History and Geopolitics
History knew city states: Thebes, Sparta, Athens, later Venice, Florence, Milan, Genoa. Today, it knows territorial states, France, Spain, England, Russia. Finally, it discovers continental states such as the United States of America, China today, and the USSR of yesterday. Europe suffers a period of transformations today. It must pass from the more or less stable stage of territorial states to the stage of the continental state. For the majority of people, this transition is hampered by mental inertia, without speaking of the idleness of the spirit.
Although not larger than a piece of tissue, Sparta had a strong vitality, from a historical point of view, living above all for its military aspect. Its dimensions and its resources were sufficient to create an army capable of winning the respect of all its neighbors. Here we approach the basic problem of the vitality of states. The historical city state was supplanted by the territorial state. The Roman Empire supplanted Sparta, Athens, Thebes. And without great effort.
Today the historical vitality of the state depends on its military vitality, which in its turn depends on its economic vitality, which leads us to the following choice: First hypothesis: the territorial states are obliged to become satellites of the continental states. France, Italy, Spain, Germany, England only represent a fiction of independent states. Because for a long time, since 1945, all these countries have become satellites of the United States of America. Second hypothesis: these territorial states will transform themselves into a sole continental state: Europe.
The Historic Failure of a Continental State: The USSR
The regrettable disintegration of the USSR is explained, in particular, by the insufficient theoretical comprehension of the state by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and in certain regards Stalin. Already in 1984, my disciple and collaborator, Jose Cuadrado Costa, basing his works on Ortega y Gasset and myself, published a brilliant and prophetic essay under the title: “The Insufficiency and Obsolescence of the Marxist-Leninist Theory of Nationality.”
Concerning the understanding of the essence of the state, the Jacobins were manifestly far more advanced than the Marxists. In this domain, Marx always remained limited to the romantic period of the Revolution of 1848. Already at the end of the 18th century, Siéyès spoke of the manner of obtaining a “homogeneous” nation-state. The nation-state is the fruit of political will. Another example of Marxist idiocy, coming from the romanticism of the 19th century, is the idea of the disappearance of the state. It is difficult to think of a greater stupidity. It’s an old anarchist dream.
Thus Lenin preserved the formal existence of the republics. I intentionally write the word in the plural. Because of the application of the principle of centralism to the interior of the Communist Party and the particular personality of Stalin, this fiction or this comedy endured until 1990. The weakening of the Party lead to the break up of the USSR with problems recalling the epoch of 1917-1922. Fiction became reality.
In 1917 the Russian Jacobins created the Republic of Councils (I direct your attention to the singular.) Lenin accepted and tolerated this fiction of a Union of Soviet Republics (I direct your attention to the plural.) From 1946 to 1949, at the apogee of its power, Stalin also preserved this appearance of “independent” states, extending from Poland to Bulgaria. More theoretical imprudence.
The Political State by Opposition to the Ethnic State
In the Dictionary “The Little Larousse”, it is written that the conditions of ethnic uniformity are its language and culture.
For the needs of this analysis, I will give my own enlarged interpretation of this concept, having said that the unity of the ethnic state has its roots in the unity of race, religion, language, common imagery, common memory, common frustrations or fears.
The concept of the political state (as an open system, expanding) is completely opposed to the concept of the ethnic state (as an closed system, fixed). The political state is the expression of the will of free men to have a common future. The political state, or more precisely the political nation-state – which I consider as the modern theoretician, Ortega y Gasset – permits individuals to preserve their personal individuality (please excuse this barbaric and gross tautology) on the interior of the framework of society. It has been less than two months since I gave my opinion on the importance of the concepts of the Imperium and the Dominium. Since 1964 I have never ceased to develop these concepts of Roman origin.
A political friend who called me “Walloon” (that was not sufficient for me!), I wrote, as a habit, that I am neither Walloon, nor Flemish, nor German, nor Belgian, or even European. I am me. The person of Jean Thiriart, that’s Jean Thiriart, I wrote him. I do not like at all to be classed in a category with other people, where it is said that “they resemble me.” I want to constantly conserve my Socratic irony. A partisan of totalitarianism when we speak of Imperium, I become an anarchist for the question of Dominium.
Marx and Engels knew absolutely nothing of this fundamental Imperium/ Dominium dichotomy, that is why they wrote “ The German Ideology” against Max Stirner. The vision of the Imperium by Stirner (federative free choice, right to secession, etc) always remains utopian and inapplicable. On the contrary, his vision of internal liberty, in the question of Dominium, will always be interesting. I am a Bolshevik, Jacobin, Prussian, Stalinist, as soon as we speak of Imperium and of its civil discipline, but my tastes and intellectual interests concerning my private life, my internal life in the framework of the Dominium, go to the Odyssey, to the Cynics, to Diogenes, who in response to the question: “Could you see a brave man in Greece?” responded, “Nowhere, but I see some brave boys in Lacedemonia…”
We know that Diogenes and the other Cynics admired the Spartan system because the Spartans were partisans of discipline and austerity and enemies of luxury and sloth. Thus, as Diagoras, I am against religion. In the private domain, certainly!
Certainly, I am known as the messenger of the united Europe, from Dublin to Vladivostok. But this united Europe, that I describe and invoke, is bound to the domain of the Imperium. And my opinion is that such an Imperium must be a power, dynamic, merciless – to be effective.
For personality, it is bound to the category of the Dominium.
My cultural personality forbids me to chose between categories. It is unique, as much as my genetic code is unique.
Biologically, each person is the incarnation of a unique code. He is unique. In the domain of culture – music, architecture, literature, painting, etc – I claim for myself the status of an unshakable individualist.
In the political state there cannot be “minorities,” because that does not concern individuals, then only collectivism concerns the Imperium.
These links represent the limitations that I have already mentioned above.
Recent Misfortunes: Federalism, Confederalism
As soon as the twin concept of the “Imperium-Dominium” is introduced in the construction of perverse solutions like federalism or still worse, confederalism, lose all meaning and all utility.
I cannot restrain myself from citing here an American author, of whom I only know a sole citation, but very pertinent:
“Every group of persons, whatever their number and the reciprocal similarity, and whatever the degree of firmness in the affirmation of their opinion – every group finishes by breaking into smaller groups adhering to different variants of the same opinion; in these sub-groups emerges in turn sub-sub-groups, and thus it follows, until the last limit of such division: the isolated individual.”
These words are attributed to Adam Ostwald, author of the book entitled “Human Society.”
The anarchists of the 19th century and many others, including Proudhon, persisted in the enormous error that the conflicts and the tensions on the interior on LARGE groups could always disappear, by finding a solution in LITTLE groups.
That is the social harmony of the 19th century: the harmony of the little group, opposed to the horror of the intolerable domination of the large group.
Even Lenin invented a historic stupidity in the framework of the absurd concept of “the little harmonious group always marches better,” that later obligated him to speak of the disappearance of the state, and also the support it and predict it.
Europe as far as Vladivostok: The Minimum Size
The nation-state, if it wants to be independent, is obliged to have adequate military means. The possession of this means depends on demography, autarky for raw materials, and the industrial power of the state. Between Iceland and Vladivostok we can unite 800 million people (enough to balance the 1.2 billion Chinese) and also we find with Siberian oil, all that is necessary to satisfy our energy and strategic needs.
I affirm that, from the economic point of view, Siberia is the most necessary province for the viability of the European Empire.
A great union between Western Europe, highly industrialized and at the forefront of technology, and Siberian Europe, full of nearly inexhaustible energy resources, will permit the creation of a very powerful republican Empire, with which everyone will find an accord.
The Limitations Imposed by the European Empire
This state will be unitary. It will not know and it not tolerate horizontal division (regional autonomy), nor vertical division (social classes).
Its superior principle will be a uniform citizenship: in any place in the European empire, the citizen will have the right to vote, be elected, and work. He will be absolutely free to change residence and work. His professional qualifications will be recognized across the entire Empire: the doctor who received his diploma in Madrid could practice without any limitation in St. Petersburg.
All regional corporatism will be excluded.
The separation of any territorial region will be excluded by virtue of a superior principle postulated. We make a new use of the Jacobin principle: “The Republic is unitary and INDIVISIBLE” I would be imprudent to repeat the error of Lenin concerning the “right to self-determination.”
The “region” or the ex-nation state is bound forever. The unity of this state is irreversible, consolidated by constitutional law.
On the contrary, this empire could extend itself, not by “annexations,” but by the adherence of those who wish to join it.
The army will be popular and integrated. A military caste can not enjoy a monopoly or privileges under the pretext of professionalism. This army will be completely subordinated to political authority.
During the first 25-50 years of existence, this integrated army will be the object of special attention so that recruits from the different regions of the Empire serve together.
It is not necessary to suppose the existence of Croatian regiments of French divisions or German or Russian armies.
There will be a single currency. Possessing foreign currency or utilizing it as a means of payment will be punishable.
Is it not humiliating, shameful, that it is possible today to go to Russia with only American dollars?
That is in effect humiliating at the same time for the Western European tourists and for the Russians
It is a symbol of our common fall: the Europeans of the West have been colonized since 1945, the Europeans of the East balkanized and colonized since 1990. It would be wiser to pay at the Moscow hotel in European ECUs, in the place of foreign dollars.
English will be the common language. I did not say “American.” That is my inevitable, pragmatic choice.
The civil laws, the criminal laws, the laws of work, and the commercial laws will be uniform. The interpretation and the application of the law will be identical everywhere.
Dominium and its Limitations
Everyone knows the formula where the liberty of one person ends where that of the others begins.
In a preceding article, I indicated the general domains of the Imperium, those where the unitary Republic “never backs out.” As to the Dominium, it supposes an unlimited liberty of choice, permitting any personal liberties that bear no harm to the Imperium.
These liberties will be guaranteed in the framework of private life.
In the old (used, sick) systems and political regimes, private emotions, sentiments, fears inevitably attempted – far too often, alas – to enter into political life.
The Imperium must remain an elaborate domain, structure and directed by the neo-cortex alone.
To understand the comportment of a person, it is necessary to study the mechanisms of this brain.
I will repeat here my favorite pleasantry: “I don’t have a soul, I have a brain.” In fact, like all other people, I have three brains, that is:
- The original cortex, the oldest (the old part of the brain), that permits us to walk, climb, crawl, or throw a ball into a basket.
- The “intermediary” brain (meso-cortex), that contains all my logical, emotional programs necessary for survival. Sergey Chakhotin, specialist of Pavlov, has described these passions and these emotions in the past. The survival of the individual is favored by impulses of combat and nutrition; the preservation of the species by (associative) sexual and parental inclination.
- And finally the most modern of our three “maintenance programs” is the neo-cortex, this magnificent tool of the human being. A tool insufficiently used.
The oldest part of the brain is already 200 million year old. The neo-cortex was only formed a million years ago. This doctrine (or thesis) on the three types of brain “superimposed on one another”, or on a triple brain, as the French translator Roland Guyon wrote it, was advanced by the American physiologist Paul D. MacLean. It was then popularized by Arthur Koestler.
In the book by Otto Klineberg, “Social Psychology” there is a long discussion on the question of the emotional comportment of a person.
Two centuries before the birth of the scientific work of Paul D MacLean, Siéyès had anticipated this modern thesis of the superposition of three brains.
Bastide, in his dissertation of 328 pages, mentioned the manuscript of Siéyès “On the Brain and Instinct.”
Long before me, Siéyès was surprised and irritated by the pseudo-manifestations in political language.
If I must impose this digression on the reader, it is only to show that a great part of acerbic and aggressive political discourse come from our super-emotional middle brain.
A good study of political discourse is only possible by knowing the mechanisms of the functioning of the human brain.
In this case it is easy to detect the reason of introversion, of hate towards something. That becomes a simple clinical problem explained by the physiology of the brain.
During the years, I must have debated with so many “writers” treating politics as a reflection of the comportment of the “meso-cortex”, that I gave all my forces to describe a Republic of the “neo-cortex!”
One of my critics said I was a “cold and rational monster.”
I agree with him, and I prefer this condition to that of the “irrational Bacchic monster,” so appreciated by post-Nietzschean miscreants.
I obstinately recommend to the informed reader, who is interested in politics, to familiarize himself with the works of Paul D MacLean.
The absurdity of pseudo-rational discourse pretending to be persuasive (the lawyer persuades, the scientist proves) clearly appears after this declaration of Marc Jeannerod: “the indirect character of relations between the subject and the external world. The subject creates his own representation of this world, and this representation guides his action. In this perspective, action does not rest on a external SITUATION, but is the consequence of the product of the particular REPRESENTATION.”
Any primitive wandering on “ethnicity” is explained very simply by this concept of “representation” (fictional) of a rejected reality (projection of reality.) A rejection of reality, necessary for everyday dreams.
But let us return to the three type of brain of MacLean.
When we observe the orbit of satellites, the trajectory of space probes, the resistance of steel, the optical corrections introduced to fabricate a lens, we only use our neo-cortex.
During a quarrel between drivers, ending in a brawl, we use the so called reactive (of the archaeo-cortex) and emotional (of the meso-cortex) mechanisms of the brain and we behave like mammals and reptiles.
In a brawl between drivers, the aggressive impulses take over, gradually suppressing the regulatory function of the neo-cortex. Sexual inclination, often unbearable, forcing us to desire the neighbor’s granddaughter.
The same person always functions with the aid of this double “program”: the programs of impulses-passions-feelings-emotions, and the program of absolutely rational thought.
This digression was necessary as a transition to the question of the government of peoples
Religion depends on the domain of the Dominium
That is a domain of private activity, that should have no possibility of exercising an influence on public life (with the consequent risk of seeing how the “Islamists” have defied the authorities in Yugoslavia). It is ridiculous to suppose that religion should interfere with reasonable political life, in the Imperium. That is precisely because of the contempt for this principle that ignoble and stupid massacres have taken place in Lebanon, in Palestine, in Armenia, in Yugoslavia, and in Moldova.
Those who mix religion with politics are the “sorcerer’s apprentices” of today. He is criminal, who created this situation of strained relations, but, from a historical point of view, he is also criminal who turns his eyes from the fact that religious passions can be utilized in a political context.
In the laic Imperium of the united republics of Europe, religious liberty will be accorded (I would rather write “admitted”) in the framework of the Dominium, and mercilessly suppressed at the first attempt to interfere in the domain belonging to the Imperium. The shameful and hypocritical racists have invented the theses of so-called ethno-differentiation and so-called “ethno-cultural identities”. Resulting from these, veritable wars arose in Moldova, in Yugoslavia, in the Caucasus – wars lead by common criminals or, to be precise, by gangsters.
More than theft, prostitution, gambling, and narcotics trafficking, the criminals and the thugs have shown a grand interest in the question of “oppressed minorities” for at least twenty years. These religious and ethno-differential follies were duly manipulated first by charlatans, and then by gangsters – these named follies, based on desperadoes with arms in their hands, will lead us so low that we will return to the “thousand tribes of New Guinea”, to head hunting.
In summary, I would say that the Dominium means the near unlimited freedom of opinion (even the most stupid opinion), but that the Imperium of unified laic republics will never admit, even for an instant, the freedom “to do what you want.” Since 1945, history gave to us clear and bloody examples of what must NOT be done. There is no right to reproduce them tomorrow.
When Moscow appealed to “the Experts”
What happened in Russia since the last two years is completely mad.
The economy should have been liberalized step by step, from the bottom to the top, resting on each step two or three years.
In place of that, the worst adventurers of international finance were admitted to Moscow. The product of the work of three Soviet generations was put to auction.
The sharks of Wall Street began to interest themselves excessively in the economy of the ex-USSR. It should have not weakened its political core, consenting to the separation of peoples, even if Lenin, in his political illiteracy (a heritage of the birth of Marxism in 1848) conceded (very hypocritically and imprudently) the “right of self-determination.”
The political and military partition of the USSR is and will always remain an unpardonable historical error. An event fatal and irreversible.
The centrifugal force destroyed in five years what the centripetal forces had created in four or five centuries.
It would have first been better to refill the shops with sausage and bread, favoring the creation of a million small businesses (with between one and five employees).
Simultaneously, it was necessary to reinforce the political repression AGAINST all these “combatants” for separatism, independence, and autonomy.
Another example of the suicidal comportment of the new Russian rulers is that of their “voyages” to Washington in place of accepting economic aid from Western Europe.
From the historical and geopolitical point of view, the United States are the particular enemy of the USSR. The historic strategy of the United States is to divide and partition the USSR.
For four centuries, England lead the same politics against the kinds of Spain, against France, and Germany.
Today England has lost its place to the United State. But yesterday it indefatigably aimed to destroy the principal continental force, capable of uniting the European continent in a federation: the Spanish Habsburgs, Bonaparte, William II, Hitler.
Russia “alone” is a Future “Brazil of the Snows”
The partition the USSR is irreversible, the “great Russia” no longer has any change of being a great power.
At present “Russia alone” is a country without a future, like Germany since 1945, and France since 1962.
From the historical point of view, Germany was stripped of all significance in 1945. Although it is today a great industrial power, it is completely passive, absolutely without influence in the international arena.
Yes, 47 years have already passed, since Germany had any foreign policy.
In itself, that is not so bad for European unity.
The nationalist hysteria has caused much harm to Europe: two suicidal wars, in 1914 and in 1939.
If some dreamer still hopes that Russia will become again the “great Russia,” a power of the first order, he knows now that Washington already has at its disposal many weapons.
Washington cynically played the card of Baghdad against Tehran, and then the card of Riyadh, and that of its accomplices in Damascus and in Cairo, against Baghdad. Washington still has plenty of arms in reserve to finish, in the necessary case, the partition of the USSR, and then to occupy itself with the partition of Russia itself.
If necessary, Washington will play without the least doubt the card of Beijing or the Islamist world (from Pakistan to Morocco) against Moscow.
Today, France, England, Germany, are only a historical fiction of independent states, parodies.
All the so called “great” countries no longer have a foreign policy.
The war in Iraq showed that Washington only needs France and England as providers of “Senegalese sharpshooters.”