Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Global Revolutionary Alliance welcomes the quests and participants
of the International Conference
Russia and Europe: Dialogue of Resistance.
I'll begin with some words about the event that shook up whole Europe.
On May 21 famous French writer Dominique Venner
shot himself inside the Notre-Dame cathedral.
As it was pointed out by Marine Le Pen, his act was a political gesture, an attempt to awaken the people of France.
Once, Yukio Mishima committed seppuku in protest against the loss of Japan's samurai spirit.
On May 21 (it is considered that exactly this day had been the day of celebration of the birth of Apollo in ancient Athens)
Dominique Venner expressed his protest against the decline of Europe,
against the loss of traditional values, against the loss of European identity.
Now I will read a postmortem message of Dominic Wenner,
which he left to his colleagues from the French radio Courtoisie:
I am healthy in body and mind, and I am filled with love for my wife and children.
I love life and expect nothing beyond, if not the perpetuation of my race and my mind.
However, in the evening of my life, facing immense dangers to my French and European homeland,
I feel the duty to act as long as I still have strength.
I believe it necessary to sacrifice myself to break the lethargy that plagues us.
I give up what life remains to me in order to protest and to found.
I chose a highly symbolic place, the Cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris, which I respect and admire:
she was built by the genius of my ancestors on the site of cults still more ancient, recalling our immemorial origins.
While many men are slaves of their lives, my gesture embodies an ethic of will.
I give myself over to death to awaken slumbering consciences.
I rebel against fate.
I protest against poisons of the soul and the desires of invasive individuals to destroy the anchors of our identity,
including the family, the intimate basis of our multi-millennial civilization.
While I defend the identity of all peoples in their homes,
I also rebel against the crime of the replacement of our people.
The dominant discourse cannot leave behind its toxic ambiguities, and Europeans must bear the consequences.
Lacking an identitarian religion to moor us, we share a common memory going back to Homer,
a repository of all the values on which our future rebirth
will be founded once we break with the metaphysics of the unlimited, the baleful source of all modern excesses.
I apologize in advance to anyone who will suffer due to my death,
first and foremost to my wife, my children, and my grandchildren, as well as my friends and followers.
But once the pain and shock fade, I do not doubt that they will understand
the meaning of my gesture and transcend their sorrow with pride.
I hope that they shall endure together.
They will find in my recent writings intimations and explanations of my actions. (a postmortem message of Dominic Wenner)
And now let's commemorate Dominique Wenner with a moment of silence.
The geopolitical phase which we are witnessing, as has been widely exposed by the theorists,
is that at the turn of the unipolar American hegemony,
dominated by the north-Atlantic egemony in international relations and law,
and multipolarity, characterized by the definition of autonomous,
independent and politically sovereign wide spaces of geopolitical integration,
whose existence is guaranteed by more stable power relations
and by the strategic deployment of the powers limited to their areas of influence.
A term that could define this phase of coagulation
of a new international model could be "imperfect multipolarity", a clear "already and not yet".
It is a fact That U.S. hegemony, which was proclaimed after the end of the Cold War
and the controlled demolition of the Soviet bloc, has entered irreversibly in crisis:
the U.S. power, expanding itself in more war scenarios on the globe from the period of "war on terrorism ",
has lost its incisiveness and its direct influence.
This phase is therefore characterized by two particular phenomena,
closely related, among which Europe remains entangled:
on one hand, the progressive element to which make reference
is the affirmation of the already mentioned spaces of integration,
which are leading the world towards the multipolar turning point.
At the head of this turning point, there are the so-called BRICS countries,
with their new economic and cultural models;
on the other hand, there is the rethinking of the Atlantic Strategy that,
in order to contain the resizing process of geopolitical structures,
in order to contain the resizing process of geopolitical structures,
to be able to contain the others in their goals (directly or indirectly) aimed to the global liberation.
In that sense, the role of cultural soft power, diplomacy,
and certain types of partnership has taken over on a type of prominently perpetrated hegemony.
take advantage of alliances with regional powers like Turkey, for example,
with the aim of destabilizing the Shiite axis in the Middle East,
or using the same nation as a platform for the deployment of nuclear weapons aimed on the Heartland.
The same diplomatic relations carried on by the United States with India
(itself a part of the multipolar turning point and part of the BRICS coalition)
are used basically to redefine its purpose as a geopolitical anti-chinese containment entity.
In this sense, among other things, is to be mentioned the lucid analysis
of the Professor of Geopolitics at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, Andre Martin,
who openly supports the need for the incorporation of India in the Meridionalist political paradigm,
so as to bring it closer to Brazil's international alignment and distance it from the North-Atlantic flattery.
As we said, it is in this dialectical opposition wide open on the large rift of the possible that fits the European issue.
Europe - without doubt is one of the central poles for the completion of the uni-multipolar transition -
although equipped with inadequate but potentially functional structures,
although saturated by indefinite but certainly political propositive suggestions,
although the cradle of a forgotten but profound and millenary civilization
finds it hard to begin the long path to the self-definition as a wide space,
geopolitical pole and autonomous civilization (which, in our opinion, are the same thing).
The geopolitical thinking, in fact, was born just as speculation of Europe on itself,
in the era of theoretical manifestation of the great opposition - never dormant -
of the telluric kratos against the thalassic one.
It is within the dialectic (continental) Europe and anti-Europe
that was delineated the so-called classical school of geopolitics.
The speculative beginning of the anglosaxon Mackinder,
with the terminological and conceptual delineation of the Heartland
(literally the center of the Earth, the strategic apex of the Island World, as well as the necessary pivot to the global control),
served to make clear the diametrical opposition of interest between Europe and the Anglosphere.
In opposition to the deployment of the Mackinder's geo-strategic theory operated by the British Empire,
was the german geopolitical Karl Haushofer to declare the nature of independent wide space of Europe.
The geopolitical importance of Europe brought the same Goebbels to write -
to paraphrase the famous Haushofer's lemma -
that "whoever owns Europe gets thereby the empire of the world".
Even in the context of the history of civilization the special,
unique and unified kultur of Europe was further confirmed by Oswald Spengler,
for example, differentiating it from those Islamic and Slavic,
called it as a unique product of Classicism, Christianity and barbaric and tribal cultures.
Its traditional socio-cultural paradigm and its unconscious mythic archetypes have their roots in the Christian Middle Ages,
as has already stressed by the most eminent thinkers of of the XX century pan-Europeanism.
Its political unity has been forged with the Holy Roman Empire.
Europe, in short, has every feature to propose itself as an independent geopolitical entity,
and even more as an actor of the transition (not only geopolitical, but also cultural and ethical) to the multipolar model.
Yet, it is still withheld from the shackles of an antiquated geopolitical conception.
Since its birth, after the second world war, between the political and federal line and the purely economic one, the second has prevailed.
The European Union has entered the international scene so not as an actor of that, but as an integral part of the Western bloc.
Far from perpetrating their real interests, the function that Europe already covered
since the bipolar confrontation was only as levee to the strategic advance of socialism.
The inclusion of most of the member countries in the NATO
and the promotion of the civil economic prosperity were in connection with this same strategy.
They made Europe a geopolitical eunuch, who not so much earned the individual national resistance.
It is in this context, among other things, that has developed the geopolitical thinking of Jean Thiriart,
aimed to the paneuropean liberation from the oppressive influence of the "liberators" and the unhinging of the Western bloc.
To return then to the orientation which has inspired the creation of the European Union,
it is unequivocally of Atlantic-Anglo-Saxon nature.
In this sense, we need to reiterate the description that Haushofer gave to England, calling it "the enemy of Europe".
As demonstrated by Spykman, who conducted their studies and formulated their theories in the wake of Mackinder,
the step between Britain and the United States is short,
and it is filled exactly by the period of stagnation and overcoming of the geopolitical power of the England,
immediately after the Second World War.
The same paradigmatic structure that lies behind the Anglo-American conception of civilization
moreover has been widely described by Carl Schmitt, who has conceptually reduced it to the Nomos of the Sea,
which has established itself with a spatial revolution took place in open contrast with the first paradigm,
in those days defended by the Catholic Europe of the Spanish Empire, the Nomos of the Earth.
As Schmitt has reiterated that the telluric-thalassic contrast is - in effect -
a struggle between existential models, it is undeniable that behind it lurks a larger symbolic and metaphysical meaning,
linked to the antithetical terms of stability and mutability, solidity and liquidity, truth and falsehood.
Obviously, this perspective can be easily transposed to the sociological level,
without undermining their deeper meanings, indeed emphasizing the multiplicity of levels.
As we said, the perspective that still dominates in Europe, is a short-sighted
one of (strategic-military, economic, cultural, political and of decision-making)
enslavement to the North-West of the planet.
Even if we want avoid value judgments about a forced choice made in favor of the Western bloc during the Cold War,
it is inconceivable that Europe today is unable to carve out their own space,
pretending to live in trawl of an international system which is collapsing.
Itself suffers an economic crisis imposed to it by the U.S. finance, probably with the intent of increasing the instability,
to prevent the achievement of a cohesion that today, in a post-bipolar period, is no longer useful for them.
All of this of course is transposed in the loss of a cultural focus needed to create a common paradigm,
and in its replacement with the post-modern cultural simulacra.
At first glance, structures and superstructures in Europe are included in the chaos of the postmodern liquidity,
whereas many other geo-political entities, however, managed to assert its cultural independence,
although still engaged in a situation of partial acceptance of the globalist model,
at least in use (very often purely aimed at strategic purposes) in international markets.
In our view, therefore, the action aimed to the european redefinition in the light of the multipolar future must be unique,
although coordinated on multiple levels, as the globalist attack on our civilization is also active on various levels.
It must at the same time conceptually divide and operationally gather
the operations of geopolitical liberation, wide-spacial integration integration and defense of civilization.
First of all, it would be useless trusting in the possibility of remaining in military alliances de-legitimized by history:
Europe, in the process of self-affirmation of its independence, should unhinge its statal belongings to the the North Atlantic Treaty,
which has already sold out the historical reasons for which officially European Member States joined it.
Although it has always been the strong arm of imperialism, its current function as a tool of U.S. strategic interests is undeniable.
Secondly, the rejection of the hegemony of the dollar and the fulfillment of its economic interests
(possibly through a partnership with the BRICS countries)
are fundamental in a geopolitical perspective of self-determination.
Clearly this process must aim to the political integration of Europe and to its recognition as a wide space.
No kind of anti-globalist claim can assume meaning and completeness outside of the multipolar geopolitical project:
this is the distinction between an ideological and romantic option and a political careful choice.
The essential element, however, which must nurture the cultural adherence to a purely multipolar perspective
is the defense of the particularities, of the differences,
of the identities within of the geopolitical structures that ensure the stability of the new global organization.
After all, this fully reflects the traditional view of the Empire,
as a guarantor of ethnic, religious and social identities that resided in it.
It is in this sense that a proposal for a European wide-spacial integration must follow
the two-way necessary of the creation of a supranational administrative structure
(at least as for the defense, the economy and the management of resources and strategic facilities)
and of federalism, emphasizing the big political picture of the Europe of Peoples.
Finally, it is necessary to reiterate the need for the establishment
of a purely European paradigm through which face the new geopolitical challenges.
To take two examples, Russia and China, respectively members of the BRICS
and cores of the integration of their respective wide spaces,
are rediscovering their historical paradigms that justifies the rebuilding of their regional empires.
If Russia is rediscovering his Eurasian vocation, even on the geopolitical level,
through the maneuvers of integration of the EurAsEc, China does not forget its imperial past,
proving to the world the importance of its cultural substratum Confucian in the approach both in domestic and foreign policy.
It is interesting to note that both these great spaces have reached the climax of the manifestation
of their regional imperial form during the period of the "cesarisms" of the XX century.
On the imperial attributes of Stalin spoke widely Mikhail Agursky.
Also Mao, points out his biographer Maurice Meisner,
was represented with his face contained in the beaming solar disk,
a representational property of the emperors.
Europe, as we have already mentioned, has in the Holy Roman Empire Carolingian imperial its imperial expression,
although, as we shall see, an complete imperial epiphany have been denied to it in the XX century.
The Europe has been forged in the synthesis Latin Christianity and Empire, in the Franco-German-Latin unity.
Two fractures disintegrated Europe: the one between the Church and the Empire, and the Lutheran schism.
It is no coincidence that Dante, claimed both by the more convinced ghibellines and the papists,
has developed in "De Monarchia" ("On the Monarchy") the sublime synthesis
of ecclesiastical and imperial powers to which it is given the name of "Theory of Two Suns".
Like the Church, even the Empire is a manifestation of the divine will, and vice versa.
Very important, in our view, the theoretical work of reconciliation operated by a great Florentine traditionalist thinker,
Attilio Mordini, called "the Catholic Ghibelline",
which engaged his life in the deepening of the sapiential writings bequeathed to us
by the Catholic tradition and in the study of Dante and of the civilization of the Middle Ages.
I think it is important to emphasize his intellectual assent to the paneuropeanist political project of Jean Thiriart.
Likewise, in our view it is important to reiterate the theoretical contribution can provide,
especially for the European battle, but also to a higher level,
the works of two of the fiercest opponents to the Anglo-Saxon and thalassic liberalism
which Joseph De Maistre and Donoso Cortes.
Reread them through the current historical necessity is in our opinion a necessary work,
whereas they well understood the course that the liberal demon had taken in their time.
Cortes was the same who will identify England with a biblical term of an important symbolic value,
designating it how the "Great ***", and comparing it to the mother of the Antichrist.
Every reductionist reading against them, attempting to present them as mere reactionaries,
must be considered unacceptable.
La Rochelle understood the thin line of conjunction that tied De Maistre
and the great totalitarian homelands of the '30s (Rome, Berlin, Moscow)
in the sign of the total revolt against the bourgeois society.
And the same Schmitt reiterate the deep similarities that existed between Cortes and Proudhon,
who were opposed during the 1848, but had as enemy the same model of society.
It is, as we said, in the XX century that the reconstruction of the European empire was not completed.
The prolific environments of the Conservative Revolution,
the National- Revolutionaries and maximalist socialists were directed toward that great project of total revolution,
firstly ethic, which was supposed to reform Europe, and with it the entire world.
It was the rise to power of Adolf Hitler, and with it of a political culture
anchored to the tenets of the imperialist and colonial nineteenth century,
which undermined the stability of the construction of a genuine pan-European project,
privileging the Pan-German chauvinism, the russiophobia and the Anglophilia.
Few kept the clear genuinely internationalist vision of Pierre Drieu La Rochelle and of the French Europeanism.
Even the coup d'etat led by the Catholic aristocrat nationalist-revolutionary, student of Junger, Von Stauffenberg had no success.
Europe still pay the price of the Hitler's revisionism.
Europe must however operate again a choice, and this is the choice between life and death.
Urge the establishment of a European party of the European People.
Europe must now understand the need for its independence, and must understand that it will not be the North Atlantic Treaty to ensure it.
Europe must accept and promote in all respects the advent of a polycentric global conception.
Only thanks to this it can survive.
The old Europeans must understand that the only legitimate struggle for supremacy is that for internal supremacy.
In this perspective, nothing should be forgotten, but everything has to be reformulated.
We have before us only glorious examples.
We live the heroic age of the awakening of the myth, of an epochal change.
The time has come for Europe to dissolve the Gordian knot and decide: Westernism or Europeanism?
Opt for Europeanism is not to say other than choosing the multipolar world.