Jean Thiriart and the “Great Europe” : Interview with Yannick Sauveur – Rébellion September 16th 2019


, , , ,

Yannick Sauveur was one of Jean Thiriart’s close associates for nearly twenty years. He revisits the thought of this figure of the “Great Europe” for us.

R/ How did you know Jean Thiriart?
Before responding to your question, I would like to clarify my journey for you: I took my first steps in the Mouvement Jeune Révolution (MJR), a movement created by Captain Pierre Sergent in 1966 as a continuation of the OMJ (OAS Métro Jeunes). The MJR attracted me with its neither right nor left, neither capitalism nor communism positions. I realized, like other leaders and militants, taking into account the evolution of the movement (MJR then Action Solidariste MJR then Mouvement Solidariste Français and GAJ) that the aforementioned positions were a decoy and that the movement was the umpteenth variety of the extreme right. But, from that time, I felt neither right wing nor extreme and I had already declined to take part in these splits that seemed quite artificial to me. In a confused manner I already sensed the System’s great interest in taking advantage of these divisions, including those of pseudo-opposition movements, which were created by the regime if need be or rendered it great service, consciously or not.
During the course of 1973, this consideration lead me to quit the Mouvement Solidariste Français (MSF) in order to join Organisation Lutte du Peuple (OLP), the organization founded by Yves Bataille, a defector from Ordre Nouveau. Beyond what originally attracted me to MJR, I understood that Politics could not limit itself to the pettiness of domestic policy, everyday politics. On the contrary, OLP’s preoccupations were focused on international politics, the politics of blocs, European independence and sovereignty vis-à-vis the USA and the Soviet Union. Geopolitics necessarily seemed to take precedence over the ideology in the exact measure where we sensed freedom was gauged on the European scale, Europe as the master of its destiny. These ideas had been expressed by Jean Thiriart during the 1960s in his writings: Un Empire de 400 millions d’hommes L’Europe, Brussels, 1964 and La Grande Nation. L’Europe unitaire de Brest à Bucarest, 1965, then in La Nation Européenne.
Following this initial intellectual encounter with Jean Thiriart, a second one, physical this time, took place during a militant voyage that took us from Paris to Brussels via Rome and Munich. In Rome, we met the militants of Lotta di Popolo.
Our meeting with Jean Thiriart in July 1973 at his store (Opterion, avenue Louise in Brussels) would be brief and rather cold. Distanced from all active politics for nearly five years, he didn’t necessarily see four young militants barging into his place positively. We must recognize that presenting ourselves as such, in his professional venue, was doubtlessly not the best idea for an introduction. Thiriart was naturally distrustful, and very absorbed in his optometric activities, he didn’t want to hear about politics anymore. His wife, Alice, who was not without influence on him, also feared the reemergence of the political virus. In fact, as will be explained later, he no longer wanted to be the leader of a movement and terribly distrusted militants, young ones especially.
Nevertheless undiscouraged, I re-initiated contact personally in the summer of 1974, and I found another man there, approachable even warm. The private man was infinitely different from the public man and those who rubbed shoulders with him in these circumstances unanimously recognize the empathy that his personality radiated. Henceforth, our relations endured until his death, in November 1992.

R/ What was his conception of the European idea?
The major basic ideas were present very early in the history of the movement directed by Thiriart. We already find them in the Manifeste à la nation Européenne whose first version appeared on September 1st 1961 and which would be revised many times.
On foreign policy, the manifesto (in its 1962 version) summarizes that “Europe must obtain for itself peaceful co-existence with the Soviet Union, otherwise the USA will haggle an accord with Moscow on our backs.”
The Europe he envisions is a unitary Europe, a Europe of Europeans against a “Europe of fatherlands,” for a European patriotism against “constrained nationalisms”, a Jacobin and imperial Europe. Europe must be one and indivisible, its preoccupations and combats likewise. Only the unitary Europe would give Europe the power to face the blocs (the USA and the Soviet Union at the time). He advocated for withdrawal from NATO and the creation of a European Army. Economic nationalism must be a factor for Europe’s unification.
Jean Thiriart didn’t have words harsh enough for the petty nationalisms embodied in France by Michel Debré, Prime Minister for 1959 to 1962, or the extreme right movements in Italy, Germany, or elsewhere. For Jean Thiriart, one of the ideological tragedies of obtuse “petty nationalism” was that “German nationalists” were only interested in Berlin and German reunification, “French nationalists” were only interested in Algeria, “Belgian nationalists” only humiliated by the Congolese affair of 1960. That’s why he was strongly involved in supporting the OAS during the Algerian affair because “beyond the war in Algeria, beyond the FLN and OAS, we see the future of Europe. We need a solution that leads or returns Muslim Africa to the European community. We need a solution that keeps a European army in Algeria without humiliating the pride of Algerian Muslims …”
Jean Thiriart didn’t confound Europe and the West. “The West goes from Bucharest to San Francisco, with its priests, its rabbis, its bourgeoisie, its outmoded nationalisms and pretend values.
Europe will be something totally cut off from the USA by an ocean. Europe will also be something that extends past Bucharest, the extends past the Urals. Europe will go to the Chinese border in Manchuria. Europe will go to the Indian Ocean. For me Europe is firstly labeled in geopolitical terms.” (106 réponses à Mugarza).
Thiriart’s unitary Europe is inseparable from the concept of omnicitizenship, “By omnicitizenship, I mean any citizen, any place, can run for any office, up to the supreme level.
It’s this absence of the least discrimination, the least restriction; its harmful “dosage” is unknown. […] The principle of non-discrimination by territorial origin is a key principle of our unitary solution to consolidate Europe.”

R/ In 1989 the Berlin Wall collapsed. How would Thiriart analyses the opportunities that emerged from this new world?
Long before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Jean Thiriart placed his hopes in a reorientation of alliances with a Great Europe extending to Vladivostok. Thanks to his translator Viktor Nikolaev, he had many of his translated texts sent to the Soviet Union. In fact, Jean Thiriart’s position evolved from the sixties: “My perspective of a Europe formed WITH the USSR or more exactly (peacefully) BESIDE it progressively changed , from 1982 onward, to a Europe formed THROUGH the USSR.” In these conditions, the fall of the Berlin Wall followed by the disintegration of the USSR would reshuffle the cards and open other horizons. Would Jean Thiriart’s ideas finally enjoy a favorable reception in Russia? That would be the reason for the voyage to Moscow he undertook in August 1992 and the various contacts established: Besides Alexander Dugin and Anatoli Ivanov, he had meetings with:
– Yegor Ligachev (born in 1920), the former leader of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR, the number 2 of the CPSU.
– Sergey Baburin, leader of the opposition within the Parliament of the Russian Republic and leader of the “Rossiya” group of deputies, deputy, jurist.
– Viktor Alksnis, nicknamed “the black colonel,” of Latvian origin and former military engineer in the Baltic fleet, member of the CPSU from 1974 until its banning in 1991. Close to Sergey Baburin and Alexander Dugin.
– Gennady Zyuganov, former adviser to Gorbachev on issues relating to anti-Soviet movements, intelligence and secret services, founder of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF).
– Geydar Dzhemal, founder of the Islamic Renaissance Party (PRI) in 1991.
– Alexander Prokhanov, director of the newspaper Dyenn.
-Nikolai Pavlov, associate of Sergey Baburin.
– Valentin Chikin, director of Sovetskaya Rossiya, associate of Ligachev.
– Eduard Volodin, philosopher and advocate of the national communist synthesis.

R/ Russia has a central place in Jean Thiriart’s thought?
From 1964, while the Atlanticists of all stripes were violently anti-communist, Jean Thiriart developed a unique position: “The key to European diplomacy will be peaceful neighborly relations with the USSR. Only a strong and united Europe can force Moscow to understand that it’s also in the USSR’s interest (Un Empire de 400 millions d’hommes L’Europe, p.24).” And he already envisioned Europe from Brest to Vladivostok: “Let’s make a brief incursion into the realm of anticipation and let’s imagine the stage following Europe’s unification. It will inevitably inscribe itself, from the facts of political geography, in terms of a Brest- Vladivostok axis (…) All European policy will consist of building its strength and demonstrating its power to the USSR in order to lead the latter to a more realistic position (…) But the great prelude to our entire policy of rapprochement with Moscow, my sine qua historical position, is the liberation of our provinces and capitals from the Center and the East of the great European fatherland. (ibid. p. 28-31).”
“Great Europe (…) extends from Dublin to Bucharest. Greater Europe stretches from Dublin to Vladivostok.
Russian extends to Vladivostok. Of course Europe will inherit this geographical profile.” (L’Europe jusqu’à l’Oural, un suicide! In La Nation Européenne, n° 46 – 15/02-15/03/1966).
For Thiriart, the only schema he envisioned (even if he was aware that it fell within the long term) was that of a greater Europe as Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals was “nonsense:” “We must firstly create the great Europe extending to Bucharest. Then we must demand the greater Europe with the Russians cured of their pretension of hegemony over Europe’s interior.
And this greater Europe will extend to Vladivostok – and not to the Urals as the very poor geography student who responds to the name De Gaulle believes” (ibid).
After the end of Jeune Europe and the La Nation Européenne (1969), Jean Thiriart retired from all militant political activity. He picked up the pen again at the start of the eighties. There’s no 180 degree turn but rather there’s evolution of his thought: “My position is that we mustn’t fight against the USSR, a European power, but we must fight against the fossilization of Marxist thought.” (106 réponses à Mugarza) He explained his progression: “From 1980-1981 (…) the following schema grew inside of me: let’s no longer rely on Brest – Bucharest unity as the preparatory phase of Dublin – Vladivostok unity, but directly pass to the Vladivostok – Dublin phase.
(…) My slide towards communism hasn’t escaped many observers. This slide was already implicit, subtly appearing in my writings from 1966 to 1968.” De-Marxified communism understood according to Thiriart’s terms “purged of its ideology,” “renovated, rendered clearer.” He also evoked a “Spartan communism.”
Because the “USSR is the the last European power not domesticated by the American – Zionist project of global domination” Jean Thiriart’s thought progressively evolved towards the Euro – Soviet Empire.

R/ You rediscovered a forgotten text “ L’empire euro-soviétique”. What does this rare document contain?
Actually, I neither discovered nor rediscovered it because I knew of this text during its composition and I have successive annotated, struck-through, penciled-in versions. I worked from two versions only to remember that the latest one seemed to correspond the most to Thiriart’s final thought and in which he returned to certain references and formulations. For example, he suppressed any reference to Francis Parker Yockey that José Cuadrado Costa had suggested in a preceding version.
I also tried to be as faithful as possible to Jean Thiriart’s wishes ordering the table of contents. In addition to the labor of re-writing, I added footnotes because the base text didn’t contain them and limited itself to anticipating them in the future. They are observations or complement the information in the original text. They also include many bibliographic facts.
Finally, in a long preface I sought to explain the origin of this text, putting it in perspective with its time and situating it contemporaneously. It seemed interesting to me to exhume this document and its publication thirty years after its composition shows a certain clairvoyance.
L’Empire Euro-soviétique de Vladivostok à Dublin is a very dense text. The guiding line is as follows: Jean Thiriart returns to his evolution from 1964 to 1984 in order to explain why “I came to consider as the USSR as the last and only chance for Europe to unite today” then he looks at the broader picture of the present (1984) geopolitical situation, namely a declining USSR and the United States on the way to planetary hegemony. He then exposes what he calls an “explosive algebra” or the “great switch-over,” the USSR reinforcing Western Europe. He indulges in a certain number of geopolitical considerations connected with the “third world war.” We must have in mind the bellicose climate that reigned at the start of the 1980s and I recall the “war psychosis that was developing in every level of French public opinion” (Pierre Viansson-Ponté in Le Monde). The bellicosity of the Israeli – Zionist lobby is highlighted and Thiriart makes a parallel with 1939: “Die for Danzig?” (Marcel Déat) will become “Die for Tel-Aviv?” Jean Thiriart has no illusions about the USSR as it was. It must radically change and propose a “European discourse,” which is supposed to surpass Marxist communism and its conception of the nation to promote a “community of destiny” henceforth this notion of Empire. He contrast the Empire that unites with the imperialism of domination (of the United States). Who will form this greater Europe? Referencing Alexander Zinoviev (The Yellow House), Jean Thiriart also desires a new Stalin. This new Stalin will have the duty of creating European unity tomorrow: “A new Phillip of Macedon, a new Stalin, that’s what we need to give birth to the unitary Europe.”

R/ Do you think Thiriart’s thought is still relevant?
Yes incontestably and I don’t think I’m the only one to think so if I judge by the interest he arouses today. In Sweden, in Eastern Europe, in Italy, in Spain, in England, in Latin America, in Australia, Jean Thiriart is translated, cited, mentioned favorably. Academic works, books are in progress. The magazine of geopolitical studies Eurasia, directed by Claudio Mutti, very regularly reproduces writings by (or on) Thiriart. In Robert Steuckers’ work Europa (three volumes), two chapters are devoted to Jean Thiriart.
The retrospective relevance of Thiriart’s writings in the light of ongoing tensions and upheavals is evident upon reflection because the Russian enemy has replaced the Soviet enemy (from the point of view of American strategy!), and Europe, absent or insignificant on the international scene, is still the same political dwarf under the American thumb. Do we need to clarify that the European Union has nothing to do with the Europe we want: powerful, independent, removed from NATO.
From Thiriart’s thought, we must retain an authentically political methodology and reasoning, detached from emotions and literary verbiage, as well as the games of everyday politics.
We must also insist on Thiriart’s organizational sense that created a structured, disciplined,militant unit, Jeune Europe, with its press, its cadre school, its camps, a Party that was a sort of prefiguration of the unitary Europe.


Yegor Ligachev and Jean Thiriart – Debate in Moscow, August 1992


, , ,

Jean Thiriart: We belong to different political currents united by a common enemy: globalism. This enemy is organized on the global level, like the international Catholic structure that permeated the whole of society’s organization in its time. That’s why the struggle against globalism cannot be exclusively conducted in Russia by the Russians alone or in France by the French alone. It cannot have a local character: in order to oppose this threat directed against all the peoples of the world, it is necessary to establish a type of cosmopolitan organization, but cosmopolitan in the positive sense, not in the negative sense. Our response should be, in the measure where the challenges and attacks of which we have been the object impact the entire planet, planetary as well.

Yegor Ligachev: We live – when I say us, I mean Russia, our country – in a particular period. Three possible ways to exit this crisis situation into which our country has plunged present themselves. The first way consists of emulating a foreign model, the Western model in this case, without taking social and national traditions or concrete reality into account. Another way consists of going back, that is to say to the state socialism elaborated in the past. This is by no means a feudal or barracks socialism, but precisely a state socialism. The privatization (de-nationalization) of public properties has been felt in a particularly negative manner. State socialism permitted us to concentrate forces and means towards the principal orientations of social development, permitted us to resolve considerable social and economic problems. Afterwards, however, this state socialism’s potentialities (creative possibilities) were extinguished.

In any case, the two first ways I spoke of represent a movement backwards, a social regression. Nevertheless there exists another alternative that one could characterize in the following manner: take and conserve everything that was positive in our Soviet system while democratically reforming in an original way that takes national and foreign experiences into account. I am a resolute adversary of the unification of the world on the basis of a single social system. For Western politicians and ideologues, Russia and the other CIS states’ entry into the global community can only start, at present, from the restoration of capitalism. From my point of view, such a way is irremediably condemned because the capitalist system has, like the socialist system, good and bad sides. That’s why I think that our task consists of assimilating all that is positive in the human situation, both European and global.

Jean Thiriart: I perfectly agree with attributing Russia a particular meaning and place in the measure where it’s still this space, this territory best suited for organizing the resistance to globalist forces.

Yegor Ligachev: At the present time, calls for Russia to enter into global civilization frequently resound among us. However it suffices to scratch the surface of this idea to immediately realize that this entry into the global community supposes nothing other than the destruction of the entire Soviet social system. We can also ask ourselves why our country’s entry into the global community matters when it’s been present there for a long time and has provided – and continues to provide – a gigantic contribution to the development of global civilization.

Jean Thiriart: In reality, the United States doesn’t demand Russia’s entry into the global community; they quite simply want to dominate the whole planet from a political, military, and technological point of view. In the West, those who have governed European countries since 1945 are not politically independent since they depend on Washington entirely and exclusively. That’s why it’s suitable to focus attention, not on what the marionette European governments say, but on those who hold their strings.

Yegor Ligachev: Recently, the one who, according to your evocative expression, pulls the strings, basically declared the following: “We give ourselves the task of accomplishing the liberation of the whole world in the nearest future.” You see, it’s nothing less than the question of the liberation of the world! So what is the mindset in Europe regarding the intrusion of the United States which, in the domain of global politics, claims hegemony.

Jean Thiriart: Actually the situation is quite complex. There exists determined revolutionary forces both on the “left” and the “right” that very well understand what is at stake and take the stage against globalism and American-Zionist hegemony. It is possible that we underestimate the strength of American propaganda; this remark goes particularly for you; the Russians.

As Europe itself has lived under American occupation for a long time, it fully feels the strength of American and Zionist propaganda which, from morning to night, through all the means of television and the press, subjects the public to hypnosis.

Yegor Ligachev: I am also deeply convinced that the collapse of the Soviet Union, the present collapse of Yugoslavia, and its possible propagation to other European countries is the work of determined subversive forces. They understand to that to succeed – as they have already succeed – at dividing the Soviet Union, at disorganizing Yugoslavia is essentially to succeed at eliminating the only system capable of effectively opposing their planetary hegemony. This wasn’t done in order to offer independence to the former republics of the Soviet Union or those involved in the composition of Yugoslavia. The rationale is actually very simple: it’s easier to defeat fragments than a large one, a unified continental bloc.

Jean Thiriart: Today, the Americans want to do the same thing with everyone: defend the Croats solely in order to be guarantors of anarchy in this region. In central Europe there exist peoples with the same culture, the same language. So why are they separated into micro-states? Simply because that corresponds to the fundamental policy of the United States, which consists of preventing them from uniting to realize their own political line. It’s a classic process in political history; a historical constant.

Yegor Ligachev: They present us, since it’s a matter of attracting us into the international community, as a nearly barbaric society without realizing that our country has saved Europe and the whole world many time from invasions that threatened all of civilization. The Soviet Union saved the world from the brown plague, German fascism, as it saved it from thermonuclear war.

Jean Thiriart: I think that you’re committing the same error Hitler committed in his time because I am convinced the the common enemy of Russia and Germany is American capitalism and the war between Russia and Germany was an erroneous war. A truly just war should have been directed against American capitalism. The most just idea was the joint struggle of the Soviet Union and Germany against Anglo-Saxon imperialism. Had they realized what the power of Anglo-Saxon civilization had become, Germany and Russia could only have won.

Yegor Ligachev: The essential thing is not blocs but the reconstitution of our great union. Here it’s important to concentrate our forces. Concerning Germany, independently of the strong positions of democratic forces, it is nevertheless impossible to ignore both its past and present. We must bear in mind that present day Germany was born through force: one German state absorbed the other. I think that we must unite all the social and governmental forces against the diktat and intrusion.

Since 1988 I’ve considered national-separatism as the principal danger for our country. If we thus formulate the question: what is the principal, fundamental cause of our decadence, I would respond that it is national-separatism and the betrayal of the country’s interests by a considerable part of the leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union with Gorbachev at its head. These last years, the struggle against national-separatism has been interrupted as much by the party as by society.

Jean Thiriart: Cardinal Richelieu did the same thing with Germany. He declared to the Germans: “Be free, you no longer have an Emperor,” and stimulated nationalist and separatist tendencies in this manner, likewise destroying a great state. With us, in Europe, the same problems appear, namely the Corsican, Basque nationalists, whose demands always become more serious and behind whom the same enemy always stands. Soon after dismemberment this sector will be commanded not so much by the United States as by the representatives of McDonald’s, Coca Cola, Marlboro, because effective political leadership has been conferred to these firms – in Latin America they already control the majority of national economies. In all likelihood, the same thing will soon happen in both France and Russia.

In Central America and South America, distinct republics exist: banana republics, others produce coffee or tobacco. Three thousand years ago, Carthage pursued the same policy in the Mediterranean, creating similar economic colonies from Turkey to Spain. It’s a historical constant. The Americans are doing the same thing today.

Yegor Ligachev: Now I would like to proceed to another question. I think that an authentic unification of Europe would only be possible once we’ve reestablished the Soviet Union. It could certainly have another name it would nonetheless remain a unified political and economic alliance.

Jean Thiriart: I agree with that, although from my side I only consider the reunification of the Soviet Union possible and necessary in a process of European integration. We must create a unified European empire from Vladivostok to Dublin.

Yegor Ligachev: The sine qua non condition is the reunification of our country. Two powerful movements are developing among us, as I now represent. One aims for the conservation of a reformed social system while opposing the barbaric, ferocious, and violent reforms that our president and government are trying to implement. Our second current is a purely national movement: it’s the struggle for the reconstruction of a unified state. It’s been a little over a year since the people spoke in favor of retaining the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Unfortunately, the politicians of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus didn’t consider it; the Belovezh Accords sealed the liquidation of the Soviet Union. Here’s what the competent president Nazarbayev declared in an interview accorded to the Independent Gazette on May 6th 1992: “Without Russia, there would be no Belovezh Accords; without Russia, the Union would not have disintegrated.” Also, the people – and not only simple citizens, but even the politicians – are beginning to understand that it is impossible to survive alone.

Jean Thiriart: The fact that the initiative to dismember the USSR came from Russia effectively equates to suicide. But in the West, we know nothing about all that. The Western press presents a fundamentally different version of events: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, etc, demanded to quit the Union themselves, while Russia wanted to preserve it.

Yegor Ligachev: They started by outlawing the communist party. So who outlawed the party if not the same people who dismantled the USSR. If the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, even in its weakened form, had existed in December, the Soviet Union would have been maintained because the principal force that impeded the dismemberment of the latter was none other than the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Jean Thiriart: I am convinced that it’s worth the trouble to present your position to the European public. In Europe, actually, no one suspects that the “agents of influence” acting in the former USSR, nor the initiative of presidents have lead to the dismemberment of the Union.

Yegor Ligachev: Having recently traveled to America and Japan, I am convinced that our democrats have opened a broad channel in the direction of the West, of America and Japan, but access to it remains forbidden to people with an alternative positions, to us patriots, to the representatives of popular and patriotic movements. The information is unilateral.

Jean Thiriart: From the instant where Russia failed to condemn American aggression against Iraq, objective observers must have perceived that we were reaching the end of the repartition of forces in the world. Theoretically, it should have been possible to abstain from any sanction. But the support for American sanctions was the political suicide of the Soviet Union. The last obstacle to American global domination today is China. The Americans have tried for the past few years to buy Chinese industry, to implant themselves through technology, but it seems that it’s not so easy to achieve.

Yegor Ligachev: It is still too soon for the internal and external enemies of Russia to proclaim victory.

Jean Thiriart: Nevertheless, the very fact of the Soviet Union’s destruction caused serious damage to the defense of European independence and particularly Arab independence. The Iraqis, the Palestinians, and the Libyans felt it as a personal tragedy because it upset the global balance.

Yegor Ligachev: I would like to conclude by developing my thought: every passing day, the fiasco of today’s democrats underlines the success of the policy of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The world is proceeding through integrative processes. Europe is uniting; a veritable objective law of unification is at work. Beyond the actions of these objective forces, specific factors still exist among us as well, which unify us. People are beginning to compare the past with what has happened; life today with the era where “the communists governed,” as they say. All our present independent states or former republics of the Union are multinational. The only homogeneous republic is Armenia. We understand the complexity of the work required and the long term efforts. All that will not be so simple.

The present governing class hammers into the heads of our people that we can only extract our country from its economic and political situation with millions of dollars of aid, that is to say with the aid of the West. They even add that not a single major social or economic problem in our country can be resolved without the resources of the West. They are ready to sell the Kurils, they’ve already surrendered Yugoslavia. On the contrary we are convinced that we cannot rely on our own strengths. It’s not that we are against foreign loans, against external aid as support; on the other hand, we are opposed to the political, cultural, and economic colonization of our country.

Jean Thiriart: Starting from 1946, the Americans have chased the Belgians from the Congo, the French from Algeria, the Dutch from Indonesia, and have taken their places there. Yeltsin’s position is the position of president Mobutu, president of Zaire; he wants to make a Zaire of Russia. As for Western aid it goes directly into the pockets of the leaders of these republics, like in Brazil or South America for example. It represents a simple gratuity.

It’s also through this mechanism that the Americans create puppets of every political stripe, on the “right”, the “left”, or center. They can buy communists, nationalists.

A Dutch prince during the Renaissance said where there’s a will, there’s already a way. Everything is in the will. We will win if we have the will to fight against globalism.

Yegor Ligachev: Our great reformist Stolypin said that “all liberty demands further abundance.” Our democrats want to give us the liberty of poverty.

Jean Thiriart: The liberty that supposedly reigns in the West is only pure comedy. In reality, the press is completely controlled.

Yegor Ligachev: We observe the same thing concerning our press. Dyen [Translator’s note: Nationalist paper directed by Alexander Prokhanov that would be banned in 1993] is an admirable newspaper that doesn’t benefit from any subsidies and, moreover, they strangle it economically. But other publications receive colossal subsidies. We have been too careless. I say it regarding myself. For sixty three years the party was in a monopoly situation. That’s what engendered the carelessness, a certain political fatigue.

Jean Thiriart: The man who has no adversaries is a bad combatant. But now we find ourselves in an extremely dark situation, we must learn to be more reasonable. To a certain extent, it’s a remedy and an advantage that we will draw from our stay in the opposition. It’s a treatment method. That said, as long as the war endures, the war is not lost!

Twenty Years of American Domination in Kosovo and Metohija as a Sequel to Imperial Policy – Ivan Petrovic – March 25, 2019


, , , , ,

This month marks exactly twenty years since the start of NATO’s bombing of the FR Yugoslavia, which went on to cause the occupation of the southern Serbian province and creation of the so-called Republic of Kosovo which, in fact, was a geostrategic showground for the powers of Atlanticism, mainly the USA.

In order to understand the current situation and the conditions in Kosovo and Metohija, we first need to go back a few centuries and understand the geostrategic importance of the Balkans and the attitude of the great powers toward the region.

First of all, one must understand that the Balkans are at “the crossroads” – a place that connects Europe with Asia (Minor) – from the time Allah’s warriors led their conquests towards the European continent for centuries, aspiring to spread their crescent banner above Christian fortresses. During those conquests, the Ottoman administration relied on local citizens, thus one part of the Balkan population accepted the role of a vassal and the Turkish faith.

Such was the case among all Balkan people (Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks, etc) and, at first, it was mostly the ruling caste that approached the Turks, mainly to maintain its privileged position. Still, the Turks placed the biggest trust in Albanians, at first their Islamized tribes. They would go to, in the centuries of the Ottoman occupation and under Turkish management, “disciplining” (which in fact meant terrorizing and frightening) the non-Albanian, Christian population.

Hence the ethnic image of Old Serbia (including Kosovo and Metohija) changed; this is especially reflected after the so-called Great Migration of the Serbs in 1690 and 1740. Until then, the minorities in Kosovo and Metohija – the Albanians – were spreading more and more and expanding their lands onto desolated Serbian hearths. This process was continued until 1912 when the Serbian Army, after the centuries of occupation, liberated Kosovo and Metohija – the very heart of the Serbian medieval state, whose scents of Orthodoxy lifted to the sky, accompanied by the prayers and songs of the Orthodox fathers from the monasteries of Gracanica, Decani, Our Lady of Ljevis, Holy Archangels, The Patriarchate of Pec, and other magnificent sacral buildings of immeasurable importance, not only for the spirituality and culture of the Serbian people, but for the world’s heritage in

As the Turkish influence on the Balkans weakened, great powers, mainly Austria-Hungary, wanted to expand their influence to this part of Europe. Considering that Serbian people, in the eyes of great powers, were a nation-building factor, “the awakened folk,” and often called “little Russians” (because of the Orthodox and Slavic trait), and as the significant part of the population in the Austria-Hungarian monarchy were Serbs, so the matter of Serbs across the river Drina was still under consideration, therefore the Austria-Hungarian foreign policy relied on the trusted enemies of the Serbian people, mainly the Albanians. By doing this, Austria-Hungary wanted to prevent Serbian access to the sea, and at the same time repress the Russian influence on these lands. For that purpose, Austria-Hungary was aligned with the great Western powers, who wholeheartedly aided in the forming of the Albanian identity and Albanian state.

Even though Austria-Hungary disintegrated after WWI, Albania was used in the period between the two wars to settle the relationship between Italy and Yugoslavia[2] and as such encountered the invasion of Fascist Italy just before the start of WWII. After the breakup of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia during the WWII, the creation of Greater Albania took place, under Italian protection. In the bloody years of WWII, Albanians did the same thing they did during the Turkish era: attack the Serbs and their property – in fact with Austria-Hungarian support.[3]

All these historical events, concluding with those during the period of Communism – the prohibition on banished Serbs returning to Kosovo and Metohija and at the same time opening the borders to the immigrants from Albania – completely changed the ethnic composition of this holy Serbian land. From everything mentioned, we note that Albanians were often an instrument in the hands of the powerful countries, which would come to the surface in the last years of the 20th century, when Albanian flags were planted right next to the American, revealing the occupation of the southern Serbian province. Thus, the American imperialistic policy has another important geostrategic area under its thumb, not only because of its natural resources, but also for creating a “hoop” around Russia (crucial and, one could say, the traditional opponent to the West) and for further conquests to the East.kosovo

During these 20 years Albanians, relying on the USA, have been striving to abolish even the tiny outline of the Republic of Serbia statehood in Kosovo and Metohija, as well as sabotage all the actions of Serbs from Kosovo and Metohija which are conducted outside institutions of the self-proclaimed “state” in Pristina. The climax of the occupation actions was, without a doubt, the proclamation of the so-called independence of Kosovo, which occurred on February 17, 2008, which further emboldened Albanians from Kosovo and Metohija.

It’s not by chance that the USA was among the first to recognize the so-called independence of Kosovo (as soon as February 18), as did all the countries influenced by the US. By doing so, it was confirmed once again that not only Kosovo is under American protection, but also all the countries which follow US policies and execute its commands. Contributing to this is the fact that the US has military bases in over 70 countries, covering more than a third of all the countries in the world.[4]map

Here we have to point out that military strength is not the only means of occupation, but it is a kind of cultural-propaganda war, which is often a more dangerous method because it seems like the “boiling frog syndrome,” which is not always so transparent. The best example of this is precisely Serbia, where a number of associations and Non-Governmental Organizations spread American policy; and this was not as present before October 5, 2000. According to research conducted by Telegraf that refers to data from National Endowments for Democracy from the US, the mentioned association donated over $730,000 to organizations in Serbia.[5] In WikiLeaks documents you can find a dispatch of the US Embassy in Belgrade where the activities of the Non-Governmental Organizations are mentioned.[6]

To make matters worse, all the governments have more or less the same policies after October 5, which is not that surprising if you know that the Western centers of power were actively involved in overthrowing Milosevic. By doing this, the position of Serbia in Kosovo and Metohija has weakened since American foreign policy is closely linked with Albanian interests in Kosovo and Metohija, so it’s not unusual that the West, in agreement with “domestic” Non-Governmental Organizations, is shifting the blame to Serbia and its people for the 90’s wars. That is how the Serb struggle for Kosovo and Metohija is being undermined, saying, “it’s a relic of the past” and “an obstacle” that “stands in the way of Serbia towards Euroatlantic integrations.”

Twenty years later, the position of Serbia in Kosovo and Metohija is visibly weakened. The signing of the Brussels Agreement has had an important role in that, and “border correction” has been mentioned many times in public which would be, according to many, a de facto recognition of the independence of Kosovo even by Serbia; you can suppose the USA’s role in this matter. The only hope for Serbia is that US troops will withdraw from Kosovo and Metohija some day, in the same way they did from Vietnam and are currently doing from Syria.

That will depend on many geopolitical factors, but it will definitely clear the way for the liberation of Kosovo and Metohija. That’s why, if for no other reason, Kosovo and Metohija must remain in our hearts and thoughts, warning not only today’s politicians, but also future generations, that the fate of Serbia is inseparable from its soul, Kosovo and Metohija, and that there will be a day when a Serbian soldier will wave the banner of liberty once again on the legendary Kosovo Polje.


[1] See more in The Influence of Austria-Hungary on the Formation of Albanian Nation, Teodora Toleva, Belgrade, 2016

[2] See more in War after the War, Dmitar Tasic, Belgrade, 2012

[3] This especially refers to the retreat of the Serbian Army and “Albania’s Golgotha” in 1915

[4] See more:


[6], documents:

08BELGRADE111     (Created 2008-01-29)

07BELGRADE1553   (Created 2007-11-15)

09BELGRADE1166   (Created 2009-10-09)

06BELGRADE489     (Created 2006-03-28)

06BELGRADE1502   (Created 2006-03-28)

06BELGRADE1719   (Created 2006-10-20)

08BELGRADE118     (Created 2008-01-30)

07BELGRADE709     (Created 2007-05-21)

07BELGRADE1744   (Created 2007-12-31)

08ZAGREB181          (Created 2008-03-03)

08BELGRADE450     (Created 2008-05-07)

08BELGRADE744     (Created 2008-07-24)

08BELGRADE773     (Created 2008-07-30)

Russia: National Identity, Imperial Character, Post-Communism, National-Capitalists and “Compradors” – Interview with Alexander Andreyevich Prokhanov – Nouvelles de Synergies Européennes n°20, 1996


, , ,

One of the principal “nationalist” advisors of Gennady Zyuganov – the principal adversary of Boris Yeltsin during the June 16th presidental elections in Russia – granted us an exclusive interview on May 28th in Moscow: he’s Alexander Andreyevich Prokhanov, also the director of the national opposition paper Zavtra, the former director of Den (banned after the days of October 3-4 1993) and Sovetskaya Literatura, a monthly magazine before Perestroika, published in many languages where Russian literature progressively left the Marxist yoke to full rediscover its Russianness. This interview with A. A. Prokhanov will help our readers see the mysteries of Muscovite politics more clearly and also better understand the strange alliance between nationalists and socialists, between the “browns” and the “reds” as the sensationalist press said, which is being sealed in Russia, and could, in the case of “national-communists” victory, overturn the present relation of forces in Europe. (Loukian Strogoff)

Loukian Strogoff: In general you are considered by Western media as one of the principal “nationalist” advisors of the candidate Gennady Zyuganov. Russian national identity is always difficult to define for Westerners, who don’t recognize the divides to which they’re accustomed. Certain Russian nationalists prefer the definition of an “ethnic nation”, founded on the idea of a “majority people.” Such or such city or village would be Russian because it’s populated by a Russian majority. Other nationalists define the Russian nation as the heir of imperial Russia’s history. They call for the defense of Russia’s “traditional interests.” Is your reference the ethnic nation or the imperial nation?

Alexander Andreyevich Prokhanov: I quite prefer the second definition. For a long time, I’ve tried to understand why Russian nationalists haven’t united in a major movement. I have made efforts myself in favor of a Russian national conservative movement, but without any success until now. I believe that Russian man cannot rid himself of the imperial tradition. The purely ethnic approach raises more problems than it solves. What are we to think about millions of mixed marriages, interweaving peoples and languages. We’d also have to return territories where Russians are in the minority. The partisans of a “pure” ethnic nation are not numerous and form “exotic” groups. In general, Russian nationalism is synonymous with imperial consciousness. Nationalist and “imperialist” movements have dispersed their support to all candidates except Grigory Yavlinsky, who would be, from a certain point of view, the only candidate representing an “ethnically pure movement.”

Strogoff: How would you analyze the power relations between the “nationalist”, “social democratic”, and “orthodox communist” political forces that support Zyuganov’s candidacy?

Prokhanov: There are practically no “strict obedience” Communists and there hasn’t been for a long time. All the political and ideological elite firstly betrayed the Party by becoming “liberal” and forming the “democratic” camp. The people with pragmatic ideas, imbued with the ideal of a grand Soviet state remained in the Party. For them, the USSR represented communism. In particular I’m thinking about scientists, “builders,” the military. That’s the type of communist that predominates today in a Party where there are no longer ideological discussions as in the years 1905-1917. The present Party no longer pretends to have a monopoly on the truth. From this point of view, we can qualify it as parliamentary and “social-democratic.” I do not doubt that in the case of victory it will retain this orientation. It’s in a period of transition. Bit by bit, it’s becoming the party of Russian interests, where the idea of justice and social harmony dominates and in which people who perceive the world in a rational, but also irrational manner, I mean believers, are found. Provisionally, we can effectively qualify it as “national-communist.” Two sources of energy animate it: the energy of the wounded nation and the energy of social suffering.

Strogoff: They’ve accused Zyuganov of antisemitism because in his book “I Believe in Russia”, he wrote: “The Jewish diaspora traditionally controls the financial life of the continent and increasingly becomes the principal inspiration of the Western socioeconomic system every day.” Do you think that Zyuganov is antisemitic?

Prokhanov: In Russia, as in Europe, a situation has been created where anyone who intends to speak about the relationship of Jews to society is qualified as antisemitic. Relations between Russians and Jews are indeed troubled, as they’ve always been, because there has been much suffering on both sides. Zyuganov, as a political analyst, speaks about questions that are beyond the scope of Russia. But he’s not antisemitic. As a statesman, he must take into account all the forces of the country and try to restore justice and harmony wherever they’ve been trampled.

Strogoff: Yeltsin is clearly the foreigner’s candidate, [the candidate] of globalist financial forces. But what about Yavlinsky? Should he be considered the foreigner’s backup candidate? Is the continuation of his candidacy explained by an order from abroad or simply by the fact that he’s shown himself to be too greedy during his haggling with Yeltsin?

Prokhanov: Two types of politicians gravitate around Yeltsin; the first we can qualify as “national capitalists” and the others I like to call “compradors.” The conflict between them is permanent. At a certain moment, Yeltsin separated from the radical liberals. He filled his administration with the national-capitalists and, in this sense, we can no longer say that he’s absolutely a creature of the United States. And the interests of the radical liberals actually find themselves represented by Yavlinsky who is thus not a backup candidate but an autonomous creature, a “pure product.” The conflict between Yeltsin and Yavlinsky arises from two different visions of the world. It’s a conflict between divergent capitalist clans and interests. Today, the national-capitalists, the “hardliners,” the “defense ministers” around General Korzhakov, are the pillars on which Yeltsin leans to counterbalance the influence of the other pole constituted by the “compradors” like his economic advisor Livshits and his prime minister Chernomyrdin. This second pole is close to Yavlinsky.

Strogoff: Already during the summer of 1995, Oleg Boyko, speaking in the name of a certain number of bankers, asked for the postponement legislative elections in exchange for financial support for the highest levels of the state. In a way, he wanted to “privatize” the presidency of Russia and the federal government. He declared: “The choice is between capitalism and democracy.” Today, “the letter of 13” (bankers and major businessmen) demands a historical compromise and a national unity government that would preserve their interests. They’re using civil war as blackmail. What do you think about this development? Should Gennady Zyuganov agree to discuss such a compromise before the elections?

Prokhanov: The threat of civil war is not an abstraction. If it was a myth, it would not be used as an instrument of psychological war. The situation is so hostile that it prevents any rebirth of the country today. The present opposing forces cancel each other. These 13 bankers that we call the “13 vampires” have a motivation hidden from public opinion: the fear of a new coup by Yeltsin relying on the “national capitalists.” This group would then be in a position of major strength and the clan of the “compradors” around Chernomyrdin, who serves these 13 bankers, could be the next victims of a sort of “right wing fascism.” We must remember the conflict last year between General Korzhakov and Vladimir Gusinsky, president of the financial and media group Most, recently elected president of the Russian Jewish Congress after a few months of exile in Russia. It’s this fear, not of the “national-communists” but of the “national-capitalists” that has forced them to formulate compromise proposals between different political forces.

Strogoff: In the case of Gennady Zyuganov’s victory, what would be the urgent priority measures that your biweekly paper Zavtra would demand from the new government

Prokhanov: We aren’t seeking vengeance. An amnesty would be necessary to recover social peace. We will honor our dead. Vengeance will only come from God and mercy, from the head of state.

Strogoff: You were the quasi-official chronicler of the Soviet military campaign in Afghanistan. How do you judge the advisability and the results of the Russian military campaign in Chechnya, in particular in light of the “cease-fire” that was just signed in the Kremlin?

Prokhanov: The conflict in Chechnya is the result of the development of a criminal world, in Grozny as in Moscow. In fact it’s a settling of scores between mafia groups. That’s why this war wasn’t really a war. It was “instrumentalized” by the oil, drug, etc lobbies. To my knowledge, they are the emissaries of Chernomyrdin who has agreements with Chechen leaders about a new re-allotment of profits from existing and planned oil pipelines. For the moment Yeltsin has stopped the war and can derive an electoral benefit from it, but nothing is essentially resolved and the criminalization of the Caucasus has been boosted by this war. Criminal empires don’t have the right to exist.

Strogoff: Evgeny Primakov seems to have given a certain coherence to Russian diplomacy. The minister of the interior, Anatoly Kulikov, also gives the impression of being a serious and upright man. Could these two ministers, in your opinion, retain their posts in the context of a new administration?

Prokhanov: It’s possible. Knowing Gennady Zyuganov well and his prudent approach in matters of change, he could only appreciate a specialist like Primakov, a brilliant representative of the Soviet diplomatic tradition. He’s doubtlessly unique. He could reestablish the situation after the departure of Kozyrev, the pawn of the Americans. So he could be very useful. Kulikov is also a good specialist. We haven’t forgotten how he killed many of our friends on the 3rd and 4th of October 1993. Nevertheless he has certain merits. The most important is having refused to participate in the planned coup last March 17th that started with the occupation of the Duma for a few hours. His declared intention at the start of the year to control the anti-national banks and his attempts to fight against corruption in his ministries could also plead in his favor.

Strogoff: Certain Western European countries, in particular France, strive to free the European Union from American tutelage. Should a new government in Russia support such a path towards a “Europe for Europeans?”

Prokhanov: All that has come from Europe to Russia has been negative. For us the West is a synonym for evil. Politicians are interested in a move away from a United States of Europe, because American withdrawal would weaken it. There are knots of contradictions that would fortunately handicap its influence on Russia. For the most part, the European Union is an illusion as the contradictions between France and Germany on the occasion of the conflict in the Balkans, which Russia played a part in, show. It will continue in this way. The refocusing of American policy towards Asia could make the United States a partner of Russia in this region.

Interviewer: Loukian Strogoff


Carlos the Jackal (Ilich Ramirez Sanchez) – Message to my Venezuelan People – January 23rd, 2019


, , , ,

My dear “Chavist” compatriots,

With my historical experience as an internationalist combatant, I would like to express from France my revolutionary solidarity and my Bolivarian support to president Nicolás Maduro Moros.

Putsches and coups d’Etat, our country has known many, some wholly justified. But we’ve retained the bad habit of calling for uprisings when things aren’t going well or very well. And the enemy does everything it can to make things worse.

That’s why I want to alert you, so that you will not fall into the trap.

The North American imperialist sector is trying to provoke a civil war so that Venezuelans spill the blood of their brothers. It wouldn’t be a battle between right and left, between evil and good, between military and civilians, between oligarchs and the famished, between the Church and the Chavists, between idealists and pragmatists, or between the corrupt and the supposedly angelic.

I speak to you as a veteran fedayeen, and I’ve broken all the records for foreign operations for Palestine, by risking my life everyday. These last 25 years, I’ve spent them in prison (to this day), including ten years in complete isolation, always faithful to our Palestinian cause. The enemy speculates about division in our camp in order to weaken us, because it needs a starved, disorganized, and corrupt country.

After six years of horrors provoked by Israel, Saudi Arabia, and its bosses in NATO, Syria (terribly destroyed) has begun to rediscover peace, the people undertake the reconstruction of the country, and families reunite. Syria owes that to its patriot president, who remained solid in the turmoil, generous to the defeated, with those who weren’t imperialist agents; it also owes it to the intervention of Pope Francis when he prevented a North American invasion in 2013; and to the courageous presence of the Russians (for more than 60 years). The mercenaries and manipulated fanatics failed to win.

I do not want my country to sink into civil war and play the game of a third country that has proclaimed its objective from the first day: the overthrow of president Nicolás Maduro Moros, legitimate heir of our martyr president Hugo Chávez Frías.

Understand it, you the people and army of Venezuela: as in the era of the Libertador, there is only one tyrant, the foreigner who wants to keep us in misery and barbarism, in order to seize our country and the soul of its inhabitants.

As in the time of Simón Bolívar, we must be the light for all of America, the torch of national reconciliation, on the basis of legality. Our era no longer requires local military chiefs who cannot see the horizon, nor gunslingers, nor challenges of bravado. Dialogue, concessions, generosity, that’s the watchword: all the anti-imperialist forces of the world are with us, we can offer ourselves the luxury of extending a hand even to those who would like to strike us angrily: the relation of international powers is no longer that which reigned in the era of Operation Condor and the overthrow of President Allende.

If our Venezuela falls into the merciless logic of Cain, it will plunge all of America into anarchy, and who will profit from it, the vultures that covet our riches and the riches of the entire continent: the imperialist gringos and their Zionist agents, as well as NATO. United we will triumph!

Long live Venezuela, wise, valorous, and astute!


Kemi Seba: Russian and African Souverainistes, “A Natural Alliance” – Sputnik – December 22nd, 2017


, , , , ,

An activist, writer, and editorialist, Kemi Seba is a Franco-Beninese figure as controversial as he is popular. This ardent defender of sovereignty and the multipolar world recently visited Russia. An opportunity for Sputnik to receive his analysis on Russo-African prospects.

“The recent reality of the multipolar world, the positive major changes in international current events, but also the injustice that many countries continue to suffer from the Western powers, push the rooted peoples of the world closer together. In any case, it’s the present approach of Russian and African Souverainistes.”

In a few words, Kemi Seba, the Panafricanist and Franco-Beninese Souverainiste, traces the key guidelines of his action. President of the NGO Urgences panafricanistes, writer, and political journalist, he is demonized in the West and by a part of the African elites for his allegedly radical stances, but he enjoys a strong popularity among the populations of Francophone Africa and its diaspora. In this exclusive interview with Sputnik, Kemi Seba, returning from a voyage in Russia, gives his impressions of the country and his analysis regarding relations between the partisans of multipolarity in Africa, Russia, and elsewhere for us.

Sputnik: You just completed a visit to Moscow. It was your first visit to Russian territory. Why Russia and why now?

Kemi Seba: I came to Russia at the invitation of the Africa – Russia Association, a body whose mission is to bring Russian and African civic organizations together, in the context of a collaboration aiming to free our respective peoples from Western imperialism.

The work that we conduct through the NGO Urgences panafricanistes is noticed by many people of different origins and cultures. Our struggle to obtain our sovereignty is a combat that touches everyone who loves equality and dignity. I came to Moscow, just as I went to Iran or Venezuela a few years ago, and as I will go to Bolivia in a few weeks.

I am a supporter of the multipolar world. I think from the depths of my soul that the world will be better as soon as peoples cease being subjects to the Western oligarchy’s dictatorship, and, that, on the contrary, different civilizational poles, rooted in tradition and having mastered geostrategy, will rise and unite to maintain global political balance. In this sense, my voyage to Russia was determinant. Because in this multipolar world, Russia holds the premier role for the moment, and seeks to align itself with those who fight against the Westernization of the world. The example of Syria and the Russian support for Bashar al-Assad attests to it in the most beautiful manner.

For our part in Africa and the Carribean, we lead a bitter struggle against French and more globally Western neocolonialism. We seek strategic partners who understand that an Africa free of all foreign tutelage would be an opportunity for the entire world. This is the only way that reliable, durable, and healthy partnerships can emerge.

Sputnik: During this journey, you met Alexander Dugin, one of the most famous Russian intellectuals and one of the principal ideologues of the concept of Eurasianism. What did you discuss?

Kemi Seba: Dugin is one of the most inspiring encounters of my political career these last few years. Inspiring, because we respectively claim discipleship from a common figure, René Guénon as it happens. His research on the Primordial Tradition changed my life and my perception of the world. And Dugin seems to be the most brilliant disciple of Guénon today, who doesn’t content himself with lauding his “ideological master,” but extends his work, by inscribing the traditionalist approach in a geostrategic dimension. From this angle his work “The Front of Traditions” remains an important book for me. Its chapters such as The Metaphysical Roots of Political Ideologies, The Metaphysical Factor in Paganism, The Great War of Continents remain inexhaustible sources of reflection for me. The sole caveat I have with Dugin, and it’s noteworthy, is that where he puts the Eurasian bloc at the center of everything (that’s normal, it’s the region he comes from), for me, it’s Africa.

To return to what we talked about, we spoke about many, many things. The only thing I can tell you is that the multipolar world is seen as a necessity by him, as it is by myself. Russia, thanks to people like Dugin, is in the process of constructing a super-powerful Eurasian axis that plays a role maintaining the different souverainismes in the world. The alliance of an Erdogan with a Putin illustrates this orientation. It’s up to us African Souverainistes to turn Africa into this powerful pole as the founding fathers of Panafricanism so desired.

The sole disadvantage that we have, and it’s important, is that we don’t have leaders favorable to the cause of African self-determination, especially in Francophone Sub-Saharan Africa. Henceforth, we must do everything by ourselves, starting from civil society. It’s a bitter, grueling, difficult fight, but the victory will only be more beautiful.

Sputnik: Do you think the Eurasianism and Panafricanism can and should cooperate? And if yes, why?

Kemi Seba: Yes, fundamentally I think so, just like the Bolivarian Axis (South America) among others, is a pole that cannot be ignored. All people must be willing to cooperate, but they must be rooted in their own paradigm. The new millennium is, and will be even more so in the time to come, the era of civilizational blocs. The era of great spaces. Great spaces, who through their collaboration, will be the guarantors of a balanced world, rid of the unipolar axis of NATO, which only creates chaos and desolation everywhere it goes.

This also allows me to clarify that, for me, it’s not about seeing the Eurasian pole succeed the American or more globally the Western pole. If we speak of alliance today, it’s because Putin’s approach is clear, traceable, legible, and guarantees a balance in the world today. In the future, if we feel that Russia has a colonial program like the West had in Africa, we will distance ourselves from it. But in a concrete manner, that’s not the case, despite the Western demonization that targets President Putin. The latter wants a multipolar world, and is the global figure of Souverainisme. This current is the ideological foundation of his politics. It’s ours also. So it’s a natural alliance.

Sputnik: Besides the meeting with Mr. Dugin, you presided over a conference on November 16th near the People’s Friendship University of Russia (Patrice Lumumba University), with the theme “The necessity of an alliance between African Souverainistes and Russia.” An event that also attracted keen interest among the African diaspora in Russia, including students. What did you address during this conference? And how were these ideas received by Africans in Russia? In turn, have African students come up with ideas would seem interesting to you in the future?

Kemi Seba: We addressed the themes mentioned in the preceding questions of this interview. Including multipolarity from a geopolitical as well as metaphysical point of view. Including the role that Africa has to play in this world. Including the role of the African youth. And including why the alliance with Russia – and with others – can be a timely asset in our struggle against the liberal globalism promoted by the West.

It was an extremely rich and moving meeting. Not all the young students present were from the People’s Friendship University of Russia. They came from different schools and institutions. The majority of them were geniuses, and I weigh my words. The exchanges were inspiring, rich, and I humbly think I’ve contributed to expand and solidify their minds on questions of geostrategy. All the questions had an undeniable contribution to the resolution of Africa’s problems, and went in the direction of a greater assumption of responsibility for African problems by Africans themselves.

I was touched to see that so many had succeeded in procuring my works and had read them scrupulously. Self-determination is a religion for this new generation. And their capacity to understand their natural enemy and their occasional allies seems innate. This why, in general, the alliances of civilian resistance movements with Russia and certain Latin American counties have obtained everyone’s approval.

Sputnik: In addition to the struggle for the sovereignty of African countries which constitutes your spearhead, two subjects that are particularly close to your heart are the fight against the CFA Franc – in which you are actively engaged – as well as the denunciation of the situation of Sub-Saharan migrants in Libya. A situation that was created after the NATO intervention against this country, which was also one of the principal torch bearers of Panafricanism in its time. What do you foresee regarding these two subjects currently?

Kemi Seba: Regarding the CFA Franc, we’ve contributed through our mobilizations on the ground, in Africa and in the diaspora, to move the lines. Formerly a subject that was held prisoner by the elites, and even to the point of excess, this debate has been seized by the African street, so despised by the oligarchy, because of our demonstrations. Yet it’s the African street that has suffered for so long from the use of this currency, and not our leaders, who use the dollar or the euro more often than our own play money for their transactions.

A year ago today, when I declared that 2017 would be the year of the CFA Franc in Africa, certain African representatives mocked me. A year later, the latter are the first to speak about the CFA and recognize the importance of the African youth mobilization that we initiated through the Anti-CFA Front, an inclusive structure founded by our NGO Urgences panafricanistes. Even if they always try to discredit us and separate the action from its initiators, deemed unconventional and radical, we’ve won the debate of the people. The African elites, too pedantic, arrogant, stupefied by their assumed knowledge, don’t know how to speak to the people. Unlike ourselves, who experience the realities of the latter, and thus know address them.

Despite everything, the fact remains that the fight is not over. The Francophone African presidents, modern petty kings, so subservient to the West, but so contemptuous of their own people, aren’t willing to liberate them from their chains.

In my eyes, what is slavery in Libya but result our African leaders’ irresponsibility first and foremost. Yes, clearly the criminals of NATO who destroyed a country and murdered one of our most brilliant leaders – Gaddafi – in order to obtain oil are the great instigators of this chaos, they are primarily responsible for all that. But what to say about our heads of state who divert so much public money that they end up giving the African youth the impression that their Mother Earth is a hell? They are primarily responsible for this migratory drama. If our African leaders did their work, there wouldn’t be so many young people who want to flee the country.

Next, there is a patriotic approach to teaching our children. To make them understand that Africa owes them nothing, but that they owe everything to Africa. To make them understand that what the African elites don’t do for the people, the people must do for themselves. We can no longer flee our countries as soon as things get bad. It’s up to us to resolve the problems that our irresponsible elites do not.


NEW RESISTANCE – BRAZIL – PUBLIC LETTER ON THE 2018 ELECTIONS – New Resistance – Brazil Central Committee


, , ,

It shall be a competition between Satan and the devil, and only Hell shall be the winner” – Leonel Brizola

The real Jair Bolsonaro

The dramatic Brazilian elections of 2018 have finally reached their closure: the predictable victory of Jair Bolsonaro, who won the majority vote, defeating his petista (Worker’s Party/PT) adversary on the second round. Millions of Brazilians, including a reasonable part of the working class, bestowed the Fatherland’s fate upon the ex-captain, in a clear rejection of the Worker’s Party legacy stemming from almost a decade and a half of rule.

Today, the petista legacy is felt as mostly negative by the people. It’s even possible to claim that “anti-petismo”, the opposition to the Worker’s Party, is now the major political feeling amongst the masses in Brazil. There are of course exaggerations. There’s been PSYOP and manipulation conducted by the US intelligence. There’s a whole anti-petista mythology concocted by the neocon philosopher Olavo de Carvalho behind much of these feelings. All of this is true, but there are also undeniable palpable truths that motivate such rejection to the Worker’s Party: the feeling of insecurity has never been bigger as crime rates keep rising and people feel the omnipresence of corruption; the petista economic project based on commodity exports failed and thus collapsed the economy, leading to millions of unemployed workers and countless bankruptcies as a result of that.

That’s why Bolsonaro will be the next president of Brazil.

But appearances can frequently be deceiving: let us not mistake the elected Bolsonaro of today with the Bolsonaro of two decades ago – that basically patriotic officer of old who used to defend that the neoliberal former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso should be shot by a firing squad for treason – and let us also not mistake the current electoral Worker’s Party, with that popular party of old, organized around unions and the Catholic Church, that emerged decades ago as an alternative to “shock and awe” neoliberalism.

No, Bolsonaro isn’t a patriot and he isn’t a nationalist. The Worker’s Party and the progressive left on the other hand are no alternative and don’t possess neither the moral credibility nor the popular energy to be a real opposition to Bolsonaro.

Why do we proclaim Bolsonaro is no real patriot? It’s very simple: Bolsonaro declared that the Amazonian Forest isn’t ours, that Brazil shouldn’t have its own nuclear program and saluted the US flag. He voted for the PEC 55 Austerity Bill which limits social spending for the next twenty years, thereby closing the possibility for any future public investments.

Paulo Guedes, his Treasury Minister to be, declared that the pension reform will be the “first big item” of the economic model that he and Bolsonaro want to put into practice. Michel Temer, the very impopular current president, has already announced that he’ll give Bolsonaro support so that he manages to get such reform approved. We already know how this antipopulist reform model works. It’s useless to give pro-family speeches and at the same time defend a pension reform that’ll leave our elders destitute. Guedes, in his turn, is the founding banker of BTG Pactual, the investment bank that manages all of George Soros’ investments in Brazil. His technocratic economic team is full of bankers who work for, or have worked for, the major international banks connected with the Rothschild and other international elitist parasite families.

Besides being against the Brazilian nuclear bomb, the major instrumental guarantee of national sovereignty, Bolsonaro is an Atlanticist globalist. Faithful to his Atlanticist stance, he’s already promised unrestricted support for Israel and has also promised to close down the Palestinian Embassy and to transfer the Brazilian Embassy to Jerusalem. His Vice President, general Hamilton Mourão, has already promised Brazilian support for any American military intervention against our neighbour Venezuela. Bolsonaro opposes Bashar al-Assad and has already signaled that he intends to classify Hizbollah as a terrorist organization.

In Bolsonaro’s Government Plan, on page 32, he proposes to “exclude from the Constitution any restriction on private property rights, such as, for example, the 81 Amendment restrictions”.

What precisely is the 81th Constitutional Amendment, which Bolsonaro wishes to repel? It’s the Amendment that modified Article 243 of the Constitution, thus asserting that “[r]ural and urban properties on any region of the country where illegal psychotropic plantations or slave labor exploitation are found according to law will be expropriated and dedicated to land reform and popular housing programs, without reparations to the owner and irrespective of other sanctions according to law, observing, when suitable, the article 5”.

In other words, in defense of “private property”, Bolsonaro will make much easier the lives of great criminal landowners who exploit slave labour and the lives of those connected to the illegal drug trade.

In 2003, Bolsonaro lauded the death squads operating in the state of Bahia. In 2007, his son, Flavio Bolsonaro, presented a legislative project to legalize the so-called (paramilitary) militias in Rio de Janeiro.

This is the reason why the Abrahão David crime family, connected to the Russian and Israeli mobs and to illegal gambling, offered their support to Bolsonaro in Rio de Janeiro state. The aforementioned Flavio Bolsonaro campaigned together with these thugs and took part on a march in Nilopolis together with Farid Abrahão David, brother to the mobster Aniz Abrahão David, and Simão Sessin, their cousin.

Such are the connections behind Bolsonaro’s support for legalizing casinos and gambling. It must be said: the current militias and death squads are arms of organized crime and part of a mafia project to organize criminal operations, so as to “pacify” neighbourhoods so that drug dealing can operate on a more “civilized” way.

It is indeed useless to be so vocal about “law and order” without fighting against the real criminal barons, the very high echelon of crookedness and banditry. But such crime lords stand for Bolsonaro – in the same manner, they also align with the banksters and globalist and finance underworld representatives, such as Paulo Guedes himself (Bolsonaro’s right hand man).

There are many other examples and we shall dedicate ourselves to unmasking the “Myth”, as Bolsonaro’s fans call him – this false idol with feet of clay.

The Death of the Worker’s Party

What to say about the Worker’s Party (PT)? Let the dead bury their own dead.

The petista Left led us to Bolsonaro. All of their post-democratization political efforts led us to this very moment. We could say, with no fear of being wrong, that the objective conditions for Bolsonaro’s victory were built by the Worker’s Party consolidation as a hegemonic centre for popular struggles and by their electoral victories in the last four elections.

The petistas implemented and intensified the very macroeconomic policies of their PSDB (Social-Democratic Brazilian Party) predecessors, thus embracing a banking cartel and a project that basically deindustrialized Brazil and thus aggravated Brazil’s dependence on the global production system. Brazil became a hostage to agribusiness and commodity exports, while its productive forces were parasitized and vampirized almost to complete exhaustion.

To the masses, the Worker’s Party sold the illusion of a consumerism that was both undesirable and unsustainable – considering the jamming of our productive capacities. Such affair of things lead the masses to a fantastic utopia: they believed they belonged to a “new middle class” just because they were now able to buy on credit and, of course, paying the highest interest rates in the world.

Education was privatized, Health became a commodity, public investments were strangled and the government bet on unqualified job expansion, promoting an economic bubble which, when it burst, sank the whole country.

Under the Worker’s Party successive administrations the Brazilian people became even poorer, more subject to exploitation, ever more distant from its final independence. To keep its supremacy on the popular realm, the Worker’s Party demobilized the unions and placed their own stooges on every other tools the working class had at its disposal. Furthermore, the public security crisis and State’s indifference, on city, state and federal levels, led to a huge popular outrage – the worker, after all, pressured between robbers and drug dealers, is the main victim of urban violence – specially on the periphery and ghettos. Finally, the Worker’s Party joined a corruption scheme that fed big businessmen and allowed money laundering by organized crime and religious (neopentecostal) businesses.

Having nothing to offer Brazil, besides more efficient tools for the exploitation of our resources and our workforce by the national and international finance system, the Worker’s Party supported itself politically by trying to impose upon the whole of our population the dogmas of that cosmopolitan secular religion which is based on foreign mores and basically insults our people’s religiosity. It did so by financing pro-abortion movements and a radical feminist and LGBT militancy whose ideal society is absolutely alien to Brazilian cultural background and heritage.

To the economic exploitation of the people, the Worker’s Party and the liberal left that it represents added an ethic-behavioural oppression, pushing a post-modern identity agenda on Brazilians – even though such agenda collides with popular traditions.

In a general way, the progressive left claims to defend the masses, but hates everything the people believes in: its faith, its culture, its values. How could the liberal left be taken seriously then when they claim that crack users in “Crackolandia” (Sao Paulo city) aren’t being enslaved by addiction (an addiction which is exploited by drug dealers), but are, instead, just people exercising their freedom of choice? How could the liberal left be taken seriously when they defend the legalization of prostitution and all drugs?

The liberal left failed because it represents no one but the bankers and a middle class that sees itself as Western, rather than Brazilian. The Worker’s Party administrations, with all their betrayals, with all their contradictions, with all their compromises, and even their supposed successes, prepared the country for this very moment. By attempting to turn Brazil into a travesty of California, the Worker’s Party created its on enemy, who, in his turn, offered us Miami and Texas.

And they were warned. We’ve been saying for years that leftist progressive liberalism would throw us at the feet of the most reactionary and neoliberal neocon Right possible. We tried at every moment, since New Resistance – Brazil was founded, almost 4 years ago, to bring the Left to supporting the traditional moral values of Brazilian folk. We tried this because we knew that Brazil could only be saved by the alliance between social justice and moral conservatism. And at every step of the way we were criticized and attacked for it, even by that small part of the left that criticizes the “excesses” of the liberal left.

Paths of Reconstruction

What is to be done then? It’s necessary to build and cement a patriotic and populist camp – something that represents the real Deep Brazil and its values: public security and self-defense rights and the defense of the family against cosmopolitan liberalism as well as the defense of workers and the poorest against globalist capitalism and usury. A patriotic, conservative and labourist path, which bases itself on Christian social thought, on the Social Doctrine of the Church, on Distributism, and on the nationalism of men like Eneas Carneiro (right wing) and Leonel Brizola (left wing). A fourth path beyond liberalism, communism and fascism.

Those who really love the nation, also love its people. Nationalism without the defense of the people is just empty talk. And so is socialism without national sovereignty.

New Resistance – Brazil is working to build this path and we therefore call on left and right nationalists, serious conservatives, patriots, labourists and traditionalists to form such patriotic congregation. The differences amongst us are not so important. Let us only be concerned about one thing: to keep standing!

























Interview With Diego Fusaro – Le Grand Continent – October 27th 2018


, , ,

Following the formation of the new Italian government, Le Figaro spoke with Diego Fusaro, “the theorist who inspired the campaign of the Five Star Movement.” If this definition probably exaggerates his influence, it is true that the Italian essayist has often used Beppe Grillo’s blog as a tribune to diffuse his ideas against the Euro, the financial dictatorship, the theory of gender, or mass immigration.

But television especially has given Fusaro a strong visibility, by investing him with the atypical role of the young philosopher who, with his citations from Marx and his formal, even pompous terminology, professes opinions half of which would suffice to destroy his reputation in France. In a recent article published in Corriere della Sera, the philosopher Donatella di Cesare, specialist in the thought of Martin Heidegger, denounced the xenophobia and antisemitism of this “reality television philosopher.”

The least we can say is that Fusaro has effectively succeeded in filling a void in the ideological camp, by intercepting a real political demand and proposing remedies to the old problems that torment Italian public opinion. Close to the Nouvelle Droite of Alain de Benoist, Diego Fusaro is nevertheless often presented by Italian media as “Marxist.” From his side, he prefers describing himself as an “independent disciple” of the German thinker, and he seems sincerely convinced that his ideas are left wing. We met with him in order to better understand the ideas that risk becoming hegemonic everywhere in Europe today.

Groupe d’études géopolitiques – What do you think of the new Italian government?

Diego Fusaro – On March 4th in Italy, it was neither the left nor the right who won, but the people singularly as a whole, who demonstrated that the categories of right and left are outmoded. Italy is a unique laboratory at this moment, as it has succeeded where other peoples failed: it has become the vanguard of the peoples of Europe. The “national mass,” according to Gramsci’s expression, the excluded from globalization expressed themselves against it. This result is positive because it outraged the masters of international finance, like George Soros. The reaction of the markets is the sign that Italy has done something revolutionary.

You speak often about Soros , why?

Soro’s activity is incessant! Through his Open Society Foundation he acted to tear down the USSR, then he orchestrated the privatizations of the Italian national patrimony. Today he is unbridled, as the class conflict has reached its apogee. The financial elite attacks sovereign states and the ethics of peoples: it’s a decisive moment. June 10th, Soros wrote on Twitter that he was furious against Italy and populism and he would redouble his efforts, by acting against Italy. That’s what he wrote, literally! This is the situation where we are, and that proves that Italy is doing well.

So you approve of Orban’s campaign against Soros?

They often say that it’s an antisemitic campaign, but it’s not about fighting Soros because he’s Jewish: that would obviously be very bad. We must fight Soros because he’s an ultracapitalist who buys countries and destabilizes governments with his “color revolutions.” Anyhow, Soros wasn’t chased from Hungary, he was just subjected to a tax increase. That’s the truth. I think that every people must free themselves from these cynical and rootless personalities that support the financial system.

The idea of deracination is often present in your writings and speeches. To explain the crisis, for example, you speak of a “deracinated financial aristocracy.

In my latest book, I propose a new geography of class conflict: on top there is the deracinated financial class of the great lords of speculation, like Soros precisely, and on the bottom the new “slaves,” to cite Hegel, the national popular masses. In this oppressed class, the old proletariat described by Marx converges with the bourgeoisie. Today capitalism is financial aristocracy, which lives off its speculative rents and legalized frauds like the sub-prime mortgages in the United States.

Why do you say that the divide between the left and right is outmoded?

Globalized capitalism is an eagle with two wings: the first wing, it’s the right wing of money, which destroys the state, promotes mass immigration and works for the destruction of any ethical dimension in the Hegelian sense; the second wing, left wing of mores, which instead of hindering these tendencies, legitimizes them through its “superstructures,” to use Gramsci again. And so it tells us that the state should be torn down because it’s fascist, that the family should be destroyed because it’s homophobic, that we must always import new migrants. In summation, the left wing of mores legitimizes what the right wing of money asks it to. We must react. I propose a synthesis between the ideas of the left and the values of the right in name of the National Interest; it’s also the name of my association.

For you, what are these left wing values?

Labor, Solidarity, Defense of the Weakest, Community in the sense of Costanzo Preve.

And right wing values?

Family, Fatherland, State, Honor.

Regarding these right wing values, you’ve often denounced the theory of gender, could you reiterate your analysis for our readers?

The theory of gender embodies the project of the New World Order in the area of sexual mores. Its goal is to destroy the family, this “genetic cell” according to Hegel on which the entire society rests. Hegel told us that citizens are a universal family in the state. So the project of the globalists is to destroy the family and the state, the family as genetic cell and state as “the fulfillment of ethics.”

In order to do that, they destroy the basis of the family, that is to say sexual difference, through the ideology of sexual postmodernism which negates identities. In the same fashion that the liberal destroys the state, the gender fluid libertine attacks the family. Thus only atoms remain in a context of erotic free exchange without bonds. The family is dissolved and there only remains an atomized system of pleasure seeking individuals, without ethical value or stable bonds.

You also speak of “feminization” or “de-virilization.” How does the reading of Marx and Hegel, who you claim for yourself, lead you to these conclusions?

These authors are precisely the remedy against the de-virilization in progress! Because de-virilization bases itself on the destruction of man, who is a political animal as Aristotle said: so man doesn’t exist as a simple atom but in relation to the community. De-virilization precedes the atomization of society, that is to say the opposite of the “community” of which Aristotle, Hegel, and Marx spoke. Today there is only the omnipotent atomized individual, animated by an unlimited consumerist will to power whose consequence is “gender fluidity,” this idea that everyone can quite simply decide if he is a man, a transgender woman, or who knows what! They present it to us as a form of emancipation, but on the contrary it’s the acme of capitalism: we become pure asexual consumers without identity.

What the political forces in Italy that converge on this defense of traditional values?

I avoid utilizing this word “traditional values.” For me what counts before all are the solid and communitarian roots of society, what Hegel called “ethical roots;” the family of course but also unions, school, health-care, and especially the sovereign and national state. So we must denounce capitalism as Marx did and reclaim ethics with Hegel. These themes have been reprised by the Lega and the Five Star Movement, who understand that globalist capitalism is an evil, so we must react. But in Italy this camp is still too fragmented: there is People of the Family, the souverainistes, but we need a unitary vision to guide this revolt against globalized society. We must start from Hegel, in order to defend communities.

Have your ideas, which could have been considered extremist a few years ago, become hegemonic in Italy today?

They are the ideas that my teacher Costanzo Preve defended, which are defended in France by Alain de Benoist: they are left wing ideas with right wing values, and they are actually in the process of becoming hegemonic. For me “hegemonizing” the public debate means, according to the Gramscian technique, patiently creating a shared horizon of struggle against capitalism, by bringing together individuals who come from very different political horizons to create a counter-culture that becomes increasingly consensual, utilizing the spaces left by television, the press, and publishing to overthrow this singular thought [Translator’s Note: The original French term « pensée unique » is difficult to translate exactly, under the rule of « pensée unique » everyone must think the same. « Pensée unique » can be compared to « monnaie unique », « marché unique », « Dieu unique », etc.] that dominates us. We are in the process of achieving it, look at Salvini and Di Maio: they have metabolized some of our ideas.

Do you see other convergences with French intellectuals?

I have admiration for Serge Latouche, with whom I’m in contact. I don’t truly adhere to the cause of de-growth, but I appreciate that it understands the need to impose limits on triumphant capitalism. I was in contact with the late André Tosel. And I admire Jean-Claude Michéa a lot. But the thinker closest to me is, doubtlessly, Alain de Benoist.

In an article published online last year, you denounced a project to replace the European population that was conceived in 1953 by Count Kalergi, a conspiracy theory that has had a certain success on the Italian web …

I didn’t say that there was a real conspiracy behind this replacement! But Count Kalergi put down the logic of the dominant class in black and white in his “Practical Idealism”: of course it’s done to lower the cost of labor through relocation and mass immigration. So immigration is evidently a weapon in the hands of this dominant class: it’s a mass deportation bringing millions of African slaves to Europe.

You often denounce the role of NGOs that operate in the Mediterranean …

The NGOs are instruments of mass deportation: they want us to believe that they act in the name of civil society, but in truth they are on sale to the private interests of the lords of globalism who always want more immigration.

What’s your idea to resolve the migrant crisis?

We must go to the root of the problem. These migrations were provoked by the bombings of Libya, so we must firstly cease these types of imperialist practices. Until 2011 there was a legitimate government: Gadaffi had a few flaws of course, but he’s still preferable to what happened after. And you, in France, don’t you ever ask why these migrants arriving from Africa speak your language? I’ll tell you. They didn’t do Erasmus [Translator’s Note: Erasmus is an EU student exchange program] or get into the École normale supérieure: they come from your colonies.

Should the fact that you’ve written in Le primato nazionale, organ of the movement Casapound that claims a “fascism for the third millennium,” be interpreted as a form of adhesion to this movement?

I’ve also written for the daily papers such as La Stampa and Il Fatto, which have very different political positions, much more centrist. For me, fascism and anti-fascism are on the same level: two forms of stupidity that globalized capitalism uses to distract the masses. It’s a way to stoke conflicts and prevent people from seeing the real enemies. But what is anti-fascism worth today when the fascist threat isn’t real? Today anti-fascism has become a tool of the glamorous and cosmopolitanism left to defend capitalism. And when fascism really appears, for example during the Ukrainian coup d’état in 2014, our Eurocratic left applauds it! And the only one to combat it gloriously, named Putin, is treated as a fascist himself! It’s the height [of hypocrisy]. Anti-fascism is a weapon of legitimation for capitalism, an article from the catalog of the politically correct cosmopolitan.

After your philosophical studies, you were no longer affiliated with any university, how do you explain that?

Singular thought expels everything that is foreign to it. In other times, I would have probably been burned at the stake like Giordano Bruno, or killed like Socrates. I endure the contempt of the cosmopolitan intelligentsia. Nevertheless today I teach courses in an “institute of higher learning,” the IASSP, an “independent doctoral school.” There we want to create a school of non-aligned thought, with professors such as Emanuele Severino and the anti-Euro economist Alberto Bagnai, elected with the League. I am also going to teach courses in economics at the “European School of Economics” in Florence. As you can see, new spaces are created with willpower. It’s what Gramsci called the “the optimism of the will.”

Is your economic vision inspired by Marx?

I’m not interested in Marx the economist, but in Marx the philosopher: the Marx of the theory of alienation, of the perversion of mankind in the face of capitalism, the Marx who thought in Hegelian categories. In sum, the idealist philosopher. My thesis, which was Costanzo Preve’s, is that Marx’s materialism is nothing other than a metaphor. Basically, he was a Hegelian in his conception of historical totality; and a Fichtean concerning praxis.

Some time ago you defended the need to create an Italian National Front. Are you a philosopher or a militant?

I am a militant in the sense of Fichte, as I’m an intellectual who thinks within society and acts within society. But I have no party membership card, I’m in dialogue with all parties who are willing to discuss, while having my independent association for the defense of the national interest. I think that the relation between Italy and Europe must be reversed: we must stop being subject to Europe, our voice must be heard.

I want a Europe of free peoples, each with its specificities, that is to say the opposite of present day Europe, which destroys identities in order to replace them through a singular anglophone model, the consumer of merchandise, using a postmodern currency that doesn’t recall anything about the histories of the peoples. You realize: before, the portraits of the great personalities of Italian history were engraved on our currency!

Do you fear the consequences of leaving the Euro?

What I fear, it’s the consequences of remaining in it. There is a European ideology, as Marx said there was a “German ideology”: moreover, the two coincide because the European Union serves the interests of the Germans. European ideology tells us that we are subject to a tragic fate if we dare leave the Euro. And yet, look at what tragedies are happening within the Euro: lost wages, the reduction of social rights, tragedies for peoples like in Greece.

I say that the only measure that can guarantee workers’ interests is the return to economic sovereignty. We need a social souverainisme as Jacques Sapir said. We can even say a left wing social souverainisme if we want to use this category, which is not mine. But I’ll be clear that souverainisme has nothing to do with fascism.

Then why do the Lega and the Five Star Movement no longer speak of leaving the Euro since the election?

Because it’s the most difficult thing, we must put the whole European System into question. But I don’t think that this project has been definitely abandoned, on the contrary it has been hidden, as the economist Paolo Savona argued for with his “plan B.

You’ve often displayed your sympathy for Vladimir Putin. Do you think that Europe’s destiny is Eurasian, like many of your fellow travelers?

Absolutely, because we must liberate ourselves from Atlanticist domination. The European Union is a base of cultural, economic, and social Americanization of our old continent. In Italy we have 115 American military bases, so if Washington decides to bomb Belgrade, Rome must acquiesce like a zombie. I think that Putin’s Russia has a fundamental role to play to guarantee multipolarity by resisting imperialist Atlanticism today. Obama said “Yes, we can,” and Putin responds to him: “No, you can’t.” That’s the great historical mission of Putin’s Russia.

Maybe that explains your proximity with Alexander Dugin … Must we believe that beyond the national cultures you defend, transnational political convergences exist?

Certainly. I have many relations with France, Germany, and Russia, including relations with Dugin, of course, with whom I participated in a conference last week. I support the cultural solidarity of peoples in order to defend their nations. Thus a Europe composed of sovereign states, in contrast to this Europe that murders peoples and their working classes.

One last question: why do you speak in such an archaic and stodgy Italian?

It’s my form of resistance to the global newspeak of the markets, mercantile English with its austerity and spending review. I respond to this Orwellian nightmare with what I call “Old Testament language”: a language made of outmoded words, which are not normally utilized on Facebook or Twitter, a language that recalls the language of Dante and Machiavelli, Giovanni Gentile and Antonio Gramsci. It’s a conscious choice, a cultural reaction to the dominant Anglophone barbarism. I believe that every people, as Hegel said so well, has the right to speak its own national language, because without a national language we would lose our relationship with things and become foreigners in our own Fatherland.


Interview on Ernst Jünger – Julien Hervier – PHILITT – March 15th 2018


, , , ,

On the occasion of the 20th anniversary of Ernst Jünger’s death, PHILITT spoke with Julien Hervier, his translator, friend, and biographer who reflected on the life of one of the great German writers of 20th century.

PHILITT: Ernst Jünger is known today for his war writings which would establish him as a major author, from his first book Storms of Steel, published in 1920. The war was destruction but also revelation for him. What did it reveal to him?

Julien Hervier: The truth of the Man. At the start of the Great War, Ernst Jünger was a young man from a bourgeois family, adventurous and psychologically unstable. He was immersed in the Christian morality proper to the society of his time, although his family was rather distant from religion and his father was a fervent rationalist. In the course of the conflict, he discovered what Freud had perfectly analyzed in the same era, but far from the fighting: the unleashing of instinct that breaks all moral barriers erected by civilization. It revealed itself to him without God – he then call himself totally atheist – man was disoriented in the moral scheme. There is, on this subject, a beautiful passage from his novel Lieutenant Sturm: the hero seduces a young prostitute and confesses his instinct to kill and his violent impulses during the assault. It’s as if he was seeking a form of forgiveness in which absolution is given, not by a priest, but by a benign person. We can compare this reaction with an episode from Ernest Hemingway’s famous novel For Whom the Bell Tolls, in it an old Republican peasant dramatically describes the loss of his belief in God; he finds its leaves him helpless before the necessities of war, as if he sees himself forced to kill, to whom could he confess his error and how would he be absolved of his sins?

PHILITT: What was Jünger’s place in this intellectual abundance of the interwar German Conservative Revolution?

Julien Hervier: Following the war, there was a whole nebula of extremist movements, on the right as well as on the left, which spent their time dividing themselves. Ernst Jünger collaborated with a certain number of small magazines on the nationalist right. He then appeared as one of the most remarkable personalities of this movement, because of his glorious war experience, symbolized by his exceptional decoration “Pour le mérite.” This decoration was actually given to numerous superior officers, but very rarely to simple infantry lieutenants. He possessed an exceptional combatant’s prestige which would then serve to protect him from Hitler. Moreover, intellectually, he was considered the most brilliant writer in this nebula. From the point of view of style or thought, he is incontestably the most prestigious. In the philosophical scheme, his brother Friedrich Georg had received a much deeper philosophical education than his; furthermore Heidegger considered him a better philosopher than Ernst. But very rapidly, from his arrival on the front, he was seriously wounded and thus didn’t have the occasion to distinguish himself and attain the same military prestige as his brother. Younger and not having experienced the war, though having combat experience in the Freikorps, Ernst von Salomon was also a representative writer of this German right, but he doesn’t situate himself on the same literary level.

PHILITT: Jean-Pierre Faye, in the line of Albert Béguin, didn’t hesitate to write “Thus three friends, Schmitt, Jünger, Heidegger – the strange trio of thinkers – contributed to the language of this Reich that devastated Europe in the Second World War.” What response do you have to these excessive, to say the least, statements?

Julien Hervier: You know Talleyrand’s quote: “All that is excessive is insignificant.” What Faye wrote is purely ideological and of little interest. Here we’re denying a complex reality. What is true on the other hand, it’s that there were degrees of compromise more or less elevated. The altitude at which Carl Schmitt’s thought moves is undeniable, but he was also a careerist eager for honors and success. And at the level of simple moral decency, the moral decency of Orwell or Camus, he behaved in an inadmissible manner when he justified the massacres of the “Night of the Long Knives” by raison d’État. His initial engagement on the side of Hitler was indeed scandalous, even if he then became more critical and ended up being viewed negatively by the regime. Heidegger was in turn a philosopher who didn’t understand what Nazism really was. Against a flood of scientist and purely materialist enthusiasm for technical progress, especially among the Anglo-Saxons and Russians, he thought that this new German party could allow the philosophy of being to resist decline. It’s quite clear that he could only have been disappointed; furthermore he recognized this major error, this “big mistake.” Ernst Jünger, unlike the other two, never joined the Nazi party; and his allegorical novel On The Marble Cliffs was considered at the time, as much by Hitler’s partisans as by his enemies, as a novel of opposition to the Führer, as a work of resistance. The judgment of his contemporaries has more weight than ours.

PHILITT: The Soldier, the Worker, the Rebel, the Anarch, all of these are at the heart of Jünger’s work. What do they tells us about his era?

Julien Hervier: The Worker (Arbeiter in German) is a figure linked to the evolution of technical thought, itself arising from the philosophical thought of the West. It is part of a historical logic of the development of Western civilization, and the man of technology is currently present everywhere. Nevertheless, we must be specific: translated into French, Arbeiter can also have a very particular meaning: that of “worker,” especially since the industrial revolution as analyzed by Karl Marx. But the Jüngerian Arbeiter is a vaster figure, he can also be a general as much as a businessman. Jünger defines him as someone whose values come from technology and its prodigious development over the past past three centuries. He’s a figure of reference, ontological in nature, linked to the essence of civilization. The figures of the Rebel or the Anarch are moral figures. In order to define them, Jünger often used the image of the Leviathan, to which they are contrasted. Leviathan, such as the state conceived by Hobbes in the 17th century, or the present technological state, a state whose omnipotence we see reinforcing itself, thanks to modern means of control over the individual. We are in a world where Big Brother’s control is pervasive and resistance is needed. The “Rebel”, it’s a French translation, but the original German word, der Waldgänger, evokes someone who seeks refuge in the forests. It’s for that reason that in French the book is entitled “Treatise on the Rebel or the Recourse to the Forests.” Jünger refers to the old Icelandic practices in which rebellious people banished from society found refuge in the forests. But Jünger always insisted that, in the modern world, the Rebel doesn’t necessarily hide in nature but he can hide in the most populous cities, camouflaged in the eyes of the state. With the Anarch, he wanted to go further in his analysis of resistance. It must totally shift in relation to the scale of value they seek to impose on us. If we only want to invert it, we are lost, as Montherlant pleasantly wrote: “There is nothing that resembles a torpedo boat more than a destroyer.” Starting from the moment where you accept the problem as posed by your adversary, you are lost. You only reverse his values. The Anarch refuses this game. He doesn’t create a party, and this sense, he distinguishes himself from the anarchist. He is alone while the anarchists are part of a collective movement.

PHILITT: Reading his Parisian Journals, one is instantly struck by a certain passivity, a comfortable atonia during the Second World War. The man of action then disappeared, replaced by the contemplative spirit that he would remain until the end of his life?

Julien Hervier: Jünger couldn’t show what he thought. In a totalitarian regime, if you say that you’re against it, you are immediately shot or sent to a concentration camp. So showing his opposition in an explicit manner would be suicidal and useless. So he only followed the assassination attempt planned by Stauffenberg from afar. He could have still been executed as an accomplice if they reported him; it was punishable by death, even if he was not actively engaged in the operation. One of the motifs of his mission in the Caucasus, at the end of 1942, was to gauge the reactions of officers on the Eastern front, in case of an attempt against Hitler. Furthermore, high treason against the state was incompatible with his vision of the soldier. In his journal he mentions the Roman general Coriolanus, the subject of Shakespeare’s play, who revolted against his country and dreads his fate.

PHILITT: Regarding his work, Jünger mentions “an old and a new testament.” Do you share this vision of two Jüngers?

Julien Hervier: It’s true that an enormous difference exists between the young 20 year old thirsting for action who found the bourgeois world stifling, and the man who matured and became a sort of old sage, absorbed by his research on insects whose progressive disappearance he deplored in an ecological spirit. His evolution is incontestable.

PHILITT: You just wrote a book on Drieu la Rochelle. Une histoire de désamours (Gallimard); what intellectual and personal links did the two men entertain in Paris during the Occupation?

Julien Hervier: They only met rarely, but Drieu la Rochelle had an admiration for the author of Storms of Steel. It was a reciprocal esteem. Rapidly wounded on the field of battle many times, the French writer spent relatively little time on the front; on the contrary, Ernst Jünger fought for the entire duration of the entire war, despite numerous wounds. Their service records had nothing to do with each other, even if Drieu was also very courageous and experienced the exaltation of war. For him, modern war has two aspects: the exhalation of the charge, when he took part in the assault on Charleroi; and panicked terror in the face of the superpower of technology, which expresses itself in his cry of absolute terror at Verdun, under the bombardments that they had to passively endure. This battle embodied all the horror of modern industrial war. What brings these two writers closer together is both the exaltation of physical courage and the vision of war as the revealer of human truth. Neither of them were followers of Rousseau, neither of them believed in fundamental human goodness. However, they diverged on their analyses regarding technology. As from a certain side, we can consider The Worker as an apology for technology: Jünger considers it as something that imposes itself with the same obvious character as the laws of nature. The evolution of Western society cannot escape it. We observe it even more today: for example, how to organize de-growth today, without putting millions of people into unemployment? We are caught in the gears, the world has entered into total dependence on technology. The two authors were great readers of Nietzsche but on this precise point, at the time where he wrote The Worker, Jünger was more Nietzschean than Drieu, as for him, we must day yes to the state of the world as it is. It’s useless to oppose it.

PHILITT: Novalis, the poet, the figure of Romanticism from Jena, exercised a considerable influence on Jünger. Was he the last of the German Romantics?

Julien Hervier: There is indeed an entire aspect that underlines Ernst Jünger’s romanticism, particularly concerning the dimension of the dream. He presents very beautiful narratives of them in his journal. His most beautiful novel, in my opinion, On the Marble Cliffs is also a reinterpreted dream. A dream that he had during a voyage to Rhodes by boat which is not far from the visions of the Apocalypse in the Christian tradition. This dimension of the dream, of the relation to nature, to the unconscious, this refusal of a mechanized vision of the world: all this links him with the German Romantics but also the French symbolists. He is much closer to Rimbaud and Baudelaire, who he admired, than the French Romantics.

PHILITT: We are very familiar with Jünger the warrior, but much less so with Jünger the dabbler in drugs. What was he seeking in what he called “psychonautics?”

Julien Hervier: Precisely, he sought to break the purely rational and materialist comprehension of the world. He was a man of risk who wanted to touch the boundaries. He wanted to see what was on the other side. As much on the field of battle, in violent action, as in the framework of psychological experimentation, but always under the control of instruments of reason. Thus he had did first LSD experiments with his friend Albert Hoffman, the inventor of this drug, and practiced these experiences under strict medical control.

PHILITT: A writer who converted to Catholicism at the end of his life but whose writings nevertheless reveal a profound pagan mystique, what was the place of religion in his life?

Julien Hervier: Having spoken with his wife about it, I can affirm that his conversion to Catholicism at the end of his life was purely social. The Catholic readers of Jünger often want to imagine this moment as a true conversion. But Jünger’s entire body of work tends to show that there is a religious dimension and a form of spirituality among all peoples. He was not far from believing that it was of little import if one worships the Christian Trinity, Jehovah, or Allah … Thus there are texts by him where he says he’s willing to adopt the religion of the place where he finds himself: if he had lived in a Muslim country, he would be a Muslim. In his elderly years, he was perfectly integrated in the Swabian and Catholic world of Wilflingen, whose parish priest he was close to. He believed that in contemporary Western civilization, where death was skirted around, Christian religion remained capable of honoring human beings when they passed. In this sense, his interment was one of solemnity and grandiose simplicity. That’s Chateaubriand genius of Christianity. That’s the reasons for his conversion.

PHILITT: How would you analyze the difference in the perceptions of his work between France and Germany?

Julien Hervier: He’s read a lot more in Germany than in France, even if, among us, there is a little circle of people inspired by Jünger. But in comparison with Germany, his readers are relatively less there. In the “Society of Friends of Ernst and Friedrich Georg Jünger”, there are very few French people. Only three or four of us are coming to the Heiligkreuztal colloquium this year where I’ve sometimes found myself to be the only French person. For a long time, in France, we appreciated literary quality above the political opinions of writers. People hardly questioned their political color then. In Germany, after the fall of Nazism, the question was much more sensitive; unfortunately in France as well, now we’re tending to enter in this logic. Just look at the problems currently posed by Céline and Maurras, though nevertheless commemorations do not mean that we admire people, only that we recognize the importance of the historical role they played. In this domain, the contemporary French mentality tends to blandly join the German mentality.


Monika Berchvok Speaks With Robert Steuckers – Euro-Synergies – May 8th, 2018


, , , , ,

Following the publication of Pages celtiques by éditions du Lore and the trilogy Europa by éditions Bios of Lille, Monika Berchvok subjected the author of these works, Robert Steuckers, to a rapid fire volley of questions, showing that even the rebels of the young generation of the 2010s want to know the oldest roots of this silent revolt which is growing across all of Europe. Monika Berchvok previously interviewed Robert Steuckers during the publication of La Révolution conservatrice allemande by éditions du Lore in 2014.

Your career is extremely intellectually wealthy. What is the origin of your engagement?

To speak of intellectual wealth is certainly exaggerated: I am above all a man of my generation, to whom they still taught the “basics”, which today, alas, have disappeared from academic curricula. I experienced my childhood and adolescence in a world that was still marked by quiet tradition, the mores and manners were not those of the industrial world or the service sector, where we increasingly separate from concrete and tangible reality, increasingly acquiring an unbounded pretension and arrogance against “provincials,” like me, who remain anchored in the muck of reality with their heavy boots (yes, yes, that’s from Heidegger…). My father, who really hadn’t been to school, except to the primary school in his Limburg village, wanted nothing to do with the fashions and crazes that agitated our contemporaries in the 1960s and 70s; “all fafouls,” he claimed, “fafoul” being a Brussels dialect term used to designate idiots and cranks. I lived in a home without television, far from and hostile to the mediocre little universe of the pop tune, variety show, and hippy or yéyé subculture. I still thank my progenitor, 25 years after his death, for having been able to totally resist the miserable abjection of all those years where decline advanced in giant steps. Without television, it goes without saying, I had a lot of time to read. Thanks Papa.

Next, I was a gifted student in primary school but fundamentally lazy and desperately curious, the only life saver, to avoid ending up a tramp or a prole, was learning languages to a competent level because, in Brussels, I lived on a street where they spoke the three national languages (and the dialectical variants), with the Russian of a few former White officers and their children who wound up in our fair city in addition. With this linguistic plurality, the task was already half done. Clément Gstadler, a neighbor, an old Alsatian teacher who had ended up in Belgium, told me, donning his ever present traditional hat of the Thann countryside and with a razor sharp Teutonic accent: “My boy, we are as many times men as languages we know.” Strengthened by this tirade hammered into me by Gstadler, I thus enrolled, at the age of eighteen, in Germanic philology and then in the school of translators – interpreters.

The origin of my engagement is the will to remain faithful to all these brave men that we consider anachronistic today. On their certitudes, under siege, we must erect a defensive structure, which we hope will become offensive one day, resting on principles diametrically opposed to the hysterics of the trendy people, to construct in our hearts an alternative, impregnable fortress, that we are determined never to give up.

How do you define your metapolitical combat?

Dilthey, with whom the alternative minded of our type unfortunately aren’t familiar enough, partially constructed his philosophical system around one strong simple idea: “We only define what is dead, the things and facts whose time has definitively ended.” This fight is not over because I haven’t yet passed from life to death, doubtlessly in order to thwart those who my stubbornness displeases. It is evident, as a child of the 1950s and 60s, that my first years of life unfolded in an era where we wanted to throw everything away. It’s of course a gesture that I found stupid and unacceptable.

Retrospectively, I can say that I felt, in my young mind, that religion left the scene as soon as it renounced Latin and the spirit of the crusader, very present in Belgium, even among peaceful, calm, authors, like a certain Marcel Lobet, totally forgotten today, doubtlessly because of the excessive moderation of his words, nevertheless ultimately invigorating for those who knew how to capture their deep meaning. The philosopher Marcel Decorte, in his time, noted that society was disintegrating and that it was collapsing into “dissociety,” a term that we find again today, even in certain left wing circles, to designate the present state of our countries, weakened by successive waves of “civilizational negationism,” such as the ideology of Mai 68, New Philosophy, neo-liberal pandemonium, or gender ideology, all “dissociative” phenomena, or vectors of “dissociation,” which today converge in the Macronist imposture, mixing together all these baneful delusions, seven decades after opening Pandora’s Box. Thus the metapolitical combat must be a combat that unceasingly exposes the perverse nature of these civilizational negationisms, continuously denouncing above all the outfits, generally based beyond the Atlantic, that fabricate them in order to weaken European societies to create a new humanity, totally formatted according to “dissociative” criteria, negators of reality as it is (and cannot be otherwise, as the relevant philosopher Clément Rosset remarked, who unfortunately passed away in recent weeks). To make a metaphor with the ancient world, I would say that a metapolitical combat, in our sense, consists of, as the European history expert of Radio Courtoisie Thomas Ferrier said, putting all these negationisms in Pandora’s Box, from which they sprang, then closing it.

You mention “bio-conservatism” in your recent works? What does this term cover?

I didn’t mention “bio-conservatism.” My editor, Laurent Hocq of Editions Bios, believes that it’s a path we will need to explore, precisely in order to fight “civilizational negationisms,” notably all the elements that deny the corporeality of man, his innate phylogenetics, and his ontology. For me a well conceived bio-conservatism must go back to the implicit sociology that Louis de Bonald sketched in the 19th century, critiquing the individualist drift of the Enlightenment philosophers and the French Revolution. Romanticism, in its non-ethereal or tearful aspects, insists on the organicity, vitalist and biological, of human and social phenomena. We must couple these two philosophical veins – traditional conservative realism and organic Romanticism – and then connect them to the more recent and more scientifically established achievements of biocybernetics and systems theory, while avoiding falling into perverse social engineering as desired by the Tavistock Institute, whose cardinal role in the elaboration of all forms of brain washing that we’ve endured for more than sixty years was investigated by the “conspiracy theorist” Daniel Estulin, now living in Spain. The “Tavistockians” used biocybernetics and systems theory to impose a “depoliticized” culture across the Western world. Today these disciplines can be perfectly mobilized to “re-politicize” culture. Laurent Hocq wants to initiate this work of metapolitical mobilization with me. We will have to mobilize people competent in these domains to complete the task.

At the end of the road, rethinking “bio-conservatism” is nothing more or less than the will to restore a “holistic” society in the best sense of the term as quickly as possible, that is to say a society that defends itself and immunizes itself against the fatal hypertrophies leading us to ruin, to degradation: economic hypertrophy, juridical hypertrophy (the power of manipulative and sophist jurists), the hypertrophy of the services sector, hypertrophy of petty moralism detached from reality, etc.

Localism is also a theme that often reoccurs in your recent books. For you the return to the local has an identitarian dimension, as well as a social and ecological one?

Localism or the “vernacular” dimensions of human societies that function harmoniously, according to timeless rhythms, are more necessary than ever at a time where a sagacious geographer such as Christophe Guilluy notes the decline of “France from below”, the marvelous little provincial towns that are dying before our eyes because they no longer offer a sufficient number of local jobs and because their light industry has been relocated and dispersed to the four corners of the planet.

Attention to localism is an urgent necessity in our time, in order to respond to a terrifying evil of neo-liberalism that has expanded since Thatcher’s accession to power in Great Britain and all the fatal policies that the imitators of this “Iron Lady” have seen fit to import into Europe and elsewhere in the world.

The refusal of the migratory “great replacement” happens through an understanding of immigration movements in the era of total globalization. How can the tendency of migratory flows be reversed?

By not accepting them, quite simply. We are a stubborn phalanx and it is imperative that our stubbornness become contagious, taking on the appearance of a global pandemic.

Nevertheless, when you mention the fact that there must be an “understanding of migratory movements,” you indirectly underline the necessity of deeply understanding the contexts from which these migrants come. For half a century, and even longer since Mai 68 had antecedents in the two decades that preceded it, we have been fattened on junk culture, of inane varieties, which occupies our minds with time consuming spectacles and prevents them from concentrating on things as real as they are essential. A good state is a state that inquires about the forces at work in the world. Whether migratory flows are accepted or not, every host state, guided by a healthy vision of things, should draw up an economic, ethnic, and social cartography of the populations coming from the emigrants’ countries.

For Africa, that means understanding the economic state of each migrant exporting country, the possible system of kleptocracy that reigns there, the ethnic components (and the conflicts and alliances that result from them), the history of each of these political or anthropological phenomena, etc. This knowledge must then be delivered by an honest press to the citizens of our countries, so that they can make judgments about credible pieces and not be forced to vote according to unremitting propaganda based on inconsistent slogans.

For Syria we should have known, before the waves of refugees spilled into Europe, the religious and tribal structures of the country in a very precise manner: actually, the media, generally uncultivated and dependent on the “junk culture” imposed on us for decades, discovered the Syrian divisions that had been ignored until now. Only a handful among us has a clear notion of who the Alawites or Yezidis are, knows that the Syrian Christian communities have complicated divisions, understands the tacit alliance that unites Alawites with Twelver Shiites, understands that the principal enemy of the Ba’athist political system is the Muslim Brotherhood, which fomented the terrible disorders of 1981-1982 that ravaged Syria in the time of Hafez al-Assad, father of the current president. In short, the general public knows nothing about the complexity of Syria. The only bone it has to gnaw is the slogan that decrees Assad is a horrible monster, fit to be eliminated by fundamentalist assassins or American bombs.

For Africa, the only means of reducing the waves of refugees, real or solely economic, would be to put an end to evidently very kleptocratic regimes, in order to fix the populations on their native soil by redirecting sums of money toward infrastructural investment. In certain more precise cases, that would also happen through a return to a subsistence agricultural economy and a partial and well regulated abandonment of monoculture which doesn’t properly nourish populations, especially those that have opted for rural exodus towards the cities and sprawling slums, like Nigeria for example.

For Syria, we should have established a filter to sort refugees but that would have, ipso facto, privileged Muslim or Christian communities allied to the regime, to the detriment of the hostile social classes, who are totally un-integrable into our European societies, because the Salafism that animates them is viscerally hostile to all forms of syncretism and all cultures that do not correspond to it 100%. Moreover, as a general rule, the reception of migratory flows coming from countries where there are dangerous mafias is not recommended even if these countries are European like Sicily, Kosovo, Albania, or certain Caucasian countries. All immigration should pass through a well established anthropological screening process and not be left to chance, at the mercy of the “invisible hand” like the one that all the liberals expect the world to be perfected by. Non-discernment in the face of migratory flows has transformed this constant of human history into a catastrophe with unpredictable repercussions in its current manifestations, as evidently these flows do not bring us a better society but create a deleterious climate of inter-ethnic conflict, unbridled criminality, and latent civil war.

Reversing the tendency of migratory flows will happen when we finally implement a program of triage for migrations, aiming for the return of criminals and mafiosos, the psychologically unbalanced (that they deliberately send here, the infrastructure capable of accommodating them being non-existent in their countries of origin), politicized elements that seek to import political conflicts foreign to us. Such a policy will be all the more difficult to translate into daily reality where the imported mass of migrants is too large. Then we cannot manage it in proper conditions.

You knew Jean Thiriart. Does his political vision of a “Great Europe” still seem relevant?

Jean Thiriart was firstly a neighbor for me, a man who lived in my neighborhood. I can note that behind the sturdy and gruff sexagenarian hid a tender heart but bruised to see humanity fall into ridicule, triviality, and cowardice. I didn’t know the activist Thiriart because I was only twelve when he abandoned his political combat at the end of the 1960s. This combat, which extended over a short decade starting from Belgium’s abandonment of the Congo and the tragic epilogue of the war in Algeria for the French, two years later. Thiriart was motivated by a well developed general idea: abolish the Yalta duopoly, which made Europe hemiplegic and powerless, and send back the Americans and Soviets in succession in order to allow the Europeans to develop independently. He belonged to a generation that had entered politics, very young, at the end of the 1930s (the emergence of Rexism, the Popular Front, the war in Spain, the Stalinist purges, Anschluss, the end of the Czechoslovakia born at Versailles), experienced the Second World War, the defeat of the Axis, the birth of the state of Israel, the coup in Prague, and the blockade in Berlin in 1948, the Korean War, and the end of Stalinism.

Two events certainly contributed to steer them towards an independentist European nationalism, different in sentiment from the European nationalism professed by the ideologues of the Axis: the Hungarian Revolt of 1956 and the Suez campaign, the same year, the year of my birth in January. The West, subjugated by Washington, did nothing to aid the unfortunate Hungarians. Worse, during the Suez affair, the Americans and the Soviets forced the French and British to unconditionally withdraw from the Egyptian theater of operations. Thiriart, and a good number of his companions, temporary or not, observed that the duopoly had no desire to dissolve itself or even to fight each other, to modify one way or the other the line of the Iron Curtain that cut Europe across its center, to tolerate any geopolitical affirmation on the part of European powers (even if they were members of the UN Security Council like France and the United Kingdom). The decolonization of the Congo also demonstrated that the United States was unwilling to support the Belgian presence in central Africa, despite the fact that Congolese uranium underpinned the nuclear supremacy of Washington since the atom bombs fabricated in order to bring Japan to its knees in 1945. A little history, Hergé’s brother was the only Belgian military officer not to chicken out and he showed an arrogant hostility to the NATO troops who came to take control of his Congolese base.

One thing leading to another, Thiriart would create the famous movement “Jeune Europe” that would inject many innovations into the discourse of the activist milieu and contest the established order of what one could classify as the extreme-right in its conventional forms, petty nationalists or Poujadists. The “habitus” of the extreme-right did not please Thiriart at all, who judged them unproductive and pathological. A reader of the great classics of the realist politics, especially Machiavelli and Pareto, he wanted to create a small hyper-politicized phalanx, rationally proceeding from truly political criteria and not thin emotions, creating only behavioral indiscipline. This political hyper-realism implied thinking in terms of geopolitics, having a knowledge of the general geography of the planet. This wish was realized in Italy alone, where the magazine Eurasia of his disciple and admirer Claudio Mutti has done remarkably well and has attained a very elevated degree of scientific precision.

To bypass the impediment of Yalta, Thiriart believed that we needed seek allies across the Mediterranean and in the East of the vast Soviet territorial mass: thus the attempt to dialogue with the Nasserist Arab nationalists and the Chinese of Chou Enlai. The Arab attempt rested on a precise Mediterranean vision, not understood by the Belgian militants and very well comprehended, on the contrary, by his Italian disciples: according to Thiriart this internal sea must be freed from all foreign tutelage. He reproached the various forms of nationalism in Belgium for not understanding the Mediterranean stakes, these forms turned more towards Germany or the Netherlands, England or the Scandinavian countries, an obligatory “Nordic” tropism. His reasoning about the Mediterranean resembled that of Victor Barthélémy, an adviser of Doriot and also a former communist, a reasoning shared by Mussolini as mentioned in his memoirs. Thiriart very probably derived his vision of Mediterranean geopolitics from a feeling of bitterness following the eviction of England and France from the Mediterranean space after the Suez affair in 1956 and the war in Algeria.

According to Thiriart, the Europeans shared a common Mediterranean destiny with the Arabs that could not be obliterated by the Americans and their Zionist pawns. Even if the French, the English, and the Italians had been chased from the Arabophone North African shore, the new independent Arab states could not renounce this Mediterranean destiny they shared with non-Muslim Europeans, massed on the Northern shore. For Thiriart, the waters of the Great Blue sea unite, not separate. From this fact, we must favor a policy of convergence between the two civilizational spaces, for the defense of the Mediterranean against the element foreign to this space, interfering there, constituted by the American fleet commanded from Naples.

The idea of allying with the Chinese against the Soviet Union aimed to force the Soviet Union to let go of its ballast in Europe in order to confront the Chinese masses on the Amur River front. The dual project of wagering on the Nasserist Arabs and the Chinese marked the last years of Thiriart’s political activity. The 1970s were, for him, years of silence or rather years where he immersed himself in the defense of his professional niche, namely optometry. When he returned to the fight at the start of the 1980s, he was nearly forgotten by the youngest and eclipsed by other political and metapolitical lines of thought; moreover the given facts had considerably changed: the Americans had allied with the Chinese in 1972 and, since then, the latter no longer constituted an ally. Like others, in their own corners and independently of each other, such as Guido Giannettini and Jean Parvulesco, he elaborated a Euro-Soviet or Euro-Russian project that the Yeltsin regime didn’t allow to come to fruition. In 1992 he visited Moscow, met Alexander Dugin and the “red-browns,” but unexpectedly died in November of the same year.

What we must retain from Thiriart is the idea of a cadre school formed on principles derived from pure political philosophy and geopolitics. We must also retain the idea of Europe as a singular geostrategic and military space. It’s the lesson of the Second World War: Westphalia defended itself on the beaches of Normandy, Bavaria on the Côte d’Azur and along the Rhône, Berlin at Kursk. Engines allowed for the considerable narrowing of the strategic space just as they allowed for the Blitzkrieg of 1940: with horse-drawn carts, no army could take Paris from Lorraine or Brabant. The failures of Philip II after the battle of Saint-Quentin prove it, Götz von Berlichingen never went past Saint-Dizier, the Prussians and Austrians never went past Valmy, and the armies of the Kaiser were stopped on the Marne. One exception: the entrance of the allies into Paris after the defeat of Napoleon at Leipzig. The United States is henceforth the sole superpower, even if the development of new arms and imperial hypertrophy, that it imposed on itself through unthinking immoderation, slowly break down this colossal military power, recently defied by the new capabilities of Russian or perhaps Chinese missiles. European independence happens through a sort of vast front of refusal, through the participation of synergies outside of what Washington desires, as Armin Mohler also wanted. This refusal will slowly but surely erode the supremacist policy of the Americans and finally make the world “multipolar.” As Thiriart, but also Armin Mohler, doubtlessly wanted, and, following them, Alexander Dugin, Leonid Savin, and yours truly want, multipolarity is the objective to aim for.

Three German author seem to have left their mark on you particularly: Ernst Jünger, Carl Schmitt and Günter Maschke. What do you retain from their thought?

Actually, you ask me to write a book… I admire the political writings of the young Jünger, composed in the middle of the turmoil of the 1920s just as I also admire his travel narratives, his seemingly banal observations which have made some Jüngerians, exegetes of his work, say that he was an “Augenmensch,” literally a “man of the eyes,” a man who surveys the world of nature and forms (cultural, architectural) through his gaze, through a penetrating gaze that reaches far beyond the surface of apparent things and perceives the rules and the rhythms of their internal nature.

Very soon I will release a voluminous but certainly not exhaustive work on Carl Schmitt. Here I want to remind people that Carl Schmitt wrote his first relevant texts at the age of sixteen and laid down his last fundamental text onto paper at 91. So we have a massive body of work that extends over three quarters of a century. Carl Schmitt is the theorist of many things but we essentially retain from him the idea of decision and the idea of the “great space.” My work, published by éditions du Lore, will show the Schmitt’s relation to Spain, the very particular nature of his Roman Catholicism in the context of debates that animated German Catholicism, his stance in favor of Land against Sea, etc.

Speaking about Günter Maschke interests me more in the framework of the present interview. I met Günter Maschke at the Frankfurt Book Fair in 1984, then during a small colloquium organized in Cologne by high schoolers and students under the banner of the Gesamtdeutscher Studentenverband, an association that intended to oversee the student organizations which, at the time, were working towards the reunification of the country. Maschke was a thundering and petulant former leader of the activist years of 1967 and 1968 in Vienna, from which he would be expelled for street violence. In order to escape prison in West Germany, because he was a deserter, he successfully defected, via the French collective, “Socialisme ou Barbarie,” first to Paris, then Cuba. He then settled in the insular Castroist Carribean republic and met Castro there, who gave him a tour of the island in order to show him “his” sugar cane fields and all “his” agricultural property. Maschke, who can’t hold his tongue, retorted to him, “But you are the greatest latifundist in Latin America!” Vexed, the supreme leader didn’t renew his right of asylum and Maschke found himself back at the beginning, that is to say in a West German prison for thirteen months, the span of the military service he refused, as demanded by the law. In prison, he discovered Carl Schmitt and his Spanish disciple Donoso Cortès, and in the cramped space of his cell, he found his road to Damascus.

Many activists from 67-68 in Germany henceforth turned their backs on the ideologies they professed or utilized (without really believing in them too much) in their youth years: Rudi Dutschke was basically a anti-American Lutheran nationalist; his brothers gave interviews to the Berlin new conservative magazine Junge Freiheit and not usual leftist press, which repeats the slogans of yesterday without realizing that it has fallen into anachronism and ridicule; Frank Böckelmann, who was presented to me by Maschke during a Book Fair, came from German Situationism and never hesitated to castigate his former comrades whose anti-patriotism, he said, was the mark of a “craving for limits,” of a will to limit themselves and mutilate themselves politically, to practice ethno-masochism. Klaus Rainer Röhl, a nonagenarian today, was the spouse of Ulrike Meinhof, who sunk into terrorism with Baader. Röhl too became closer to the nationalists while the articles of Ulrike Meinhof in her magazine konkret would trigger the first fights in Berline during the arrival of the Shah of Iran.

Uli Edel’s film devoted to the “Baader Meinhof Gang” (2008) also shows the gradual slide of the terrorist “complex” in West Germany, which arose from an idealistic and unreasoning, uninhibited, and hysteric anti-imperialism, but often correct in some of its analyses, to pass into an even more radical terrorism but ultimately in the service of American imperialism: in his film, Edel shows the stakes very clearly, notably when Baader, already arrested and sentenced, speaks with the chief of police services and explains to him that the second generation of terrorists no longer obeys the same guidelines, especially not his. The second generation of terrorists, while Meinhof, Baader and Ensslin (Maschke’s sister in law!) were imprisoned and had not yet committed suicide, assassinated statesmen or economic decision makers who correctly wanted to pursue policies in contradiction with the desires of the United States and free West Germany from the cumbersome tutelage that Washington imposed on it. This shift also explains the attitude taken by Horst Mahler, Baader’s lawyer and partisan in armed struggle in his time. He would also pass to nationalism when he was released from prison, a nationalism strongly tinted with Lutheranism, and he would return to prison for “revisionism.” The last I heard, he was still languishing there.

At the start of the 1980s, Maschke was an editor in Cologne and notably published the works of Carl Schmitt (Land and Sea), Mircea Eliade, Pierre Drieu la Rochelle, Agnès Heller, and Régis Debray. Every year, in October when the famous Frankfurt Book Fair took place, Maschke, who thought I had the countenance of an imperturbable young reactionary, had Sigi, his unforgettable spouse who left us much too soon, set up a cot in the middle of his prestigious office, where the most beautiful flowers of his library were found. So every year, from 1985 to 2003, I frequented the “Maschke Salon,” where personalities as prestigious as the Catholic and conservative writer Martin Mosebach or the Greek political philosopher Panajotis Kondylis, the ex-Situationist Franck Böckelmann,or the Swiss polemicist Jean-Jacques Langendorf dropped by. These soirees were, I must admit, pretty boozy; we sang and performed poems (Maschke likes those by Gottfried Benn), the fun was de rigeur and the ears of a good number of fools and pretentious people must have rung as they were lampooned. I inherited a frank manner of talking from Maschke, who often reproached me, and he helped consolidate my mocking Bruxellois verve, which I owe to my uncle Joseph, my mother’s very sarcastic brother.

I can’t finish this segment without recalling the fortuitous meeting between Maschke and Joschka Fischer, the year where the latter had become a minister in the Land of Hesse, the first step that would lead him to become the German minister of foreign affairs who made his country participate in the war against Serbia. Fischer strolled down the long hallways of the Book Fair. Maschke came up to him and patted his stomach, very plump, saying to everyone: “Well, comrade Fischer, fattening up to become minister.” Next followed a torrent of acerbic words poured out on the little Fischer who looked at his sneakers (his trademark at the time, in order to look “cool”) and stammered apologies that he wasn’t. Scolding him as if he was only a dirty brat, Maschke proved to him that his Schmittian neo-nationalism was in accord with the anti-imperialist tendencies of the 1967-68 years, while Fischer’s alignment was a shameful treason. The future would give him ample justification: Fischer, former violent Krawallo (hooligan) of Hessian leftism, became a vile servant of capitalist and American imperialism: the dithyrambic phrases that he pronounced these last weeks praising Chancellor Merkel only accentuate this bitter feeling of betrayal. These remarks are evidently valid for Daniel Cohn-Bendit, today a war monger on sale to Washington. Jean-François Kahn, in an interview very recently accorded to Revue des deux mondes, spoke of him as a former sixty-eighter turned neocon in the style of the East Side Trotskyites.

In his quest after his return from Cuba and his stay in a dreary Bavarian prison, Maschke, unlike Mahler or Dutschke’s family for example, evolved, with Schmitt and Donoso, towards a Baroque and joyous Catholicism, strongly tinted with Hispanicism and rejected the uptight, Protestant, and neo-Anabaptist violence that so clearly marked the German extra-parliamentary revolutionaries of the sixties. For him as for the director Edel, the Ensslin sisters, for example, were excessively marked by the rigorous and hyper-moralist education inherent to their Protestant familial milieu, which seemed insupportable after his stay in Cuba and his journeys to Spain. Also because Gudrun Ensslin fell into a morbid taste for an unbridled and promiscuous sexuality, resulting from a rejection of Protestant Puritanism as Edel’s film highlights. The Maschkian critique of the anti-Christianity of the (French) New Right is summarized by a few choice words, as is his habit: thus he repeats, “they are guys who read Nietzsche and Asterix simultaneously and then fabricated a system from this mixture.” For him, the anti-Christianity of Nietzsche was a hostility to the rigors of the Protestantism of the family of Prussian pastors from which the philosopher of Sils-Maria came, a mental attitude that is impossible to transpose in France, whose tradition is Catholic, Maschke doesn’t take the Jansenist tradition into account. These anecdotes show that any political attitude must fall back into a kind of Aristotlean realism.

You return to the contribution of the Celtic world to our continental civilization in your book “Pages celtiques.” What do we retain from the “Gaulish” in our European identity? You return to the Irish and the Scottish nationalist movement at length. What lessons should we draw from their long struggles?

In “Pages celtiques”, I wanted, essentially, to underline three things: firstly, the disappearance of all Celtic cultural and linguistic references is the result of the Romanization of the Gauls; this Romanization was apparently rapid within the elites but slower in the spheres of popular culture, where they resisted for five or six centuries. The vernacular culture retained the Celtic language until the arrival of the Germans, the Franks, who took over from the Romans. We can affirm that the popular religiosity retained the religiosity of “eternal peasants” (Mircea Eliade) and it remained more or less the religion whose rituals were practiced by the Celts. This religiosity of the soil remained intact under the Christian veneer, only the religion of the elites from the start. The dei loci, the gods of places, simply became saints or Madonnas, nestled in the trunks of oaks or placed at crossroads or near springs. The “de-Celticization,” the eradication of the religion of “eternal peasants,” occurred under the blows of modernity, with the generalization of television and … with Vatican II. What the French still have from the “Gaulish”, was put to sleep: it’s a fallow field awaiting a reawakening. Our essence, in Belgium, was deeply Germanized and Romanized, in the sense where the Eburons, the Aduatuques, and the Treviri were already partially Germanized in the time of Caesar or later when the Ingvaeonic Germanic tribes settled in the valley of the Meuse served Rome and rapidly Latinized.

Secondly the Celtic contribution is equally Christian in the sense where, at the end of the Merovingian era and at the start of the Pippinic / Carolingian era, Christian missions were not only guided by Rome, they were also Irish – Scottish with Saint Columban, who settled in Luxeuil-les-Bains, the formerly Gaulish, then Roman, thermal baths site. Lorraine, Alsace, Franche-Comté, Switzerland, Wurtemberg, Bavaria, Tyrol, and a part of Northern Italy received the Christian message not from the apostles who came from the Levant or missionaries mandated by Rome but from Irish – Scottish monks and ascetics who proclaimed a Christianity closer to the natural religiosity of the indigenous peoples, with some pantheist dimensions, while advocating the large scale copying of ancient, Greek and Latin manuscripts. The Christian, Celtic, and Greco-Latin syncretism that they offered us remains the foundation of our European culture and any attempt to remove or eradicate one of these elements would be a useless, even perverse, mutilation, that would deeply unbalance the foundations of our societies. The smug and foolish moralism, proper to the recent history of the Church and its desire to “third worldize,” also ruined all the seduction that the religion could exercise on the popular masses. Failing to take the vernacular (Celtic or otherwise) into account and ceasing to defend the heritage of the classical humanities (with the political philosophy of Aristotle) at any price has separated the masses from the intellectual and political elites of the Church. The parishes have lost their flocks: actually, what did they have to gain from hearing the moralizing sermons without depth repeated ad nauseum that the Church henceforth offers to them.

Thirdly, in the 18th century, the Irish, Scottish, and Welsh Enlightenment philosophers were certainly hostile to absolutism, calling for new forms of democracy, demanding popular participation in public affairs and calling for a respect of vernacular cultures by the elite. The enlightenment republicanism of the Irish, Scottish, and Welsh hostile to the English monarchy which subjected the Celtic peoples and Scottish people (a mixture of Celts, Norwegians, and free Anglo Saxons) to a veritable process of colonization, particularly cruel, but this hostility was accompanied by a very pious devotion to the cultural productions of the common people. In Ireland, this republicanism was not hostile to the homegrown and anti-establishment Catholicism of the Irish nor to the multiple remnants of pantheist paganism that was naturally and syncretically harbored in this Irish Catholicism. The representatives of this religiosity were not treated as “fanatics,” “superstitious,” or “brigands” by the Republican elites. They would not be vilified nor dragged to the guillotine or gallows.

The Celtic Enlightenment philosophers of the British Isles did not deny rootedness. On the contrary, they exalted it. Brittany, non-republican, was the victim, like the entire West, of a ferocious repression by the “infernal columns.” It largely adhered to the ancien régime, cultivating nostalgia, also because it had, in the era of the ancien régime, a “Parliament of Brittany,” that functioned in an optimal manner. The uncle of Charles De Gaulle, “Charles De Gaulle No. 1”, would be the head of a Celtic renaissance in Brittany in the 19th century, in the framework of a monarchist ideology. In the same era, the Irish independence activists struggled to obtain “Home Rule” (administrative autonomy). Among them, at the end of the 19th century, was Padraig Pearse, who created a mystic nationalism, combining anti-English Catholicism and Celtic mythology. He would pay for his unwavering commitment with his life: he would be shot following the Easter Rising of 1916. Likewise, the union leader James Connolly mixed syndicalist Marxism and the liberatory elements of Irish mythology. He would share the tragic fate of Pearse.

The leaders of the Irish independence movement offer to political observers of all stripes an original cocktail of nationalist labor unionism, mystic Celticism, and social Catholicism, where the ideology of human rights would be mobilized against the British not in an individualist sense, featuring, for reference, a man detached from any social bond with the past, thus a man who is modeled as a “nameless apostasy from reality.” On the contrary, from the start Irish Republican ideology reasons according a vision of man that fits into into a cultural, social, and bio-ethnic whole. All that must also be the object of legal protection with a corollary that any attack, anywhere in the world, on one of these ethnic-social-cultural ensembles is an attack on a fundamental human right, the right to belong to a culture. So the rights of man, for the Irish, are inseparable from the cultures that animate and feed human societies.

After the Second World War, the Welsh would take up the cause of the Bretons pursued by the Republic, which would be condemned by the International Court of Human Rights for crimes against Breton culture: this fact is quite evidently forgotten, because it was knowingly hidden. Today, notably following the peremptory tirades of the “nouveaux philosophes,” whose path begins around 1978 and continues today, forty years later (!), with the hysterical fulminations of Bernard-Henri Lévy, the Republic sees itself as the defender par excellence of human rights: it is henceforth piquant and amusing to recall that it was condemned on a charge brought by the Welsh and Irish for crimes against a vernacular culture of the Hexagon, and consequently any politically act that ultimately infringes the rights of a people’s culture, or denies it the mere right to exist and propagate, is equally a crime liable for an equivalent sentence. So there exist other possible interpretations and applications of human rights than those that automatically treat anyone who claims an identity rooted in physical belonging as backwards or potentially fascist. Thus human rights are perfectly compatible with the right to live in a rooted, specific, and inalienable culture that ultimately has a sacred value, on soil it has literally turned for centuries. Hervé Juvin, through an original and politically relevant interpretation of the ethnological and anthropological works of Claude Lévi-Strauss and Robert Jaulin, is the one who has shown us the way to follow today in order to leave behind this deleterious atmosphere, where we are called to swear an inextinguishable hatred towards what we are deep within ourselves, to rob ourselves of what’s deep in our hearts in order to wallow in the nihilism of consumerism and political correctness.

I partially owe this Celticism,both revolutionary and identitarian, to the German activist, sociologist, and ethnologist Henning Eichberg, theorist and defender of identities everyone in the world, who expressed an analogous Celticism in a militant and programmatic work, published at the start of the 1980s, at the same time Olier Mordrel published his “Mythe de l’Hexagone.” Elsewhere, my friend Siegfried Bublies would give the title Wir Selbst to his non-conformist, national-revolutionary magazine, the German translation of the Gaelic Sinn Fein (“We Ourselves”). Bublies was the editor of Eichberg’s polemical and political texts, who passed away, alas too soon, in April 2017.

In “Pages celtiques”, I also pay homage to Olier Mordrel, the Breton combatant, and define the notion of carnal fatherland, while castigating the ideologies that want to eradicate or criminalize it.

You’ve restarted Trans-European activities. How do you the judge the evolution of “identitarian”forces in Europe?

No, I’ve restarted nothing at all. I’m too old. We must leave it to the youth, who are doing very well according to the criteria and divides inherent to their generation, according to modes of communication that I haven’t mastered as well as they have, such as social networks, videos on YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, or others. The institutions challenging the ambient mismanagement are multiplying at a good pace because we are experiencing a consolidated conservative revolution in relation to what it was, lying fallow, twenty or thirty years ago. It’s true that the dominant powers have not kept their promises: from the Thirty Glorious Years, we’ve passed to the Thirty Piteous Year, according to the Swiss writer Alexandre Junod, who I knew as a child and has grown up so much … And he is still optimistic, this boy: if he wrote a book, he would have to mention the “Thirty Shitty Years.” As we’ve fallen very very low. It’s really the Kali Yuga, as the traditionalists who like to mediate on Hindu or Vedic texts say. I modestly put myself in the service of new initiatives. The identitarian forces today are diverse but the common denominators between these initiatives are multiplying, quite happily. We must work for convergences and synergies (as I’ve always said…). My editor Laurent Hocq has limited himself to announcing three international colloquiums in order to promote our books in Lille, Paris, and Rome. That’s all. For my part, I will limit myself to advise initiatives like the “Synergies européennes” summer universities, even if they are very theoretical, as they allow me to encounter and adapt fruitful strategies for the years to come.