Wer war Osama bin Laden?

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

Der im Folgenden wiedergegebene Artikel »Wer ist Osama bin Laden?« wurde am 11. September 2001 entworfen. Am Abend des 12. September 2001 wurde er erstmalig auf der Global-Research-Internetseite veröffentlicht. Seit 2001 wurde er von zahllosen Internetseiten übernommen. Der ursprüngliche Eintrag gehört zu den am meisten gelesenen Internetartikeln im Zusammenhang mit al-Qaida.

Nur wenige Stunden nach den Terroranschlägen auf das World Trade Center und das Pentagon kam die Regierung Bush ohne stichhaltige Beweise zu dem Schluss: »Osama bin Laden und seineOrganisation al-Qaida sind die Hauptverdächtigen«. CIA-Direktor George Tenet erklärte, bin Laden sei in der Lage, »mehrere Anschläge mit nur geringer oder gar keiner Vorwarnung« zu planen. Außenminister Colin Powell bezeichnete die Anschläge als einen »kriegerischen Akt«, und Präsident Bush machte in einer am Abend vom Fernsehen ausgestrahlten Rede an die Nation deutlich, er unterscheide »nicht zwischen den Terroristen, die diese Verbrechen begehen, und denjenigen, die ihnen Unterschlupf gewähren«. Der frühere CIA-Direktor James Woolsey bezog sich explizit auf »staatliche Unterstützung«, was die Komplizenschaft eines oder mehrerer Staaten nahelegte. Und der frühere Nationale Sicherheitsberater Lawrence Eagleburger formulierte: »Meiner Ansicht nach werden wir beweisen, dass wir schreckliche Vergeltung üben, wenn wir so wie jetzt angegriffen werden.«

Mehr: http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/enthuellungen/pr...

 

 

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.

Wende, een interessant uitgesproken heidens tijdschrift

Wende, een interessant uitgesproken heidens tijdschrift

 

Ex: Deltanieuwsbrief nr. 47 - Mei 2011

Men kent onze bezwaren tegen bepaalde vormen van modern heidendom, die eigenlijk meer te maken hebben met een folkloristische beleving van iets dat er misschien in die vormen nooit is geweest. Bepaalde vormen van modern heidendom moeten inderdaad gezien worden als een emanatie van de “Tweede religiositeit”, zoals Oswald Spengler ze meende te moeten omschrijven. En bij Wende was ik bepaald op mijn hoede, op mijn ‘qui-vive’ door de vrij bombastische omschrijving als het halfjaarlijks “Odalistisch vormingsblad van de Werkgroep Hagal”.

Mijn oorspronkelijke scepsis verdween weliswaar toen ik het tijdschrift aandachtig begon te lezen. Twee bijdragen trokken mijn bijzondere aandacht als ‘leek’ op het vlak van heidendom: een bijdragen waarin de (Noord-) Franse groep Les Fils d’Odin werden voorgesteld en een artikel over Heidendom en ecologie.

Les Fils d’Odin werd opgericht in 2004 en als vereniging in 2006 door een zekere Josselin De Jonckheere – iemand met Vlaamse wortels dus. Uit het sympathiek interview halen wij volgend citaat, het antwoord op de vraag naar de bedoeling van de vereniging: “Het doel van onze vereniging is om zoveel mogelijk mensen te laten kennismaken met onze tradities. Dit is meer een soort van ‘laten herontdekken’ dan een ‘bekeren’. Wij hebben absoluut geen hoge hoed op met proselitisme. We streven naar een heropleving van de tradities, niet alleen in de besloten kring, maar ook in het openbaar en in de meest ruime zin van het woord”. Geen missionarissen dus op zieltjesjacht: altijd sympathiek, vind ik.

En uit de bijdrage over heidendom en ecologie geef ik u graag volgend citaat van Nick Krekelbergh mee: “Het is dan ook wellicht vanuit een combinatie van hedendaags wetenschappelijk inzicht en een ethische basishouding die afkomstig is vanuit de tradities van onze voorouders, dat een nieuw ecologisch besef kan ontstaan. Dat traditie, identiteit en milieu met elkaar in verband kunnen worden gebracht zonder dat de ondeelbaarheid en onderlinge afhankelijkheid van de verschillende gemeenschappen en culturen die het overkoepelende systeem herbergt, uit het oog wordt verloren”.

Wende verschijnt op 100% hergebruikt papier om de omgeving niet tot last te zijn.
Een abonnement kost 15 euro en kan worden betaald op volgend rekeningnummer:

BE75 9792 2723 6851 (BIC-code: ARSPBE22).

Adres: Grote Ieperstraat 9, 8560 Gullegem.
Wende wordt uitgegeven door enkele enthousiaste jongeren.

 

(Peter Logghe)

Spengler - Zu seinem 75. Todestag

Spengler – Zu seinem 75. Todestag

Karlheinz Weissmann

Ex: http://www.sezession.de/

Gestern fand am Grab Oswald Spenglers auf dem Münchener Nordfriedhof ein Gedenken zu dessen 75. Todestag statt. Die Einladung war durch das Institut für Staatspolitik (IfS) ergangen, das auch einen Kranz niederlegen ließ.

In der Ansprache am Grab hieß es:

Wir gedenken heute eines Mannes, den man noch in der jüngeren Vergangenheit selbstverständlich zu den großen Deutschen rechnete. Damit ist es heute vorbei. Der Name Spenglers sagt nur noch wenigen etwas. Zu denen rechnen wir uns, die wir heute hier zusammen gekommen sind.

Der 75. Todestag Oswald Spenglers ist für uns Anlaß, an einen Mann zu erinnern, der zu den bedeutenden Geschichtsdenkern des 20. Jahrhunderts gehört. Dabei ist die Rede vom `Propheten des Untergangs´ eine unzulässige Verkürzung, vorschnelle Ableitung aus dem Titel seines Hauptwerks Der Untergang des Abendlandes. Es wäre aber ein Irrtum, in Spengler den Verkünder der Schicksalsergebenheit zu sehen. Er forderte das amor fati, die Liebe zum Schicksal. Vor allem aber und zuerst war er ein unbestechlicher Beobachter und Analytiker, der weder vor dem großen Entwurf und der Gesamtschau, noch vor den notwendigen Schlußfolgerungen zurückscheute, – auch wenn die das Ende der eigenen, der abendländischen Kultur bedeuteten.

Spengler hat zu sehen gelehrt, daß auch die Kultur, wie jedes Lebewesen, den Gesetzen von Werden und Vergehen, Geburt, Wachstum und Tod unterliegt. Er war darin nicht der erste. Aber kein anderer hat wie er, trotz der bitteren Einsicht, gefordert, die Resignation zu meiden, tapfer auszuharren und den Posten nicht zu räumen.

Der Name Spenglers steht für Wirklichkeitssinn. Das allein könnte schon genügen. Wir gedenken seiner als eines Großen unseres Volkes.

Im Anschluß an das Gedenken fand noch eine Zusammenkunft statt, in deren Rahmen mehrere kurze Vorträge zu Leben, Werk und Bedeutung Spenglers gehalten wurden.

---

Article printed from Sezession im Netz: http://www.sezession.de

URL to article: http://www.sezession.de/24726/spengler-zu-seinem-75-todestag.html

Othmar Spann / Jungkonservativ

 

Jungkonservativ

 

pdf der Druckfassung aus Sezession 41 / April 2011

 

Sebastian Maaß: Dritter Weg und wahrer Staat. Othmar Spann – Ideengeber der Konservativen Revolution
(= Kieler Ideengeschichtliche Studien, Bd. 3),  Kiel: Regin-Verlag 2010. 174 S., 18.95 €  (hier bestellen).

 

Die »Kieler Ideengeschichtlichen Studien« gewinnen mit
Band III an Konturen.

 

Den vorausgehenden Monographien über Edgar Julius Jung und Arthur Moeller van den Bruck steuert Sebastian Maaß mit der Studie zu Othmar Spann ein weiteres Puzzleteil in der Darstellung der »profiliertesten Vertreter der jungkonservativen Richtung der Konservativen Revolution« bei.

 

Als Fraktion mit gemäßigten Strukturelementen nahm der Jungkonservatismus eine Mittelstellung zwischen Völkischen und Nationalrevolutionären ein und konnte sowohl in der Weimarer Republik (Regierung von Papens) als auch der Ersten Republik Österreichs (Heimwehrbewegung) in die realpolitischen Auseinandersetzungen der Zeit eingreifen. Die Kontextualisierung in die ideengeschichtliche Umwelt der KR unternimmt Maaß einerseits über das Aufzeigen dezidiert jungkonservativer Positionen (ständestaatliche Konzeption, mittelalterliche Reichsidee, christliche Bezugspunkte, ganzheitlicher Ansatz) in Abgrenzung zu anderen Gruppierungen der KR, andererseits mittels Bezugnahme auf die charakteristischen Analogien (Mythos der »Ewigen Wiederkehr«, Antiliberalismus und -marxismus) von Jungkonservatismus und restlichen konservativ-revolutionären Strömungen. Dem Vorwort des Spann-Kenners Hanns Pichler, der die von Maaß vorgenommene Fokussierung auf Gesellschafts- und Staatslehre Spanns als klugen Ansatz für eine einführende Darstellung bezeichnet und gerade den in dessen frühen Schriften ausgebreiteten »ganzheitlichen« gesellschaftswissenschaftlichen Ansatz als erkenntnisleitend für diesen Rahmen betrachtet, folgt ein biographischer Überblick. Anschließend widmet sich Maaß den Spann-Schülern Jakob Baxa und Walter Heinrich, die maßgeblichen Anteil an der akademischen Verbreitung der universalistischen Lehre Spanns besaßen, Heinrich versuchte darüber hinaus die ganzheitliche Lehre Spanns in reale Politik (Heimwehrbewegung in Österreich; Kameradschaftsbund für volks- und sozialpolitische Bildung im Sudetenland; Institut für Ständewesen in Düsseldorf) umzusetzen.

 

Anschließend behandelt Maaß »Philosophie und Religion als Grundlagen der Ganzheitslehre«, um über die Darlegung der »Kategorienlehre« und der politischen Publizistik (Der wahre Staat; Vom Wesen des Volkstums) den Aufbau des Spannschen »organischen« Staatswesens zu rekonstruieren. Indem der Verfasser das Wirken des Wiener Kreises um Spann sowohl in Österreich als auch dem deutschsprachigen Kulturraum analysiert, wird die meta- und realpolitische Bedeutung dieses Dritten Weges deutlich, der mit seiner machtpolitischen Ausprägung in Österreich um 1930 eine ernsthafte historische Alternative zu den »dritten Wegen« des Nationalsozialismus und des Faschismus darstellte. Das im Untertitel verwandte Konstrukt »Ideengeber der Konservativen Revolution« stellt – aufgrund der überschaubaren Rezeption von Spanns Universalismus in der Weimarer Republik – einen einzelnen Kritikpunkt an dieser soliden Monographie dar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sebastian Maaß M. A. (geb. 1981) studierte Politik, Geschichte und Erziehungswissenschaft an den Universitäten Konstanz und Tübingen, Studienschwerpunkte waren Neuere Ideen- und Philosophiegeschichte sowie Altertumswissenschaften, umfassende Forschungstätigkeit insbesondere zum Themenkomplex der Konservativen Revolution (KR). Maaß' Studie über Leben und Werk von Edgar Julius Jungist einer zentralen und wirkmächtigen Gestalt der KR gewidmet und erscheint nun als Monographie in der akademischen Reihe „Kieler ideengeschichtliche Studien“

Sebastian Maaß: Kämpfer um ein drittes ReicArthur Moeller van den Bruck und sein Kreis. — 176 Seiten, s/w. Abb., Englische Broschur. 18,95 Euro

 

 

 

 

 

Rébellion n°47

 

Rébellion n°47

Au sommaire :

Editorial

Le crépuscule de l’Odyssée

Sciences et capitalisme

>La science en péril

>La question de la science

>Courte réflexion sur la science et le cas du « nanomonde »

 

>Les Nanotechnologies : Aux frontières du réel ?

 

Entretien

Des animaux et des hommes, entretien avec Alain de Benoist

 

Chronique des livres

Des animaux et des hommes. La place de l’homme dans la nature d’Alain de Benoist

Clelia ou le pouvoir des prêtres, de Giuseppe Garibaldi

 

Disponible contre 4 euros à l'adresse :

 Rébellion C/O RSE - BP 62124 - 31020 TOULOUSE Cedex 02 FRANCE

Gerd-Klaus Kaltenbrunner is overleden

Gerd Klaus Kaltenbrunner is overleden

 

Ex: Deltanieuwsbrief nr. 47 - Mei 2011

“Conservatisme is een ‘elitaire’, men kan ook zeggen ‘esoterische’ aangelegenheid (…).  Het misverstand als zou de conservatief een theorielozen, een onfilosofische, ja, zelfs antifilosofische pragmaticus zijn, lijkt onuitroeibaar. Ik heb nochtans met veel kracht en overtuiging aangetoond dat het een misverstand is, toen ik het over die domeinen had, die man als ‘conservatieve mystiek’ zou kunnen omschrijven (…). Een zekere zin voor de onoplosbare complexiteit van de werkelijkheid, de erkenning van het feit dat men over het leven slechts brokstukgewijs rationeel kunnen spreken, de aandacht voor de tegenstelling, voor het tragische en voor het gedeeltelijk demonische dat door de geschiedenis waart, een constitutionele scepsis tegenover de ‘grote oplossingen’”. Woorden van Gerd Klaus Kaltenbrunner, een grote Oostenrijkse mijnheer, die bij menig jonge Europeaan de grondvesten van een degelijke conservatieve ideeënwereld heeft gelegd.

Kaltenbrunner werd in 1939 in Wenen geboren, maar na zijn studies in de Rechten in 1962 trok hij naar Duitsland en werkte er bij uitgeverijen als lektor. In 1972 publiceerde hij een verzamelwerk Rekonstruktion des Konservatismus, en ontwierp hiermee, enkele jaren na 1968, de basis voor een conservatieve tegenactie. Hij ging in het werk uit van de idee dat het conservatisme eerst de hegemonie op het geestelijke vlak moet veroveren, vooraleer politieke consequenties te trekken.

Gerd Klaus Kaltenbrunner wou niet zomaar ‘conserveren’: hij was er veeleer op uit het ‘moderne’ conservatieve denken mee gestalte te geven – met daarin natuurlijk dat wat eeuwig een Europese waarde had. De door hem opgezette en gepubliceerde Herderbücherei Initiative  - een reeks die liep van 1974 tot 1988 – bracht op een hoog niveau conservatieve auteurs, wetenschappers, onderzoekers en andere bijeen, die rond bepaalde thema’s (soms) baanbrekende bijdragen brachten.  Interessante titels waren (en zijn): Die Zukunft der Vergangenheid (1975), Plädoyer für die Vernunft: Signale einer Tendenzwende (1974).  Gerd Klaus Kaltenbrunner legde ook een bijzondere ijver aan de dag om de bronnen voor het conservatieve denken open en toegankelijk te houden. Hij publiceerde een driedelig werk Europa. Seine geistigen Quellen in Porträts aus zwei Jahrtausenden (1981-1985). Ook het werk Vom Geist Europas heeft niets van zijn waarde verloren en verdient het zeker op opnieuw gelezen te worden.

Hierna werd het stil rond Kaltenbrunner. Hij trok zich – na de ontgoocheling over het uitblijven van een échte conservatieve wende – terug als een lekenmonnik in Kandern, afgesneden van alle moderne communicatiemiddelen. Hij trok ook voorgoed een streep onder het metapolitieke werk. Nochtans loont het de moeite, zeker in deze tijden van ideeënarmoede ter linker en rechter zijde de moeite om de stijl en de onderwerpen die Gerd Klaus Kaltenbrunner nauw aan het hart lagen, te bestuderen.  Met TeKoS hebben wij in elk geval niet op het overlijden van deze bescheiden, overtuigdconservatieve intellectueel gewacht om bijdragen van hem te publiceren. In ons nummer 127 brachten wij een vertaling van Elite. Erziehung für den Ernstfall, in het Nederlands: Zonder Elite gaat het niet. Wij groeten u met bijzondere veel respect, meester Kaltenbrunner!

(Peter Logghe)

Gefangennehemen und töten

Gefangennehmen und töten (»capture and kill«) – eine Präsidentenorder im Widerspruch zum Menschenrecht

Wolfgang Effenberger

Nachdem US-Präsident Barack Obama mit seiner Außenministerin Hillary Clinton und weiteren Mitarbeitern am späten Sonntagabend des 2. Mai die Operation im pakistanischen Abbottabad live verfolgt hatte, trat Obama eloquent vor die Kameras und den Teleprompter. Über zehn Minuten verkündete er in einer wortgewandten und bilderreichen Rede die Tötung des Staatsfeindes Nr. 1 – des seit 1998 gesuchten Chefs des islamistischen Terrornetzwerks Al-Kaida, Osama bin Laden. Zuletzt waren 25 Millionen Dollar Kopfgeld auf ihn ausgesetzt.

Mehr: http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/geostrategie/wolfgang-effenberger/gefangennehmen-und-toeten-capture-and-kill-eine-praesidentenorder-im-widerspruch-zum-menschenr.html

Poids de la mémoire, nécessité de l'Histoire

Poids de la mémoire, nécessité de l'Histoire

par Jean-Gilles Malliarakis

Ex: http://www.insolent.fr/

On a fêté hier en France l'armistice de 1945. Dans l'ancienne Moscovie on commémore cela le 9 mai, en considération de l'entrée victorieuse des troupes staliniennes dans la vieille capitale prussienne. Il existe ainsi, de manière inévitable, plusieurs versions de l'Histoire. Ce qui tient lieu d'occident gagnerait par conséquent à sortir, au moins, de la Mémoire formatée, dans la seconde moitié du XXe siècle par la propagande soviétique.

On pourrait donc commencer par le commencement.

La seconde guerre mondiale a été mise en route le 23 août 1939 à Moscou. Joachim von Ribbentrop et Viatcheslav Molotov, respectivement ministre des Affaires étrangères du Reich et commissaire du peuple de l'Union soviétique paraphèrent ce jour-là deux documents. Le premier, rendu public, se présentait comme un pacte de non-agression entre les deux États. Personne ne s'y trompait. Un second accord le complète sous forme d'un protocole secret délimitant à l'avance les zones d'influence respective en Europe centrale et orientale qui résulteront du conflit immédiatement à venir. Un troisième interviendra le 28 septembre pour le partage des dépouilles.

Les choses s'enchaîneront dès lors irrémédiablement. Hitler attaquera la Pologne une semaine plus tard, le 1er septembre. Son compère Staline le suivra, frappant dans le dos le frère slave, le 17. Un conflit monstrueux allait embraser le monde pour 6 années, provoquant la mort de 50 à 60 millions de victimes. Il ne se terminera qu'en août 1945, avec la conférence de Potsdam. Le dictateur soviétique avait entre-temps changé de camp, le 22 juin 1941. Il le fit involontairement, et sans l'avoir lui-même prévu. Il fera cependant avaliser de manière définitive par ses nouveaux partenaires de l'ouest, ses conquêtes territoriales. En Europe, tous ses agrandissements remontaient à la période de son appartenance au camp adverse entre 1939 et 1941.

Ses interlocuteurs d'alors venaient d'accéder au pouvoir. Ils s'appelaient Harry Truman, ayant succédé en avril à Roosevelt comme président des États-Unis, et Clement Attlee chef du parti travailliste, vainqueur des élections législatives remplaçant Churchill le 26 juillet 1944. À Yalta, l'Amérique et la Grande Bretagne avaient avalisé les bases de cette consolidation des acquis territoriaux. Les deux grands alliés occidentaux avaient en effet cosigné le 11 février 1945 la "déclaration sur l'Europe libérée" considérant qu'en Europe de l'est, "la libération par l'armée rouge crée une situation politique nouvelle".

Guère novatrice pourtant, celle-ci reprenait presque exactement la position redessinée le 28 septembre 1939 par le maître du Kremlin en accord avec Ribbentrop.

Les destructions immenses, les pertes humaines, les bouleversements politiques et sociaux résultant de la déflagration, mirent au second plan les charcutages territoriaux.

Pas d'histoire sans géographie, par de géographie sans cartes, nous enseignait-on pourtant autrefois.

Les Français, absents des deux conférences de Potsdam et de Yalta, libérés par les Américains et peu soucieux de géographie ont longtemps considéré comme points de détails les modifications apportées à la carte de l'Europe orientale. Aux yeux de beaucoup de décideurs nombre de frontières sont tenues pour justes dès lors que, résultant de l'histoire militaire, elles ont été fixées au moment de la signature des armistices.

Observons cependant que ces transferts de souverainetés territoriales, au centre de l'Europe, imposées en 1940 et pérennisées en 1945 répondaient à trois caractéristiques.

Premièrement, aucune d'entre elles ne correspondait ni à la volonté exprimée démocratiquement et pacifiquement par les populations, entre les deux guerres, ni à la plus élémentaire des cartes linguistiques.

Deuxièmement, du nord au sud, de la Carélie finnoise à la Bessarabie roumaine, elles permettaient toutes, aux forces armées soviétiques, de pénétrer directement dans chacun des pays satellisés et incorporés de force dans l'Empire communiste.

Et enfin toutes ces conquêtes, soit 9 territoires totalisant 435 000 km2, soit la superficie de 75 départements français, avaient été opérés pendant la période 1939-1941. (1)

À noter aussi que si 4 de ces 9 pays ont recouvré en 1991 leurs indépendances étatiques, et si 3 d'entre eux appartiennent désormais à l'Otan et à l'Union européenne, aucune frontière n'a fait l'objet ni d'un réexamen, ce qui peut être considéré désormais comme un moindre mal, ni même d'un assouplissement.

On doit donc constater que l'alliance entre Staline et Hitler, n'est pas seulement demeurée impunie. Initiée par le dictateur soviétique (2) elle se traduisit diplomatiquement par trois accords logiquement inséparables.

Le crime dont Katyn est devenu la métaphore sanglante, commis au détriment des victimes polonaises, ne doit être tenu ni pour isolé, ni pour accidentel, ni même pour spécifique au martyre d'une seule nation. Le massacre des élites réputées bourgeoises fut ainsi perpétré par l'occupant rouge. Avec ou sans la complicité de ses alliés du moment, elle laissa des traces profondes dans toute l'Europe de l'est.

Elle aura profité pendant un demi-siècle au partenaire communiste.

Elle a été transférée sans doute, de manière artificielle au second rang de la "mémoire".

Mais elle ne doit pas, elle ne peut pas être oubliée par l'Histoire

JG Malliarakis

Apostilles

1. La carte et le tableau de ces territoires figurent dans le livre "L'Alliance Staline Hitler" (chapitre Ier "Cartes sur tables"), dont la parution se trouve reportée de quelques jours. Il parviendra chez les souscripteurs fin mai. Je les prie de bien vouloir m'excuser de ce petit retard et j'en profite pour proposer aux autres de bénéficier encore jusqu'au 25 mai des conditions de souscription, au prix de 20 euros, payables soit par chèque adressé aux Éditions du Trident, 39 rue du Cherche Midi, 75006 Paris tel [phone], soit par carte bancaire en utilisant la page dédiée du site des Éditions du Trident.

    

2. ce que démontrent les 250 pages de documents publiés dans "L'Alliance Staline Hitler".

"L'Alliance Staline Hitler"

Sous ce titre paraîtra un ouvrage de l'auteur de ces lignes retraçant le contexte de la politique soviétique pendant toute l'entre deux guerres. Il comprend en annexe, et expliquant, plus de 80 documents diplomatiques, caractéristiques de cette alliance. Il sera en vente à partir du 25 mai au prix de 29 euros. Les lecteurs de L'Insolent peuvent y souscrire jusqu'au 25 mai au prix de 20 euros, soit en passant par la page spéciale sur le site des Éditions du Trident, soit en adressant directement un chèque de 20 euros aux Éditions du Trident 39 rue du Cherche Midi 75006 Paris. Tel [phone].

Puisque vous appréciez l'Insolent
Adressez-lui votre libre contribution financière !

A Clash of Victimologies

By Keith Preston

 

Ex: http://www.alternativeright.com/

In recent days, a video has been circulating online depicting the savage beating of a customer at a Baltimore McDonald’s by two teenaged African-American females. Richard linked to it in one of his recent posts. Here it is again. The victim of the beating appears to be a Caucasian female. After repeatedly taking some rather brutal blows, the victim is shown apparently going into a seizure. Loose hair that had apparently been torn from her head (or wig) is shown on the floor near the victim. The employees of the McDonald’s in question apparently stood by and did nothing to assist the victim. The only effort at intervention was made by an elderly white female customer. The incident was filmed by a McDonald’s employee by the name of Vernon Hackett whom we are told has subsequently been dismissed from his position.

It has since been revealed that the victim was a 22-year-old transgender woman by the name of Chrissy Lee Polis. (For those unfamiliar with PC terminology, a “transgender woman” is roughly defined as a former “he” turned “she” in terms of self-identification though not necessarily surgical alteration.) It also turns out that Chrissy Lee Polis is an epileptic, which likely explains the onset of a seizure during the attack. The probable motivation for the attack was the two perpetrators having taken offense to the fact that Polis was attempting to use the women’s restroom. For a time, the video was being circulated in some white nationalist circles as a chilling example of a brutal crime being inflicted on a white person by ghetto blacks (which it clearly was). Upon the revelation of the victim’s proclaimed “gender identity,” some in the white nationalist milieu indicated their inclination to withdraw or scale back their sympathy. But clearly this was a horrific and despicable crime, regardless of the racial or sexual identities of either the victim or the perpetrator. Predictably, gay rights and “sexual minority” organizations have demanded that this incident be investigated and prosecuted as a hate crime.

Of course, what is interesting about this case is not merely that a violent crime occurred. Murders, assaults, robberies, and rapes are routine daily occurrences. Nor do the racial or sexual identities of either the victim or the perpetrators make this crime particularly unique. The fact that the crime occurred at a McDonald’s is no big news either. Someone was shot to death at a McDonald’s a few blocks from my residence some years ago. If Chrissy Lee Polis had been just another “normal” white person, this case would be getting scarcely any attention at all. There might be a few posts on various paleoconservative, white nationalist or alternative right websites about the hypocrisy of a mainstream media that turns hate crimes against racial or sexual minorities into front page news and national scandals whose memory lingers for years (the Matthew Shepard case, for instance) but ignores comparable crimes committed by minorities against whites (for example, how many Americans have ever even heard of the Wichita Massacre?). But that would be about it.

If she had not been a sexual minority, the victimization of Chrissy Lee Polis would not likely be receiving the attention of the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, San Francisco Chronicle, and other representatives of leftist opinion. Nor would she be receiving the attention of London’s Daily Mail, the Australian, the India Times, or other outlets of the international press. It is unlikely that she would be getting the recognition of even neocon mouthpieces like Lucianne.Com. Even the “movement conservative” press generally had little to say about the events in Wichita at the time of their occurrence. Nor would her attackers be facing the prospect of having hate crimes charges brought against them. In fact, the crime would likely be just another among countless routine criminal assaults reported to local police departments, though if Chrissy Lee Polis’ attackers had been skinheads or stereotypical “white trash” types rather than equally stereotypical “ghetto” types it is likely her case would be receiving much more attention than it currently is.

What we have here is an example of the “clash of victimologies” that is likely to become more evident as political correctness becomes ever more institutionally entrenched and as the realities of demographic transformation become ever more difficult to ignore. If indeed the two girls who perpetrated this are prosecuted for a hate crime against a transgendered woman, tensions between the organized African-American lobby and the organized “LGBT” lobby are bound to escalate. It is the standard political line of Sharpton-esque race hustlers and demagogues that virtually every black criminal, no matter how obvious the offender’s guilt or how malicious the offender’s actions, is somehow a victim of racism, social injustice, white privilege, this, that, or the other thing. The most obvious and celebrated case of this type was the elevation of O.J. Simpson, a wealthy celebrity with a lengthy history of severe domestic violence who became a cold-blooded double murderer, into an ostensible civil rights martyr, as though he were some poor black kid railroaded for a petty burglary by racist cops and unable to afford a competent defense attorney.

It will be interesting to observe to what degree the self-appointed spokesmen for African-Americans call for solidarity with the two teenaged hooliganettes, make excuses for them, attempt to absolve them of responsibility for their actions, or attribute their legal status to racism. Perhaps they will try to make the issue go away by simply ignoring it. However the high priests of the civil rights industry respond to this situation, this incident is bound to raise doubts in the minds of many “LGBT” people about who their political friends actually are. After all, a transgendered woman who attempted to wander into the women’s restroom in a McDonald’s located in some stuffy white bread suburb might get some funny looks, maybe some teasing. At worst, some shocked little old lady or concerned soccer mom might summon a couple of patrol cops who in their bewilderment would go about their usual routine of asking for ID, running a name check, issuing a warning, and cracking jokes as they drove off in the squad car. No doubt the recipient of such treatment would consider herself harassed and embarrassed, but it hardly compares with being a victim of aggravated assault bordering on attempted murder. No doubt many from the “LGBT” community might begin to recognize that “victim” status does not necessarily translate into “tolerance," and subsequently start to wonder if replacing the traditional European-American majority with Third World immigrants would be in their best interests, given that the majority of immigrants originate from countries where “sexual minorities” are not exactly honored.

This incident has created an interesting dilemma for the Left. Which class of official victim groups are they going to side with on this one? The Battle of McDonald’s provides an illustration of why, I believe, the Left as it is presently constituted will fail in the long run, whatever its present level of institutional influence and however much it may be able to endure for a few more decades. The Left will eventually self-destruct because its core tenets are self-contradictory and cannot be sustained in real world social practice. The Left’s core constituent groups: racial minorities, immigrants, the LGBT community, feminists, “secular humanists,” the black and Hispanic underclass, wealthy Jews, etc. have interests that are ultimately incompatible with one another. As the Left becomes more powerful in the short run, as the realities imposed by mass immigration become more apparent, and the tensions between the official victim groups begin to surface to an ever greater extent, the coalition of the officially oppressed will begin to self-cannibalize. Each interest group within the victimology paradigm will begin to battle each other for the “More Oppressed Than Thou” championship title. This will be the death blow for PC. It’s only a matter of time.

 

 

 

Keith Preston

Keith Preston is the chief editor of AttacktheSystem.com and holds graduate degrees in history and sociology. He was awarded the 2008 Chris R. Tame Memorial Prize by the United Kingdom's Libertarian Alliance for his essay, "Free Enterprise: The Antidote to Corporate Plutocracy."

Giovani d'Europa in Marcia !

 

 

Arkaïm: la cité mystère de l'Europe

Arkaïm : la cité mystère de l’Europe

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

Une partie de notre histoire toujours soumise à l’omerta d’une caste.

Les organisateurs se sont-ils sérieusement enquis de la possibilité ou ont-ils essuyé un refus? Toujours est-il que l’exposition sur Arkaïm, que nous avions brièvement évoquée, ne parcourra pas les musées de France pour faire connaître ce site archéologique exceptionnel. Elle a été démontée par l’Institut de paléontologie humaine de Paris et l’université d’Etat de Tchéliabinsk, le laboratoire départemental de préhistoire du Lazaret. Tous les objets ont quitté le musée des Merveilles à Tende et les confins des Alpes Maritimes pour reprendre la route de la steppe russe.

Nous éprouvons de l’amertume pour cette issue et aussi pour être le seul média à la stigmatiser, comme nous avons été le seul, avec la presse locale, à signaler cette exposition doublement inédite. C’était la première fois que l’occasion était donnée en France de prendre une connaissance détaillée de découvertes spectaculaires et de mesurer leur importance. Peu de monde l’aura vue. Elle en aurait éclairé plus d’un.

Quand on demandait à Charles de Gaulle de délimiter l’Europe, le fondateur de la Vème République était plus précis dans ces considérations que les politiciens actuels. Il répondait qu’elle allait de l’Atlantique à l’Oural. L’archéologie lui donne raison. Arkaïm est un élément probatoire de cette réalité en même temps qu’une des pièces majeure du puzzle continental dont la reconstitution, commencée au XIX, est loin d’être achevée pour réévaluer l’histoire ancienne des Européens dépréciée pendant de longs siècles et ans.

On savait que, entre -3 600 et -2 200, les steppes qui s’étendaient des Carpates et du Danube au Fleuve Jaune, soit une ceinture de 7.000 km de long sur 1.000 km de large, devenus l’Ukraine et la Russie Méridionale jusqu’à l’Oural, étaient occupées par des cultures pratiquant l’agriculture et l’élevage, recourant à la construction de tumuli funéraires, ayant domestiqué le cheval et pratiquant la métallurgie.

Après avoir évoqué des campements saisonniers, au mieux des fortifications faites de plusieurs enceintes de pierre entourant des maisons de fondations de pierre, l’archéologie, pour rester spectaculaire, faisait un saut directement à la grande culture scythe du 1^er millénaire. A l’époque où s’édifiaient, les premières grandes pyramides égyptiennes sur le versant méridional, on était accoutumé à sous-estimer ce qui existait au nord.

Le miracle d’Arkaïm : une cité sort du sol presque intacte

Tout à fait accidentelle puisque le lieu était devenu un vaste chantier à vocation hydrologique, la découverte d’Arkaim en 1987 va être un coup de tonnerre. On savait que cette « Contrée des Cités » recélait, à la latitude de Magnitogorsk et sur une distance de 400km, une vingtaine de sites occupés, distant les uns des autres d’une quarantaine de kilomètres. Mais les fouilles n’avaient donné que des résultats modestes. Et voilà que, discernable seulement des airs, émerge une cité qui se distingue des autres par l’état d’intégrité unique des ses ouvrages de fortification et ses sépultures, son architecture saisissante de modernité et son système de traitement des commodités, sans commune mesure avec les villages bâtis à la même époque qu’on nous avait présentés jusque là.

Et d’abord ses formes étranges : deux cercles enchâssés sur un puissant système défensif ingénieusement ramifié par des liaisons. Dans l’arrondi, des rangées d’habitations de forme parallélépipédique, accolées et orientées vers le noyau, avec une distribution précise de pièces dotées de foyer, des matériaux ignifuges sur les murs, un système alimentation et d’évacuation hydraulique branché en réseau. En partie centrale de cette ville, susceptible d’abriter 2.500 personnes, une esplanade de forme géométrique et dégagée : une sorte de forum.

Cette découverte  soulève aussi de multiples interrogations. A commencer pat le choix des formes. Quelle signification donner à une architecture inédite et d’abord à ces cercles concentriques qui renvoient tout aussi bien à une formalisation symbolique en érection à la même époque et à des milliers de kilomètres à l’Ouest, à Stonehenge. Mais renvoient aussi à l’Est du monde par son analogie avec une pièce de monnaie chinois ou à un mandala tibétain.

Une place dans la géographie sacrée ?

Dans la symbolique de la tradition, la roue représente le temps, l’univers, le cosmos dans lequel s’inscrit l’ordonnancement spatial du carré, c’est à dire de la croix, renvoyant au quatre points cardinaux. La construction d’Arkaïm et même la position géographique relèverait-elle, comme s’interroge Paul Catsaras dans la revue « Hyperborée » (CRUSOE 4642 route de Roquefavour 13122 Ventabren), d’une géographie sacrée et, par sa latitude et son orientation polaire, appellerait-elle un parallèle avec Stonehenge , déjà citée, et Tiahuanaco dans la Cordillère des Andes ?

Ces questions, on peut le déplorer, ne semblent nullement préoccuper des archéologues comme Jean Paul Demoule. 15 ans après, ce professeur de la Sorbonne se contente, dans un ouvrage tout récent dont il a la direction scientifique et sur lequel nous reviendrons – « L’Europe un continent redécouvert par l’archéologie » Gallimard) – d’indiquer que ce site « a transformé notre vision de l’âge du bronze des steppes en montrant de cités de forme inusuelles à l’élaboration complexe ». Comment et pourquoi ? Nous ne le saurons sans doute jamais, en tout cas en provenance de ces sectes scientifiques où règne une omerta sur bien des aspects de la pré et proto-histoire de l’Europe. Dégagez il n’y a rien à voir !

Mais, derrière la première série de questions, s’en profilent de plus fondamentales. Quels étaient les peuples qui ont façonné ces constructions  et quelle était leur origine? Que pensaient-ils ? Que parlaient-ils ? En quoi croyaient-ils ? Là encore, n’allons surtout pas chercher la réponse dans le travail de monsieur Demoule qui, soit n’a pas regardé, soit n’a rien vu des dessins ou des signes sur les objets, les poteries : cercles, carrés, losanges, triangles, zigzags et, « horresco referens », svastikas.

Les savants de l’ex-Union Soviétique, peut être même d’anciens communistes, ont été plus rapides dans leurs investigations sur les rites funéraires, l’organisation sociale. Ils sont aussi plus loquaces, se permettant de « supposer les prémices d’un pouvoir détenu par un chef de tribu unique et d’une certaine hiérarchisation avec l’existence d’une élite. L’autorité de ce groupe d’individus n’était pas fondée sur des contraintes économiques mais sur des valeurs religieuses traditionnelles.

Les cauchemars de Mr Demoule et le berceau de Zarathoustra

Les membres de l’élite tenaient le rôle de prêtres et disposaient également d’une position importante dans le domaine militaire. La richesse des sépultures féminines permet de percevoir que les femmes possédaient un statut social important. Il est même possible qu’il y ait eu des femmes prêtresses. »

Tout cela leur « semble correspondre à l’émergence  des sociétés divisées en trois classes : les guerriers, les prêtres et les artisans, typiques des civilisations indo-européennes ». On comprend que Jean Paul Demoule fasse des cauchemars, lui qui s’emploie à ne jamais prononcer ce terme dans ses travaux, dont on mesure tout de suite la sincérité.

Sommes-nous face aux représentants de la plus ancienne civilisation caucasienne, dans « le berceau du prophète Zarathoustra », comme l’avancent certains scientifiques enthousiastes ? Rappelons que dans les hypothèses avancées sur la localisation du foyer d’origine de l’indo-européen, qui se définit d’abord comme une réalité linguistique, mais avec forcément des locuteurs d’un type physique caractéristique, sur lequel nous ne nous étendrons pas ici, l’école de Marija Gimbutas élit justement l’aire géographique d’Europe centrale et de Russie méridionale.

Fait hautement symptomatique : deux visiteurs de marque se sont déplacés à Arkaïm : Vladimir Poutine et le Premier ministre indien Sing. Quel rapport entre les deux ? Le premier voit dans Arkaïm la capitale d’un « empire aryen » ; aryanité que le second endosse comme base de la culture polythéiste de l’Inde moderne. Rappelez-vous d’Arkaïm, faites en un but de voyage et même de pèlerinage. Le nom fera encore parler de lui. Peut être même que Jean Paul Demoule viendra à contrition et finira par cracher le morceau.

Albane Capuron

Source : Metamag.

Atapuerca desmiente la tesis del origen africano del hombre

Ex: http://www.idpress.org/

Los hallazgos de la Sierra de Atapuerca (Burgos) podrían cambiar algunos de los paradigmas que, desde hace años, se mantienen sobre la evolución humana en el continente europeo. Mientras las teorías actuales defienden que hubo varias salidas de homínidos de África, y que éstos llegaron a Eurasia en diferentes oleadas, tras evolucionar en el continente negro, los últimos trabajos científicos desarrollados en la sierra burgalesa apuntan a que hubo una evolución euroasiática y una 'identidad europea' con características propias.

Así lo defienden José María Bermúdez de Castro, codirector de las excavaciones en Atapuerca y director del Centro Nacional de Investigación en Evolución Humana (CENIEH) y la paleontóloga, experta en dentición, María Martinón-Torres, en sendos artículos publicados en la revista 'Journal of Human Evolution'.

En sus trabajos, los investigadores analizan la mandíbula de hace 1,3 millones de años que se encontró en el yacimiento de la Sima del Elefante que se encontró en el año 2008 y que en un principio se atribuyó a un 'Homo antecessor', la misma especie que se encontró en el cercano yacimiento de la Gran Dolina, en este caso con unos 900.000 años.

Los investigadores, ahora, tienen serias dudas de que se trate de este homínido, dado que, aunque tienen características comunes, también detectan otras más primitivas y que lo relacionan con otras especies asiáticas, como el 'Homo erectus' . "Los homínidos de la Sima del Elefante adquirieron una identidad europea durante su viaje y estancia en el extremo occidental de Eurasia, que es la Península Ibérica", señala Bermúdez de Castro.

Para el paleontólogo, los resultados de este análisis concuerdan con un nuevo escenario evolutivo, según el cual sólo hubo una salida de África antes de la del 'Homo sapiens'. Por ello, y a la espera de nuevos fósiles, prefieren incluir la mandíbula como 'Homo sp', es decir, indeterminado.

Martinón-Torres, que hecho un estudio comparativo de los fósiles europeos y asiáticos del Pleistoceno medio e inferior, también está convencida de que los europeos tienen un mayor parentesco entre sí que los de origen africano.

Bermúdez de Castro, por su parte, apunta que este homínido pudo llegar a Atapuerca en una gran migración desde Asia Menor, donde se han encontrado fósiles de hace 1,8 millones de años (Dmanisi, en Georgia) diferente a la migración de la Gran Dolina, de la que les separan 400.000 años, o que pudo evolucionar en la sierra burgalesa durante todo ese tiempo.

Para comprobarlo, son necesarios más restos, pues hasta ahora sólo se cuenta con la mandíbula, un diente y parte de una falange de un dedo. Y por ello quieren construir un puente de unos 20 metros en la "Trinchera del ferrocarril". Con esta estructura, los paleontólogos podrían trabajar a mayor profundidad, hasta retirar los 30 centímetros de tierra que, según creen, ocultan más fósiles de hace 1,3 millones de años.

Rosa M. Tristán
elmundo.es

Anatolia: Una indoeuropeizacion frustrada

Anatolia: Una indoeuropeización frustrada

por Olegario de las Eras

 

Ex: http://identidadytradicion.blogia.com/

La herencia indoeuropea, concretada en una jerarquía de valores y principios y en un tipo humano determinado que desde la Prehistoria han dado forma a ciclos de civilización análogos, conforma el nervio de la comunidad constituida por los pueblos europeos, comunidad sentida y vivida más allá de las contingentes «fronteras nacionales». En efecto, es un hecho que las sucesivas oleadas de pueblos septentrionales, migrando en grupos masivos y compactos, de celtas a eslavos de helenos a germanos, fueron los materiales sobre los que en el transcurso de milenios cristalizaron la práctica totalidad de pueblos de nuestro continente. Siendo esto así, resulta aparentemente contradictorio que un territorio como el de la península de Anatolia en el que se documenta una presencia indoeuropea desde fines del III milenio a. n. e. y que ha visto sobre su suelo a hititas, luvitas, helenos, tracios, frigios, persas, gálatas o latinos entre otros, se perciba por parte de los europeos como algo ajeno. Pero la realidad es que los indoeuropeos no pudieron permanecer en todas partes donde llegaron: «Los indoeuropeos no siempre han vencido»: no tenemos más remedio que dar la razón, aunque sea por una vez, a J. P. Mallory.

     La llegada a las costas del Mediterráneo de grupos indoeuropeos produjo siempre necesariamente enfrentamientos con las poblaciones autóctonas: de la derrota y sometimiento de éstas dependió la posibilidad de supervivencia de aquellos. En realidad, la historia de las civilizaciones indoeuropeas del Mediterráneo (Hélade, Roma, la Céltica...) es la historia de una incesante lucha contra el elemento humano y espiritual aborigen1. Éste fue el caso también de los pueblos que hablaban las lenguas indoeuropeas del grupo anatolio, pueblos que conservaban firmemente su tradición religiosa y jurídico-política indoeuropea en el momento de asentarse en sus sedes históricas2. A su llegada la península se encontraba densamente poblada por gentes pertenecientes al complejo racial mediterráneo, su cultura calcolítica, cuyas raíces se encuentran en el creciente fértil,  se estructuraba en esos momentos alrededor de centros urbanos que dominaban amplios espacios y su religión, omnipresente en el registro, estaba determinada por los cultos ctónios y de fecundidad. Con toda probabilidad la lengua hablada fue la que posteriormente será conocida como hático. Si bien los resultados de su inmigración fueron devastadores3, el impacto demográfico no alteró el predominio del substrato neolítico como han demostrado los trabajos de M. Senyürek: el impacto numérico del elemento indoeuropeo, étnicamente nórdico4, fue demasiado pequeño como para perdurar física y espiritualmente por demasiado tiempo. Con el transcurso de los siglos, la dünne Herrenschicht, el delgado estrato señorial hitita, resultó fatalmente «hurritizado», «mesopotamizado» y «haticizado» y la destrucción del Imperio a fines del II milenio por obra de grupos frigios procedentes de más allá del Helesponto signará la desaparición de la propia lengua hitita. Los llamados reinos neohititas surgidos tras el desastre en el borde meridional del antiguo Imperio utilizarán el luvita en sus textos. Esta lengua, hablada en las zonas occidental y meridional de la península por comunidades en las que el elemento indoeuropeo parece haber presentado una mayor densidad,  resistió el embate, sobreviviendo en el licio5.

    A ojos del observador contemporáneo podría parecer que la presencia de los helenos en  áreas de la franja costera occidental, de los grupos licios y lidios y los aportes indoeuropeos de las invasiones del 1200 acabaría por vincular el Asia Menor a Europa. Sin embargo, tanto los propios testimonios lingüísticos, que nos hablan de la profunda acción del sustrato no indoeuropeo en las lenguas del grupo anatolio, tanto antiguas como recientes, como las influencias no helénicas que podemos descubrir cada vez con mayor peso en toda la Jonia nos demuestran que el destino de los hititas volvía a repetirse en el occidente y el sur peninsular: en ambos ámbitos los cultos de naturaleza telúrica, enraizados en el neolítico anatolio, van recobrando fuerza mostrando la abrumadora presencia de una población «no receptiva» a las concepciones espirituales indoeuropeas6.

     Tras el periodo de dominio persa, las conquistas de Alejandro y de Roma son los últimos empujes en la historia de Anatolia de raíz occidental7. Empujes políticos que tienen como efecto la integración de este territorio en la ecúmene helenística y en el Imperio pero una escasa relevancia en términos étnicos8. Y es en época romana cuando se constata un fenómeno ciertamente revelador: la muy temprana y fácil cristianización del ámbito anatolio que contrasta con el carácter de secta y muy minoritario de los seguidores del Galileo en la parte occidental del Imperio y la misma Grecia9, fenómeno paralelo al resto de áreas no europeas del Imperio.

     El fracaso de la renovatio imperii de Justiniano y las posteriores concepciones teocráticas de lejanas raíces próximo-orientales preludian el destino «no europeo» de Anatolia: Bizancio se percibe por los occidentales romano-germánicos como algo profundamente ajeno: la matanza de latinos de 1182 y las conquistas cruzadas jalonan este desencuentro. Pero este destino quedará sellado a partir de 1071 cuando los selyúcidas ocupen la mitad oriental de Anatolia. Tres siglos después toda Anatolia pertenece a los otomanos. Los procesos de «turquización» étnica y lingüística y de islamización comenzados en el siglo XI, que culminan con las masivas deportaciones contemporáneas de griegos y armenios, borrarán todo resto lingüístico (excepción hecha del pueblo kurdo, cuya lengua pertenece al grupo iranio, que está padeciendo un etnocidio por parte del estado turco del cual no es este lugar para hablar) e ideológico indoeuropeo de la península. Sólo los rasgos nórdicos que muy de tarde en tarde se pueden observar en algún campesino de Capadocia, probablemente de sangre gálata, dan testimonio de aquellos antiguos ciclos de civilización hoy completamente agotados.    

 

---

1 Véase J. Evola, Rebelión contra el mundo moderno, Buenos Aires 1994, especialmente la Parte II capítulos V-X y la recopilación de textos del mismo autor sobre esta cuestión publicada por Ed. di Ar bajo el título La Tradizione Romana.

2 Véase, por ejemplo, E. Masson, Le combat pour L’inmortalité. Héritage indo-europeen dans la mytologie anatolienne, París 1991 y O. J. Gurney, Los hititas, Barcelona 1995, especialmente pp. 72 y ss.

3 P. Garelli, El Próximo oriente asiático, Barcelona 1982, pp. 27 y A. Romualdi, Los indoeuropeos. Orígenes y migraciones, Barcelona 2002, p. 173 n. 50.

4 V. Christian, «Die frühesten Spuren der Indogermanen in Vorderasien», en Rasse 1935 2ª año, nº 4, p. 121 y ss. y H.F.K. Günther, Rassenkunde des Jüdischen Volkes, Munich 1930, pp. 50-54. La extensión del rito de incineración ha dificultado enormemente el diagnóstico tipológico de los grupos conquistadores indoeuropeos: Gurney (op. cit., pp. 160 y ss.) llama la atención sobre las semejanzas entre los ritos de incineración descritos en las tablillas hititas y los homéricos. Entre las nuevas poblaciones que no incineran a sus muertos también se documentan tipos alpinos, inexistentes en Anatolia con anterioridad. Por otro lado, el proceso de «hurritización» del Imperio hitita se ve acompañado por una difusión desde el este del tipo armenoide o pre-asiático, actualmente muy bien representado entre la población turca (H.F.K. Günther op. cit., pp. 20-40).

5 Para una breve visión de conjunto de la problemática de las lenguas indoeuropeas del grupo anatolio véase F. Villar, Los indoeuropeos y los orígenes de Europa, Madrid 1996, pp.289 y ss. 

6 Baste recordar el culto de Ártemis Efesia como diosa de la fertilidad, el de Attys o el de la «frigia» Cibeles. 

7 Es preciso mencionar la aventura gálata que se inicia con los movimientos de diferentes grupos célticos en el siglo IV a. n. e. Algunos de estos grupos, apenas unos 20.000 individuos en su conjunto, de los cuales unos 10.000 guerreros, tras numerosas vicisitudes fueron asentados por Antíoco Soter en las llanuras frigias y sobre el Halys, tierras que desde entonces recibirán el nombre de Galacia. Derrotados por Atalo I, a cuyo sepulcro pertenecen las impresionantes estatuas helenísticas del guerrero gálata moribundo y de su caudillo quitándose la vida, fueron concentrados en su territorio donde dominarán a una población anatolia mucho más densa. Se helenizarán progresivamente pero conservarán su lengua hasta la cristianización. Sobre los gálatas véase H. Hubert, Los celtas y la civilización céltica, Madrid 1988, pp. 297-307.

8 Una aproximación muy interesante a los estados helenísticos en el que se aplican las categorías interpretativas de G. Dumézil puede verse en C. Preaux, El mundo helenístico, Barcelona 1984, 2 volúmenes.

9 Véase, por ejemplo, M. Simon y A. Benoit, El judaísmo y le cristianismo antiguo, Barcelona 1972, pp. 54.

Der Krieg in Libyen, amerikanische Macht und der Niedergang des Petrodollar-Systems

Peter Dale Scott

Der gegenwärtige Kampfeinsatz der NATO gegen Gaddafi in Libyen hat sowohl unter denjenigen, die diesen wirkungslosen Krieg führen, als auch unter denen, die ihn beobachten, für große Verwirrung gesorgt. Viele Menschen, deren Ansichten ich normalerweise respektiere, halten dieses Vorgehen für einen notwendigen Krieg gegen einen Verbrecher – wobei einige Gaddafi als den Verbrecher sehen, andere dagegen auf Obama deuten.

Nach meiner persönlichen Auffassung ist dieser Krieg geleichermaßen schlecht durchdacht und gefährlich – er bedroht die Interessen der Libyer, der Amerikaner, des Mittleren Ostens und durchaus vorstellbar auch der ganzen Welt. Neben dem vorgeschobenen Anliegen der Sicherheit der libyschen Zivilbevölkerung gibt es noch einen verborgeneren Beweggrund, der kaum offen zugegeben wird: die westliche Verteidigung der derzeitigen weltweiten Petrodollar-Wirtschaft, die im Niedergang begriffen ist.

Die Verwirrung in Washington, zu der das Fehlen jeglicher Diskussion über ein vorrangiges strategisches Motiv für eine amerikanische Einmischung passt, steht symptomatisch für die Tatsache, dass das Ende des »Amerikanischen Jahrhunderts« gekommen ist und es auf eine Weise zu Ende geht, die einerseits auf lange Sicht vorhersehbar ist und andererseits sprunghaft und unkontrollierbar in den Einzelheiten erfolgt.

Mehr: http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/geostrategie/peter-dale-scott/der-krieg-in-libyen-amerikanische-macht-und-der-niedergang-des-petrodollar-systems.html

 

 

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). 

Le néo-libéralisme et la domestication de l'homme

Le néo-libéralisme et la domestication de l’homme

par Pierre LE VIGAN

Le néo-libéralisme est la « nouvelle raison du monde ». C’est le nouveau principe ordonnateur du monde. Pourtant, la crise financière de 2008 a pu au contraire laisser  croire que ce libéralisme débridé avait fait son temps. Nous assisterions au retour de l’État. Or la réalité est tout autre. L’État n’a jamais été absent, et le néolibéralisme a justement été un libéralisme appuyé sur l’État, et même l’organisation du marché par l’État. Un marché encore parfois concurrentiel pour les secteurs les moins importants mais surtout oligopolistique. Si l’idéologie de la naturalité du marché perdure (illustrée par un Alain Minc), elle est contrecarrée par une autre idéologie qui sait parler, notamment avec Nicolas Sarkozy, du retour de l’État et du besoin de régulation.

Dans les deux cas, l’objectif est toutefois le même. Quelle que soit la rhétorique utilisée, il s’agit de garantir et renforcer les profits, et la domination de l’hyperclasse adossée à l’argent-roi. C’est pourquoi les discours de Sarkozy sur le « retour de l’État » n’ont empêché nullement qu’il poursuive la privatisation de la Poste ou la réduction du nombre de fonctionnaires, y compris dans la police malgré la criminalité croissante. « L’État ne succède pas au marché tout simplement parce que l’État a en réalité toujours été là, parce qu’il n’a pas un instant cessé, comme Marx l’avait d’ailleurs en son temps souligné, d’être un levier puissant destiné à briser les obstacles de toute nature au processus de l’accumulation du capital », écrivent Pierre Dardot et Christian Laval. Quand l’État intervient, il s’agit de sauver le capitalisme financier. C’est cela la nouvelle raison d’être de l’État « néo-libéral », nouvelle raison du monde qui s’impose à toute la société.

Il y a deux façons d’analyser le nouveau rôle de l’État dans le soutien et le réagencement de l’hyper-capitalisme. On peut insister sur les continuités entre le libéralisme classique et ses formes nouvelles, notamment au regard de la permanence du discours des droits, essentiellement des « droits de l’homme », et de l’extension indéfinie de ceux-ci. C’est en partie le point de vue de Marcel Gauchet (La crise du libéralisme, tome 2 de L’avènement de la démocratie, Gallimard, 2008).

On peut au contraire insister sur les nouveautés, sur l’esprit libéral-libertaire qui n’empêche pas une « policiarisation » croissante, indépendante du nombre même de fonctionnaires de police et basée sur la vidéo-surveillance, le fichage et flicage généralisé de la vie. C’est l’approche de Luc Boltanski et Ève Chiapello (Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme, Gallimard, 1999) qui montrent qu’après le fordisme et ses compromis, le capitalisme veut désormais l’engagement de chacun au service de la mobilité, de la fluidité, et par l’adhésion intime de tous à la logique de l’entreprise.  Une thèse qui prend le relais du célèbre livre de Daniel Bell sur Les contradictions culturelles du capitalisme (1976).

Les deux approches ne sont pas exclusives l’une de l’autre. L’important est que ce nouvel esprit du capitalisme se traduit par l’intériorisation d’une nouvelle « gouvernementalité » (Michel Foucault) c’est-à-dire par des normes de conduite intériorisés par chacun d’entre nous. Le capitalisme nous dote d’un nouveau surmoi. C’est « une certaine mise en ordre de la conduite effective des sujets sociaux », notent Pierre Dardot et Christian Laval. C’est pourquoi le « néo-libéralisme » n’est pas seulement l’héritier du libéralisme classique. Il porte plus loin son ambition. Le libéralisme classique voulait fixer des limites à l’action des gouvernements. Les limites étaient à la fois les « droits » des individus, y compris le droit d’exploiter autrui, elles étaient le marché en tant qu’ordre « naturel », et elles étaient enfin la logique de l’utilité et de l’intérêt, opposée aux logiques altruistes ou communautaires.

Or le libéralisme renforcé ou « néo-libéralisme » vise à organiser l’ensemble de la société autour de la logique du marché, de l’État jusqu’à l’individu, et avec l’ambition de faire intérioriser par chacun cette logique. Comme l’avait bien vu Karl Polanyi, le marché n’est pas naturel, c’est une construction sociétale. Il n’est pas seulement l’échange, qui a toujours existé, mais la concurrence. Le néo-libéralisme voit l’État et le gouvernement lui-même comme une entreprise privée gérant l’entreprise France, ou la filiale France de l’entreprise Europe, elle-même segment d’une économie-monde. C’est pourquoi la logique du néo-libéralisme consiste à étendre cette logique de l’entreprise à l’individu et à toutes ses relations, à coloniser le monde vécu avec l’axiomatique de l’intérêt (Alain Caillé) et de l’utilité (« qu’est-ce que cela va me rapporter ? »).

Cette individualisation portée à l’extrême de l’idéologie de l’intérêt et de la performance aboutit à la fin de la possibilité même de la démocratie par dissipation chimique du peuple. Il ne reste que l’individu et la démocratie est même suspecte d’être porteuse d’une « tyrannie de la majorité ». Ce qui explique les thèmes très contemporains de la critique des « populismes » et la valorisation de toutes les minorités, visibles ou non. L’idée de souveraineté du peuple est invalidée par le néo-libéralisme. Friedrich Hayek écrivait en ce sens : « Un peuple libre n’est pas nécessairement un peuple d’hommes libres. » Ce qui ne saurait faire oublier qu’il n’y a pas d’homme libre dans un peuple qui ne l’est pas – ce qui est justement le point aveugle de la théorie néo-libérale. Les thèmes néo-libéraux de primauté des droits de l’individu sur ceux du peuple ne sont pas autre chose que la formulation d’une critique radicale de l’idée même de démocratie comme souveraineté du peuple. Ces thèmes aboutissent à reconnaître un droit de sécession de chacun par rapport à la société. Ce qui est la porte ouverte aussi bien à l’évasion fiscale qu’à la rupture du lien social.

La célébration de la modernité par le néo-libéralisme s’oppose à un certain conservatisme idéologique mais n’est pas plus contradictoire avec celui-ci que ne l’est un keynésianisme de circonstance. Il s’agit toujours d’amener l’homme à se gérer comme une entreprise, ce qui est parfaitement compatible avec un discours « libertaire » sur l’autonomie et les mœurs mais n’exclut pas un discours plus traditionnel sur les valeurs de l’effort pour un segment plus conservateur de l’électorat.

C’est Saint-Simon (1760 – 1825) qui a été l’un des premiers à parler de substituer au gouvernement des hommes l’administration des choses. Cette idée avait séduit Engels, et on la retrouve dans un certain marxisme français « simplifié », dans la lignée du « mécanicisme » des Lumières. Alain de Benoist a parfaitement montré dans sa « Brève histoire de l’idée de progrès » comment ce mécanicisme des Lumières pouvait rencontrer un organicisme naturalisant l’homme qui ne relèverait plus d’une gouvernance mais d’une simple administration. Or la voie de Saint-Simon est une voie erronée. C’est en fait une voie technocratique qui aboutit à la domestication de l’homme.

À l’inverse, si Rousseau ne règle pas toutes les questions en disant qu’il faut obéir aux lois issues de la volonté générale, il n’en ouvre pas moins le chemin à la démocratie comme souveraineté du peuple. Mais la volonté qui s’élabore dans la délibération du peuple n’a de sens que si l’imaginaire de chacun a cessé d’être colonisé par la marchandise et la recherche exclusive de l’intérêt.

Le souci de soi, notait Michel Foucault, relève avant tout d’un « art de la vie », et même d’une ascèse, exercice de l’ordre d’un athlétisme de l’âme. Il n’était à cet égard sans doute pas très éloigné de Julius Evola. C’est pourquoi, sans mésestimer les bienfaits de la révolte, ni sa légitimité, c’est aussi et peut-être surtout une contre-culture, une contre-conduite, une autre éthique de la conduite de soi dans le monde, qu’il faut opposer à la raison néo-libérale du monde hypercapitaliste. Ce n’est pas la crise financière qui enterrera le capitalisme, ce sera peut-être l’émergence en chacun d’entre nous d’une autre vision du monde.

Pierre Le Vigan

- Pierre Dardot et Christian Laval, La nouvelle raison du monde. Essai sur la société néo-libérale, La Découverte, coll. « Poche », 498 p., 13 €.

- Cet article est paru dans Flash, n° 52, du 4 novembre 2010. Il a été brièvement remanié pour Europe Maxima.

---

Article printed from Europe Maxima: http://www.europemaxima.com

URL to article: http://www.europemaxima.com/?p=1774

O Barao "Sangrento" von Ungern-Sternberg - Louco ou Mistico?

 

O Barão "Sangrento" von Ungern-Sternberg - Louco ou Místico?

 

por Dr. Richard Spence

 

Ex: http://legio-victrix.blogspot.com/

 

"Meu nome está cercado por tamanho ódio e medo que ninguém pode julgar o que é verdade e o que é mentira, o que é história, e o que é mito."

(Barão Roman Fedorovich von Ungern-Sternberg, 1921)

Na Mongólia, havia uma lenda do príncipe guerreiro, Beltis-Van. Notável por sua ferocidade e crueldade, ele derramou "enormes quantidades de sangue humano antes de ter encontrado sua morte nas montanhas de Uliasutay." Seus assassinos enterraram os corpos do Príncipe e de seus seguidores bem fundo na terra, cobriram as tumbas com pedras pesadas, e adicionaram "encantamentos e exorcismo para que seus espíritos não irrompessem novamente, carregando morte e destruição." Essas medidas, foi profetizado, prenderia os terríveis espíritos até que sangue humano se derramasse novamente sobre o local.

No início de 1921, prossegue a história, "russos vieram e cometeram assassinatos perto das temíveis tumbas, manchando-as com sangue." Para alguns, isso explicava o que se seguiu.

Quase no mesmo instante, um novo chefe guerreiro apareceu em cena, e pelos próximos seis meses ele espalhou terror e morte pelas estepes e montanhas da Mongólia e mesmo nas regiões adjacentes da Sibéria. Entre os mongóis ele ficou conhecido como o Tsagan Burkhan, o "Deus da Guerra" encarnado.

Posteriormente, o Dalai Lama XIII proclamou-o uma manifestação da "divindade furiosa" Mahakala, defensor da fé budista. Historicamente, o mesmo indivíduo é mais conhecido como o "Barão Louco" ou o "Barão Sangrento". Seus detratores não se encabulam de chamá-lo um bandido homicida ou de psicopata.

O homem em questão é o Barão Roman Fedorovich von Ungern-Sternberg. Seus feitos podem apenas ser esboçados aqui. Com a eclosão da Revolução Russa, Barão Ungern achou-se na Sibéria oriental onde ele se alinou com o movimento anti-bolchevique "Branco". Porém, seus sentimentos monarquistas extremos e modos independentes o tornaram um perigo nessa facção.

Em 1920, ele liderou sua "Divisão Asiática Montada", uma coleção heterogênea de russos, mongóis, tártaros e outras tropas, para os ermos da Mongólia, uma terra efervescendo com resistência contra a ocupação chinesa. Reunindo mongóis sob sua bandeira, no início de fevereiro de 1921 Ungern conquistou uma aparentemente miraculosa vitória tomando o controle da capital mongol, Urga (hoje Ulan Bator), de uma grande guarnição chinesa. Ele então restaurou o líder temporal e espiritual dos mongóis, o "Buda Vivo" Jebtsundamba Khutukhtu Bogdo Gegen, ou, mais simplesmente, Bogdo Khan e se estabeleceu como chefe guerreiro sobre a Mongólia Exterior e os destacamentos russos Brancos que haviam se refugiado ali.

Cercando-se com um círculo interno de bajuladores homicidas e videntes, ele instituiu um reino de terror que clamou como vítimas judeus, comunistas autênticos ou suspeitos, e centenas de outros que, de algum modo, despertaram a ira ou suspeita do Barão. Em junho do mesmo ano, ele lançou uma mal-fadada invasão à Sibéria soviética que terminou com sua captura pelo Exército Vermelho e seu subsequente julgamento e execução em 17 de setembro.

Esse artigo foca no misticismo real e alegado do Barão Ungern e sua influência sobre suas ações. Uma questão chave é se sua suposta "loucura", em todo ou em parte, era uma interpretação equivocada de sua devoção ao budismo esotérico e outras crenças.

Background e Primeiros Anos

Enquanto o Barão passou a maior parte de sua vida no serviço dos Romanov, ele era quase completamente alemão por sangue. Ele veio ao mundo como Robert Nicholaus Maximilian von Ungern-Sternberg em 10 de janeiro de 1886 em Graz, Áustria. Na Estônia governada pela Rússia, seu pai, Teodor Leonard Rudolf von Ungern-Sternberg, introduziu seu filho na nobreza tzarista como Roman Fedorovich. Os Ungern-Sternbergs eram uma antiga e ilustre família. O Barão datava sua linhagem pelo menos em mil anos e se vangloriava com seus captores bolcheviques de que 72 de seus ancestrais haviam dado suas vidas pela Rússia em muitas guerras.

Existe a sugestão de instabilidade mental, mesmo loucura, em sua linhagem próxima. Por exemplo, um ancestral do fim do século XVIII, Freiherr Otto Reinhold Ludwig von Ungern-Sternberg, ganhou infâmia como pirata e assassino que morreu no exílio siberiano. O próprio pai de Roman tinha uma reputação de "homem mau" cuja violência e crueldade levou ao seu divórcio e a uma proibição de que ele tivesse qualquer "influência" sobre seus filhos.

No que concerne o estado mental de Roman von Ungern-Sternberg, obviamente um diagnóstico de insanidade só pode ser feito após um exame por um psiquiatra, algo impossível nesse caso. Porém, Dmitry Pershin, uma testemunha que tinha uma visão razoavelmente positiva do Barão, ainda sentia que Ungern sofria de alguma "anormalidade psicótica" que fazia com que ele perdesse a cabeça sob a mais "mínima provocação", usualmente com resultados terríveis.

História posteriores afirmaram que o comportamento aberrante de Roman era o resultado de um corte de sabre em sua cabeça, mas ele manifestava tendências violentas e rebeldes desde muito antes. Seus dias escolares foram marcados por constantes problemas; no Corpo de Cadetes Navais, ele recebeu não menos que 25 punições disciplinares antes de se retirar antes de uma expulsão garantida. Sua educação o deuxou com uma aversão permanente pelo "pensamento" que ele equiparava a "covardia."

Como oficial júnior antes e durante a Primeira Guerra Mundial, ele estabeleceu uma reputação como um encrenqueiro violento com uma tendência para a embriaguez. Porém, ele também recebeu medalhas por feridas e bravura inconsequente. Nas palavras de um superior, o jovem Barão era um "guerreiro por temperamento," que "vivia para a guerra" e aderia a seu próprio conjunto de "leis elementais." Essas últimas eram influenciadas por um interesse no misticismo e no ocultismo, principalmente da variedade oriental.

O Barão como Guerreiro Místico

Exatamente quando e onde esse interesse começou é incerto. A variedade pessoal de fé de Ungern, se é que era Budismo, aderia à seita mística tibetana Vajrayana ou Tântrica. O jovem Roman ganhou seu primeiro gosto do Oriente como parte da infantaria durante a Guerra Russo-Japonesa, e ele passou de 1908 a 1914 como um oficial cossaco na Sibéria e na Mongólia. Foi então, ele afirmou depois, que ele formou uma "Ordem de Budistas Militares" para servir ao Czar e lutar contra os males da revolução. As regras dessa Ordem incluíam o celibato e o "uso ilimitado de álcool, haxixe e ópio." Esse último era para ajudar os iniciados a superarem sua própria "natureza física" através dos excessos, mas como o Barão confessou, isso não funcionou como ele tinha planejado. Posteriormente, na Mongólia, ele impôs uma proibição rígida sobre a bebida. Ainda assim, ele afirmou, ele reuniu "três centenas de homens, ousados e ferozes," e alguns que não pereceram durante a luta contra a Alemanha e os Bolcheviques ainda estavam com ele em 1921.

Ungern abandonou sua comissão regular no fim de 1913. Sozinho, ele partiu para a vastidão da Mongólia Exterior que havia proclamado independência da China. Segundo um relato, ele ergueu-se como comandante das forças de cavalaria do inexperiente Exército Mongol, enquanto outro mantém que ele uniu-se a um bando de saqueadores do sanguinário rebelde anti-chinês, Ja Lama. Em algum ponto, Ungern acabou na cidade de Kobdo (Khovd) na Mongólia ocidental como um membro da guarda do consulado russo local.

Um de seus camaradas lembra que "quando se observava Ungern, sentia-se levado de volta à Idade Média...; ele era um retrocesso aos seus ancestrais cruzados, com a mesma sede por guerra e a mesma crença no sobrenatural." Outro lembra-se que ele demonstrava "um grande interesse pelo Budismo," aprendeu mongol e passou a frequentar lamas videntes. Segundo Dmitri Aloishin, um tardio e involuntário membro do exército do Barão, os "professores budistas de Ungern o ensinaram sobre a reencarnação, e ele firmemente acreditava que em matar pessoas fracas ele apenas fazia a elas um bem, já que elas poderiam ser criaturas mais fortes na próxima vida."

Os paralelos entre o anteriormente mencionado Ja Lama e o Barão parecem bem próximos para serem mera coincidência. Também conhecido como o "Lama com uma Mauser", Ja Lama brevemente tornou-se mestre da Mongólia ocidental. Outro "budista militante," ele ganhou uma temível reputação por arrancar o coração de seus infelizes prisioneiros e oferecê-los em taças em forma de crânio humano como bali (sacrifício) aos "deuses tibetanos do terror." Um desses rituais "tântricos" de execução ocorreu em Kobdo no verão de 1912, pouco antes de Ungern aparecer no local. Em fevereiro de 1914, o cônsul russo em Kobdo prendeu Ja Lama e algumas tropas cossacas, possivelmente incluindo Ungern, e escoltou os cativos ao exílio na Rússia. Teria Ja Lama se tornado um modelo para o Barão, ou mesmo uma inspiração religiosa?

Um ângulo tibetano figura proeminentemente na subsequente fuga mongol de Ungern. O Buda Vivo era ele mesmo um filho da Terra das Neves Perpétuas, e existia uma pequena comunidade tibetana em Urga. Uma centena, aproximadamente, desses homens formaram uma sotnia (esquadrão) especial nas forças do Barão e tiveram um papel crítico no ataque sobre Urga, tendo resgatado o Bogdo de sob os narizes de seus guardas chineses. Os chineses e mongois estavam convencidos de que o feito havia sido realizado através de feitiçaria. Esses tibetanos mantinham uma distância do resto do exército do Barão; aparentemente outros eram afastados por seu hábito de jantar em tijelas feitas com crânios humanos, talvez o mesmo tipo de vasilhames usados nos ritos de sacrifício de Ja Lama.

O nexo tibetano também garantiu para o Barão um elo com Lhasa e o Dalai Lama, a quem ele enviou cartas pessoais. Após se poder na Mongólia ter entrado em colapso, Ungern sonhou com liderar os remanescentes de sua diversão até o Tibet para se colocar a serviço do santo budista. O prospecto dessa missão extenuante e potencialmente suicida foi a gota d'água em provocar motim contra o Barão.

Também servindo sob Ungern em sua aventura mongol estava aproximadamente 50 soldados japoneses. Isso alimentou acusações de que ele seria um instrumento do imperialismo japonês. Enquanto está claro que as Forças Armadas japonesas monitoravam as atividades do Barão e achavam que ele poderia ser útil, é igualmente evidente que eles não tinham qualquer controle sobre ele. Ainda assim, esse minúsculo contingente japonês recebia rações melhores e o privilégio único de consumir álcool. Registros militares japoneses sugerem que os homens eram em sua maioria "pequenos aventureiros" atuando por conta própria, mas isso não está muito claro. Seu comandando, um Major ou Capitão Suzuki, havia conhecido o Barão em 1919 em um "Congresso Pan-Mongol" e a dupla mantinha uma amizade especial e secreta.

Uma possibilidade intrigante é que Suzuki não era um emissário do Exército de Mikado, mas de uma das sociedades secretas que o permeava, como a Sociedade do Dragão Negro, ou a ainda mais secreta Sociedade do Dragão Verde. Essa última era baseada em uma seita de Budismo esotérico, e sua agenda Pan-Asiática e Pan-Budista se confundia com as próprias crenças de Ungern. O Barão sentia que o Ocidente havia perdido seu ancoradouro espiritual e havia entrado em uma fase de desintegração moral e cultural. A Revolução Russa não era mais que uma manifestação dessa corrupção avançada. Apenas no Oriente, especificamente no Budismo, ele via uma força capaz de resistir a essa decadência e de restaurar uma ordem espiritual no Ocidente.

Os Lamas e Videntes do Barão

Ungern era fascinado por todas as formas de advinhação. Ele supostamente carregava consigo um baralho de cartas de Tarô, mesmo no calor da batalha. Como notado, em Kobdo ele se reunía com lamas advinhos e em Urga ele se cercava com um pequeno exército de videntes (tsurikhaichi), feiticeiros e xamãs. Aloishin recorda que os advinhos do Barão estavam sempre consultando as omoplatas assadas de ovelhas, se debruçando nas linhas "para determinar onde as tropas devem ser estacionadas, e como avançar contra o inimigo." Em outras ocasiões, Ungern ordenou que suas tropas parassem "em vários locais segundo velhas profecias mongois."

O médico do Barão, Dr. N. M. Riabukhin, maldisse os advinhos como "insolentes, sujos, ignorantes e mancos" e lamentou o fato de que Ungern "nunca dava um passo importante" sem consultá-lo. Os advinhos o convenceram de que ele era a encernação de Tsagan Burkhan, o Deus da Guerra. Para o oficial Branco Boris Volkov, a dependência do Barão nesses tipos parecia prova da "mentalidade imbecil do degenerado que se imaginava o salvador da Rússia."

Antes de sua investida contra a Sibéria Vermelha, Ungern gastou 20.000 preciosos dólares mexicanos para contratar milhares de lamas para "realizar para ele elaborados serviços nos templos e para convocar para seu auxílio todos os seus poderes místicos." A previsão de uma feiticeira drogada de que o fim do Barão se aproximava provou-se sombriamente precisa, e ajudou a convencê-lo de realizar a desastrosa invasão. Os lamas videntes falharam com ele quando eles o aconselharam a atrasar em dois dias o ataque contra Troitskosavsk, uma cidade fronteiriça chave. Isso deu aos vermelhos a oportunidade de trazer reforços e repelir o ataque. Posteriormente, oficiais subornaram um advinho buriat para mudar as previsões, o que levou Ungern a cancelar outros ataques e ordenar uma retirada para a Mongólia.

Mas se Ungern foi influenciado - e ludibriado - pelo sobrenatural, ele também sabia como usá-lo para sua vantagem. Antes de seu último ataque contra Urga, ele enviou advinhos para a cidade onde eles "encheran os soldados chineses com medo supersticioso" pela previsão de sua iminente chegada e espalhando rumores de que o Barão Branco era imune a balas e podia aparecer e desaparecer à vontade. Ele também ordenou que fossem acesas fogueiras noturnas nas colinas circundantes. Seus agentes mongois disseram aos crédulos chineses que as fogueiras eram Ungern oferecendo sacrifícios aos espíritos que se vingariam contra os filhos da China.

Uma pessoa impressionada desde cedo pela natureza peculiar do Barão foi o filósofo místico Conde Hermann Keyserling que conhecia Roman e seu irmão Constantin desde a infância. Keyserling depois considerou o Barão como "a pessoa mais impressionante que eu já tive a sorte de conhecer," mas também como uma massa de contradições. Ele via Ungern como alguém cuja "natureza havia sido suspensa...no vácuo entre o céu e o inferno," alguém "capaz das mais altas intuições e gentis amabilidades" junto com "a mais profunda aptidão para a metafísica da crueldade." As idéias metafísicas do Barão, acreditava Keyserling, estavam "fortemente relacionadas àquelas dos tibetanos e hindus." Keyserling estava convicto de que Roman possuía o poder oculto da "segunda visão" e "a faculdade da profecia".

Keyserling não foi o único que chegou a essas conclusões. Anos depois, o filósofo fascista e ocultista Julius Evola opinou que o Barão Ungern possuía "faculdades supranormais" incluindo clarividência e a habilidade de "olhar dentro das almas" dos outros. Ferdynand Ossendowski afirmou que ele fez exatamente isso em seu encontro inicial: "Eu estive em sua alma e sei tudo," afirmou o Barão, e a vida de Ossendowski estava garantida.

Muito do mesmo é repetido nos testemunhos de outros que conheceram Ungern. Aloishin achava que o Barão era patentemente insano, mas também sentia que ele "possuía um poder perigoso de ler os pensamentos das pessoas." Ele relembra como Ungern inspecionava recrutas olhando no rosto de cada homem, "sustentava aquele olhar por alguns momentos, e então rosnava: 'Para o Exército; 'De volta para o gado'; 'Liquidar'." Riabukhin menciona que em seu primeiro encontro "era como se o Barão quisesse saltar na minha alma." Outro oficial anônimo relembra que "Ungern olhava para todo mundo com os olhos de um predador," e isso instilava medo em todos os que o encontravam. Um soldado polonês em serviço mongol, Alexandre Alexandrowicz, aceita a "segunda visão" do Barão, mas acreditava que era seu intelecto "superior" que o ajudava a "avaliar qualquer homem em alguns minutos."

O Misterioso Ferdynand Ossendowski

 

 

Aparentemente, ninguém fez mais para criar a imagem recorrente do Barão Ungern do que o acima mencionado escritor polonês Ferdynand Ossendowski. Porém, ele é longe de ser uma fonte impecável. Antes de seu encontro com o Barão, Ossendowski tinha uma longa história como espião, criador de intrigas e fornecedor de documentos falsos. Ele quase certamente foi um agente da polícia secreta czarista, a Okhrana. Em 1917-1918 ele estava envolvido com os infamens Documentos Sissons, um dossiê fraudulento (ainda que acertado) sobre as intrigas germano-bolcheviques. Posteriormente, na Sibéria, Ossendowski serviu ao "Supremo Governante" Branco Almirante Kolchak como conselheiro econômico e, provavelmente, um espião. Ossendowski chegou na Mongólia como refugiado da maré Vermelha. Em seu muito lido livro de 1922, "Feras, Homens e Deuses", o polonês descreve seu encontro com o "Barão Sangrento" em detalhes vívidos, e não sem alguma simpatia pelo indivíduo. Não obstante, Ossendowski sabia que "diante de mim estava um homem perigoso," e que "eu senti alguma tragédia, algum horror em cada movimento do Barão Ungern." Nem Ossendowski mediu palavras sobre o clima de medo que assolava Urga sob o Barão. Ele descreve o suporte de subalternos homicidas de Ungern tais como o "estrangulador" psicótico Leonid Sipailov, o igualmente repelente Evgeny Burdukovsky e o sádico Dr. Klingenberg. O que Ossendowski convenientemente se esquiva de explicar é o mistério de sua própria sobrevivência nesse ambiente precário.

Nas opiniões de outros que testemunharam o governo do Barão, Ossendowski não era apenas sortudo e observador inocente. Konstantin Noskov observa que do momento de sua chegada na Mongólia, o "Professor" Ossendowski teve um "estranho papel compreendido por ninguém." "Ele interferia em tudo," afirma Noskov, "brigava muito habilmente e tecia complicadas intrigas políticas..." Pershin acusa que Ossendowski era outro que explorava a obsessão de Ungern com o sobrenatural, uma opinião ecoada por outro dos oficiais do Barão, K.I. Lavrent'ev. Ao encorajar "a fé do Barão no ocultismo e em outras coisas do além," Ossendowski tornou-se "conselheiro" do Barão, o que pod explicar uma afirmação posterior de que o polonês tornou-se o "Chefe de Inteligência" de Ungern.

Ossendowski, segundo Pershin, "cavou um caminho até uma posição próxima ao Barão" e então "extraiu todas as vantagens que ele queria." Essas incluíam dinheiro e passagem segura para a Manchúria "em conforto e, talvez, com algo mais que isso." Dr. Riabukhin e Noskov, ambos se lembram que Ossendowski foi inexplicavelmente o único sobrevivente entre um grupo de refugiados cujos outros membros foram assassinados sob as ordens de Ungern. Boris Volkov afirma ainda que Ossendowski teve um papel chave na formulação da infame e "mística" Ordem do Barão, e assim garantiu sua vida e uma grande soma de dinheiro. Noskov claramente declara que Ossendowski foi o autor da Ordem.

A "Ordem #15", o mais perto que Ungern chegou de definir uma filosofia ou missão, merece um exame mais atento. Como o Barão não estava no hábito de pronunciar ordens numeradas, a #15 é desprovida de sentido nesse contexto. Segundo Aloishin, esse número e a data de seu pronunciamento eram mais a obra de "lamas eruditos" que os escolheram como números da sorte. Basicamente, a Ordem define um esquema grandioso de iniciar uma onda expansiva de Contra-Revolução que limparia a Rússia de seu contágio radical e restauraria o trono Romanov sob o irmão do czar Nicolau, Mikhail Alexandrovich. O Barão, como muitos outros, não sabia que Mikhail já estava morto desde junho de 1918. A Ordem proclamava que "o mal que veio à Terra para destruir o princípio divino da alma humana deve ser destruído em sua raiz," e que "a punição só pode ser uma: a pena de morte, em vários graus."

O artigo mais notório, porém, era o #9 que declara que "Comissários, comunistas e judeus, junto com suas famílias, devem ser destruídos." O Barão possuía um ódio patológico dos judeus, e onde quer que seu poder alcançasse preponderância havia um impiedoso extermínio dessa comunidade. Até mesmo Pershin, que sentia que "as histórias acerca da impiedade de Ungern tem sido muito exageradas," admitiu que os assassinatos em massa dos judeus eram infelizmente verdadeiros e que o Barão era implacável nessa questão. Volkov sentia que Ungern usava pogroms como um instrumento para explorar o anti-semitismo entre os emigrados e as tropas, mas havia um zelo quase religioso em seu ódio. Em uma carta a um associado russo Branco em Pequim, o Barão alertou contra o "Judaísmo Internacional" e mesmo contra a influência insidiosa dos "Capitalistas Judeus" que eram um "onipresente, ainda que normalmente não percebido, inimigo." Em seu julgamento, o Barão garantiu a seu promotor judeu-bolchevique, Emelian Yaroslavsky, que "a Internacional Comunista foi organizada 3.000 anos atrás na Babilônia." Em seus sentimentos em relação aos judeus, Ungern certamente prefigura a mentalidade nazista, e muito do mesmo poderia ser dito a respeito de toda sua mistura estranha de anti-modernismo místico.

Em agosto de 1921, o reino despótico do Barão chegou a um fim quando oficiais desesperados da Divisão Asiática Montada ensaiou um golpe contra ele e sua pequena elite de lealistas. Quase miraculosamente, Ungern escapou o massacre geral e encontrou um refúgio final breve entre seus soldados mongóis. Eles também logo o abandonaram aos Vermelhos que se aproximavam, mas sim arrancar um fio de seu cabelo; eles ainda estavam convencidos de que ele era o Tsagan Burkhan e não podia ser morto.

Os soviéticos não sofriam dessas ilusões. Em seu julgamento em Novo-Nikolaevsk, ele foi um prisioneiro calmo, até mesmo digno. Ele havia previsto seu destino e o aceitado. A promotoria estava mais interessada em retratá-lo como um agente dos japoneses, o que ele negou. Porém, o Barão imediatamente admitiu os massacres e outras atrocidades. No que concerne sua disciplina brutal, ele se proclamou um crente em um sistema que havia existido "desde Frederico o Grande." Ele foi diante do pelotão de fuzilamento muito convicto de que eventualmente ele retornaria.

Um último ponto nos traz de volta a Ossendowski, que afirmou que o Barão buscava contato com o reino subterrâneo místico de Agarthu e seu governante misterioso, o "Rei do Mundo." Agarthi, é claro, é idêntica com Agarttha ou Shambhala, uma terra mística exaltada na mitologia hindu e budista. No início do século XX, a história foi pega e elaborada por escritores esotéricos ocidentais como Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre e Nikolai Roerich que acreditavam que ela descrevia um reino realmente oculto em algum lugar no norte do Tibet ou na Ásia Central. Por uma interessante coincidência, outro oficial da Divisão de Ungern foi Vladimir Konstantinovich Roerich, o irmão mais novo de Nikolai. Então novamente, talvez isso não seja nenhuma coincidência. Mas isso nos leva a outra história que é melhor guardada para outro artigo: "Estrela Vermelha sobre Shambhala: Inteligência Soviética, Britânica e Americana e a Busca pela Civilização Perdida na Ásia."

The Spinoza Strategy

Signal Left, Turn Right

By Paul Deussen

Ex: http://www.alternativeright.com/

Challenging orthodoxy has always been a dangerous affair. The alternative Right often complains about the character assassinations, censorship, and name-calling we experience writing about race and culture, but if we take a step back for a moment and consider the persecution suffered by those who challenged the religious orthodoxy, our struggle seems far less severe. Burnings at the stake, beatings in the street, and public executions were but a few of the tactics employed by the Church to silence those who questioned the unquestionable. Perhaps then, it would behoove us to take a closer look at the strategy of those who successfully challenged—and eventually defeated—religious orthodoxy under these life-threatening conditions. We may dislike much about the world that arose in the aftermath of the Enlightenment, but we can still admire and learn from the strategy employed by its early partisans.

A good place to begin would be Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), who is considered by many political theorists to be the father of modern liberal democracy. Surrounded by controversy throughout much of his life, Spinoza was one of the most radical philosophers of the modern period. He possessed a remarkable talent for provoking people to question the unquestionable, but his willingness to challenge all forms of religious particularism would eventually result in his excommunication from the Jewish community in 1656. Such a punishment seemed entirely justified in the eyes of 19^th-century Jewish philosophers like Hermann Cohen. The 20th-century political philosopher Leo Strauss (1899-1973) came to Spinoza’s defense, however, in his Spinoza’s Critique of Religion, in which he wrote that much of the hostile condemnation directed towards Spinoza was caused by a misunderstanding of his thought and strategy. Strauss believed that in a world dominated by the Church, attacking Judaism was a shrewd way for Spinoza to lay siege to Christianity.

This article will briefly outline Spinoza’s philosophy and evaluate Cohen’s moral critique of Spinoza from the Straussian perspective. What will ultimately emerge from this investigation is a broader view of philosophy at the highest level, where the means of delivery are as important as the message being delivered. Such a lesson should be invaluable to the Alternative Right, which desires to challenge the dominant orthodoxy of egalitarianism, anti-racism, and political correctness.

If subterfuge is the name of the game, then Spinoza was truly one its masters.

The starting point of Spinoza’s philosophy is that man is ultimately responsible for his own fate. He rejected the belief of Maimonides (1135-1204) that God was a rational being, arguing instead that if God were truly omnipotent, then God would have the power to be exactly what he wanted to be (rational, arational, or otherwise). And if God could recreate himself, then so could man, which meant Spinoza also rejected the concept of evil because “the evil passions are evil only with a view to human utility . . . ” In other words, the things men considered to be wicked or immoral were merely problems that could be managed and eventually overcome. Spinoza’s ardent belief in progress and the potential of men to correct the evils of human behavior would ultimately lay the groundwork for the modern liberal state, but he could only do this, as Strauss demonstrates, by showing “the way toward a new religion or religiousness which was to inspire a wholly new kind of society, a new kind of Church.” To accomplish this task, Spinoza wrote his Theologico-Politcal Treatise in which he used a bait-and-switch technique of attacking Judaism… in order to lead his Christian readers into a general critique of all religions.

The Jewish philosopher Hermann Cohen (1842–1918) strongly opposed the work of Spinoza and charged him with conceiving of the state entirely in terms of power politics, divorced from religion and morality, thus rendering the state above religion. Cohen also indicted Spinoza for denying that the God of Israel was the God of all mankind and for reducing Jewish religion to a doctrine of the Jewish state. The former was blasphemy and the latter served to diminish the Torah to human origin, both of which rendered Spinoza blind to biblical prophecy and hence to the core of Judaism. Cohen also believed Spinoza’s critique of the Jewish religion to be ripe with contradictions. For instance, it made little sense to single out the Mosaic Law as the suppressing force of philosophy when it was unclear that Jesus Christ himself championed the freedom of philosophy. But what may have incensed Cohen the most about Spinoza’s Treatise was the claim that Mosaic Law was particularistic and tribal and served no other end than the earthly or political felicity of the Jewish nation. In this regards, the moral implications of Spinoza’s religious transgressions were far less damning than his disloyalty to the Jewish people. Cohen believed Spinoza deserved excommunication because he gave comfort and aid to the enemies of the Jews by first idealizing Christianity and then indulging in every Christian prejudice against Judaism.

The vitriol with which Cohen condemned Spinoza was impressive and should be all too familiar to members of the alternative Right. He regarded the defector’s behavior as “unnatural” and a “humanly incomprehensible act of treason.” To act this way, Spinoza must have been a disturbed man “possessed by an evil demon.” Cohen’s criticism is reminiscent of the frequent diatribes against “racists” as vile and mentally deformed creatures in need of sensitivity training if not medication.

Leo Strauss’s interpretation of Spinoza’s behavior discounted the self-hating Jew explanation and suggested that Cohen had not paid “sufficient attention to the harsh necessity to which Spinoza bowed by writing in the manner in which he wrote.” Heresy and blasphemy of Christianity were offenses punishable by death, which deterred most philosophers from directly challenging the Church. Jews in particular felt this intimidation because they were haunted by the experience of the Spanish Inquisition.

But Strauss did not believe the deterrent factor alone explained Spinoza’s decision to single out Judaism. Instead, Spinoza seemed to be employing a carefully thought-out strategy to reach a wider audience with a message that could be absorbed, internalized, and expanded upon . . . that would lead his audience towards a greater truth. Put bluntly, Spinoza’s purpose was to show mankind the way towards a liberal society and his strategy was one of subterfuge.

Spinoza was writing for a devoted Christian audience and thus had to modify his message accordingly. This meant playing off their anti-Semitic prejudices and urging them to free “spiritual Christianity from all carnal Jewish relics,” like the resurrection of the body. By making the Old Testament the scapegoat for everything he found objectionable in Christianity, Spinoza presented his general argument against religious particularism in a form that was palatable to Christians.  To be clear, his disparagement of Judaism and the Mosaic Law was not insincere. Spinoza was striving to create a new universal religion for both Jews and Christians, and he also believed Jews had more to overcome to get there, since, as Strauss relates, “Moses’ religion is a political law” and “to adhere to his religion as he proclaimed it is incompatible with being the citizen of any other state.” Cohen’s misunderstanding was to think that Spinoza wanted the eradication of religious devotion to end with Judaism. In other words, he failed to follow Spinoza’s thought that freedom of philosophy required a liberal state that was neither Christian nor Jewish. The Jews may have had to be liberated from Judaism—but the Christians also had to be liberated from Christianity.

In the Introduction to Persecution and the Art of Writing, Strauss gives an excellent accounting of this argumentation style as it was advocated by the Islamic philosopher Farabi. Farabi (c. 872—950) said that when Socrates was confronted with the decision to conform to what he held to be false opinions and the wrong ways of life of his fellow citizens, he stubbornly chose nonconformity—and was punished with death. Farabi believed this may have been the suitable choice in dealing with the elite, but it was ill-advised to attempt this approach with the vulgar. Dealings with the common man required a strategy styled on Plato, that is, gradually replacing accepted opinions with the truth, or an approximation of the truth—changing minds by provisionally accepting conventional wisdom. More specifically, and as it applies to the Spinoza example, Farabi believed that “conformity with the opinions of the religious community in which one is brought up is a necessary qualification for the future philosopher.”

The strategy outlined above should not be understood simply in terms of avoiding persecution, because what is really at issue here may be the best method of philosophy. If you want to reach the most people with your message in a way that you can actually change their minds about something, the new truth you are presenting cannot flagrantly contradict their sacrosanct beliefs. In other words, when challenging orthodoxy in any form, it is always prudent to signal left before turning right. Appearing loyal and loving to what is already loved—and then transforming it from within—is far more effective than challenging it head-on. This is philosophy at the highest level, where the means of delivery are as important as the message being delivered.

It should be of particular interest to the alternative Right that signaling one way and turning the other was the strategy used by the egalitarians when they convinced the Western World to embrace racial equality. Had the Boas Cult simply declared the racial beliefs of Western Man to be immoral and completely unfounded, their arguments would have fallen on deaf ears. What they did instead was moderate their position with the claim that all perceived inequalities among the races were caused by variances in culture. This concession earned Boas and his followers the trust of their target audience because it soothed Western Man’s pride, conformed to his prejudices, and did not encumber him with charges of racial injustice. Cultural inequality actually placed the burden of responsibility on minorities who needed to get their act together by adopting Western Man’s superior way of life. Boas and his followers probably never really believed this, but they had to make a tactical settlement in order to be heard, which is to say, they had to appear loyal to Western Civilization before they could get any traction challenging its long-held assumption of racial inequality. What followed next is well known to most readers of AlternativeRight.com…

What the alternative Right can learn from Spinoza—and Boas—is a strategy of subterfuge. If we desire to reach audiences beyond the readers of this website, then we must understand, as Spinoza and Boas did, that the gradual replacement of accepted opinions has to be accompanied by a provisional acceptance of the conventional wisdom of our time. In other words, we must be willing to signal left before turning right. Only then will we be able to reach wider audiences in a way that might provoke them to question the unquestionable.

It is probably asking a lot of alternative Right writers to appear loyal to, let alone adoring of, the gods of multiculturalism, diversity, and egalitarianism, but employing such a strategy when writing for politically correct audiences would be far more effective than directly challenging orthodoxy. One such tactic might be to support some of the ideals of egalitarianism and then show how they are contradicted by others. For example, if the intention of multiculturalism is to preserve the unique cultural identity of various racial elements in this country, then we could argue that what is really happening is the destruction of diversity by the merging and watering down of cultures into unrecognizable forms. As “true” proponents of diversity, we would be taking the moral high ground in claiming that minority cultures are under siege by “universalism” and “McDonald-ization” and that their preservation can only be achieved through the separation of cultures, not blending them together into a homogenous blob. This form of attack would be far more palatable to mainstream audiences than directly confronting multiculturalism with charges of reverse racism. We could make the corollary claim that multiculturalism itself is ethnocentric in its origins—i.e. it was invented by White people—and oppressive to minority groups that did not develop a similar ideological standpoint on their own.

Unfortunately, emphasizing the inherent conflict between multiculturalism and diversity may not always work, since actual global diversity is being preserved by non-Western countries that do not tolerate immigration or cultural diffusion. The only culture that is actually being destroyed by multiculturalism is Western culture, a consequence unlikely to concern most readers of the mainstream press who believe America, the “proposition nation” united by creed, has been spared the backwards ideology of racial identity. Nevertheless, an argument that multiculturalism is oppressive to minorities could have more traction.

Multiculturalism is often claimed to be a philosophy of universalism, but the intolerance its followers have for non-believers is a clear indication of its particularism. Internalizing this conceptual paradox has been unproblematic for most all PC types (truly, accepting irreconcilable ideas seems to go hand-in-hand with orthodoxy.) Forcing nonbelievers to convert to multiculturalism is also comfortably sanctioned because the principal subjects of this oppression are Whites. If, however, we can reframe the discussion in such a way that multiculturalism appears to be an ideology forced on minorities to their own detriment, then the reaction from the politically correct would be far different.

The key to bringing down egalitarianism from the inside could therefore be the vilification of multiculturalism as a ruling-class conspiracy. Similar to Spinoza who played off the anti-Semite prejudices of Christians, so should we play off the prejudices and neurotic suspicions the politically correct have for Whites. This might be done effectively with class-struggle arguments that link multiculturalism with cheap labor and the exploitation of the Third World by evil White capitalists. An even more powerful argument could be made that multiculturalism prevents non-White peoples from achieving their own unique destiny and subordinates them to a decadent White ideology. (This argument also carries the benefit of actually being true.) It is more than likely that similar arguments have already been made by vigilantly obsessed members of the Left who are constantly on guard for “White privilege” in society. We should cite these liberal experts, expand upon their arguments, and contribute as much as we can to the reinterpretation of multiculturalism as a racist ideology.

In other words, to awaken the politically correct from their indoctrinated slumber, we should convincingly accuse them of being guilty of that which they proclaim to be the greatest of sins.

Collapsing the pillar of multiculturalism might not be enough to bring down egalitarianism, but this should be the first step in a protracted campaign of attrition and political subterfuge. For our revolution to be successful, we must be guided by the self-acknowledgement of the weakness of our current position. Tactical settlements have to be made and finding ways to challenge the orthodoxy by signaling left before turning right should become a necessary part of our long-term strategy.

There may come a point, if we are not already there, when egalitarianism becomes so deeply ingrained in our society that it cannot be defeated through outright confrontation. The best way to challenge orthodoxy of this kind will be through its metamorphosis or reshaping. Such a strategy should not be used at places like Alternative Right, a place where we can be honest about our strategies and goals, but we must begin to think beyond our limited reach here and start sending soldiers back into the ranks of the politically correct to bring down the orthodoxy from within.

Brèves réflexions sur les "révolutions arabes"

Bernhard TOMASCHITZ :

Brèves réflexions sur les « révolutions arabes »

 

Les Egyptiens ont placé d’énormes espoirs dans leur révolution. Mais maintenant que le régime dictatorial d’Hosni Moubarak appartient définitivement à l’histoire, une strate particulière de la population égyptienne verra sans doute sa situation changer de manière dramatique. Je veux parler de la minorité copte, qui forme quelque 10% des 80 millions d’habitants de l’Egypte et qui, déjà, depuis un certain temps, est la cible de débordements et de violences.

 

Quoi qu’il en soit, la nouvelle constitution du pays, acceptée avec une très large majorité en mars, ne laisse rien augurer de bon pour les Coptes, car elle prévoit que la Charia, c’est-à-dire le droit islamique, sera « la source principale du droit ». Ce qui est le plus étonnant, c’est que ce refus de toute forme laïque d’Etat ne provoque aucun cri d’orfraie en Occident chez les fabricants d’opinions et chez les exportateurs patentés de « démocratie ». Finalement, les victimes potentielles de cette nouvelle constitution islamiste ne seront « que de simples chrétiens ». Or il y a eu un précédent : les chrétiens d’Orient, dans l’Irak d’après Saddam Hussein, constituent le groupe ethno-religieux qui a eu le plus à souffrir du changement. Dans le pays du Tigre et de l’Euphrate vivait près d’un million de chrétiens : aujourd’hui, d’après les estimations, il n’y en aurait plus que 300.000 et leur nombre diminuerait encore. Les chrétiens de Syrie pourraient subir le même sort que leurs homologues irakiens, après la chute du régime d’el-Assad, dès que le pays pourrait jouir des « libertés démocratiques », ce qui amènerait probablement les « Frères musulmans » à devenir la principale force politique à Damas.

 

Mais il n’y a pas que les chrétiens qui risquent de connaître des temps sombres : certains musulmans sont également dans le collimateur des nouveaux pouvoirs potentiels. Au cours de ces dernières semaines, en Egypte, plusieurs attentats ont été commis contre des sanctuaires chiites. Le chiisme, on le sait, est une variante de l’islam, qui met surtout l’accent sur le mysticisme, ce qui fait que les islamistes les considèrent comme relaps par rapport à la « vraie foi ». Ces destructions de sanctuaires chiites sont attribuées aux  salafistes qui professent un islam particulièrement intolérant à l’égard des syncrétismes et des modernisations. Les salafistes prétendent vouloir retourner à un islam « pur », pareil à celui des origines.

 

Mais derrière tous les événements qui ont animé les scènes arabes au cours de ces quelques derniers mois, il n’y a pas que des querelles religieuses. Il s’agit plutôt de savoir qui exercera le plus d’influence dans le monde arabe. L’Arabie Saoudite, où le salafisme domine la vie sociale et politique sous la forme locale du wahhabisme, est le plus généreux des promoteurs des groupes salafistes en Afrique du Nord, au Proche et au Moyen Orient. Pour le royaume intégriste et rigoriste du désert arabique, les choses sont claires : les époques d’agitation révolutionnaire sont des époques d’incertitude ; l’insécurité et l’incertitude permettent d’orienter les hommes déboussolés vers la « bonne voie », afin de remplir très vite un vide de pouvoir.

 

Bernhard TOMASCHITZ.

(article paru dans « zur Zeit », Vienne, n°15/2011 ; http://www.zurzeit.at/ ).   

Sept questions au Président Abdullah Gül

Andreas MÖLZER :

Sept questions au Président Abdullah Gül

 

A l’occasion de la visite en Autriche du président turc

 

Monsieur le Président,

 

En tant que Chef d’Etat d’un grand pays important, vous nous honorez aujourd’hui, nous les Autrichiens, d’une visite d’Etat. Monsieur le Président Gül, l’Autriche et la Turquie ont derrière elles une histoire complexe, qui a connu des hauts et des bas. Par deux fois, les Turcs ont assiégé Vienne ; ensuite, le Prince Eugène, en menant ses « guerres turques » les a repoussés de manière décisive. Lors de la Première Guerre mondiale, nous étions alliés. Et, pour la première fois depuis des siècles, des centaines de milliers de Turcs arrivent en Autriche pour y travailler et pour y rester à demeure.

 

·         Quelle est votre position, Monsieur le Président, quant à l’intégration de vos compatriotes en Autriche ? Croyez-vous, à l’instar de votre Premier Ministre Erdogan, qu’ils doivent en toute première instance conserver leur identité turque ou, au contraire, pensez-vous qu’il convient, pour tout immigrant, d’accepter la culture dominante du pays hôte ? Et que pensez-vous faire de votre ambassadeur qui a affirmé, en public, que les Autrichiens ne songent qu’à faire subir des discriminations aux immigrés turcs ?

 

·         Et, Monsieur le Président, quelle position tenez-vous quant à l’islam ? Vous avez, de fait, été hissé à la dignité de Président de la République turque par la grâce d’un parti islamiste, ce qui a pour corollaire qu’avec le concours de vos amis politiques, vous procédez à une islamisation de la Turquie créée comme Etat laïque par Kemal Atatürk. Militez-vous aussi pour que l’islam se renforce en Europe ? Et quelle position adoptez-vous quant aux libertés religieuses des chrétiens dans votre pays ? Si de nombreuses nouvelles mosquées, avec minarets, doivent selon vous s’élever sur le sol européen, pourquoi ne pourrait-on pas bâtir de nouvelles églises chrétiennes en Turquie, avec clochers et magnifiques tintements de cloches ?

 

·         A  propos, Monsieur le Président, qu’en est-il des droits de l’homme dans votre pays ? Et quant aux droits de la femme ? Que pourriez-vous bien nous dire à propos des mariages forcés et des assassinats commis au nom de l’ « honneur » familial ? Pourquoi, dans votre beau pays, est-on poursuivi pénalement dès que l’on émet une critique sur la politique turque ?

 

·         Toujours dans le même ordre d’idées, Monsieur le Président, je me vois quelque peu contraint de vous poser la grande question : quelle est donc votre position relative aux droits du peuple kurde ? Ce grand peuple historique voit-il toujours ses droits politiques limités à grande échelle, ainsi que la possibilité de cultiver sa propre langue ?

 

·         Et puisque nous en sommes à parler d’histoire, Monsieur le Président, quelle est votre position quant au génocide qu’ont subi les Arméniens ? Pensez-vous aussi que la moindre allusion à ce génocide constitue une « insulte au peuple turc » ? Et pensez-vous également qu’il faille raser les monuments qui rappellent ces actes inhumains ?

 

·         Finalement, Monsieur le Président, quelle pourrait donc bien être votre position quant à cette République de Chypre-Nord ? Pensez-vous que l’on puisse défendre le fait que des centaines d’églises orthodoxes grecques soient là-bas entièrement dévastées et que l’on brade des icônes et des mosaïques byzantines sur le marché noir des œuvres d’art ? Ne pensez-vous pas que Chypre, en tant qu’Etat de l’Union Européenne, mérite la reconnaissance et le respect que la Turquie lui refuse, surtout que votre pays semble accorder beaucoup de valeur à une adhésion à cette même Union ?

 

·         Et, enfin, Monsieur le Président, que pensez-vous de l’Europe dans son ensemble ? Pensez-vous vraiment que la Turquie, dont 90% du territoire se trouvent sur le continent asiatique, qui est un pays musulman dont les valeurs sont assez éloignées de celles de l’Europe, doive absolument devenir un membre à part entière de l’Union Européenne ?

 

·         Ne pensez-vous pas que, dans une ambiance de respect mutuel, nous ne devrions pas créer plutôt « un partenariat privilégié » ? Un partenariat par lequel les Européens verraient les Turcs comme des alliés, respecteraient leur culture et leur religion, où Turcs et Européens œuvreraient de concert pour la paix, la liberté et le bien-être, où les Turcs resteraient dans leur patrie, ne tenteraient pas d’immigrer au sein même des systèmes sociaux européens (et autrichiens) et ne chercheraient pas à importer graduellement leur religion dans les contrées du Ponant chrétien ?

 

·         Ne pensez-vous pas, cher Président Abdullah Gül, que ce serait là une voie raisonnable qu’il conviendrait d’emprunter ?

 

Andreas MÖLZER, député européen, FPÖ, Autriche.

 

(texte paru dans la revue « zur Zeit », Vienne, n°18/2011 ; http://www.zurzeit.at/ ).  

Africa and the New World Order

By Colin Liddell

 

Ex: http://www.alternativeright.com/

 

To paraphrase Harold Macmillan, a “wind of change” is blowing through Africa. But, unlike 1960, when the former British Prime Minister made his famous remark, the wind today is not that of a growing national consciousness in the mud huts and shanty-towns, but instead the stiff breeze of a new kind of Neocolonialism.

Already this year, we have seen significant events in three places: Sudan, Libya, and most recently Ivory Coast, where the country’s President, Laurent Gbagbo was successfully removed from power with the active military participation of France and the United Nations. In these three cases we can see the emerging lineaments of a new modus operandi in Africa, one that secretly recognizes the limitations of African society and under a false flag of humanitarian concern ruthlessly exploits what the continent has to offer.

To understand what is happening, we need to bear in mind Africa’s very specific role in the greater global economic order. In fact, this also explains a lot about its history. In order to maximize economic efficiency in the last few decades, the world has seen a major separating-out of the key economic functions, rather like the division of labour described by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, and while any racial implications in this reorganization are strenuously denied, much of it is based on the inherent characters of different national and racial groups.

For example, the qualities of the Germans and the Asians have marked them out as the world’s premier manufacturers; while the individualism, extravagance, sense of entitlement, and former economic greatness of North Americans and some Europeans make them the perfect global consumer class. While many may look askance at citing consumption as an important economic function, in our overproducing global economic system it is vital. Without the massive trade deficits of the West, the rest of the World would be sunk. Indeed, it is the world’s overwhelming need for a major consumer that more than anything shores up America’s increasingly hollow power.

It may have been the dawning sense of this new global “division of labour” that hastened the removal of the old colonial system from Africa rather than any impetus caused by the largely feeble efforts of African nationalism. Although colonialism certainly taught the African to hate the White man by driving home his inferiority in a number of key indices, anyone who has lived in Africa, as I have, will know that petty tribalism, and not broad-based nationalism, has been and is always likely to be the driving force in that considerable part of the world.

So, what use does the global economic order have for Africa? Sadly, the Africans are terrible producers, lacking the precision, conscientiousness, group ethic, and self-sacrificing qualities needed to constitute a hard-working, reliable industrial population. Not to mention the issue of IQ! They are equally inept when it comes to consumption, and not only because of their proverbial penury and otherwise laudable penchant for reusing every piece of junk that comes their way. Even when they have money to burn, they seem more attracted to simple bling than to acquiring the wide variety of gizmos, gadgets, home appliances, bric-a-brac, and exotic interests that support vast export industries. The lack of protection accorded property in Africa also plays an important role in disqualifying them from this key economic function.

This means that Africa’s economic destiny is simply to be a raw material source—oil, gas, minerals, and a few tropical crops—something for which its still relatively virgin vastness makes it an ideal candidate. In the past this was always the case, although then it was gold, ivory, and slaves that slowly turned the wheels of commerce. Nobody thought the continent was worth bothering about beyond this, especially the Sub-Saharan portion. That was until the discovery of the Americas, two virgin continents that proved eminently more developable.

The tragic shortage of labour in the fast developing New World, in large part caused by European diseases, led to the unfortunate institution of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and while the labour mobilized at the crack of whip played a key role in working sugar cane plantations and silver mines, the partial success of the system also fostered the mistaken belief among Europeans that Africa and the Africans had the same sort of economic potential as anywhere and anyone else in the World. All it would take would be a few guns, Bibles, and copies of Samuel Smiles Self-Help to turn Bulawayo into Chicago.

This is how 19th-century colonialism really should be seen—as a vote of confidence by Europeans in the capabilities and ultimate potential of the Black man. Without the belief that the African could ultimately become just as economically upstanding as the European or Asian, the great 19th-century wave of colonization and investment in the Dark Continent would never have happened.

Harold Macmillan’s Winds of Change speech probably marks the point when European colonialists and capitalists realized that the game was up and that, for one reason or another, Africa was never going to be America or Japan, leapfrogging from wilderness or agrarian backwater to economic greatness.

Once the colonialists upped sticks, merely allowing Africa to revert to its wild state was not an option. In the period before colonization, various goods from the interior had naturally trickled down to the European and Arab trading posts and forts dotted along the coast. However, in the post-colonial period the kind of amounts produced by this process were wholly insufficient. Although the flags were lowered, Africa had to be kept on tap. This is what determined the characteristics of Neocolonialism: a system that could get the raw materials out more efficiently than the natives would left to themselves. Absolute efficiency was not required as that would simply flood the market and reduce profits, but some quickening of Africa’s natural tendencies was required.

The characteristics of the system of Neocolonialism that emerged included:

1. Creating and maintaining vast ethnic and tribal patchwork states that ignored the principle of local self-determination

2. Fostering tribal divisions to keep the states weak, encourage tyranny, and to exert leverage on the rulers

3. Various forms of bribery, including corporate bribery, foreign “aid,” and other incentives

4. Granting major Western corporations carte-blanche exploitation rights and allowing them access to cheap unskilled labour to supplement imported skilled labour

5. Occasional, low-key military intervention

The most successful African dictators, like the Congo’s Joseph Mobutu and Ivory Coast’s Félix Houphouët-Boigny, realized that their role was to facilitate raw material extraction, rather than develop their countries or challenge the ex-colonial masters. They instinctively understood that their slice of the profits should be used in ways the Neocolonialists found non-threatening—depositing the money in Swiss banks, for example, importing European haute-couture, or building shining palaces or cathedrals in the jungle.

Joseph Mobutu and Richard Nixon, 1973

But Neocolonialism could only work when applied to weak states, of which Africa has plenty. Some African rulers, buoyed up by Islam, Communism, or Arab Nationalism, could escape its grasp. Examples here include Nasser in Egypt, Gaddafi in Libya, and Mengistu in Ethiopia. Against such rulers, Neocolonialism could do little except play a waiting game.

Nor was Neocolonialism always negative. Under its first president Houphouët-Boigny, Ivory Coast saw particularly good relations with its ex-colonial power, France, and the development of the country’s coffee and cocoa crops, with a large influx of foreign labour from poorer Northern countries like Burkina Faso and French experts who helped run everything from the army and economic planning to the cocoa harvest. This gave the country one of the highest standards of living in post-colonial Africa, leading to the term “The Ivorian Miracle,” although problems started to set in following the slump in the price of its main export cocoa in the 1980s.

Many of the coups and revolutions in post-colonial African history that otherwise look so random and pointless, and seem like the result of tribalism or over-ambitious army officers, start to make more sense in the context of Neocolonialism. Ivory Coast is a good example. In 1999, Houphouët-Boigny’s successor, Henri Konan Bédié, was removed by a coup; while in 2002 an attempted coup tried to remove Laurent Gbagbo, and ended up splitting the country into Northern and Southern halves. Unlike their esteemed predecessor, both these leaders succeeded in antagonizing France, most noticeably by attempting to shore up their positions through mobilizing resentment against immigrant labourers and foreign economic interests.

But old-fashioned Neocolonialism of the type that was behind removing Bédié and putting and keeping Mabuto in power in the Congo had to rely on low-key opportunism and subtle methods. The public back home could not be made too aware of the bribery, contacts with thugs and tyrants, weapons smuggling, and occasional employment of small groups of mercenaries. The environment of the Cold War also meant that Neocolonialism had to tread softly, so much so that even petty dictators like Robert Mugabe, who could benefit from the crutch of having a White population to oppress, were able to defy it.

But the soaring need for African commodities combined with the festering apathy of Africans, who, after 50 years of being tyrannized and brutalized by their own kind, have largely lost their faith in the dream of independence, has led to a major revamping of Neocolonialism, so much so that it has effectively become something else that can best be termed “Global-colonialism” because (a) it is designed to subordinate Africa to the global division of economic functions, (b) the moral justification for the system hinges on globalist “humanitarian values,” and (c) its chief agents are the key globalist nations, America, Britain and France.

The system retains many of the methods of Neocolonialism, including setting tribe against tribe, extensive bribery, weapons smuggling, and giving the green light to those with their own axe to grind. But there are also important differences:

1. Unlike Neocolonialism, which preferred long-term rulers and only sought to remove leaders who were uncooperative, Global-colonialism has a preference for shorter-term leaders and places more emphasis on elections. This actually creates more leverage as rulers constantly need the endorsement of the West. Even if elections produce the “wrong” result, they can always be declared invalid due to ballot fraud or corruption as these phenomena are always present in any African election.

2. While Neocolonialism tended to be low-key and avoided publicity, Global-colonialism is noisy and demonstrative. It always tries to involve the media, which is one of its key arms. (In the event that the individuals and groups it elevates turn out to be Al-Qaeda sympathizers or genocidal thugs, expect Orwellian U-turns and the full exploitation of the public’s short attention span and near total ignorance of Africa.)

3. Global-colonialism is prepared to use much greater military force. This includes the smuggling of larger quantities of arms than before, as well as higher calibre weapons, such as the Ukrainian tanks the U.S. was caught smuggling to the Southern Sudanese rebels through Kenya in 2008. It also includes direct military intervention of the kind that removed Gbagbo and prevented Gaddafi crushing the Libyan rebellion. There is a preference for air power and specialist ground forces rather than the kind of heavily involved military intervention that has occurred in other parts of the world. Cost may be a factor. Nevertheless, this is certainly a step up from the old days of “The Dogs of War.”

4. To justify such military action, “human rights” and “protecting the civilian population” are tirelessly invoked. However, such “Totalitarian Humanism” can be applied very selectively, as we see in the case of Ivory Coast, where massacres by the French- and UN-approved rebels did not result in any military action being taken except on behalf of the same rebels.

5. There is a willingness to change borders as seen in Sudan and the suggestion that Libya too might be partitioned.

6. Perhaps because the system is new, Global-colonialism places great importance on getting someone—indeed anyone—to sign the chit for its actions. This is supposed to give a disinterested gloss to any intervention. Ideally, the signer should be the United Nations, but other suitable candidates include the African Union, the Arab League, or even, I suspect, the local chapter of the Abidjan Boy Scouts.

Global-colonialism can be seen as a combination of three separate pre-existing strands: (i) Neocolonialism, (ii) the kind of humanitarian intervention pioneered by the United Nations Mission to Sierra Leone in 1999, and (iii) a more cynical but equally virulent form of the old neocon crusading spirit.

The element of humanitarian intervention, oddly enough, has rock n’ roll roots, stemming from the naïve do-goodism of Bob Geldof’s Live Aid and other efforts by pop stars like Bono to “improve” the world without touching their own bank balances. This has played a significant role in seeding the idea among the wider public and giving Global-colonialism its strong pseudo moral imperative.

Given Neocolonialism’s preference for large ethnic patchwork states, Global-colonialism’s willingness to change borders is noteworthy. This has its precedents in the campaign to help the Kosovars and Montenegrins break away from Serbia, but seeing this concept applied to Africa in the case of Sudan is intriguing. If followed to its logical conclusion, the decision to support the creation of new states based on local ethnic factors would lead to practically every border in Africa being redrawn, with the creation of dozens, if not hundreds, of new statelets. Clearly this would remove a useful mechanism for imposing effective tyrannies over large areas or destabilizing and removing leaders it did not like, so why has Global-colonialism supported it in this case?

The PR men for Global-colonialism would claim that, after decades of civil war and millions of deaths, partition is the only way to “save human lives” and achieve a “lasting peace.” But this ignores the fact that both the states created by this division will still be ethnic patchworks. A more likely explanation is that, in addition to wishing to humiliate Khartoum, the Global-colonialists are simply removing an overly polarizing division that serves to unite the diverse groups on either side of the divide. With the non-Muslims in the South out of the way, the simmering divisions between the Muslim Furs, Nubians, Bejas, and various Arab-speaking groups in the North will move to the fore; while, in the same way, in the new state of South Sudan ethnic divisions long suppressed by the need to fight Islamic oppression will also bubble to the surface. This, in effect, creates much better conditions for the profitable exploitation of the oil fields in the region.

Global-colonialism means that no African ruler can now count himself safe. This was vividly demonstrated in Côte d'Ivoire, where Laurent Gbagbo was perhaps its first clear-cut scalp. Having displeased the French with his anti-immigrant and anti-French populism, he suffered an old style Neocolonialist coup in 2002 that didn’t quite work. After a stand-off lasting several years that was resolved by an agreement to hold an election, the campaign against him then entered a new phase that was clearly Global-colonialist in character.

After a disputed election result, Gbagbo’s authority was undermined by foreign criticism and calls for him to stand down, immediately followed by a military push from the Northern rebels supported by France and then the UN, along with a media blitz. At the same time that NATO was bombing Libya to “protect human life,” the rebel forces on their way south committed massacres, most notably at the town of Duekoue, but rather than NATO or even France bombing the roads carrying the rebels south, the issue was fudged and forgotten, allowing the perpetrators to close in on Gbagbo’s power base of Abidjan.

With the rebels unable to storm the president’s heavily-defended compound, French ‘peacekeepers’ in the country since 2002, along with some Ukrainian helicopter gun-ships under the auspices of the UN, blew away Gbagbo’s heavy defences, leading to his capture. There have also been rumours that rather than the undisciplined rebel forces, it was actually French specialist ground troops who delivered the coup de grâce. Either way, the rebel leader and the new president, Alassane Ouattara, with his immigrant origins, ties to the old Houphouët-Boigny regime, and French-Jewish wife is much more to the tastes of the old Neocolonialists as well as the new Global-colonialists.

With successes in The Sudan and the Ivory Coast, the new paradigm of Global-colonialism has so far been proving itself effective. Cheaper than full-scale war, but with more cutting edge than Neocolonialism, Global-colonialism seems the ideal tool for integrating Africa’s resources into the global economy.

Of the three cases mentioned, Libya is obviously proving the more difficult one, but even here the removal of half the country from the control of Gaddafi must be counted a success. This is the kind of result that Neocolonialism could never have achieved. The Gaddafi clan may hang on. They may even regain control over the rebel-held part of the country. But, even if they do, they will be much weaker than they were before and may well decide to follow the route of Mabuto and Houphouët-Boigny, especially as the next generation of the clan is likely to lack the Quixotic tendencies of its founder.

In its early days Gaddafi’s regime gave a glimpse of what a new kind of radical African nationalism might be like. Rather than spending the nation’s oil revenue on the bling that attracted other African leaders, Gaddafi used it to stir up trouble and challenge the status quo, rather like a latter day Hannibal taking on the Roman Empire. This was possible in the post-colonial age when Neocolonialism had to tread lightly and pull its punches, but now recalcitrant African leaders face a different beast, armed with longer teeth and sharper claws and the kind of PR that makes it seem all fuzzy and cute. Back in the ‘50s and ‘60s, the Wind of Change ruffled the coat tails of a departing colonial order, but now, the hurricane of Global-colonialism is blowing the other way.

 

 

 

 

Colin Liddell

Colin Liddell is a Tokyo-based journalist.

Le plan de Staline pour conquérir l'Europe

Le plan de Staline pour conquérir l’Europe:
Comment l’Union Soviétique «perdit» la 2ème Guerre Mondiale

Daniel W. Michaels

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

Viktor Suvorov (Vladimir Rezun)
Poslednyaya Respublika («La dernière république»)
Moscou : TKO ACT, 1996.

English original here ^[2]

Il y a maintenant plusieurs années de cela, un ancien officier du renseignement militaire soviétique nommé Vladimir Rezun provoqua de vives discussions en Russie à cause de son affirmation sensationnelle, selon laquelle Hitler a attaqué la Russie soviétique en juin 1941, au moment exact où Staline se préparait à submerger l’Allemagne et l’Europe de l’Ouest, en prélude à une opération bien préparée, visant à «libérer» toute l’Europe en la mettant sous domination communiste.

Ecrivant sous le nom de plume de Viktor Suvorov, Rezun a développé cette thèse dans trois livres. Le Brise-glace (qui a été traduit en anglais et en français [1989] ) et Dni M («M-Day») ont été présentés dans le Journal of Historical Review, nov-déc. 1997. Le troisième livre, présenté ici, est un ouvrage de 470 pages, «La dernière république : pourquoi l’Union Soviétique perdit la Seconde Guerre Mondiale», publié à Moscou en 1996.

Suvorov présente une abondance de preuves, montrant que quand Hitler déclencha son «Opération Barbarossa» contre la Russie Soviétique le 22 juin 1941, les forces allemandes purent infliger d’énormes pertes aux Soviétiques précisément parce que les troupes russes étaient très bien préparées pour la guerre — mais pour une guerre d’agression qui fut programmée pour le début de juillet — et pas pour la guerre défensive qui leur fut imposée par l’attaque préventive de Hitler.

Dans le Brise-glace, Suvorov détaille le déploiement des forces soviétiques en juin 1941, décrivant exactement de quelle manière Staline amassa de vastes quantités de troupes et de stocks d’armements le long de la frontière européenne, pas pour défendre la patrie soviétique, mais en préparation d’une attaque vers l’ouest et de batailles décisives en territoire ennemi.

Ainsi, quand les forces allemandes frappèrent, le gros des forces russes, terrestres et aériennes, étaient concentrées le long des frontières ouest de l’URSS, en face des pays européens contigus, particulièrement le Reich allemand et la Roumanie, prêtes pour l’assaut final contre l’Europe.

Dans son second livre sur les origines de la guerre, M-Day («Jour de mobilisation»), Suvorov décrit comment, entre la fin de 1939 et l’été de 1941, Staline construisit méthodiquement et systématiquement la force militaire la mieux armée, la plus puissante dans le monde — véritablement la première superpuissance du monde — pour sa future conquête de l’Europe. Suvorov explique comment la conversion drastique de l’économie du pays pour la guerre, voulue par Staline, rendait la guerre réellement inévitable.

Une Union Soviétique Mondiale

Dans La dernière république, Suvorov ajoute d’autres preuves à celles présentées dans ses deux livres précédents, pour appuyer son affirmation selon laquelle Staline se préparait à une guerre d’agression, en soulignant les motivations idéologiques des actions du dirigeant soviétique. Le titre fait allusion au malheureux pays qui devait être incorporé en tant que «République finale» dans «l’Union des Républiques Socialistes Soviétiques» mondiale, complétant ainsi le révolution prolétarienne mondiale.

Comme l’explique Suvorov, ce plan était entièrement en accord avec la doctrine marxiste-léniniste, ainsi qu’avec la politique de Lénine dans les premières années du régime soviétique. L’historien russe argue de manière convaincante que ce ne fut pas Léon Trotsky (Bronstein), mais plutôt Staline, son moins flamboyant rival, qui fut réellement le fidèle disciple de Lénine pour la poursuite de la Révolution Communiste Mondiale. Trotsky insistait sur la doctrine de la «révolution permanente», par laquelle le jeune Etat soviétique aiderait à fomenter des soulèvements et des révolutions ouvrières à l’intérieur des pays capitalistes.

A la place de cela, Staline voulait que le régime soviétique tire avantage «d’armistices» occasionnels dans la lutte mondiale pour consolider la force militaire soviétique, afin qu’au bon moment des forces soviétiques plus importantes et mieux armées puissent frapper en Europe du Centre et de l’Ouest, ajoutant de nouvelles républiques soviétiques quand cette force écrasante se mettrait en marche à travers le continent. Après la consolidation réussie et la soviétisation de toute l’Europe, l’URSS renforcée serait prête à imposer le pouvoir soviétique à tout le globe.

Comme le montre Suvorov, Staline comprit très bien que s’ils avaient le choix, les peuples des pays avancés de l’Occident ne choisiraient jamais volontairement le communisme. Il serait donc nécessaire de l’imposer par la force. Staline décida alors que son plan audacieux ne pouvait être réalisé que par une guerre mondiale.

Une preuve d’importance décisive à cet égard est le discours de Staline du 19 août 1939, récemment retrouvé dans les archives soviétiques (cité en partie dans Journal of Historical Review de nov-déc. 1997, p. 32-33). Dans ce discours, l’héritier de Lénine déclare:

L’expérience des vingt dernières années a montré qu’en temps de paix le mouvement communiste n’est jamais suffisamment fort pour prendre le pouvoir. La dictature d’un tel parti deviendra possible seulement en résultat d’une guerre majeure

Plus tard, tous les pays qui avaient accepté la protection de l’Allemagne renaissante deviendront aussi nos alliés. Nous aurons un large champ d’action pour développer la révolution mondiale.

De plus, et comme les théoriciens soviétiques l’ont toujours affirmé, le communisme ne pourrait jamais coexister pacifiquement sur le long terme avec d’autres systèmes socio-politiques. En conséquence, la domination communiste devrait inévitablement être imposée au monde. Ce but de «révolution mondiale» était tellement consubstantiel à la nature et au développement du «premier Etat des travailleurs» qu’il fut un trait cardinal du programme soviétique, même avant que Hitler et son mouvement national-socialiste arrive au pouvoir en Allemagne en 1933.

Staline voulait frapper au moment et à l’endroit de son choix. A cette fin, le développement soviétique des systèmes d’armes offensives les plus avancées, principalement les blindés, les avions, et les forces aéroportées, avait déjà commencé au début des années 30. Pour assurer le succès de son audacieuse entreprise, Staline ordonna à la fin de 1939 de construire une puissante machine de guerre qui serait supérieure en quantité et en qualité à toutes les forces d’opposition possibles. Son premier ordre secret pour la mobilisation militaro-industrielle totale du pays fut émis en août 1939. Un second ordre de mobilisation totale, cette fois-ci pour la mobilisation militaire, devait être émis le jour où la guerre commencerait.

Déception

L’attaque allemande «Barbarossa» anéantit le plan bien établi de Staline pour «libérer» toute l’Europe. Dans ce sens, affirme Suvorov, Staline «perdit» la 2ème Guerre Mondiale. Le dirigeant soviétique ne pouvait considérer que comme une déception d’avoir «seulement» vaincu l’Allemagne et conquis l’Europe de l’Est et du Centre.

14 jours qui sauvèrent l’Occident

«Nombre d’indices tendent à prouver que la date fixée par Staline pour l’opération «Orage» était le 6 juillet 1941.» (Viktor Suvorov, Le Brise-glace)

«Le commandement fasciste allemand réussit, deux semaines avant la guerre, à devancer nos troupes.» (Général S.P. Ivanov)

«Hitler ne savait pas tout, mais il en savait assez: s’il n’attaquait pas, l’autre attaquerait. (…) Hitler reniflait ce danger. (…) C’était une question de vie ou de mort.» (Léon Degrelle, Persiste et signe)

«Ma conviction profonde est que si le Führer ne nous avait pas donné l’ordre d’attaquer à ce moment-là, les Etats européens et la plupart des sociétés humaines seraient à présent bolchevisés.» (Otto Skorzeny, La guerre inconnue)

«… la puissance russe menaçante, ayant ses têtes de pont préparées sur la Baltique et sur la mer Noire, n’attendait qu’une occasion, c’est-à-dire le moment où l’armée allemande serait suffisament occupée par les puissances occidentales, pour que le front oriental soit ouvert à une attaque massive à laquelle l’Allemagne ne serait pas en mesure de résister.» (Sven Hedin, L’Amérique dans la lutte des continents)

«Staline préparait la guerre dans tous les domaines, en partant de délais qu’il avait fixé lui-même. Hitler déjoua ses calculs.» (Amiral N. G. Kouznetsov)

Selon Suvorov, Staline trahit sa déception de plusieurs manières après la fin de la guerre. D’abord, il laissa le maréchal Joukov conduire le défilé de la victoire en 1945, au lieu de le faire lui-même — lui, le Commandant suprême. Deuxièmement, aucun défilé officiel de la victoire du 9 mai ne fut même autorisé jusqu’à la mort de Staline en 1953. Troisièmement, Staline ne porta jamais aucune des médailles qu’il avait obtenues après la fin de la 2ème Guerre Mondiale. Quatrièmement, un jour, dans un moment de dépression, il exprima aux membres de son entourage proche son désir de se retirer [du pouvoir] maintenant que la guerre était finie. Cinquièmement, et c’est peut-être le plus révélateur, Staline abandonna le projet, prévu de longue date, du Palais des Soviets.

Un monument inachevé

L’énorme Palais des Soviets, approuvé par le gouvernement soviétique au début des années 30, devait faire 418 mètres de haut, surmonté par une statue de Lénine de 100 mètres de hauteur — plus haut que l’Empire State Building de New York. Il devait être construit sur le site de l’ancienne Cathédrale du Christ Sauveur. Sur l’ordre de Staline, ce magnifique symbole de la vieille Russie fut rasé en 1931 — un acte par lequel les dirigeants communistes voulaient effacer symboliquement l’âme de la vieille Russie pour faire place au monument central de l’URSS mondiale.

Toutes les «républiques socialistes» du monde, y compris la «dernière république», devaient être représentées dans le Palais. Le hall principal de ce sanctuaire séculier devait être décoré avec le texte du serment que Staline avait fait en termes quasi-religieux lors des funérailles de Lénine. Il comportait ces paroles : «Lorsqu’il nous quitta, le Camarade Lénine nous légua la responsabilité de renforcer et de développer l’Union des Républiques Socialistes. Nous te jurons, Camarade Lénine, que nous nous acquitterons honorablement de tes commandements sacrés.»

Cependant, seules les premières fondations de ce grandiose monument furent achevées, et pendant les années 90, après l’effondrement de l’URSS, la Cathédrale du Christ Sauveur fut soigneusement reconstruite sur le site.

La version officielle

Pendant des décennies, la version officielle du conflit germano-soviétique de 1941-45, soutenue par les historiens de l’establishment, à la fois en Russie et en Occident, fut à peu près cela:

Hitler déclencha une attaque «éclair» par surprise contre l’Union Soviétique tristement mal-préparée, ridiculisant son chef, le naïf et confiant Staline. Le Führer allemand fut conduit vers l’Orient primitif par la convoitise pour «l’espace vital» et les ressources naturelles, et par sa détermination longuement remâchée de détruire le «communisme juif» une fois pour toutes. Dans son attaque traîtresse, qui était une étape importante de la folle campagne de Hitler pour la «conquête du monde», les agresseurs «nazis» ou «fascistes» submergèrent d’abord toute résistance grâce à leur prépondérance en chars et en avions modernes.

Cette vison des choses, qui fut affirmée par les juges Alliés au Tribunal de Nuremberg après la guerre, est encore largement acceptée, à la fois en Russie et aux Etats-Unis. En Russie aujourd’hui, la plus grande partie du public (et pas seulement ceux qui sont nostalgiques de l’ancien régime soviétique) accepte cette version «politiquement correcte». En effet, elle «explique» les énormes pertes de l’Union Soviétique en hommes et en matériel pendant la 2ème Guerre Mondiale.

Condamné depuis le début

Contrairement à la version officielle selon laquelle l’Union Soviétique n’était pas préparée pour la guerre en juin 1941, en réalité, souligne Suvorov, c’était les Allemands qui n’étaient pas vraiment préparés. Le plan allemand «Barbarossa», hâtivement mis au point, qui visait à une victoire éclair en cinq ou six mois avec des forces numériquement inférieures, avançant en trois larges poussées, était condamné depuis le début.

De plus, note Suvorov, l’Allemagne manquait des matières premières (incluant le pétrole) essentielles pour soutenir une guerre prolongée d’une telle dimension.

Une autre raison du manque de préparation de l’Allemagne, affirme Suvorov, était que ses chefs militaires avaient sérieusement sous-estimé la performance des forces soviétiques pendant la «Guerre d’Hiver» contre la Finlande en 1939-40. Elles combattirent, il faut le souligner, dans des conditions extrêmement sévères d’hiver — températures de -40 et des épaisseurs de neige de plus d’un mètre — contre les fortifications et les installations enterrées, bien conçues et renforcées de la «Ligne Mannerheim» de la Finlande. En dépit de cela, on l’oublie souvent, l’Armée Rouge contraignit finalement les Finlandais à un humiliant armistice.

C’est toujours une erreur, souligne Suvorov, de sous-estimer son ennemi. Mais Hitler fit cette faute de calcul décisive. En 1943, après que le cours de la guerre ait tourné contre l’Allemagne, il reconnut son jugement erroné des forces soviétiques, deux années plus tôt.

Disparité des chars

Pour prouver que c’était Staline, et pas Hitler, qui était réellement préparé pour la guerre, Suvorov compare l’armement allemand et soviétique au milieu de 1941, avec une attention particulière pour les systèmes d’armes offensifs, d’importance décisive: les chars et les forces aéroportées. C’est un axiome généralement accepté en science militaire, que les forces attaquantes doivent avoir une supériorité numérique de trois contre un. Cependant, comme l’explique Suvorov, quand les Allemands frappèrent au matin du 22 juin 1941, ils attaquèrent avec un total de 3 350 chars, alors que les défenseurs soviétiques avaient un total de 24 000 chars — ce qui veut dire que Staline avait sept fois plus de chars que Hitler, ou vingt et une fois plus de chars que ce qui aurait été considéré comme suffisant pour une défense adéquate. De plus, souligne Suvorov, les chars soviétiques étaient supérieurs dans tous les aspects techniques, incluant la puissance de feu, l’autonomie et le blindage.

Tel qu’il était, le développement soviétique de la production de chars lourds avait déjà commencé au début des années 30. Par exemple, dès 1933 les Soviétiques étaient déjà passés à la production en série, et livraient à leurs forces le modèle T-35, un char lourd de 45 tonnes avec 3 canons, 6 mitrailleuses, et 30mm de blindage. Par contre, les Allemands commencèrent le développement et la production d’un char de 45 tonnes comparable [ce furent le «Tiger» et le «Panther», NDT] seulement après que la guerre ait commencé à la mi-1941.

En 1939 les Soviétiques avaient déjà ajouté trois modèles de chars lourds à leur arsenal. De plus, les Soviétiques concevaient leurs chars avec de plus larges chenilles, et les équipaient avec des moteurs Diesel (qui étaient moins inflammables que ceux utilisant des carburateurs conventionnels). En outre, les chars soviétiques étaient construits avec le moteur et la direction à l’arrière, améliorant ainsi l’efficacité générale et la vision de l’équipage. Les chars allemands avaient une conception moins efficace, avec le moteur à l’arrière et la direction dans la partie avant.

Quand le conflit commença en juin 1941, montre Suvorov, l’Allemagne n’avait pas du tout de chars lourds, seulement 309 chars moyens, et juste 2 668 chars légers, inférieurs. Pour leur part, les Soviétiques au début de la guerre avaient à leur disposition des chars qui n’étaient pas seulement plus lourds mais de meilleure qualité.

A ce sujet, Suvorov cite les souvenirs du général allemand des blindés Heinz Guderian, qui écrivit dans ses mémoires Chef de Panzers (1952/1996, p. 143) :

Au printemps de 1941, Hitler avait spécialement ordonné qu’une commission militaire russe puisse visiter nos usines et nos écoles de blindés; dans cet ordre il avait insisté pour que rien ne leur soit caché. Les officiers russes en question refusèrent toujours de croire que le Panzer IV était en fait notre char le plus lourd. Ils dirent toujours que nous devions leur cacher nos nouveaux modèles, et se plaignirent en disant que nous n’appliquions pas l’ordre d’Hitler de tout leur montrer. La commission militaire insista tellement sur ce point que finalement nos responsables des services concernés conclurent: «Il semble que les Russes possèdent déjà des chars meilleurs et plus lourds que les nôtres». Ce fut à la fin de juillet 1941 que le T-34 apparut sur le front et l’énigme du nouveau modèle de char russe fut résolue.

Suvorov cite un autre fait révélateur extrait de l’Almanach de la 2ème Guerre Mondiale de Robert Goralski (1982, p. 164). Le 24 juin 1941, juste deux jours après le début de la guerre germano-soviétique:

Les Russes mirent en action leurs chars géants Klim Vorochilov près de Raseiniai [Lithanie]. Des modèles pesant 43 et 52 tonnes surprirent les Allemands, qui trouvèrent les KV presque inarrêtables. L’un de ces chars russes reçut 70 coups directs, mais aucun ne perça son blindage.

Bref, l’Allemagne attaqua le colosse soviétique avec des chars qui étaient trop légers, trop peu nombreux, et inférieurs en performances et en puissance de feu. Et cette disparité perdura pendant toute la guerre. Pendant le seule année 1942, les usines soviétiques produisirent 2 553 chars lourds, pendant que les Allemands en produisaient juste 89. Même à la fin de la guerre, le meilleur char au combat était le modèle soviétique IS («Iosif Staline»).

Suvorov encourage sarcastiquement les historiens militaires de l’establishment à étudier un livre sur les chars soviétiques, par Igor P. Schmelev, publié en 1993 par la «Hobby Book Publishing Company» à Moscou. Le travail d’un honnête analyste militaire amateur tel que Schmelev, qui est sincèrement intéressé et qui aime son travail et la vérité, dit Suvorov, est souvent supérieur à celui d’un employé payé par le gouvernement.

Disparité des Forces Aériennes

La supériorité soviétique en forces aéroportées était encore plus disproportionnée. Avant la guerre, les bombardiers soviétiques DB-3f et SB ainsi que les TB-1 et TB-3 (dont Staline possédait environ un millier) avaient été modifiés pour transporter aussi bien des parachutistes que des bombes. Vers la mi-1941, les Soviétiques avaient entraîné des centaines de milliers de parachutistes (Suvorov dit presque un million) en vue de l’attaque planifiée contre l’Allemagne et l’Occident. Ces troupes aéroportées devaient être déployées et lâchées derrière les lignes ennemies en plusieurs vagues, chaque vague étant formée de cinq corps d’armée aéroportés (VDKs), chaque corps comptant 10 419 hommes incluant un état-major et des services, une division d’artillerie, et un bataillon de chars autonome (50 chars). Suvorov donne la liste des commandants et des bases des deux premières vagues, ou dix corps. Les secondes et troisièmes vagues comportaient des troupes parlant français et espagnol.

Comme l’attaque allemande empêcha ces troupes hautement entraînées d’être utilisées comme prévu, Staline les convertit en «Divisions de la Garde», qu’il utilisa comme des réserves et des «pompiers» pour les situations d’urgence, tout comme Hitler utilisa souvent les unités de Waffen SS.

Cartes et manuels

Pour appuyer sa thèse principale, Suvorov cite des données supplémentaires qui n’étaient pas mentionnées dans ses deux premiers ouvrages sur ce sujet. Premièrement, à la veille du début de la guerre de 1941, les forces soviétiques avaient reçu des cartes topographiques seulement pour les zones de la frontière et pour l’Europe; elles ne reçurent pas de cartes du territoire ou des villes soviétiques, parce que la guerre ne devait pas être menée sur le territoire national. Le Chef du Service Topographique militaire de l’époque, et donc responsable de la distribution des cartes militaires, le major-général Kudryatsev, ne fut pas sanctionné ni même limogé pour avoir manqué à fournir des cartes du territoire national, mais continua à mener une longue et brillante carrière militaire. De même, le Chef d’Etat-major, le général Joukov, ne fut jamais tenu pour responsable de la débâcle des premiers mois de la guerre. Aucun des principaux commandants militaires ne pouvait être tenu pour responsable, souligne Suvorov, parce qu’ils avaient tous suivi à la lettre les ordres de Staline.

Deuxièmement, au début de juin 1941, les forces soviétiques reçurent des milliers d’exemplaires d’un manuel russo-allemand, avec des sections consacrées à des opérations militaires offensives, telles que s’emparer de gares de chemin de fer, orienter des parachutistes, et ainsi de suite, et des expressions [en langues étrangères] utiles comme «arrêtez de transmettre ou je tire». Ce manuel fut imprimé en grand nombre par les imprimeries militaires de Léningrad et de Moscou. Cependant, ils n’atteignirent jamais les troupes sur les lignes de front, et on dit qu’elles furent détruites pendant la phase du début de la guerre.

L’aide des Etats-Unis «neutres»

Comme le note Suvorov, les Etats-Unis avaient fourni du matériel militaire depuis les années 30. Il cite l’étude de A.C. Sutton, National Suicide (Arlington House, 1973), qui relate qu’en 1938 le président Roosevelt conclut un accord secret avec l’URSS pour échanger des informations militaires. Pour le public américain, cependant, Roosevelt annonça la mise en place d’un «embargo moral» contre la Russie soviétique.

Pendant les mois précédent l’entrée en guerre formelle de l’Amérique dans la guerre (décembre 1941), les navires de guerre des Etats-Unis, officiellement neutres, étaient déjà en guerre dans l’Atlantique contre les forces navales allemandes (Voir La Flotte de Mr Roosevelt: la guerre privée de la Flotte US de l’Atlantique, 1939-42 par Patrick Abbazia [Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1975] ). Et deux jours après le déclenchement de «Barbarossa», Roosevelt annonça une aide des Etats-Unis à la Russie Soviétique dans sa guerre de survie contre l’Axe. Ainsi, au début de l’opération «Barbarossa», Hitler écrivit une lettre à Mussolini: «En ce moment cela ne fait aucune différence si l’Amérique entre officiellement en guerre ou pas, elle soutient déjà nos ennemis à fond, avec des livraisons massives de matériel de guerre.»

De même, W. Churchill faisait tout ce qui était en son pouvoir pendant les mois précédent juin 1941 — alors que les forces britanniques subissaient défaite sur défaite — pour faire entrer à la fois les Etats-Unis et l’URSS dans la guerre du côté britannique. En vérité, la coalition anti-Hitler des «Trois Grands» (Staline, Roosevelt, Churchill) était effectivement en place avant que l’Allemagne attaque la Russie, et fut une raison majeure pour que Hitler se sentit obligé de frapper la Russie soviétique, et de déclarer la guerre aux Etats-Unis cinq mois plus tard. (Voir le discours d’Hitler du 11 décembre 1941, publié dans le Journal of Historical Review, hiver 1988-89, p. 394-396, 402-412)

Les raisons de l’appui de F. Roosevelt à Staline sont difficiles à établir. Le président Roosevelt lui-même expliqua un jour à William Bullitt, son premier ambassadeur en Russie soviétique: «Je pense que si je lui donne [à Staline] tout ce que je peux, et que je ne demande rien en retour, noblesse oblige, il ne tentera pas d’annexer quoi que ce soit, et travaillera avec moi pour un monde de paix et de démocratie.» (Cité dans Robert Nisbet, Roosevelt et Staline: l’idylle manquée, 1989, p. 6). Peut-être l’explication la plus exacte (et la plus gentille) de l’attitude de Roosevelt est-elle une ignorance profonde, une auto-intoxication ou de la naïveté. Selon l’opinion digne de considération de George Kennan, historien et ancien diplomate américain de haut rang, en politique étrangère Roosevelt était «un homme superficiel, ignorant, dilettante, avec un horizon intellectuel sévèrement limité.»

Un pari désespéré

Suvorov admet être fasciné par Staline, l’appelant «un animal, un monstre sauvage et sanglant, mais un génie de tous les temps et de tous les peuples». Il dirigea la plus grande puissance militaire de la 2ème Guerre Mondiale, la force qui, plus que toute autre, vainquit l’Allemagne. En particulier, dans les années finales du conflit, il domina l’alliance militaire des Alliés. Il dut considérer Roosevelt et Churchill avec mépris, comme des «idiots utiles».

Au début de 1941, chacun admettait que comme l’Allemagne était déjà engagée contre la Grande-Bretagne en Afrique du Nord, en Méditerranée, et dans l’Atlantique, Hitler ne pourrait jamais se permettre l’ouverture d’un second front à l’Est (se rappelant la désastreuse expérience de la 1ère Guerre Mondiale, il avait mis en garde dans Mein Kampf contre le danger mortel d’une guerre sur deux fronts). C’est précisément parce qu’il était sûr que Staline pensait que Hitler n’ouvrirait pas un second front, soutient Suvorov, que le dirigeant allemand se sentit libre de déclencher «Barbarossa». Cette attaque, insiste Suvorov, fut un pari énorme et désespéré. Mais menacé par des forces soviétiques supérieures, prêtes à submerger l’Allemagne et l’Europe, Hitler n’avait guère d’autre choix que de déclencher cette attaque préventive. [Toutes proportions gardées, on peut faire une intéressante comparaison avec l'attaque israélienne de la Guerre des Six Jours en 1967. Dans ce dernier cas, le caractère préventif de l'attaque est admis sans difficulté par les historiens «officiels», alors que dans le cas de «Barbarossa», il est «politiquement incorrect» de le reconnaître, malgré l'évidence de l'immense menace soviétique, imminente ou pas, NDT.]

Reichstag, 1945

Mais c’était trop peu, trop tard. En dépit de l’avantage de frapper le premier, ce furent les Soviétiques qui finalement l’emportèrent. Au printemps de 1945, les troupes de l’Armée Rouge réussirent à hisser le drapeau rouge sur le bâtiment du Reichstag à Berlin. C’est seulement grâce aux sacrifices des forces allemandes et des forces de l’Axe que les troupes soviétiques ne parvinrent pas à hisser le drapeau rouge sur Paris, Amsterdam, Copenhague, Rome, Stockholm, et peut-être, Londres.

Le débat devient plus âpre

En dépit de la résistance des historiens de «l’establishment» (qui en Russie sont souvent d’anciens communistes), l’appui à la thèse de «l’attaque préventive» de Suvorov est allé croissant, à la fois en Russie et en Europe de l’Ouest. Parmi ceux qui sympathisent avec les vues de Suvorov figurent de jeunes historiens russes comme Yuri L. Dyakov, Tatiana S. Bushuyeva, et I. Pavlova (voir le JHR, nov-déc. 1997, p. 32-34).

Concernant l’histoire du 20ème siècle, les historiens américains ont généralement l’esprit plus fermé que leurs collègues d’Europe et de Russie. Mais même aux Etats-Unis, il y a eu quelques voix pour appuyer la thèse de la «guerre préventive» — ce qui est du plus haut intérêt, sachant que les livres de Suvorov sur la 2ème Guerre Mondiale, à l’exception du «Brise-glace», n’ont pas été traduits en anglais (l’une de ces voix est celle de l’historien Russell Stolfi, professeur d’Histoire Européenne Moderne à la Naval Postgraduate School à Monterey, Californie. Voir le compte-rendu de son livre Hitler’s Panzer East dans le JHR de nov-déc. 1995).

Toutes les réactions au travail de Suvorov n’ont pas été positives, cependant. Il a aussi provoqué des critiques et des répétitions des thèses officielles vieilles de plusieurs décennies. Parmi les nouveaux défenseurs les plus représentatifs de la ligne «orthodoxe», figurent les historiens Gabriel Gorodetsky de l’Université de Tel-Aviv, et John Ericson de l’Université d’Edinburgh.

Rejetant tous les arguments qui pourraient justifier l’attaque allemande, Gorodetsky en particulier critique et ridiculise les travaux de Suvorov, spécialement dans un livre proprement intitulé «Le Mythe du Brise-glace». En fait, Gorodetsky (et Ericson) attribue les pertes soviétiques à la supposée impréparation de l’Armée Rouge pour la guerre. «Il est absurde», écrit Gorodetsky, «de prétendre que Staline aurait jamais conçu l’idée d’attaquer l’Allemagne, comme quelques historiens allemands aiment aujourd’hui à le suggérer, pour pouvoir au moyen d’une attaque-surprise, désorganiser l’attaque préventive planifiée par l’Allemagne.»

Il n’est pas surprenant que Gorodetsky ait reçu l’éloge des autorités du Kremlin et des chefs militaires russes. De même, «l’establishment» allemand soutient l’historien israélien. Aux frais des contribuables allemands, Gorodetsky a travaillé et enseigné au Service de Recherche d’Histoire Militaire (MGFA) allemand, semi-officiel, qui a publié en avril 1991 le livre de Gorodetsky, Zwei Wege nach Moskau (Deux chemins pour Moscou).

Dans la «Dernière République», Suvorov répond à Gorodetsky et aux autres critiques de ses deux premiers livres sur l’histoire de la 2ème Guerre Mondiale. Il est particulièrement cinglant dans ses critiques du travail de Gorodetsky, spécialement le «Mythe du Brise-glace».

Quelques critiques

Suvorov écrit de manière caustique, sarcastique, et avec une grande acidité. Mais s’il a raison sur le fond, comme le pense l’auteur de cet article, il a — et nous aussi — parfaitement le droit d’être acerbe, ayant été trompé et désinformé pendant des décennies.

Bien que Suvorov mérite notre gratitude pour son importante dissection d’une légende historique, son travail n’est pas sans défauts. D’une part, son éloge des réalisations du complexe militaro-industriel soviétique, et de la qualité des armements et de l’équipement militaire soviétique est exagéré, voire dithyrambique. Il omet de signaler l’origine occidentale d’une grande partie de l’armement et du matériel soviétique. Les ingénieurs soviétiques ont eu un talent particulier pour modifier avec succès, simplifier, et souvent améliorer les modèles et les conceptions occidentaux. Par exemple, le robuste moteur Diesel utilisé par les chars soviétiques était basé sur un moteur d’avion allemand de BMW.

Une critique qui ne peut pas décemment être faite à Suvorov serait son manque de patriotisme. Se rappelant que les premières victimes du communisme furent les Russes, il fait à juste titre une nette distinction entre le peuple russe et le régime communiste qui le dominait. Il n’écrit pas seulement avec la compétence d’un historien capable, mais en mémoire des millions de Russes dont les vies furent gaspillées pour les plans malsains de «révolution mondiale» de Lénine et de Staline.

Original article: Journal of Historical Review, 17/4 (Juillet-Août 1998), 30-37. Online source of translation: http://library.flawlesslogic.com/suvorov_fr.htm ^[3]

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/04/le-plan-de-staline-pour-conquerir-leurope-comment-lunion-sovietique-%c2%abperdit%c2%bb-la-2eme-guerre-mondiale/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/stalin_victory.jpg

[2] here: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/04/exposing-stalins-plan-to-conquer-europe/

[3] http://library.flawlesslogic.com/suvorov_fr.htm: http://library.flawlesslogic.com/suvorov_fr.htm

José Ortega y Gasset & Jean Thiriart

 

LA IDEA DE FILOSOFÍA EN ORTEGA Y GASSET

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

 

LA IDEA DE FILOSOFÍA EN ORTEGA Y GASSET

Jesús Ruiz Fernández

Tesis Doctoral dirigida por José Luis Abellán García


LIBRO ELECTRÓNICO:

Enlace con issuu.com

Enlace con scribd.com

 

Publicado por [e-mail]

 

URKULTUR Nº 12. JEAN THIRIART Y EL NACIONAL-COMUNITARISMO EUROPEO

 

URKULTUR Nº 12.

JEAN THIRIART
Y EL NACIONAL-COMUNITARISMO EUROPEO.

REVISTA ELECTRÓNICA: Enlace con issuu.com
[Enlace con el documento en pdf para imprimir, arriba a la derecha de este blog]

Sumario.-

TEXTOS SOBRE JEAN THIRIART.-

Biografía de Jean Thiriart.

Homenaje a Jean Thiriart (1922-1992).
Robert Steuckers

Jean Thiriart, teórico de la Revolución europea.
Christian Bouchet

Jean Thiriart, el Lenin de la Revolución europea.
René Pellisier

Jean Thiriart, el Maquiavelo de la Nación europea.
Edouard Rix

Por una Europa libre. Relectura de la “Gran Nación”, de Jean Thiriart.
Adriano Scianca

El nacionalismo europeo y sus límites.
Ernesto Milá

Jean Thiriart, un maestro para Alain de Benoist.
Diego L. Sanromán

TEXTOS DE JEAN THIRIART.-

Europa hasta Valdivostok.
Jean Thiriart

La Europa de las Patrias.
Jean Thiriart

La Europa-Estado y la Europa-Nación se harán contra los USA.
Jean Thiriart

ENTREVISTA A JEAN THIRIART.-

La Comunidad Nacional Europea.
Bernardo Gil Mugarza.

 

Publicado por [e-mail]

Exposing Stalin's Plan to Conquer Europe

Exposing Stalin’s Plan to Conquer Europe:
How the Soviet Union ‘Lost’ the Second World War

Daniel W. Michaels

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

Editor’s Note:

Since the publication of his review, Viktor Suvorov’s definitive statement of his research has been published as The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II ^[2] (Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 2008).

French translation here ^[3]

Viktor Suvorov (Vladimir Rezun)
Poslednyaya Respublika (“The Last Republic”)
Moscow: TKO ACT, 1996

For several years now, a former Soviet military intelligence officer named Vladimir Rezun has provoked heated discussion in Russia for his startling view that Hitler attacked Soviet Russia in June 1941 just as Stalin was preparing to overwhelm Germany and western Europe as part of a well-planned operation to “liberate” all of Europe by bringing it under Communist rule.

Writing under the pen name of Viktor Suvorov, Rezun has developed this thesis in three books. Icebreaker (which has been published in an English-language edition) and Dni M (“M Day”) were reviewed in the Nov.–Dec. 1997 Journal of Historical Review. The third book, reviewed here, is a 470-page work, “The Last Republic: Why the Soviet Union Lost the Second World War,” published in Russian in Moscow in 1996.

Suvorov presents a mass of evidence to show that when Hitler launched his “Operation Barbarossa” attack against Soviet Russia on June 22, 1941, German forces were able to inflict enormous losses against the Soviets precisely because the Red troops were much better prepared for war — but for an aggressive war that was scheduled for early July — not the defensive war forced on them by Hitler’s preemptive strike.

In Icebreaker, Suvorov details the deployment of Soviet forces in June 1941, describing just how Stalin amassed vast numbers of troops and stores of weapons along the European frontier, not to defend the Soviet homeland but in preparation for a westward attack and decisive battles on enemy territory.

Thus, when German forces struck, the bulk of Red ground and air forces were concentrated along the Soviet western borders facing contiguous European countries, especially the German Reich and Romania, in final readiness for an assault on Europe.

In his second book on the origins of the war, “M Day” (for “Mobilization Day”), Suvorov details how, between late 1939 and the summer of 1941, Stalin methodically and systematically built up the best armed, most powerful military force in the world — actually the world’s first superpower — for his planned conquest of Europe. Suvorov explains how Stalin’s drastic conversion of the country’s economy for war actually made war inevitable.

A Global Soviet Union

In “The Last Republic,” Suvorov adds to the evidence presented in his two earlier books to strengthen his argument that Stalin was preparing for an aggressive war, in particular emphasizing the ideological motivation for the Soviet leader’s actions. The title refers to the unlucky country that would be incorporated as the “final republic” into the globe-encompassing “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,” thereby completing the world proletarian revolution.

As Suvorov explains, this plan was entirely consistent with Marxist-Leninist doctrine, as well as with Lenin’s policies in the earlier years of the Soviet regime. The Russian historian argues convincingly that it was not Leon Trotsky (Bronstein), but rather Stalin, his less flamboyant rival, who was really the faithful disciple of Lenin in promoting world Communist revolution. Trotsky insisted on his doctrine of “permanent revolution,” whereby the young Soviet state would help foment home-grown workers’ uprisings and revolution in the capitalist countries.

Stalin instead wanted the Soviet regime to take advantage of occasional “armistices” in the global struggle to consolidate Red military strength for the right moment when larger and better armed Soviet forces would strike into central and western Europe, adding new Soviet republics as this overwhelming force rolled across the continent. After the successful consolidation and Sovietization of all of Europe, the expanded USSR would be poised to impose Soviet power over the entire globe.

As Suvorov shows, Stalin realized quite well that, given a free choice, the people of the advanced Western countries would never voluntarily choose Communism. It would therefore have to be imposed by force. His bold plan, Stalin further decided, could be realized only through a world war.

A critical piece of evidence in this regard is his speech of August 19, 1939, recently uncovered in Soviet archives (quoted in part in the Nov.–Dec. 1997 Journal, pp. 32–33). In it, Lenin’s heir states:

The experience of the last 20 years has shown that in peacetime the Communist movement is never strong enough to seize power. The dictatorship of such a party will only become possible as the result of a major war . . .

Later on, all the countries who had accepted protection from resurgent Germany would also become our allies. We shall have a wide field to develop the world revolution.

Furthermore, and as Soviet theoreticians had always insisted, Communism could never peacefully coexist over the long run with other socio-political systems. Accordingly, Communist rule inevitably would have to be imposed throughout the world. So integral was this goal of “world revolution” to the nature and development of the “first workers’ state” that it was a cardinal feature of the Soviet agenda even before Hitler and his National Socialist movement came to power in Germany in 1933.

Stalin elected to strike at a time and place of his choosing. To this end, Soviet development of the most advanced offensive weapons systems, primarily tanks, aircraft, and airborne forces, had already begun in the early 1930s. To ensure the success of his bold undertaking, in late 1939 Stalin ordered the build up a powerful war machine that would be superior in quantity and quality to all possible opposing forces. His first secret order for the total military-industrial mobilization of the country was issued in August 1939. A second total mobilization order, this one for military mobilization, would be issued on the day the war was to begin.

Disappointment

The German “Barbarossa” attack shattered Stalin’s well-laid plan to “liberate” all of Europe. In this sense, Suvorov contends, Stalin “lost” the Second World War. The Soviet premier could regard “merely” defeating Germany and conquering eastern and central Europe only as a disappointment.

According to Suvorov, Stalin revealed his disappointment over the war’s outcome in several ways. First, he had Marshal Georgi Zhukov, not himself, the supreme commander, lead the victory parade in 1945. Second, no official May 9 victory parade was even authorized until after Stalin’s death. Third, Stalin never wore any of the medals he was awarded after the end of the Second World War. Fourth, once, in a depressed mood, he expressed to members of his close circle his desire to retire now that the war was over. Fifth, and perhaps most telling, Stalin abandoned work on the long-planned Palace of Soviets.

An Unfinished Monument

The enormous Palace of Soviets, approved by the Soviet government in the early 1930s, was to be 1,250 feet tall, surmounted with a statue of Lenin 300 feet in height — taller than New York’s Empire State Building. It was to be built on the site of the former Cathedral of Christ the Savior. On Stalin’s order, this magnificent symbol of old Russia was blown up in 1931 — an act whereby the nation’s Communist rulers symbolically erased the soul of old Russia to make room for the centerpiece of the world USSR.

All the world’s “socialist republics,” including the “last republic,” would ultimately be represented in the Palace. The main hall of this secular shrine was to be inscribed with the oath that Stalin had delivered in quasi-religious cadences at Lenin’s burial. It included the words: “When he left us, Comrade Lenin bequeathed to us the responsibility to strengthen and expand the Union of Socialist Republics. We vow to you, Comrade Lenin, that we shall honorably carry out this, your sacred commandment.”

However, only the bowl-shaped foundation for this grandiose monument was ever completed, and during the 1990s, after the collapse of the USSR, the Christ the Savior Cathedral was painstakingly rebuilt on the site.

The Official View

For decades the official version of the 1941–1945 German-Soviet conflict, supported by establishment historians in both Russia and the West, has been something like this:

Hitler launched a surprise “Blitzkrieg” attack against the woefully unprepared Soviet Union, fooling its leader, the unsuspecting and trusting Stalin. The German Führer was driven by lust for “living space” and natural resources in the primitive East, and by his long-simmering determination to smash “Jewish Communism” once and for all. In this treacherous attack, which was an important part of Hitler’s mad drive for “world conquest,” the “Nazi” or “fascist” aggressors initially overwhelmed all resistance with their preponderance of modern tanks and aircraft.

This view, which was affirmed by the Allied judges at the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, is still widely accepted in both Russia and the United States. In Russia today, most of the general public (and not merely those who are nostalgic for the old Soviet regime), accepts this “politically correct” line. For one thing, it “explains” the Soviet Union’s enormous World War II losses in men and materiel.

Doomed from the Start

Contrary to the official view that the Soviet Union was not prepared for war in June 1941, in fact, Suvorov stresses, it was the Germans who were not really prepared. Germany’s hastily drawn up “Operation Barbarossa” plan, which called for a “Blitzkrieg” victory in four or five months by numerically inferior forces advancing in three broad military thrusts, was doomed from the outset.

Moreover, Suvorov goes on to note, Germany lacked the raw materials (including petroleum) essential in sustaining a drawn out war of such dimensions.

Another reason for Germany’s lack of preparedness, Suvorov contends, was that her military leaders seriously under-estimated the performance of Soviet forces in the Winter War against Finland, 1939–40. They fought, it must be stressed, under extremely severe winter conditions — temperatures of minus 40 degrees Celsius and snow depths of several feet — against the well-designed reinforced concrete fortifications and underground facilities of Finland’s “Mannerheim Line.” In spite of that, it is often forgotten, the Red Army did, after all, force the Finns into a humiliating armistice.

It is always a mistake, Suvorov emphasizes, to underestimate your enemy. But Hitler made this critical miscalculation. In 1943, after the tide of war had shifted against Germany, he admitted his mistaken evaluation of Soviet forces two years earlier.

Tank Disparity Compared

To prove that it was Stalin, and not Hitler, who was really prepared for war, Suvorov compares German and Soviet weaponry in mid-1941, especially with respect to the all-important offensive weapons systems — tanks and airborne forces. It is a generally accepted axiom in military science that attacking forces should have a numerical superiority of three to one over the defenders. Yet, as Suvorov explains, when the Germans struck on the morning of June 22, 1941, they attacked with a total of 3,350 tanks, while the Soviet defenders had a total of 24,000 tanks — that is, Stalin had seven times more tanks than Hitler, or 21 times more tanks than would have been considered sufficient for an adequate defense. Moreover, Suvorov stresses, the Soviet tanks were superior in all technical respects, including firepower, range, and armor plating.

As it was, Soviet development of heavy tank production had already begun in the early 1930s. For example, as early as 1933 the Soviets were already turning out in series production, and distributing to their forces, the T-35 model, a 45-ton heavy tank with three cannons, six machine guns, and 30-mm armor plating. By contrast, the Germans began development and production of a comparable 45-ton tank only after the war had begun in mid-1941.

By 1939 the Soviets had already added three heavy tank models to their inventory. Moreover, the Soviets designed their tanks with wider tracks, and to operate with diesel engines (which were less flammable than those using conventional carburetor mix fuels). Furthermore, Soviet tanks were built with both the engine and the drive in the rear, thereby improving general efficiency and operator viewing. German tanks had a less efficient arrangement, with the engine in the rear and the drive in the forward area.

When the conflict began in June 1941, Suvorov shows, Germany had no heavy tanks at all, only 309 medium tanks, and just 2,668 light, inferior tanks. For their part, the Soviets at the outbreak of the war had at their disposal tanks that were not only heavier but of higher quality.

In this regard, Suvorov cites the recollection of German tank general Heinz Guderian, who wrote in his memoir Panzer Leader (1952/1996, p. 143):

In the spring of 1941, Hitler had specifically ordered that a Russian military commission be shown over our tank schools and factories; in this order he had insisted that nothing be concealed from them. The Russian officers in question firmly refused to believe that the Panzer IV was in fact our heaviest tank. They said repeatedly that we must be hiding our newest models from them, and complained that we were not carrying out Hitler’s order to show them everything. The military commission was so insistent on this point that eventually our manufacturers and Ordnance Office officials concluded: “It seems that the Russians must already possess better and heavier tanks than we do.” It was at the end of July 1941 that the T34 tank appeared on the front and the riddle of the new Russian model was solved.

Suvorov cites another revealing fact from Robert Goralski’s World War II Almanac (1982, p. 164). On June 24, 1941 — just two days after the outbreak of the German-Soviet war:

The Russians introduced their giant Klim Voroshilov tanks into action near Raseiniai [Lithuania]. Models weighing 43 and 52 tons surprised the Germans, who found the KVs nearly unstoppable. One of these Russian tanks took 70 direct hits, but none penetrated its armor.

In short, Germany took on the Soviet colossus with tanks that were too light, too few in number, and inferior in performance and fire power. And this disparity continued as the war progressed. In 1942 alone, Soviet factories produced 2,553 heavy tanks, while the Germans produced just 89. Even at the end of the war, the best-quality tank in combat was the Soviet IS (“Iosef Stalin”) model.

Suvorov sarcastically urges establishment military historians to study a book on Soviet tanks by Igor P. Shmelev, published in 1993 by, of all things, the Hobby Book Publishing Company in Moscow. The work of an honest amateur military analyst such as Shmelev, one who is sincerely interested in and loves his hobby and the truth, says Suvorov, is often superior to that of a paid government employee.

Airborne Forces Disparity

Even more lopsided was the Soviet superiority in airborne forces. Before the war, Soviet DB-3f and SB bombers as well as the TB-1 and TB-3 bombers (of which Stalin had about a thousand had been modified to carry airborne troops as well as bomb loads. By mid-1941 the Soviet military had trained hundreds of thousands of paratroopers (Suvorov says almost a million) for the planned attack against Germany and the West. These airborne troops were to be deployed and dropped behind enemy lines in several waves, each wave consisting of five airborne assault corps (VDKs), each corps consisting of 10,419 men, staff and service personnel, an artillery division, and a separate tank battalion (50 tanks). Suvorov lists the commanding officers and home bases of the first two waves or ten corps. The second and third wave corps included troops who spoke French and Spanish.

Because the German attack prevented these highly trained troops from being used as originally planned, Stalin converted them to “guards divisions,” which he used as reserves and “fire brigades” in emergency situations, much as Hitler often deployed Waffen SS forces.

Maps and Phrase Books

In support of his main thesis, Suvorov cites additional data that were not mentioned in his two earlier works on this subject. First, on the eve of the outbreak of the 1941 war Soviet forces had been provided topographical maps only of frontier and European areas; they were not issued maps to defend Soviet territory or cities, because the war was not to be fought in the homeland. The head of the Military Topographic Service at the time, and therefore responsible for military map distribution, Major General M. K. Kudryavtsev, was not punished or even dismissed for failing to provide maps of the homeland, but went on to enjoy a lengthy and successful military career. Likewise, the chief of the General Staff, General Zhukov, was never held responsible for the debacle of the first months of the war. None of the top military commanders could be held accountable, Suvorov points out, because they had all followed Stalin’s orders to the letter.

Second, in early June 1941 the Soviet armed forces began receiving thousands of copies of a Russian-German phrase book, with sections dedicated to such offensive military operations as seizing railroad stations, orienting parachutists, and so forth, and such useful expressions as “Stop transmitting or I’ll shoot.” This phrase book was produced in great numbers by the military printing houses in both Leningrad and Moscow. However, they never reached the troops on the front lines, and are said to have been destroyed in the opening phase of the war.

Aid from the ‘Neutral’ United States

As Suvorov notes, the United States had been supplying Soviet Russia with military hardware since the late 1930s. He cites Antony C. Sutton’s study, National Suicide (Arlington House, 1973), which reports that in 1938 President Roosevelt entered into a secret agreement with the USSR to exchange military information. For American public consumption, though, Roosevelt announced the imposition of a “moral embargo” on Soviet Russia.

In the months prior to America’s formal entry into war (December 1941), Atlantic naval vessels of the ostensibly neutral United States were already at war against German naval forces. (See Mr. Roosevelt’s Navy: The Private War of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet, 1939–1942 by Patrick Abbazia [Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1975]). And two days after the “Barbarossa” strike, Roosevelt announced US aid to Soviet Russia in its war for survival against the Axis. Thus, at the outbreak of the “Barbarossa” attack, Hitler wrote in a letter to Mussolini: “At this point it makes no difference whether America officially enters the war or not, it is already supporting our enemies in full measure with mass deliveries of war materials.”

Similarly, Winston Churchill was doing everything in his power during the months prior to June 1941 — when British forces were suffering one military defeat after another — to bring both the United States and the Soviet Union into the war on Britain’s side. In truth, the “Big Three” anti-Hitler coalition (Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill) was effectively in place even before Germany attacked Russia, and was a major reason why Hitler felt compelled to strike against Soviet Russia, and to declare war on the United States five months later. (See Hitler’s speech of December 11, 1941, published in the Winter 1988–89 Journal, pp. 394–96, 402–12.)

The reasons for Franklin Roosevelt’s support for Stalin are difficult to pin down. President Roosevelt himself once explained to William Bullitt, his first ambassador to Soviet Russia: “I think that if I give him [Stalin] everything I possibly can, and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything, and will work with me for a world of peace and democracy.” (Cited in: Robert Nisbet, Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship [1989], p. 6.) Perhaps the most accurate (and kindest) explanation for Roosevelt’s attitude is a profound ignorance, self-deception or naiveté. In the considered view of George Kennan, historian and former high-ranking US diplomat, in foreign policy Roosevelt was “a very superficial man, ignorant, dilettantish, with a severely limited intellectual horizon.”

A Desperate Gamble

Suvorov admits to being fascinated with Stalin, calling him “an animal, a wild, bloody monster, but a genius of all times and peoples.” He commanded the greatest military power in the Second World War, the force that more than any other defeated Germany. Especially in the final years of the conflict, he dominated the Allied military alliance. He must have regarded Roosevelt and Churchill contemptuously as useful idiots.

In early 1941 everyone assumed that because Germany was still militarily engaged against Britain in north Africa, in the Mediterranean, and in the Atlantic, Hitler would never permit entanglement in a second front in the East. (Mindful of the disastrous experience of the First World War, he had warned in Mein Kampf of the mortal danger of a two front war.) It was precisely because he was confident that Stalin assumed Hitler would not open a second front, contends Suvorov, that the German leader felt free to launch “Barbarossa.” This attack, insists Suvorov, was an enormous and desperate gamble. But threatened by superior Soviet forces poised to overwhelm Germany and Europe, Hitler had little choice but to launch this preventive strike.

But it was too little, too late. In spite of the advantage of striking first, it was the Soviets who finally prevailed. In the spring of 1945, Red army troops succeeded in raising the red banner over the Reichstag building in Berlin. It was due only to the immense sacrifices of German and other Axis forces that Soviet troops did not similarly succeed in raising the Red flag over Paris, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Rome, Stockholm, and, perhaps, London.

The Debate Sharpens

In spite of resistance from “establishment” historians (who in Russia are often former Communists), support for Suvorov’s “preventive strike” thesis has been growing both in Russia and in western Europe. Among those who sympathize with Suvorov’s views are younger Russian historians such as Yuri L. Dyakov, Tatyana S. Bushuyeva, and I. V. Pavlova. (See the Nov.–Dec. 1997 Journal, pp. 32–34.)

With regard to 20th-century history, American historians are generally more close-minded than their counterparts in Europe or Russia. But even in the United States there have been a few voices of support for the “preventive war” thesis — which is all the more noteworthy considering that Suvorov’s books on World War II, with the exception of Icebreaker, have not been available in English. (One such voice is that of historian Russell Stolfi, a professor of Modern European History at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. See the review of his book Hitler’s Panzers East in the Nov.–Dec. 1995 Journal of Historical Review.) Not all the response to Suvorov’s work has been positive, though. It has also prompted criticism and renewed affirmations of the decades-old orthodox view. Among the most prominent new defenders of the orthodox “line” are historians Gabriel Gorodetsky of Tel Aviv University, and John Ericson of Edinburgh University.

Rejecting all arguments that might justify Germany’s attack, Gorodetsky in particular castigates and ridicules Suvorov’s works, most notably in a book titled, appropriately, “The Icebreaker Myth.” In effect, Gorodetsky (and Ericson) attribute Soviet war losses to the supposed unpreparedness of the Red Army for war. “It is absurd,” Gorodetsky writes, “to claim that Stalin would ever entertain any idea of attacking Germany, as some German historians now like to suggest, in order, by means of a surprise attack, to upset Germany’s planned preventive strike.”

Not surprisingly, Gorodetsky has been praised by Kremlin authorities and Russian military leaders. Germany’s “establishment” similarly embraces the Israeli historian. At German taxpayers expense, he has worked and taught at Germany’s semi-official Military History Research Office (MGFA), which in April 1991 published Gorodetsky’s Zwei Wege nach Moskau (“Two Paths to Moscow”).

In the “Last Republic,” Suvorov responds to Gorodetsky and other critics of his first two books on Second World War history. He is particularly scathing in his criticisms of Gorodetsky’s work, especially “The Icebreaker Myth.”

Some Criticisms

Suvorov writes caustically, sarcastically, and with great bitterness. But if he is essentially correct, as this reviewer believes, he — and we — have a perfect right to be bitter for having been misled and misinformed for decades.

Although Suvorov deserves our gratitude for his important dissection of historical legend, his work is not without defects. For one thing, his praise of the achievements of the Soviet military industrial complex, and the quality of Soviet weaponry and military equipment, is exaggerated, perhaps even panegyric. He fails to acknowledge the Western origins of much of Soviet weaponry and hardware. Soviet engineers developed a knack for successfully modifying, simplifying and, often, improving, Western models and designs. For example, the rugged diesel engine used in Soviet tanks was based on a German BMW aircraft diesel.

One criticism that cannot in fairness be made of Suvorov is a lack of patriotism. Mindful that the first victims of Communism were the Russians, he rightly draws a sharp distinction between the Russian people and the Communist regime that ruled them. He writes not only with the skill of an able historian, but with reverence for the millions of Russians whose lives were wasted in the insane plans of Lenin and Stalin for “world revolution.”

Originally published in the Journal of Historical Review 17, no. 4 (July–August 1998), 30–37. Online source: http://library.flawlesslogic.com/suvorov.htm ^[4]

See also the National Vanguard review of Icebreaker here ^[5] and Hitler’s Reichstag speech of December 11, 1941 here ^[6].

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/04/exposing-stalins-plan-to-conquer-europe/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/stalin_victory.jpg

[2] The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591148383/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=countecurrenp-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399349&creativeASIN=1591148383

[3] here: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/04/le-plan-de-staline-pour-conquerir-leurope-comment-lunion-sovietique-%C2%ABperdit%C2%BB-la-2eme-guerre-mondiale/

[4] http://library.flawlesslogic.com/suvorov.htm: http://library.flawlesslogic.com/suvorov.htm

[5] here: http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/115/icebreak.html

[6] here: http://ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.html