmata anima l’insieme per mezzo di decisioni globali a lungo termine. Il potere tende a non aver più né ubicazione né volto; ma sono sorti poteri che ci circondano e ci fanno partecipare al nostro proprio asservimento. La ‘direzione’ delle società si effettua oggi al di fuori del concetto di Führung. Il Sistema funziona in gran parte per autoregolazione incitativa. I centri di decisione influiscono, tramite gli investimenti, le tattiche economiche e le tattiche tecnologiche, sulle forme di vita sociale senza che vi sia alcuna concertazione d’assieme. Strategie separate e sempre impostate sul breve termine si incontrano e convergono. Questa convergenza va nel senso del rafforzamento del Sistema stesso, della sua cultura mondialista, della sua sovranazionalità, così che il Sistema funziona per se stesso, senza altro fine che la propria crescita. Le sue istanze direttive molteplici decentrate, si confondono con la sua stessa struttura organizzativa. Imprese nazionali, amministrazioni statali, multinazionali, reti bancarie, organismi internazionali si ripartiscono tutti un potere frammentato. Eppure, a dispetto, o forse proprio a causa dei conflitti interni d’interessi, come la concorrenza commerciale, l’insieme risulta ordinato alla costruzione dello stesso mondo, dello stesso tipo di società, del predominio degli stessi valori. Tutto concorda nell’indebolire le culture dei popoli e le sovranità nazionali, e nello stabilire su tutta la Terra la stessa civilizzazione” (6). Il Sistema cancella i territori e le loro sovranità, modellandole così a immagine e somiglianza dell’unico sistema vincente, quello nordamericano: “Il mondialismo del Sistema non procede dunque per conquista o repressione degli insiemi territoriali e nazionali, ma per digestione lenta; diffonde le sue strutture materiali e mentali insediandole a lato e al di sopra dei valori nazionali e territoriali. Si ‘stabilisce’ come i quaccheri, senza tentare di irreggimentare direttamente, [...] parassitando i valori e le tradizioni di radicamento territoriale. La presa di coscienza del fenomeno si rivela di conseguenza difficile. Parallelamente alla loro formazione ‘nazionale’ i giovani dirigenti d’azienda del mondo intero hanno oggi bisogno, per vendersi e valorizzarsi, del diploma di una scuola americana. Niente di obbligatorio in questa procedura; ma poco a poco il valore di questo diploma americano e ‘occidentale’ soppianta gli insegnamenti nazionali, la cui credibilità deperisce. Un’istruzione economica mondiale unica vede allora la luce. Essa veicola naturalmente l’ideologia del Sistema” (7).
Ergo, la nouvelle droite, grazie al volume di Guillaume Faye, de-ebraicizza e de-complottizza l’analisi sul mondialismo, anche se negli ambienti del radicalismo di destra il concetto continuava sovrapporsi alla retorica antigiudaica. Non è casuale che Orion, che nel decennio Novanta sarà Organo del Fronte antimondialista, nei primi anni di vita editoriale, e cioè fra il 1984 e il 1987 circa, userà ancora tematiche cospirazioni ste antigiudaiche pescate dai Protocolli dei Savi di Sion, denunciando alleanze occulte fra l’alta finanza, ovviamente ebraica, le organizzazioni massoniche con a capo il B’nai B’rith, e i numerosi circoli sionisti sparsi in tutto l’Occidente, descritti come “l’architrave del progetto mondialista” dato che sarebbero tutti “casa, borsa e Sinagoga” (8). Il sionismo e il mondialismo sarebbero quindi considerate le due facce della stessa medaglia: il sionismo è “una delle componenti più importanti [...] del discorso mondialista” si legge in Orion, “il sionismo [...] è genocida e razzista [...] oggi l’unico vero razzismo esistente al mondo è quello praticato dal sionismo nazionale e internazionale. Un razzismo che affonda le sue radici nella storia, nella cultura e nella religione ma, certamente, l’unico vero e identificabile potere razzista e genocida” (9).
Fondamentali poi i club internazionali politici, i quali ufficiosamente fungerebbero da cardine fra i vari “attori mondialisti”, quali la Trilateral Commission, il Bilderberg Group e il Club di Roma, a cui Orion dedica numerose analisi e, all’inizio, l’inserto Orion-finanza – diretto dal torinese Mario Borghezio, poi esponente della Lega Nord e tramite fra il Carroccio e il radicalismo di destra. Nell’ultimo fascicolo, il numero 4 del maggio 1986, Orion pubblica per la prima volta l’elenco dei membri della Trilateral Commission, organizzazione che prende il nome dalla teoria del suo ideologo, Zbigniw Brzezinsky, che teorizza la fine del bipolarismo indicando in “tre pilastri” – Usa, Giappone e Europa occidentale – gli attori di un progetto liberoscambista capace di avvicinare tali zone per poi unificare il sistema economico-finanziario. Grazie a pubblicazioni di questo tipo – nonostante persista una certa retorica antiebraica – Orion cerca di archiviare l’ormai vetusta e desueta teoria del ‘grande complotto’ a opera della “grande piovra ‘giudaico-massonica’ che manovrerebbe tutto. Descrivendo un vertice della Trilateral tenutosi a Madrid dopo la riunione del G7 a Tokyo a metà anni Ottanta, che vedeva riunite persone come David Rockfeller, Isamu Yamashita, Giovanni Agnelli, Zbigniew Brzezinski (ex consigliere di Jimmy Carter) e Robert McNamara, tutti interessati alla Spagna soprattutto dopo il suo ingresso nella Comunità europea per il suo ruolo strategico (“trampolino di lancio per la strategia mondialista americana”) per le sue relazioni coi Paesi arabi, il Nord Africa e l’America Latina, ruolo svolto precedentemente dal Giappone per l’Europa, Murelli scriverà: “Chi oggi si domanda come sia stata possibile l’espansione dell’industria giapponese in così breve tempo, trova in questa autorevole dichiarazione la risposta al quesito”. La Trilateral Commission “sta soppiantando le vecchie strutture mondialiste quali la Massoneria”. Infatti, continua Murelli, “è forse un caso che la politica finanziaria nazionale di questi ultimi tempi ha come chiodo fisso, per esempio, l’internazionalizzazione non solo dei capitali, ma anche e soprattutto delle imprese e della produzione? È forse un caso che se mentre colano a picco personaggi come Calvi e Sindona emergono i vari De Benedetti, Berlusconi, Agnelli ecc.? È forse un caso che proprio Agnelli si sia battuto affinché l’affare Sirwkoski fosse vantaggioso per un’impresa americana piuttosto che da un’impresa italiana? E ancora: è un caso che l’Avvocato sostenga l’acquisto di Alfa Romeo da parte della Ford, azienda automobilistica che attraverso la sua Fondazione – ma guarda caso! – assieme alla Lilly Endowment, alla Rockfeller Brothers Fund e alla Kattering Fondation ha, fin dall’inizio, costituito una delle principali fonti di finanziamento della Trilateral?” (16).
Le pubblicazioni della Società Editrice Barbarossa, contestando l’analisi complottista, inizieranno a identificare negli Stati Uniti il principale motore del mondialismo (contraddicendo così l’analisi di Guillaume Faye secondo cui tale processo di omologazione non presenterebbe “nessun ‘direttore d’orchestra’ più o meno occulto” che “anima l’insieme per mezzo di decisioni globali a lungo termine”), per il suo volere “la creazione di un unico governo o amministrazione (il Nuovo Ordine Mondiale), di un unico assetto politico, istituzionale e sociale (il liberismo), di un unico sistema di valori (individualismo-egualitarismo-dottrina dei Diritti dell’Uomo), e quindi di un unico insieme di costumi e di stile di vita (il consumismo) estesi a tutta la Terra e funzionali al dominio assoluto da parte delle forze politiche, economiche e culturali che lo incarnano: le élite della finanza mondiale!” (17). Si attacca l’Occidente, un sistema americanocentrico (una centralità dovuta al fatto che la stragrande maggioranza delle multinazionali e le più influenti lobby finanziarie hanno la loro sede legale negli Stati Uniti), anche se i suoi centri d’irradiazione sono policentrici e sparsi in tutto il globo. Infatti, “le imprese multinazionali – oltre l’80 per cento dei casi a sede statunitense – dominano il mercato delle principali derrate di base e degli altri settore chiave (macchinari industriali e agricoli, fertilizzanti, elettronica, ecc.)” (18). Gli ingredienti per la creazione di questo One World (il Nuovo Ordine Mondiale) uniformato all’American way of life sarebbero le “strutture tecnoeconomiche, l’ideologia universalista e la sottocultura di massa che potremmo definire – sottolinea Faye – ‘americano occidentale’”.
Identificando nel monoteismo giudaico-cristiano la cultura principalmente responsabile della genesi del mondialismo, notiamo come il gruppo di Orion recuperi le suggestioni neopagane della nouvelle droite, però scevre da ogni rimando di tipo antisemita. L’altra peculiarità del mondialismo è il rifarsi all’“ideologia universalista”, espletata “sia attraverso l’utopia cosmopolita e pacifista alla Emergency oppure tramite lo sbrigativo pragmatismo yankee alla Bush”, una “moderna religione” laica che fa sua la dottrina dei diritti umani, “la suprema espressione dell’Egualitarismo”, una “tendenza storica nata e affermatasi per la prima volta nella storia con il giudeo-cristianesimo e in seguito dispiegatasi storicamente nelle sue varianti laiche (democrazia liberale, comunismo, mondialismo ecc.)”, che impone una “morale presuntamente universale [che] fornisce l’armatura ideologica a un neo-colonialismo che al posto del ‘fardello dell’uomo bianco’ ha oggi come giustificazione un devastante cocktail di angelismo e ipocrisia. [...] La distruzione dei popoli passa anche da qui, dall’imposizione a livello planetario dei ‘valori’ occidentali e dalla conseguente disintegrazione di ogni legame organico, di ogni tradizione particolare, di ogni residuo di comunità – tutti ostacoli alla presa di coscienza della nuova ‘identità globale’ da parte del cittadino dell’era della globalizzazione. [...] rigettare la dottrina dei diritti dell’uomo non significa parteggiare per lo sterminio, per l’ingiustizia o per l’odio. [...] Il riconoscimento dei diritti umani, di per sé, non fonda proprio nulla, se non quel tipo di giustizia e di libertà che, tautologicamente, si trovano espresse... nella dottrina dei diritti umani! Malgrado il fatto che i sostenitori di tale dottrina continuino a pensare di aver ‘inventato la felicità’, occorre sostenere con decisione che un’altra giustizia, un’altra libertà, un’altra pace sono possibili. Opporsi ai diritti dell’uomo significa rifiutare una morale, un’antropologia, una certa idea dei rapporti internazionali e della politica, una visione del mondo globale figlia di una tendenza storica ben individuabile” (20).
Un antimondialismo che non è anticapitalismo
Una delle motivazioni di tale crisi, rileva il filosofo marxista Domenco Losurdo, è da ricercare dal fatto che la sinistra italiana e occidentale risulta assente, incapace di rendersi realmente indipendente dal sistema imperialistico, quando non colpevole di aver spianato la strada a un neoimperialismo di ritorno sotto forma di guerre di esportazione della democrazia occidentale, veicolando un pregiudizio eurocentrico e inconsciamente razzista. Secondo Losurdo questo avviene perché s’è creata una dicotomia fra marxismo occidentale, “che ha sviluppato una sua personale riflessione separandosi dallo sviluppo del pensiero marxista nel resto del mondo, un marxismo occidentale che ha influenzato i movimenti della cosiddetta ‘nuova sinistra’ e il filone sviluppatosi dal ‘68 in poi, divenendo egemone dopo il crollo dell’Unione Sovietica. Un pensiero, i cui cantori odierni sarebbero Negri, Hardt, Zizec e prima ancora Foucault e Arent, che ha rimosso dalle sue riflessioni il nodo della lotta antimperialista di matrice leninista e quello sullo sviluppo delle forze produttive, come invece hanno continuato a fare quei movimenti affermatisi fuori dall’Occidente, che si sono posti l’obiettivo di fare uscire dalla miseria e dalla fame centinaia di milioni di essere umani” (27). Tutti intellettuali – pensiamo alla fortuna entro Rifondazione comunista o nell’area noglobal del libro di Toni Negri e Michael Hardt Impero e Moltitudini – che non contestavano la globalizzazione in quanto tale, ma solo la sua governance èlitaria, auspicandone, come notava Fraquelli all’inizio, una dal “volto umano”, cioè gestita dal basso.
La fin de « l’Unique et sa propriété »
La société ouverte et la migration sans limite sont entrées en contradiction directe avec les standards sanitaires de base. En fait, un régime dictatorial a été rapidement établi dans le monde entier, sous lequel le pouvoir a été transféré à une entité complètement nouvelle. Ni « l’Ego » ni sa « propriété », ni toutes les superstructures géantes du monde qui garantissaient leurs droits et leurs statuts légaux et légitimes ne sont plus considérés comme la source du pouvoir politique. Ce que Giorgio Agamben a nommé la « vie nue », c’est-à-dire l’impératif de survie physique absolument spécial qui n’a rien à voir avec la logique du capitalisme libéral, est passé au premier plan. Ni l’égalité, les droits, la loi, la propriété privée, les décisions collectives, le système des obligations mutuelles, ni aucun autre principe fondamental de la démocratie libérale n’a de pouvoir réel. Seuls ces mécanismes qui contribuent à la survie, pour stopper l’infection et pourvoir aux besoins purement physiologiques les plus simples, sont importants maintenant.
Ainsi, la séparation fondamentale entre le bien-portant et le malade, considérée par Michel Foucault dans son livre Surveiller et punir. Naissance de la prison, devient une ligne encore plus infranchissable que toutes les oppositions des idéologies classiques de la Modernité, par exemple entre la bourgeoisie et le prolétariat, les Aryens et les Juifs, les libéraux et les « ennemis de la société ouverte », etc., et verra sa ligne de division tracée entre les pôles de la « vie nue » et des « technocrates médicaux », qui ont entre leurs mains tous les instruments de la violence, de la surveillance, et de l’autorité. La différence entre celui qui est déjà malade et celui qui n’est pas encore malade, qui au début justifiait la nouvelle dictature, sera effacée, et la dictature des virologues, qui a bâti une nouvelle légitimité sur la base de cette distinction, créera un modèle complètement nouveau.
Finalement, il peut sembler que cette pandémie sera une chance pour ces leaders politiques qui n’auraient peut-être pas d’objection à tirer avantage d’une situation aussi extrême pour renforcer leur pouvoir. Mais cela pourrait marcher seulement pendant peu de temps, parce que la logique de la « vie nue » et de la dictature militaire-médicale appartient à un registre complètement différent de ce que le leader le plus autoritaire dans le système mondial moderne peut imaginer. Il est peu probable qu’un des dirigeants d’aujourd’hui soit capable de maintenir son pouvoir pendant si longtemps et de manière sûre dans des conditions aussi extrêmes. Tous, dans une mesure ou une autre, tirent leur légitimité des structures de cette démocratie libérale qui est en train d’être abolie sous nos yeux. Cette situation requerra des figures, des compétences, et des caractères complètement différents. Oui, ils commenceront probablement cette consolidation du pouvoir, et ils ont même commencé à le faire, mais il est peu probable qu’ils dureront longtemps.
[* Translator’s note. Transl. Gregory Fried and Richard Polt (Yale, 2000), with some pedantic syntactical amendments by me. Faye’s French rendition differs a little: “‘Cette Europe qui, dans un incalculable aveuglement, se trouve toujours sur le point de se poignarder elle-même,’ écrit Martin Heidegger dans son Introduction à la métaphysique, ‘est prise aujourd’hui dans un étau entre la Russie d'une part et l’Amérique de l’autre. La Russie et l’Amérique sont, toutes deux, au point de vue métaphysique la même chose: la même frénésie de l’organisation sans racine de l’homme normalisé. Lorsque le dernier petit coin du globe terrestre est devenu exploitable économiquement […] et que le temps comme provenance a disparu de l’être-là de tous les peuples, alors la question: “Pour quel but? Où allons nous? et quoi ensuite?” est toujours présente et, à la façon d’un spectre, traverse toute cette sorcellerie.’”]
It’s the very idea of Third-World economic development that we ought, in fact, to suspect. This notion presupposes in effect that the peoples of the Third World ought necessarily to follow the path of Western industrialisation. Now this accords singularly well with the liberal desire for international division of labour and economic specialisation of zones, indispensable for the modern capitalism of planetary free exchange. And who, under doctrinal and humanitarian camouflage (the “right to development”) thus advocates Third-World industrialisation? Those who defend the interests of an economic system in which the growth of global industrial commerce is as necessary as warm water for mackerel shoals.* Again and again, François Perroux has shown that the “overall quality of life” in “developing” countries that are considered already nearly developed, was lower than that achieved by traditional societies. Inversely, poorer countries, or less industrialised zones, know a real “quality of life” superior to what OECD figures might have one believe.** And until today, the United States have been the only real beneficiaries of the industrialisation of Asia, Africa and South America.
Tiene un tufillo a “nueva derecha” francesa, claro, porque el autor ha pertenecido a tal grupo, aunque termine renegando de tal movimiento. Más reniega aún de la izquierda, a la que considera impotente para hacer frente al capitalismo y acusa de convertirse en una clase aburguesada que no defiende a los más necesitados, sino a una clase media trabajadora asalariada y una serie de valores igualitarios (feminismo, inmigrantes, homosexuales,…) que nos llevan al desastre. Aunque con aires políticos más que filosóficos, veo en Faye un digno heredero del martillo nietzscheano. Se dan los mismos elementos que ya supieron ver Nietzsche o Spengler o los pensadores clásicos que no caminaron con una venda en los ojos. Políticos y filósofos tratan sobre ideas sociales, pero los primeros poco saben de pensar y sí mucho de demagogia; los políticos hablan para su tiempo, los filósofos se preocupan de temas perennes. En ese sentido, bueno es que algunos pensadores políticos se acerquen al pensamiento intempestivo de la filosofía, aunque sea en su estilo, antes que preocuparse por ocupar unos sillones en un congreso.
Les faiblesses de l’œuvre de Spengler
Bien sûr, la vie recluse de Spengler permet de telles suppositions. Il est né le 29 mai 1880, fils d’un haut fonctionnaire des postes, à Blankenburg dans le Harz (2). Ce n’était pas le père, homme paisible, qui dominait la vie familiale mais la mère, une créature à moitié folle, dévorée d’ambitions pseudo-artistiques. Elle remplissait leur grand appartement d’une telle quantité de meubles que le jeune Oswald et ses trois sœurs devaient loger dans des débarras, sous le toit !
L’inflexibilité
La vie se voit alors réduite à une rationalité moyenne, qui interdit toutes ces grandes effervescences qui entraînent soit vers le haut soit vers le bas ; l’homme se meut alors dans un cadre étroit qui ne lui propose rien de plus que la satisfaction de ses besoins physiques. Au-dessus de ce cadre, souffle un tiède ventelet d’éthique behavioriste. 
Nous ne saurions achever cette introduction au dossier Spengler sans mentionner un ouvrage récent et remarquablement bien fait sur sa pensée. Il s’agit de Spengler heute, Sechs Essays (Spengler aujourd’hui, six essais), préfacé par Hermann Lübbe, sous la direction de Peter Christian Ludz. Cet ouvrage est paru aux éditions CH Beck de Munich. Il comprend des textes de Hermann Lübbe (Historisch-politische Exaltationen : Spengler wiedergelesen = Exaltations historico-politiques : Une relecture de S.), d’Alexander Demandt (Spengler und die Spätantike = Spengler et la Haute-Antiquité), de Horst Möller (Oswald Spengler : Geschichte im Dienste der Zeitkritik = O.S. : L’Histoire au service de la critique du temps), de Tracy B. Strong (O.S. : Ontologie, Kritik und Enttäuschung = S. : Ontologie, critique et déception), du spécialiste français Gilbert Merlio (S. und die Technik = S. et la technique) et de G.L. Ulmen (Metaphysik des Morgenlandes - S. über Russland = Métaphysique de l’Orient, S. et la Russie). La lecture de cet ouvrage est indispensable pour pouvoir comprendre et utiliser Spengler aujourd’hui.
The most radical contradiction with Spengler made by Moeller van den Bruck was the rejection of Spengler’s cultural morphology, since Moeller believed that Germany could not even be classified as part of the “West,” but rather that it represented a distinct culture in its own right, one which even had more in common in spirit with Russia than with the “West,” and which was destined to rise while France and England fell.[10] However, we must note here that the notion that Germany is non-Western was not unique to Moeller, for Werner Sombart, Edgar Julius Jung, and Othmar Spann have all argued that Germans belonged to a very different cultural type from that of the Western nations, especially from the culture of the Anglo-Saxon world. For these authors, Germany represented a culture which was more oriented towards community, spirituality, and heroism, while the modern “West” was more oriented towards individualism, materialism, and capitalistic ethics. They further argued that any presence of Western characteristics in modern Germany was due to a recent poisoning of German culture by the West which the German people had a duty to overcome through sociocultural revolution.[11]
However, Freyer argued that the idea of historical (cultural) types and that cultures were the product of an essence which grew over time were already expressed in different forms long before Spengler in the works of Karl Lamprecht, Wilhelm Dilthey, and Hegel. It is also noteworthy that Freyer’s own sociology of cultural categories differed from Spengler’s morphology. In his earlier works, Freyer focused primarily on the nature of the cultures of particular peoples (Völker) rather than the broad High Cultures, whereas in his later works he stressed the interrelatedness of all the various European cultures across the millennia. Rejecting Spengler’s notion of cultures as being incommensurable, Freyer’s “history regarded modern Europe as composed of ‘layers’ of culture from the past, and Freyer was at pains to show that major historical cultures had grown by drawing upon the legacy of past cultures.”[14] Finally, rejecting Spengler’s historical determinism, Freyer had “warned his readers not to be ensnared by the powerful organic metaphors of the book [Der Untergang des Abendlandes] … The demands of the present and of the future could not be ‘deduced’ from insights into the patterns of culture … but were ultimately based on ‘the wager of action’ (das Wagnis der Tat).”[15]
Like their Revolutionary Conservative precursors, New Rightists reject any fatalist and determinist notion of history, and do not believe that any people is doomed to inevitable decline; “Decadence is therefore not an inescapable phenomenon, as Spengler wrongly thought,” wrote Pierre Krebs, echoing the thoughts of other authors.[23] While the New Rightists accept Spengler’s idea of Western decline, they have posed Europe and the West as two antagonistic entities. According to this new cultural philosophy, the genuine European culture is represented by numerous traditions rooted in the most ancient European cultures, and must be posed as incompatible with the modern “West,” which is the cultural emanation of early modern liberalism, egalitarianism, and individualism.
Effectivement. Si « les doux hériteront de la Terre », il n’y a pas de place pour un effort humain vers l’infini, qui atteigne son but, et qui place l’Homme sur le même plan que Dieu. Si la douceur, l’humilité, l’« humble agneau de Dieu » est l’archétype fondateur d’une culture, alors bien sûr l’infini et l’inconnu ne pourront jamais être atteints. « Tu ne connaîtras pas » : il est étonnant de voir tout ce que nous avons réalisé en dépit de cela, et ces remarquables réalisations occidentales sont survenues – pas par hasard – principalement pendant les périodes automnale et hivernale de la Haute Culture faustienne. C’est seulement quand les contraintes imposées par la culture à définition chrétienne se sont dissipées dans une large mesure que l’acceptation a priori de l’échec s’est affaiblie. Le problème est qu’avec une haute Culture décadente et mourante, cette émancipation (partielle) vis-à-vis du culte de l’humilité ne mènera nulle part. Seule une nouvelle Haute Culture bâtie sur le concept fondamental de la transcendance humaine, et sur la conquête de l’infini et de l’inconnu, permettra à l’Homme Occidental d’accomplir son destin. Les ruines croulantes de la Haute Culture précédente peuvent servir de blocs de construction pour le futur, c’est certain, elles peuvent fournir une inspiration, certainement, et être une source de fierté, c’est sûr. Mais nous devons regarder vers le Futur, et non pas monter la garde auprès d’un Passé mourant ou mort, comme le soldat romain de Spengler.
Vous insistez beaucoup, pour l’efficacité de l’action métapolitique, sur la compréhension d’un contexte fait de l’emboîtement de trois éléments : l’Occident, le Système et le Régime. En quelques mots, que voulez-vous dire par là ?
