In order to head toward a united Europe,
the first step should consist of a concerted exit of all European
nations from the United Nations, which is an illegitimate, promiscuous,
and hypocritical association. Another obvious imperative should be to
become emancipated in every aspect and in equal measure from both the
United States and the USSR. […]
[…] Here I will only hint at what
concerns the form and the spiritual and doctrinal presuppositions of a
united Europe. […] The only genuine solution must have
an organiccharacter; the primary element should be a shaping force from
within and from above, proper to an idea and a common tradition. […]
[…] As I have indicated in another
chapter, the concepts of fatherland and nation (or ethnic group) belong
to an essentially naturalistic or “physical” plane. In a united Europe,
fatherlands and nations may exist […] What should be excluded is
nationalism (with its monstrous appendix, namely imperialism) and
chauvinism—in other words, every fanatical absolutization of a
particular unit. Thus “European Empire,” and not “Nation Europa” or
“European Fatherland” should be the right term, in a doctrinal sense. In
the Europeans we should appeal to a feeling of higher order,
qualitatively very different from the nationalistic feeling rooted in
other strata of the human being. […]
The scheme of an empire in a true and
organic sense (which must clearly be distinguished from every
imperialism, a phenomenon that should be regarded as a deplorable
extension of nationalism) was previously displayed in the European
medieval world, which safeguarded the principles of both unity and
multiplicity. In this world, individual States have the character of
partial organic units, gravitating around a unum quod non est pars (“a
one that is not a part,” to use Dante’s expression)—namely, a principle
of unity, authority, and sovereignty of a different nature from that
which is proper to each particular State. But the principle of the
Empire can have such a dignity only by transcending the political sphere
in the strict sense, founding and legitimizing itself with an idea, a
tradition, and a power that is also spiritual. The limitations of the
sovereignty of the single national units before an eminent right of the
Empire have as their sole condition this transcendent dignity of the
Empire; as far as structure is concerned, the whole will appear as an
“organism composed of organisms,” or as an organic federalism similar to
that realized by Bismarck in the second German Reich, which was not
acephalous. These are the essential traits of a true Empire.
What are the conditions and the
opportunities for the realization of such an idea in Europe today? […]
Because what is needed is an organic unity, the premise should rather be
the integration and consolidation of every single nation as a
hierarchical, united, and well-differentiated whole. The nature of the
parts should reflect the nature of the whole. […] What matters is the
synergy and the opportunity for every common action.
Every organic unit is characterized by a
principle of stability. We should not expect a stability of the whole,
where there is no stability guaranteed in its very components. Even from
this point of view, the elementary presupposition of an eventual united
Europe appears to be the political integration of the single nations.
European unity would always be precarious if it leaned on some external
factor, like an international parliament lacking a common, higher
authority, with representations from various democratic regimes; such
regimes, because they are constantly and mutually conditioned from
below, cannot in any way ensure a continuity of political will and
direction. […]
What is required is not to impose a
common regime on every European nation; however, an organic,
hierarchical, anti-individualistic, and antidemocratic principle should
be adequately implemented, even though in various forms adopted to
different circumstances. Thus, the preliminary condition is a general
antidemocratic cleansing, which at the present appears to be almost
utopian. Democracy, on the one hand, and a European parliament that
reproduces on a larger scale the depressing and pathetic sight of the
European parliamentary systems on the other hand: all this would bring
ridicule upon the idea of a united Europe. In general, we should think
of an organic unity to be attained from the top down rather than from
the bottom up. Only elites of individual European nations could
understand one another and coordinate their work, overcoming every
particularism and spirit of division, asserting higher interests and
motives with their authority. […] A well-established “center” should
exist in every nation; as a result of the harmony and the synergy of
such centers, the higher European unity would organize itself and
operate.
Overall, what should be promoted is a
twofold process of integration: on the one hand, national integration
through the acknowledgment of a substantial principle of authority that
is the basis for the organic, anti-individualistic, and corporative
formation of the various sociopolitical national forces; on the other
hand, supernational European integration through the acknowledgment of a
principle of authority that is as super-ordained toward that which is
proper of single units (individual States), as it is toward the people
included in each of these units. Without this, it is useless to talk
about an organically united Europe.
Having put the problem in these terms,
there are serious difficulties regarding the spiritual, not merely
political, foundations required to implement this European unity. Where
should we find these foundations? […]
Obviously, it would be a pure Utopia to
yearn to oppose in practical terms all the material aspects of modern
civilization: among other things, this would involve surrendering the
practical means that are necessary today for every defense and attack.
However, it is always possible to establish a distance and a limit. It
is possible to enclose that which is “modern” in a well-controlled
material and “physical” domain, on the plane of mere means, and to
superimpose upon it a higher order adequately upheld, in which
revolutionary-conservative values are given unconditional
acknowledgment. The Japan of yesterday demonstrated the possibility and
the fecundity of a solution of this type. Only in that case could Europe
represent something different, distinguish itself, and assume a new
dignity among world powers. […] The first European detoxification should
concern this obsession with “antifascism,” which is the catchphrase of
the “crusade” that has left Europe in a pile of rubble. However, we
cannot side either with those pro-European sympathizers who can only
refer to what was attempted in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany before the
war, toward the creation of a new order. These groups fail to recognize
that Fascism and National Socialism were movements and regimes in which
different and even contrasting tendencies coexisted; their development
in the right, positive, revolutionary-conservative sense could have
occurred only if circumstances had allowed for an adequate, further
development, which was stricken down by the war they ignited and by
their ensuing defeat. This is how we should at least proceed to a
precise distinction, if we want to draw reference points from those
movements.
Besides doctrinal difficulties, which I
have examined, a radical European action finds its major obstacle in
the lack of something that could represent a starting point, a firm
support, and a center of crystallization. Before 1945 we could at least
witness the wonderful sight of the principle of a supernational European
Army, and the legionary spirit of volunteers from many nations who,
having been organized in several divisions, fought on the Eastern front
against the Soviets; at that time the foundation was the Third Reich.
Today the only concrete, though partial, European initiatives of various
governments are taken on a mere economic plane, without any deep
ideological and ideal counterpart. Those who are sensitive to the idea
of a united Europe in a higher sense are only isolated individuals, and
not only are they not supported, but also they are even opposed by their
own countries; and much more so, let me add, if their necessary
antidemocratic and anti-Marxist profession of faith is openly declared.
In effect, a European action must proceed in parallel with the rebirth
and the revolutionary-conservative reorganization of the individual
European countries: but to recognize this also means to acknowledge the
disheartening magnitude of the task ahead.
Despite this, we could suggest the idea
of an Order, whose members would act in the various nations, doing what
they can to promote an eventual European unity, even in such
unfavorable conditions. The enthusiasm of young militants who conduct an
active propaganda should be commended, but it is not enough. We should
count on people with a specific qualification, who occupied or intended
to occupy key positions in their own nations. What kind of men could be
up to this task? Assuming bourgeois society and civilization as a
reference point, it is necessary to win over to the cause and to recruit
people who neither spiritually belong to the bourgeoisie nor are
affected by it, or who are already beyond it. A first group should be
composed of members of ancient European families that are still
“standing” and who are valuable not only because of the name they carry,
but also because of who they are, because of their personality. It is
very difficult to find such men but there are some exceptions, and even
during and after the last World War, some of these figures emerged.
Sometimes it is a matter of awakening something in the blood that has
not been entirely lost but still exists in a latent state. In these
elements we would expect to find the presence of congenital, “racial”
dispositions (racial in the elitist and non biological-racist sense of
the term) that guarantee an action and a reaction according to a precise
and secure style, free from theories and abstract principles, in a
spontaneous and complete adherence to those values that every man of
good birth considered obvious before the rise of the Third Estate and of
what followed it.
In regard to a second and more numerous
section of the Order, I have in mind men who correspond to the human
type shaped here and there through selections and experiences of an
essentially warrior character, and through certain disciplines.
Existentially speaking, this type is well versed in the art of
“demythologization”: it recognizes as illusion and hypocrisy the entire
tenacious legacy of the ideologies that have been employed as
instruments, not to bring down this or that European nation, but to deal
a deadly blow to the whole of Europe. These men harbor a healthy
intolerance for any rhetoric; an indifference toward intellectualism and
politicians’ gimmicks; a realism of a higher type; the propensity for
impersonal activity; and the capability of a precise and resolute
commitment. In the past, in some elite fighting units, today among
paratroopers and analogous corps (e.g., Marines and others), some
disciplines and experiences favor the formation of this human type,
which displays the same traits in various nations. A common way of being
constitutes a potentially connective element, beyond nationalities. By
winning over these elements to the European cause, we could constitute,
with a “force at the ready,” the most active cadres of such an Order. If
direct and integrating communications were established between these
two groups (which is not as difficult as it may first appear), the
foundation would be laid. For these men, the most important concerns
should be the European idea in terms of values and of worldview,
followed by the Order and then by the nation.
Naturally, the personality of an
authentic leader at the center and head of the Order is of the utmost
importance. Unfortunately, no such person exists today: it would be
dangerous and rash to see him in any of the figures who are currently
working here and there, albeit with the best of intentions, selflessly
and bravely, to form European groups. One has to consider here that no
one could have detected in advance the potential of any of the men who
later became leaders of great movements. Nevertheless, it is easy to see
the great advantages in the case where such a man, in whom authority
and status now became manifest, had been there from the beginning.
We do not need to repeat what the basic
requirement is for such a European action to mature and bear any
results. One must first get rid of the political class, which holds the
power in almost all European countries in this time of interregnum and
European slavery. This would be immediately possible if a sufficient
mass of today’s peoples could be reawakened from their stupefied and
stultified condition that has been systematically created by the
prevailing political-social ideas.
But the greatest difficulty for the
true European idea is the deep crisis of the authority principle and the
idea of the State. This will seem contradictory to many, because they
believe the strengthening of that principle and that idea would bring in
its wake a schismatic division and thus a rigid, anti-European
pluralism. We have already shown why this is not at all the case, when
we were speaking of the Männerbünde and indicating the higher level that
characterizes the idea of a true State and its authority, in contrast
to everything that is merely “folk” or “nation.” For the individual,
true political loyalty includes, besides a certain heroic readiness, a
certain degree of transcendence, hence something not merely
nature-bound. There is no break, but rather continuity when one crosses
from the national level to the supernational: the selfsame inner
readiness will be required as in the times of Indo-European origins and
of the best feudal regimes, in which it was also a matter of the
voluntary union of free powers, proud to belong to a higher order of
things that did not oppress but rather embraced them. The real obstacles
are only fanatical nationalism and the collapse of society and
community.
In summary, let it be said that
breaking through into more thoughtful minds is the idea that in the
current state of affairs, the uniting of Europe into a single bloc is
the indispensable prerequisite for its continuation in a form other than
an empty geographical concept on the same materialistic level as that
of the powers that seek to control the world. For all the reasons
already explained, we know that this crisis involves a dual inner
problem, if under these circumstances one hopes to establish a firm
foundation, a deeper sense, and an organic character for a possible
united Europe. On the one hand, an initiative in the sense of a
spiritual and psychic detoxification must be taken against what is
commonly known as “modern culture.” On the other, there is the question
of the kind of “metaphysics” that is capable, today, of supporting both a
national and a supernational principle of true authority and
legitimacy.
The dual problem can be translated into
a dual imperative. It remains to be seen which and how many men, in
spite of it all, still stand upright among so many ruins, in order that
they may make this task their own.
JULIUS EVOLA - Men Among the Ruins
0 comMENTS:
Post a comment