Europe-State and Europe-Nation Will Be Against the USA – Jean Thiriart

The European construction born in the Treaty of Rome (March 25th 1957) should lead to the Europe-State. It’s a valuable construction, indispensable and we should not condemn its technical character in the name of a certain sentimentalism. The Europe of the Common Market is a good thing. But it is very limited in its ambitions. It aims to put in place statist structures. That’s both too much and too little. Europe will only be achieved when it is both State and Nation, that is to say structures and consciousness.

We are historically the first, the only, to have expressed the will to realize it. Our communitarian current is the source from where, for the first time, the concept of European nationalism arose. It is essentially different, it is in fact diametrically opposed to those concepts of hegemonic Europe (the French Europe of Bonaparte or De Gaulle and the German Europe of Hitler) and to that of the Europe of fatherlands. The difference between the Europe-State and the Europe-Nation is that which exists between the inorganic and organic, between matter and life, between chemistry and biology, between the atom and the cell.

The Treason of Regimists

All the Western European governments came from Anglo-Saxon baggage trains in 1945. They are the collaborators of the occupiers, directly or by degree. Since then the European political constructions of the regimists have been mortgaged by our occupants. The proof of this mortgage, this treason of intention, figures everywhere, but in a formal and glaring fashion in an official document of the “European Parliament” (sic): “The European Union’s mission is to promote the unity of Europe.

Very well, perfect. But a bit further we read:

The adoption of a common defense policy, in the framework of the Atlantic Alliance, contributing to the reinforcement of the Atlantic Alliance.

Thus the confession is there, on full display, very explicit. The confession that this “Europe” is only an appendix of American imperialism, as the Atlantic alliance is the American shark circling the European regimist mackerel. Official Europe cannot be as it is entangled in a formal contradiction, to make a nation that from the start avows its dependence on another. Folly, tartufferie.

Europe Must Be Against the Americans

A nation in particular defines itself through its difference from others, in its style, in its intentions, in its interests. Those who claim Europe and who simultaneously find in the United States the perfect model of society, the only model there is to copy, and who hold that each American war is also ours, are in contradiction with themselves. Why claim Europe if the USA is perfect? That they expand the USA, that would be more logical. The clique of “Europeans” who say their bedtime prayers towards Washington each night would do better to propose England as the 51st American state, Germany as the 52nd, Italy as the 53rd. As that’s the reality.

There is an absolute, formal, conceptual contradiction between the fact of being European and the fact of being pro-American. He who call himself pro-American expels himself from Europe, whether he is Social-Democratic or some ninny of the extreme right.

He who collaborates with the Americans is a traitor to Europe.

Europe Without Risks: Idiocy

Sometimes well intentioned intellectual naifs hope to make a Europe by peaceful, reasoned means. It’s a dream. History makes itself in convulsions, in combat, in effort and sacrifice. A nation, in particular, creates itself against something else, against enemies. Not only are the United States historically enemies of the awakening Europe, in the objective scheme but they must be in the psychological scheme. A nation needs enemies to make itself, to maintain itself. Living in the face of enemies creates unity, creates moral health, maintains the vigor of character. For us it is not a question of asking for Europe but taking Europe. Objectively, never has any hegemonic state (like the United States at the moment regarding Europe) given independence to its vassals, but quite on the contrary, they had to take their independence. Italy did it against both the Austrians and the French. Europe will do it against the Americans. A nation forges itself in combat and seals itself in blood. The risks are great but they must be taken. Life is a permanent risk. The risk must be intended, calculated.

A Europe without risks is a demented chimera by all historical experience.

The Shield and the Schedule

The big specious argument of the shameful philo-Americans is that of the “American shield.”

What is this shield?

Bled out in 1945, convalescent in 1955, Europe is today, in the industrial and economic scheme, full of force and health. American protection – against the Stalinist assault – was indispensable in 1948, useful in 1951 (in the spirit of the age). Today it is no longer the same. In factories, in money, in men Western Europe alone no longer needs the Americans. Thus they leave. No gratitude should bind us to them. They came to Europe for their own interests and not for ours. In 1949 we could be philo-American by hypocrisy and self-interest. No longer today.

Western Europe along is powerful enough to very easily develop a military force capable of foiling any potential adversary. The key is to want it, this military force, so to desire the political unity of Europe. Those who claim we cannot do without the Americans do nothing for us.

The “American shield” it’s the alibi of cowards, it’s the alibi of the lazy, it’s the alibi of the powerless.

The American construction is as follows: they say, reluctantly, that they will leave Europe when we are strong enough to defend ourselves alone, (they say it but they do not think it) and at the same time they do everything so that we alone will never be strong enough. That is the key of this shameful lie.

The United States doesn’t want to sell us atomic weapons or entrust them in the framework of NATO. NATO is thus a scam (the shark and the mackerels – see above) because one finds there allies of the first rank (the USA) and allies of the second rank (the little European countries), the first have the right to the bomb, the second do not have the right.

The Americans are sufficiently realistic to know that the end of their military occupation in Europe would be followed, six months later, by the end of their political suzerainty. Since then the Americans cannot sincerely envision their departure.

The Americans, deservedly, do not have confidence in a free Europe-USA association on the basis of equality. They know well that strong, independent Europe will NOT be an ally of the USA.

Since then Americans will do everything to always remain militarily indispensable in Europe. The thesis of the pro-American collaborators according to which we cannot do without the Americans is hypocritical, actually they would do better to confess that they do not want to do without the Americans. The argument of the “American shield” would only be valuable on two formal conditions:
Neither of two points is respected, nor will they be. I will even go further than this prudent plan. I will even say that it is desirable that the American troops decamp even before the schedule would be established. When Europe fears them it will pull itself together. Today Europe lazily cowers under the shelter of the “American shield.” To accelerate the development of the consciousness of Europe it must deliberately seek danger. It’s the need, it’s the emergency, it’s the imminence that will reawaken Europe. It must accept and seek the risks of a hasty reawakening. In order to cement this Europe, it must partially be put in danger. This did not escape the leaders of France in 1792 …

They did not create a nation with speeches, with pious vows and banquets. They created a nation with rifles, with martyrs, with shared dangers. In fact the philo-Americans are cowards, people who do not want to fight when necessary. The accept the humiliation of American occupation in order to avoid having to fight. It’s the same state of spirit that the French bourgeoisie had under German occupation in 1942. They believed themselves very clever saying: “The Germans die on the Russian front to protect our safe deposit boxes.” They believed themselves very clever but they did not see themselves as very cowardly. Thus a tradition was not lost. The same ignoble bourgeoisie that protected itself with the “German shield” in 1942 accepts today, with complaisance, the protection of the “American shield.” From the moment their dividends are protected they are content. But if these people have the physical fear of American departure, because then, they need to do it themselves; we are not afraid. That is the gulf that separates us from the clique of philo-Yankee collaborators.

Garibaldian Solutions

Italian unity was accomplished by the aid of different factors: the idealism and magnificent prescience of Mazzini, the epic activist Garibaldi, the calculations of Cavour. It’s an unbreakable ensemble. In the purely military scheme Garibaldian action was insignificant. In the historical scheme it was capital, determinant. It was thanks to Garibaldi that blood was shed. And when blood was shed a trench was dug between the occupier and the occupied. The trench that obligates everyone to clearly take a side for or against the occupier. After the first deaths there was no longer any place for “yes but,” “maybe.”

The phenomenon was verified in Algeria between 1954 and 1962. In 1954 numerous Algerians could still defend with justice the thesis of French occupation as “lesser evil.” In 1960 no Algerian could do it any longer. The trench had been drawn by the dead. That it had been done artificially, deliberately, changes nothing.

During the German occupation the Communists did it. They killed quite innocent German soldiers, with a bullet in the back. The occupying authorities fell into the trap: they shot completely innocent French. The machine was then put into motion; the unstoppable had begun. That would only end with the total destruction of one or the other. One could wait in 1940, no longer in January 1945.

When Garibaldi had his first hundred deaths in his ranks of irregular soldiers, Italy began to feel obligated to finished the business with cannon. That’s what it did.

Europe must also turn against its occupiers. If the shakedown is well done it will be without too much bloodshed or violence. But it is likely that the shakedown of our occupiers will be terribly reinforced by “Garibaldian actions” from the start.

With a very patriotic political duplicity, like that of Garibaldi or Cavour, we will expel the occupiers. Thus, a European revolutionary must consider an eventual insurrectionist armed struggle against the American occupier as a working hypothesis. He who fears this hypothesis is not a revolutionary. He is not a European nationalist. When we demand the ends, we demand the means. When demanding Europe, we demand the means to make it.

We Must Make Europe Ourselves

The regimist Europe fails in the construction of Europe, whether in the fact of petty nationalist afterthoughts or in the fact of being tied to the American paw. The Europe of the Treaty of Rome will not be achieved by itself. We must make Europe, do it ourselves. The thing becomes evident today: Europe is a pretext of politicians to assert themselves. Each one learned what he could draw from Europe, publicity for himself or selfish economic benefits for his country. By numerical tricks, hypocritical lies, official Europe is now at an impasse. It is there because its promoters do not have the will to make it. At best, some have the vague and pious wish.

So we must make Europe ourselves. Make it with a great HISTORICAL PARTY, with a great NATIONAL-EUROPEAN PATRIOTIC PARTY. It must act directly on events, eliminate from the political scene anti-European rulers, and prick the rears of the hesitant with bayonets. More than ever I am convinced that Europe will be made by a PARTY that is obligated to make Europe, by a PARTY that gives a self-awareness to Europe, by a party prepared for ideological or passionate tasks, legal or illegal, dialectical or violent. Yesterday it took NEO-DESTOUR to make Tunisia, ISTIQLAL to make Morocco, the FLN to make Algeria just as a century ago it took the Risorgimento to make Italy.

To deliver Europe there must be a party. We will prepare it!

Advertisements

The True Face of Democracies – Jean Thiriart

MYTHS OF DEMOCRACY AND REALITIES OF WESTERN PLUTOCRACIES

“The humanitarian democrats who affirm that men are equal, and who, by the faith in their belief, distribute the right to vote to everyone, cannot claim any experimental justification for their beliefs and their actions.

They are men who have a faith, and who consequently act, without trying to discover if this faith corresponds to objective reality.” – Aldous HUXLEY (“Proper Studies: The Proper Study of Mankind is Man”)

All our pseudo-democratic systems rely from the start on many false postulates whose main one states that numbers – that is to say the majority – make the law.

In the measure where all men are equal in intellectual capacity and morals, in the measure where the CHOICE engages responsibility, the system that consists of installing the domination of 51 people over 49 others is already incredibly contestable.

 

BUT IN FACT ARE MEN EQUAL?

The elementary observation of the matter we learn is that men are different, unequal. Each man is a mixture of various talents (character, intelligence, health) and varied acquired qualities, (culture, discernment). Thus when a man gives an opinion or when he supports it he came do it by general ignorance, to satisfy material interests, or with discernment.

Gross opinions are extremely varied because men are extremely unequal. Even many left to themselves have the decency to accept that they don’t have an opinion, by deficiency. Taking positions in mass is only possible after a minimum of conditioning.

All logomachic and parliamentary democracy is based on the false postulate that one vote is as valuable as another

Thus the unlettered will have as much weight as the university educated when it comes to modifying the structures of the state; and the rentier will have as much weight as the worker when it comes to appraising the norms of decent manual labor.

EVERYONE TAKES CARE OF EVERYTHING. That’s in effect anarchy. This anarchy is nevertheless tempered by another fundamental vice, the second illness tempers the gravity of the first: it’s conditioning.

 

FREE WILL AND CONDITIONING

Very few men possess their own opinion. They believe they have one, in fact, they have the opinion of their family or professional milieu, the opinion of their usual newspaper.

ALL men have – from the start of their life – thought conditioned by education, instruction, environment. All of us went through this stage.

Immanent knowledge does not exist. Knowledge is firstly received. But then among certain men an overcoming occurs and thus is born one’s own thought by ratiocination (this word only has a pejorative meaning in vulgar language). Ratiocination is reasoning. On the condition of possessing from the start a minimum of intelligence and a minimum of culture, man can instantly, in his life, progressively liberate himself from his conditioning and elevate himself by himself alone. The human spirit has a very diverse arsenal of tools of thought; it would proceed by induction, deduction, the way of syllogism, the use of dialectic.

But alas, and we are the first to deplore it, the vast majority of men never surpass the stage of childhood and adolescent conditioning.

Soon, it freezes in this conditioning and wrongly confuses it with a “personality.” The faculty to analyze and the power to reason provides a relatively free will. This free will is more or less developed, but it will never totally eliminate the conditioning.

Logically and healthily, when we welcome an opinion, it should be the result of facts REFRACTED through the reasoning man. In fact, in the vast majority of cases the opinion welcomed is only REFLECTED by man, whose conditioning plays the role somewhat like a mirror here.

The majority of men are only BEARERS OF ECHOS. ARITHMETIC DEMOCRACY will hasten to count, to account for these “echoes,” and feign counting and accounting for “opinions.”

We realize very quickly that the democratic system of the type called “arithmetic” (universal suffrage) is fundamentally contaminated:.

a) By the false postulate of human equality

b) By the summation of echoes, falsely equating with the summation of opinions.

Even at the base of the system there already appears an experimental counter-truth and a countable imposture.

The number of echoes which the manipulator can use is a direct function of his means in the press, of his oratory means (eloquence equally packs good and bad wares).

These are, the daily paper, the TV broadcast, the film, the novel, which FABRICATE opinion, manipulate it. This work begins from infancy by the teacher who teaches history or morals to the taste of the reigning power. To which we will add properly oriented pastimes: boy-scouts and children’s publishing. And finally, the panoply of CONFORMIST HEROS.

We are not far from PAVLOV’S dog.

Even the asocial are conditioned and today adultery is stereotyped, “normalized” by film and the erotic press. Crime is equally taught by film and the press. Still the actors are WITHOUT THEIR OWN PERSONALITY; they are duly stereotyped as “lovers” or “killers”, as everyone is as “electors.” Permit us, thenceforth, to contest the value of popular consultations after having exposed the mechanisms as a trompe-l’œil.

 

AFTER NAIVETE AND IMPOSTURE, HERE’S THE SCAM

It happens that the machine of intoxication and conditioning does not yet function as well or as quickly for the tastes of its owners.

They then utilize rigged or retracted arithmetic.

It was thus in 1983 in the French municipal election where a clever drawing of districts often made the minority socialists keep the majority of seats (like Gaston DEFERRE, then minister of the interior , in Marseille…)

The pimps of parliamentarianism have on one hand invented all sorts of devices, like case de tête, panachage, and who knows what.

Despite all these dishonest precaution accidents still happen, like burst of fever, like “Poujadisme” in 1956 in France: at that time they “invalidated” the electors.

And even more: in Argentina, at the start of the 60s, the Peronists won (in conditions of difficult propaganda) elections without possible contest. The retort: elections canceled.

To the journalists interested in our of “corrupting” of the youth and who speak of teaching HATE of parliamentary democracy, we can retort that it amply suffices us to DESPISE it. It is not very difficult to get there and to bring others there.

 

TO BE RIGHT ALONE, AGAINST MANY

The attentive observation of human phenomena teaches us that quantity is rarely ever associated with quality. If we were inclined before the cult of the “majority,” we would still be in times of sorcery (the latter dates from the 17th century in Paris) and the cosmology of PTOLEMY.

COPERNICUS was right against all, and so were others before and other him. Closer to us think about SEMMELWEISS, that Hungarian obstetrician, recall PASTUER.

Happily for humanity the “majority” doesn’t rule permanently.

Progress is always made against the majority.

 

BARGAINING OR ARBITRATION

When we speak of ARBITRARY POWER, the semantic value of the word takes a pejorative burden in modern language. We forget too frequently that what a judge commonly does is to make exactly an arbitrary decision.

Politics is – in particular – the choice between flawed alternatives, one would find benefit most of the time in resolving problems by “arbitration,” by arbitrary decision.

Error or injustice could sometimes slip in, but is it different from the other method, that of the majority’s game. It is not different and much more seriously the system of precarious and unstable majorities rapidly leads to that of BARGAINING.

Who knows today that a vote of CONFIDENCE – in a chamber – is nothing other in fact than a vote of COMPLICITY:

“I turn my eyes from this if you turn your eyes from that..”

“I authorize you to pillage this, if you allow me to pillage that!”

 

THE TECHNIQUE OF THE (FALSE) PROBLEM OF DISTRACTION

As we exposed it above, voting is initially an affair of conditioning. One of the fraudulent techniques destined to avoid “accidents” that could hinder the conditioning, consists of turning public opinion from real problems to channel it towards “problems of distraction,” to turn it and engage it in channels of diversion.

Thus in Belgium, there was the same with “incivility” (cream pies between 1945 and 1950), then with “the Royal Affair,” then with the “scholastic war,” then with the “linguistic quarrel” that has been going on for more than 20 years.

All this has permitted for more than 40 years is to defer the test of total deficiency of the regime in the majority of very important social, economic, and political domains

The beautiful Belgian democracy, like other European democracies inspires a cruel analogy with a show in a rotten music-hall. We lower the curtain to avoid the whistles of the public, then in a jiffy we bring a clown BEFORE the lowered curtain to avoid the need to refund the seats.

In 40 years, Belgium has lost an empire, let the industrial zones die, made capital flee, raised a pseudo-army with effectiveness.

It has also participated in all the international turpitude to follow, either of the UN or Washington, because we have become a colony of the US.

Those are true problems.

 

THE MASSES AND POLITICS

The masses only interest themselves very little in politics. They only respond in general – and it’s a sign of health in their simplicity – to direct material preoccupations. If voting was not obligatory we would also have, as in France, 40% abstention in Belgium. The masses are not “unswervingly attached to their democratic institutions.”

If tyranny guaranteed paid leave, it would be accepted, if despotism did not touch pastis, it would be accepted.

The masses would choose without hesitating Fascism and Stalinism with butter rather than democracy with margarine.

In the occupied countries, the masses were, from 1941, anti-Hitlerian for reasons of supply and not because of the Nietzschean morals of the National-Socialists; they were pro-British in the attempt to return to the cafe and not by opting for the philosophy of John LOCKE.

The French election of 1958 that formalized the return of DE GAULLE to power transcribed well the popular weariness before the games of the neurotic in parliament.

DE GAULLE was clever to admit to the masses that with him they would not have less liberty (that of singers, that is to say, which pleases the people), nor fewer bistros, nor less pastis, nor fewer Folies-Bergères. Since then, the masses would no longer feel threatened in their REAL subjects of interest and they would prefer stability to the logomachic games of the Palais-Bourbon. Fundamentally, the people do not desire to “be involved with politics.”

They are constrained in parliamentary democracy.

 

THE DESPOTIC STATE AND THE TOTALITARIAN STATE: DIFFERENCES

Imagine a Catholic who went to mass once every four years. That would make you smile?

Well, popular participation in the matters of the state doesn’t happen any more often, in parliamentary democracy.

Once every four years everyone must judge on everything (they draw treaties for the future) during a few hours. In the ideal democratic lenses it’s very little, admit it.

There is however, a second form, it’s that of the totalitarian state. Totalitarian in the sense that it lives in ALL the citizens, and it rules through ALL its citizens.

A totalitarian state is ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT from a despotic state. The despotic state is cut off from the masses, the totalitarian state contains the masses and acts through them.

The totalitarian state doesn’t appeal to 51% of its subjects to ignore 49% of its subjects as parliamentary democracy does, the totalitarian state, like the father who ignores preference and occupies himself with all his children without discrimination, is interested in all its members.

How to get there?

 

COLLEGIALITY OPPOSED TO ASSEMBLY

In the parliamentary system, once every four years, the masses are “consulted” (after having been duly drugged) to entrust in a single vote ALL power.

During the four years that follow the Parliament, mediocre, incompetent, lazy, appropriates the blessings of power without which they would have to undertake real work.

The latter is entrusted to blind administration, anonymous through what they call reform acts.

Never has the bureaucracy of the state been so powerful.

Our parliamentarians identify themselves with the last Merovingians and the heads of the administration with the First Masters of the Palace.

The remedy to this situation consists in the participation of the entire nation in the responsibilities of the government, in all its various titles and various levels. It’s the diffusion of responsibility. This method presupposes firstly a de-conditioning, a de-brutalizing of the masses.

Following a popular education.

After that the natural elites emerge from all social categories, all intellectual categories. In each profession, there exists a natural aristocracy, a sort of ARISTOCRACY OF INDIVIDUAL APTITUDE.

A regime that lives IN PHASE with its natural aristocracies is a totalitarian state.

A despotic regime lives, on the contrary, in an opposing phase with its elites.

All real art of government of the city consists of living in sympathy (taken in the etymological sense) with all the members of the nation, by knowing the needs, and feeling the reactions.

This form of government is permanent, parliamentary democracy is cyclical, the first is infused into the nation, the second is transcribed by a vague electoral PROXY.

The first conception imperatively calls the essential conditions of its effectiveness: they are summarized by two laws at the base, namely:

Consultation is only done where there is competence (professional or intellectual)

Power implies responsibility.

Thus is designed a pyramid of consultations and responsibilities. The hierarchical pyramid is constructed of COMPETENCE and RESPONSIBILITY.

That way, there exists a continuity between the head and the body of the nation, a constant flux. Power is connected permanently in the nation.

It is, you find, a similar organization to that of the human body where the head does not command the arm to do what it’s incapable of doing, where the body cannot envision refusing the orders of the head, because they are more than united, they are complementary.

 

FOR A COMMUNITARIAN GOVERNMENT

This communitarian government replaces a monstrously hypertrophied parliament by a pyramid of colleges. IT’S COLLEGIALITY OPPOSED TO ASSEMBLY. It’s the structured group to the formless crowd.

What is – from experience – the limit of one of these decision groups, one of these “colleges?”

Psychologists, organizers, and sociologists know by observation and experimentation that the limiting number of a decision group cannot, in any case, surpass 10 people, on the penalty of seeing its effectiveness rapidly diminish. But, in parliamentary democracy, our assemblies pretend to choose and decide in groups of HUNDREDS OF MEN.

Thus, even in the technical scheme, parliamentary democracy is stale from the start. The work “in commission” cannot change much in practice. Or absolute democracy is exercised and it’s a mess or party discipline imposes discipline on the vote on well-crafted records by commissions and it’s the negation of the assembly.

As you see ARITHMETIC DEMOCRACY; otherwise called parliamentary democracy, is packed with contrasts and frauds.

It started from the false postulate of the equality of men. IT MUST CONDITION its voters to avoid total anarchy, it had some failures before rigging the ballot, sometimes retracted the whole election. The true problems THOSE THAT HIGHLIGHT ITS FAILURE and by extension put in peril its principle, are masked by problems of distraction. The popular character of its roots is cyclical, seen occasionally.

All that has nothing to do with democracy (in the etymological sense of the word), it’s in fact a colossal scam.

Arithmetic-parliamentary democracy, No…

Oligarchy of mediocrity, pseudo-democracy, DEMO-PLUTOCRACY.

 

Source: Conscience Européenne n°16/17, May 1987.

Political Praetorians or the Human Price of Militant Power – Jean Thiriart

Pluto-democratic society focused on the virtues of leisure (ease) and not those of combat (effort, risk, engagement) flaunts a series of qualities that it doesn’t possess in reality. The majority of resistants are false, the old combatants equally, and on the other side it is the same with the “heroes of the Eastern Front.” All this is like plywood, it’s a half millimeter of oak on thirty millimeters of cheap sapling.

The corrupting power of a society of leisure is extreme, it even effects the militant life of revolutionary parties that, by definition, say they are beyond the bastardized collective.

Many revolutionaries are like plywood. There thus exist false militants as there exist false resistants. In civil life, there is a whole ritual of false virility: the “rally” comic books on cars, noisy exhaust pipes, leather jackets, mustaches in the style of the “Affreux” of Katanga. Remove these ornaments and there only remains mediocre employees, colorless men, heroes of the bistro.

In political life, at least in the parties deemed “hard” it is the same. The plywood militants of the extreme left ostensibly bearing Maoist tendencies, trim their beards like Castro, are intentionally crass.

The pseudo-militants of the extreme right also have a ritual, nights at the bar, German records, Iron Crosses bought at the flea market, Bigeard caps. That’s for the simpletons. For the intellectuals, virility consists of showing off poems written to Fresnes by Brasillach. I should note in passing that my human sympathy goes to Brasillach and not his executioners. But the kids who, forty years later, play hard by reading the books of shot authors are, in the revolutionary scheme, impostors.
Thus the plywood technique effects even the para-professional revolutionary milieus.

The Political Cult and the Juvenile Cult

Further on, I will make a description of the political cult and the sources of its power. Here I will deal with the juvenile cult.


The adolescent must pass a psychological mark in the course of which he is obliged to affirm himself to enter into the world of adults. In primitive societies (Africa and Amazonia for example) this passage is the object of a precise, formal, immutable, indisputable ritual. After having undergone the tests (generally tests of courage and/or light mutilations), the adolescent becomes a man. Once this is done, his character as an adult is no longer contested. Primitive societies are better organized than ours, on this defined scheme. Much later, in Greek antiquity for example, the rites of adolescence were equally well defined, well ritualized in the most official way.


Today, all of that is left to personal initiative. Pluto-democratic society doesn’t preoccupy itself with these important problems. So the adolescents themselves create the rites: student hazing, verbal pornography, youth alcoholism and – this is where out interest awakens – membership in a “tough” cult.

Post-war Neo-Nazi phenomena are astonishingly frequent among the youth. There is no question of a philosophical option here, but of captivation by a magic ritual. Every terrifying wonder is attached to the souvenirs of the SS and the NSDAP. Thus certain youth who undergo the obligatory crisis of affirmation towards their status of adulthood, frequently create juvenile cults.

The machine of American-Zionist propaganda presents these juvenile cults as political cults. This exploitation is very profitable for the Zionists, for the fanatical Jewish milieus of the extreme left. It’s the perpetuation of the “fascist danger” myth justifying their own actions. It’s the pretext to demand hundreds of millions more Marks from the German Federal Republic. All the little circles of so-called “nationalist” students equally reveal themselves as these juvenile cults. That’s why the population of these groups is extremely mutable. The youth remains there at a maximum of one or two year generally, the times of his crisis. Once he has passed the mark, he believes himself an adult, he leaves the juvenile cult and integrates very well into adult and bourgeois society.

Sometimes we encounter at the head of these cults some rare aged men who do not manipulate them to use them for a political goal. But to heal their own psychological problems. Sexual impotence due to age or vice among certain forty or fifty year olds is overcompensated by racist press campaigns of a sexual character (the obsession with the black man having relations with a white woman). Again what is taken for political action, is a case revealed by the sexologist or psychoanalyst.

It is thus necessary to guard against confusing the juvenile cult with a political cult. The first characterizes itself by its internal indiscipline – the adolescent must affirm himself and he naively holds that indiscipline is a mark of maturity – and by the absence of a new and original political ideology.


The juvenile cult is rowdy, without functional hierarchy and searching for magic elements in a reputedly prestigious past. It is made and unmade constantly, its members are ephemeral passengers.

The Source of Power of Political Cults

The society within which we live, is politically very relaxed, very feeble because of its economic preoccupations.

It’s a society without political tension. Energy is devoted in the course of things to means that procure pleasures. Energy is channeled towards making money. It’s a society of enjoyment. As the youth prefer the sports car to military service and the adults the prestige of “having more” to that of “being more.” It’s the Pluto-democratic society. History has made known to us other past forms of military or theocratic society among others. This Pluto-democratic society is extremely vulnerable to the action of determined and organized political minorities.

It does not believe in pure power; it believes everything can be solved by money and everything corrected by technocratic perfection. It tricks itself, and if in times of peace, such societies are stabilized by a sort of general bogging down in pleasures, it will not be the same on the occasion of a war or grave crisis.

Bourgeois Pluto-democratic society is thus available, passive to external political action erupting with an organized group of determined reformers. Do not confuse reformers with reformists.


It’s the relation between the butcher’s knife and the whale. With a small, sharp knife, and well handled by the slaughterer, a man can dispatch a whale of five tons.

The source of the power “of the knife,” that is to say of the political cult resides in the accumulation and intensity of virtues that are precisely lacking in feeble bourgeois society.
One of these virtues is loyalty. It’s the first condition of the power of the cult. Political cults draw their force from the practice of absolute internal honesty. The lie, the personal calculation, the mental restriction that so weakens ordinary society or the vulgar parliamentary parties are not taken into the cult. The cult takes its force from a real virtue, a practical virtue. There are two morals: one for the internal life, another regarding the exterior world. Thus the virtues of purity, righteousness, loyalty, which make the bourgeois smile when they call them “boy-scout morals” are exactly the source of the power of the political cult.


Where society is divided, the cult is united; where society refuses force, the cult glorifies it; where society advocates pleasure, the cult glorifies sacrifice.

Pluto-democratic society has no use for ambitious cadets, impatient cadets, energies too lively, devotions too grand.


There exists in every generation a tiny but regular proportion of men who have the need for heroic conduct in life. They provided the soldiers who made the Indian Empire, they provided Father Damien, they provided Schweitzer. It’s the race of men who cannot be satisfied with the cowardly, hypocritical, feeble style of bourgeois society. These men become mystics, revolutionaries. Communism thanks to its mythology of justice and liberation gathered a large contingent. Communism could do as it has since 1945 proposing rules of life and heroic goals (heroic with or without quotes). In contrast to bourgeois liberal society, Communism is the face of a dame of great virtue. Today, the Western Communist Parties are integrated into the system.


Our eruption on the European political scene is done to disturb. As we possess a powerful myth about us (in its political semantic I mean by myth a noble, distant, difficult goal): powerful, unitary, and communitarian Europe.


This generation of men available for heroism is, as I wrote above, abandoned by the regime, un-utilized. The regime mistrusts them. The source of power of political cults resides in joining together in a cadre (encadrement) these available men possessing combative qualities, qualities of sacrifice.


To avoid being contaminated by the weakness of bourgeois society, the cult must isolate itself totally from it. The cult must possess its own morals, very strict for the internal image, and other very opportunistic ones to undermine larger society. In a colorful style, I will say like the egg laid by certain insects in the body of an animal of a different species, an egg which will give birth to a larva that will inexorably eat away the host animal, the determined political cult must also be an organism completely inserted into another organism. The cult will be intransigent and avoid compromises with society, otherwise it would dissolve there and paradoxically would reinforce, revive, the organism it wanted to kill.


Finally, the cult will be extremely collusive, I mean that its internal solidarity will totally dominate above all other preoccupations. It’s solidarity pressed to the point of collusion. Ultimately, the density of heroic temperaments multiplied by a total collusion creates the cult capable of taking over a relaxed, flabby, apathetic society. It’s the revolutionary party.

On one hand, there is an immense society in full digestion of pleasures, ready for any concessions allowing it to prolong this digestion, and on the other the determined, exacting cult.


On one hand, men who do not want to renounce above all the least of their pleasures , and who are a fortiori not disposed to die to defend them if necessary, on the other hand men who decided to find their power in the renunciation of all types of common pleasures, and who if necessary, will throw the weight of their life on the balance of confrontation.
It inevitably happens that insufficiently integrated men try to dominate the cult, not content to coalesce there. Soon rejected, they leave in what is called dissidence in politics and in the Church by the name of heresy. More or less rapidly these branches cut from the trunk wither and disappear.


The explanation of the phenomenon is simple. The cult possess a sort of aura that gives it particular powers on the psychological level. This aura is unbreakable. Those who leave the cult sometimes take with themselves one or another faction of the effective manpower, but they never bear a shred of this aura. Thus the dissident, the excluded, the ostracized, the banished never have the para-magical element that gives force to the cult. As with Trotsky or Doriot, despite their brilliance, they remained excluded and they were buried far from Holy ground.

The Human Price of Militant Power

Certain men may have a power, not supernatural as such talk makes us rightly smile, but a supra-natural power, I mean here a step above the average.


Man can expend, orient his energy towards this or that physical or intellectual activity. It’s a well known phenomenon of elementary fakirism: we can dominate physical pain by following appropriate training. On the intellectual level, we can equally obtain supra-natural results. The polarization of vital energy, of the will, can give power, resistance. In everyday life, on a more trivial level, the athlete can obtain results inaccessible to the common bourgeois. But at the price of a special discipline: forbidden foods, forbidden distractions, daily training. In each exact case where there is an increase in capacity, there was a price to pay.

The extra power in one domain was paid for by renunciations in others.


In no case the extra physical, intellectual, psychic power comes from adding to ordinary, banal, trivial life.

In every case, the extra power was acquired at the price of amputations from banal life, from the common life. It is the same in the sector of revolutionary militancy. It is thus demanded of a militant that he is materially impossible to reconcile the “amusing life” with the militant life. The militant life is inconceivable with the normal life. The first develops at the cost of the second.


There thus exists a certain political asceticism. It’s what leads many to believe, wrongly, that the political leaders of these cults are puritans. Firstly, there is a world of difference between asceticism and puritanism. Next, this asceticism is not a goal in itself but a means of acquiring the concentration of will indispensable for the possession of these supra-natural powers of which I spoke above. The political militant life, does not permit the style of a permanent drawing room where it is possible to enter and exit at any moment. A revolution is lived and organized by a determined minority of implacable ascetics or “cold monsters” requiring chronologically, the duration of an entire life.
The grand public always ignores the very long phase of incubation as this phase is invisible to it. Only political police see the growth of political cults in the period of incubation. For example, the political-historical vocation of Lenin was inscribed in the hanging of his brother in 1887, thirty years before the October Revolution.


It will happen in the militant life, that a man is excluded, expelled from a cult. In a moment, he even loses his friends of yesterday. Not only does the revolutionary party expel him with contempt but moreover his comrades in combat reject him instantaneously. It’s one of the tests that allow us to measure the intensity of the cult. If it is weak, the expelled member will conserve private bonds of friendship within it. If it is strong, the exclusion will be double: once from the cult and another time for each friend in particular. Rejected by the cult, he is simultaneously and instantaneously rejected by the militants in it. In militancy, there is no place for friendship that would be in contradiction with the decisions and attitudes of the cult. This contradiction is only possible in bourgeois milieus where it is possible “to conserve a personal friendship” with the expelled member, with the ostracized. Among revolutionaries, the party is one hundred times more important than friendship.


One of the last tests that awaits the militant in his novitiate, it’s revolutionary humility that leads him, unlike the bourgeois world, to abstain from always “giving his opinions” (an act frequently sterile in itself, besides) and to oblige himself to execute orders that cut close to his self-love formed by his old education.


But this humility is largely paid for by the pride of belonging to an elite, elect group.


Finally, to close, the militant in his novitiate discovers that the cult is an egalitarian society: on entering, he must accept that the cult mocks all the ranks and honors acquired elsewhere, in bourgeois life. The cult only recognizes its own honorific references, its own hierarchical references.


Thus, the human cost of the militant power is high, very costly, it’s not within the reach of all, we will even say that is within the reach of very few men.


The militant is a sort of political monk, as in the past the first Templars were monk-soldiers. He who can and who wants to pay the human price demanded will thus know exalted sensations, those of participating in the conquest of power.


The conquest of others inevitably passes through and firstly by the conquest of oneself. He who would dominate himself will dominate others. It’s the first exercise that is, from far away, the most difficult, the most bitter: it is the key to power.

The Approach of Communitarianism – Jean Thiriart

I have already written in abundance on European Communitarianism.

The analysis is constantly improvable and new and important subjects appear in the course of research. Thus, I have placed a bit too much importance on a capital phenomenon, that of the “class collaboration” between the old and tired European plutocracy and the very young American plutocracy, more dynamic and having this territorial factor – THE GREAT STATE – which is determinant.

Our European capitalists are less dynamic, less young than their American cousins and that is their primary handicap. On the other hand, the Americans have a demo-economic factor, a collective, of 250 million individuals without customs barriers; that constitutes our second handicap. Since 1945, the European plutocracy has accepted, easily, American tutelage, no longer feeling up to defending its goods. If chancellor HITLER had won the war, it would have just as well accepted German tutelage. This aspect is very important. A European politics will never happen with the political personnel entirely subservient to the interests of the United States. That is a gigantic imposture of this Atlanticist Europe, it’s the square wheel. It rests on the consequences of the class collaboration between European plutocracy and American plutocracy, the first accepting the tutelage of the second.

Our Conception of the World

The French reader will excuse my use of the Germanic term “Weltanschauung” which means the conception of the world, the description of the ends in themselves, the image of the world projected by our spirit. The choice of a “Weltanschauung” is thus subjective and arbitrary. The pretension of a scientific “Weltanschauung” is risible. Until the present We could not determine -or put into accord – an ultimate end in itself for humanity, by rational proceedings, also called logical-experimental. The rational exists in the means, but not in the ends or the end. I can only touch upon here – and barely – this gigantic problem. We hold that the European man has his plenitude (I did not say perfection) of his development towards “being-more.” On the other hand, we have observed in antiquity, men who sought to attain “having more,” such as the Persians and the Carthaginians. We destroyed them.

Today there exists a school of “having more”, which is the economism that divides itself, provisionally in two branches. The poor, that is to say the Marxists and the rich, that is to say the American.

For this school of “having more,” economics dominates everything. In Vietnam, these big primary-school children that are the Americans cannot even comprehend the Vietnamese villager to whom they have offered a carton of milk at noon and who now plants a dagger in their back at midnight.

As for the Marxists, we have discovered with fright that communist society engenders a juvenile delinquency, an infinite nihilism ampler than that manifested by the decadent bourgeoisie. I had to open this parenthetical to outline the reasons for which we say that politics should dominate the economy. That is only because politics is, in our eyes, our Weltanschauung put in action, an aesthetic of the world put in action. Economics, society are means, never ends in themselves. Otherwise to that miserable humanity, we will go!

The school of the right, which has in general, by heredity, no material cares, neither close to social and economic factors; they read PEGUY and play DEBUSSY. When the masses cry, it calls to give them their brioche to shut them up. Here we assist the negation of material realities. On the opposite hand, we find the proponents of the happiness of mankind, satiated. This satiation can be attempted by collectivist ways (at least they are trying to support it) or by mercantile ways. The Marxist and American chapels are in the same church.

Abundance makes peace, happiness. That evidently makes man smile, clear from the depths of his human soul. The curates with the aid of the confessional and the psychologists with the aid of the couch that can measure material society do not suffice to create equilibrium.

Consumerist societies succeeded, taking the Swedish path, procuring an impressive number of sexual deviants, suicides. Art and intellectual creation have disappeared there. The Swedes are one of the most sterile types, in this intellectual scheme, that there are. That is the culmination of “having more.” All their washbasins have branched from the hot water of the commune; but their spirit is detached from all creative currents. In conclusion, for us politics dominates the economic. Thus we are going to study the best means of the economy and society. We benefit from a remarkable chance. We can compare 70 years of Marxism applied in the USSR and 70 years of modern capitalism in the USA. From this comparison, we can extract a pragmatic method disengaged from the fogs of an infantile idealism of a PROUDHON, of the messianism of a MARX, from the naivete of perfectionism.

We thus search for the economics of maximum effectiveness. We do not want in the name of absolute intellect to despise materialism in the fashion of orientals today. We consider economics as a means, that cannot be prevented from conceiving the maximum of development. The problem will be quite simply to look after this future … always dominated by the spirit of “being more”, and assimilate a plethora of means. That will lead to the Promethean Man that crowns our “Weltanschauung,” whereas materialist societies only lead to satiated but neurotic consumers.

Thus analyzing effectiveness in economy: that will be Communitarianism.

Capitalism and Free Enterprise

The blind of the left regularly and voluntarily confound capitalism and free enterprise. Observation compared the Soviet system (statist) and the American (free enterprise), sufficiently establishing that free enterprise is ten times more fecund.

Quality, and quantity, of offered products demonstrates that man produces more and better in a framework of liberty, of autonomy. To say that liberty is a right is risible. On the contrary, observation reveals that liberty is a need. The private man, with a minimum quantity of liberty, no longer creates, produces less, produces poorly. The feeling of constraint produces a depressive psychological state. Liberty is thus a need. It is necessary to realize that. Moreover, for the commune of mortals, the most effective motivation remains self-interest. We can deplore it under the ethical scheme, but it is a reality . By wanting to ignore it, in the name of normative arguments, the double reality of the need for liberty and the motivation of personal interest, the great stores of Moscow only offer fairy-tales and elevated prices.

As for the abuse of capitalism, it consists in the interference of private economic powers in political life. Capitalism tends to monopoly, that is to say the suppression of an essential condition of its vitality: competition. Capitalism equally tends to the creation of interests opposed to those of the nation. We hold that capitalism destroys in the measure where it becomes monopolistic by hypertrophy, in the measure where it interferes in politics by the concentration of means.

Marx had a very pertinent view that bourgeois parliamentary democracy was only the facade behind which capitalist power commanded everything and everyone: that is the “pluto-democracy” described by PARETO already century ago. (1) But MARX was tricked, in the infantile fashion of investing a certain proletariat with a mystical command of society. The negative analysis of MARX is correct. His positive plan is infantile, normative, virtue-bound. MARX did not see the future possibility of a pure political class, of power as priesthood. The concept of the political class that I will describe elsewhere, is only conceivable after satiety is realized – in probably half a century. Thus it is the commandment given to the ALPHA of HUXLEY (2). But here I leave the subject.

Communitarianism tends to the economy of power, in opposition to the capitalist concept of the economy of profit and to the Marxist concept of the economy of utopia. In the framework of the economy of power, we hold that free enterprise is a very positive factor, in one hand, and on the other. that the oligarchies of money should be castrated politically

Democracy and Responsibility

One of the idea-forces of our communitarian political thought is responsibility. The democratic principle would only be supportable if it were accompanied by the corollary of responsibility. The principle of majority vote is actually to flee before responsibilities. It is by hiding behind majorities that we play the fool.

The weakness of Soviet agriculture and the mismanagement of social security here in the West are illustrations of fleeing before responsibilities.

On the economic plan, we are AGAINST state collectivism as a general rule (there exists exceptions in strategic industries) and FOR a certain collectivism in cooperative forms. If a voluntary economic collective – and thus free – manages its affairs poorly , it will punish itself, if it is well managed it will reward itself, thus we must empower collective enterprises. Today all the pillages, all the wastes are covered by the anonymity of the “majority is not responsible” and paid for by the state. Communitarianism will tend to encourage communal authorities, cooperative societies, but it will simultaneously consider them as entities responsible for themselves (self-managed). Thus that is one aspect of Communitarianism.

Specific Organization and Dimensional Regulation of the Economy

We touch here on the heart of our thought.

What is “specific organisation?” It is the character of the enterprise. Its specificity, it is the fact that it makes military rockets or toys.

What is “dimensional regulation?” It is the volume of the enterprise. The fact that it employs 50 workers or 50,000 workers. We can thus envision four limited cases. The strategic enterprise of 50 workers, the strategic enterprise of 50,000 workers, the fabrication of toys with 50 workers, the fabrication of toys with 50,000 workers. The political vision of things will tell us that the specific character of strategic enterprise will oblige the state to close surveillance (that is specific organization).

The political visions of things will tell us that a man who is sole proprietor of a toy factory of 50,000 doesn’t interest the state for the specificity of his factory (toys do not concern national defense) but the volume of his factory (here the communitarian concept of dimensional regulation will intervene) will upset the state or the unitary European party in power. Actually, a man who controls such an enterprise may experience the desire to interfere in politics by the power of his financial means. The concentration of economic power will tempt him politically sooner or later. Here liberalism allows him to act and the Communitarian State does not allow him to act. For example in Belgium, the liberal party is controlled by the sugar trust (notably) and the “Christian” party by a chocolate trust and the wire manufacturing one.

The error committed by dogmatic Marxism wast the desire to nationalize the little industries of 50 workers, that sterilized them. The imprudence of liberalism consists of the political liberty that allows the magnates of steel and petroleum to act. The European Communitarian State supports many medium and little free enterprises and an indispensable quantity – for technological reasons- of giant enterprises properly controlled.

Before closing this chapter, finally note that the specific character of certain enterprises demands nationalization or liberty. For example, a central hydro-electric plant requires colossal capital and then ridiculously small workforce numbers (50 technicians or employees.) This type of enterprise is typically destined to nationalization. On the contrary, the production and distribution of agricultural and poultry products requires the free economy. Dogmatic Marxism wants to nationalize EVERYTHING as demanded by the reason of the managers of Kiev and Moscow, liberalism wants to allow everything to be. Communitarianism wants to preserve all absolute political control while allowing the maximum possible economic liberty to exist.

The Importance of Economic Nationalism

Free exchange is a factor of economic progress; in effect it creates and requires competition.

Thus it is competition that develops in a great framework, such as that of the United State, a unit more powerful than the little framework, such as those of France or Italy. That is the evidence by which we have created the Common Market. But here as elsewhere, as with any thesis, it is necessary to denounce the corollaries of the principal law. To face the American economy of a unitary type with a “supplemented” ensemble (but not an integrated one), the European economy is headed to the phagocytosis of our economic unit by the American economic unit.

The Atlanticist Europe, this imposture that is presented to us by American occupation and by its accomplices, the new “collaborators”, wants to invert this order [the political preceding the economic]  and pretend to an “Atlantic market” before the formation of a European political unit. This “Atlantic” market renders European politics impossible. If we do not react the European economy will truly be integrated into the American financial unit, rendering a European politics impossible.

The symbiosis of the American and European economies, is firstly the destruction, even before its birth, of European politics and then the easy domination of Americans in the “Atlantic collective.” Here appears the necessity of an “economic nationalism.” Europe must voluntarily and as soon as possible CUT LINKS with the American economy. It is a political option here. Europe must tend to its autarky in the military scheme and in all urgency.

The imbeciles who pester against the fabrication of the French nuclear bomb, that we hold to be the European nuclear bomb tomorrow, prefer without a doubt to pay tribute to the American bomb of which they do not have political control!

There is not an independent nation without an autonomous military force. And a nation that depends on the arms of the foreigner is a satellite. Even when it could buy them it would still be in a state of dependence. Economic nationalism notably consists of ensuring that Europe is totally autonomous in matters of armament and totally autonomous in the domain of supplying of raw materials.

If tomorrow the USA was engaged in a planetary war, it is not necessary that neutral Europe should suffer the blowback and come to lose certain materials.

Economic nationalism thus signifies economic independence and military autarky.

More, and finally, our economy should be planned from now on, in view of the reunification of our fatherland as far as Vladivostok.

All our thought must tend to make Western European economic power a means among others to recover our provinces provisionally lost to the East. The future is not in a mercantile empire from Frankfurt to San Francisco; our future is in our empire from Dublin to Vladivostok.

Our economic projects from now on must be inspired by this will of destiny.

Europe As Far As Vladivostok – Jean Thiriart – 1992

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.”