JEAN THIRIART: PROPHET AND MILITANT [Translated from the Italian]

Of course, today, after the political adventure of Thiriart, some of these geopolitical options, in the "national" medium, could seem obvious, even banal, for some, and simplistic and integrable for others. But let's put aside the fact that all this is clear for all "nationalists" (it is enough to think about certain resurgent racistes/biologistes and anti-Islamicists of a pseudo-n�o-Nazism, used and instrumentalised by American and Zionist propaganda with an anti-European aim). We ourselves, weary not to repeat this fact of over thirty years, have instead this purely geopolitical option of Thiriart, a virgin of all racist connotations; something very original and courageous in a bipolar world, seemingly opposed to the two-bloc ideological and military antagonisms which offer the prospect of conflictualit� "horizontal", between the USSR and the West under the threat of reciprocal nuclear destruction.

We can affirm today that a good number among us, in Italy, gradually managed from there to exceed this false dichotomic vision of planetary conflictuality, and that well before the collapse of the USSR and the Soviet bloc, it was due in good part to the fascination which the Thiriart theses exerted with their brilliant intuitions.

Indeed, one can speak about "genius", in policy as in all the other human fields of knowledge, when one PRE-voit and that one EX-pose (of Latin exponere, to pose outwards, highlight forward or) facts or events which are still occulted, ignored, not very clear for the others and which emerge from their occult phase only gradually to occur in the world in the full light of day albeit only in the less remote future.

In this chapter, we want simply to point out the assertions of Thiriart relating to the geopolitical dimension of the European State future, consigned in the chapter (10, 1) entitled "dimensions of the European State. Europe to Brest and Vladivostock" (pp. 28 to 31 of the �d. fran�.): "Europe enjoys a great historical maturity, she knows from now on the vanity of the crusades and the wars of conquest towards the East. After Charles XII, Bonaparte and Hitler, we could measure the risks of similar companies and their price. If the USSR wants to preserve Siberia, it must make peace with Europe from Brest to Bucharest, I repeat it. The USSR does not have and will have less and less force to preserve at the same time Warsaw and Budapest on the one hand, and Tchita and Khabarovsk on the other hand. It will have to choose or most likelt have everything to lose".

Further: "Our policy differs from that of General de Gaulle because it made or makes three errors: - to make pass the border from Europe to Marseilles and not to Algiers; - to make the border of the URSS/Europe bloc on the Ural and not in Siberia; - finally, to want to deal with Moscow before the release of Bucharest" (p. 31).

With the reading of these two extracted briefs, one cannot say any more that Jean Thiriart missed perspicacity and of precaution! However these sentences were written, I repeat, at a time when militants sincerely pro-Europeanist were the most daring, just managing to conceive a European unit from Brest to Bucharest, i.e. Europe limited to the Western peninsular platform of Eurasia; for Thiriart, it represented nothing more than one stage, a springboard of launching, for a vaster project, that of the continental imperial unit. That one does not speak to us any more, consequently, the nationalist lines, including those of today, which do nothing but ad infinitum repeat their provincialism, under the benevolent eye of their American owner.

Thirty years ago already, Thiriart went further: he denounced all the geopolitical nonsense of the gaullist project (Gaulle being another direct person in charge of the defeat of Europe, in the name of a chauvinism v�t�ro-nationalist from the Hexagon) of Europe extending from the Atlantic to the Urals, endorsing, at the same time, this absurd continental vision specific to the small professors of geography, which traces on the paper of the cards an imaginary border to the height of the Ural Mountains, which never stopped anybody, neither Huns neither Mongols nor Russians.

Europe defends itself on the rivers Amour and Oussouri; Eurasia, i.e. Europe plus Russia, has a destiny clearly drawn by the history and geopolitics in the East, in Siberia, in the Far East of the European culture, and this destiny opposes it to the West and American age of the Bible and Business. As for the history of the meetings and confrontations between peoples, it is nothing less than GEOPOLITIQUE IN ACTION, just like geopolitics is nothing different but the historical destiny of the people, the nations, the ethnic groups and the empires, even of the religions, in POWER. In passing, we must add that the design of Jean Thiriart, in so far as it was still related to the "nationalist" models influenced by revolutionary France, was finally more "imperial" than imperialist. He always refused, until the end, the final hegemony of people on all the others.

The Eurasia of tomorrow will not be Russian andn it will not be Mongolian, Turkish, French or Germanic: because when all these people wanted only to exert their hegemony, they failed. Failures which should have been use to us as teaching aids.

Who could, thirty years ago, envisage with as much precision the intrinsic weakness of this colossus militaro-industrialist the USSR, which seemed at the time an impetus with the conquest of evernew spaces, across the continents in rough competition with the United States that it was apparently going to succeed?

With time, finally, all that appeared a gigantic bluff, a historical mirage probably manufactured by the mondialist forces of the Occident to maintain the people in their constraints with, with the key, a constant blackmail of terror. All that to handle for the people and the nations of the Earth for the benefit of the supreme strategic interest, single, posing like the only "truth": that of the planetary super-power that is the United States, the base for the territorial army of the mondialist project. In the final analysis, in order to speak the language of geopolitics it is the "policy of the anaconda" which prevailed, as defined in the past with the same words by the German geopolitician Haushofer, and defined it today by Russian geopoliticians of which Colonel Morozov officiates; the Americans and the mondialists always seek to move the territorial pivot away from Eurasia and its potential outlets on the hot seas, before gradually nibbling the territory of the Soviet "tellurocracy". The starting point of this strategy of nibbling: Afghanistan.

Jean Thiriart had already clarified, in his book of 1965, the rough and believed reasons which animated international politics. It is no chance, however, that one of its models was Machiavelli, author of the Prince.

Admittedly, the pessimists will say to us that if Thiriart's analysis of politics knew how to anticipate and envisage, Thiriart the militant, organizer and political head of the first model of transnational European organization, failed. Either because the international situation then was not yet sufficiently ripe (or rotted), as we note today, or because there was not a "starting sanctuary", which Thiriart had considered to be essential. Indeed, it missed in Jeune Europe a free territory, a completely foreign State with the conditionings imposed by the superpuissances, which could have been used as the basis of refuge, of source for a provisioning of the European militants of the future. A little like Piedmont was for Italy.

All the meetings of Thiriart at the international level had this aim. All failed. Realistically, Thiriart gave up political engagement, instead of taking up again its speech and waiting until the occasion is right, and even a better occasion, that of having a large country to which it could have proposed its strategy: Russia. The destiny of this Belgian citizen of birth but Europ�en of vocation was strange: he always was "out of time", surprised by the events. He always envisaged them but was always exceeded by them.

His design of European geopolitics, a vision which indicates that OVERALL the United States is the absolute OBJECTIVE enemy, could be perceived like the indices of an illuminated "visionarism", only slowed down by a rational spirit of Cartesianism and rationalized in ultimate authority.

Its historical and biological materialism, its European nationalism centralizing and adding up, its closing at the place of ecological sets of themes and animalists, its positions relating to personal vis-a-vis with ethno-cultural identities, its hostility of principle to all religious pathos, its ignorance of any metapolitic dimension, its admiration for the Jacobinism of the French revolution, stumbling block for considerable anti-mondialistes French-speaking people: all that constituted limits with its thought and residues of the designs of v�t�ro-materialists, progressists and Darwinists, increasingly far away from the cultural choices, religious and political contemporaries, the engaged men and people, in all Eurasia and the whole world, in the fight against mondialism. The "rationalist" ideas, that Thiriart endorsed, on the contrary, were the cultural and political humus on which the mondialism germinated during the last few centuries. These aspects of the thought of Thiriart revealed their limits, during the last months of his existence, in particular at the time of the conferences and conversations of Moscow in August 1992. His intellectual development definitively seemed to have stopped at the time of the linear historicism and progressivists, with his mythology of a "radiant future for humanity".

Such a rationalist vision did not enable him to include/understand phenomena as significant as the Islamic alarm clock or the new "mysticism" of eurasist Russia, like their political projections of a highly revolutionary and anti-mondialiste content. And let us not even speak about the impact the traditionalists like Evola or Gu�non had. Thiriart thus conveyed this "cultural" handicap, which did not prevent us from meeting in Moscow in August 1992, where we gathered with his innumerable political intuitions.

Some of these intuitions led to young European militants going to meet the protagonists of the avant-garde Russian "eurasism", gathered around the Dyenn review and of the movement of the same name. We discovered, thus, in the capital of the Soviet ex-empire in which Thiriart had been perfectly recognized as an avant-garde thinker by the Russians. The geopolitical lesson of Thiriart germinated in Russia, it is indubitable, whereas in the Occident they were always ignored even scorned. Thiriart had a remote impact, in the frozen vastnesses of Russia-Siberia, the heart of the Old World, close to the central pivot of the eurasiatic tellurocracy.

Is this an irony of the history of the political doctrines, which emerges at the time of their practical updating or is this the enni�me confirmation of the ancient proverb: "no one is a prophet in his country"? The long "interior exile" of Thiriart thus seemed finished, he had withdrawn from active policy forever and had overcome this withdrawal which, at the beginning, had been a large disappointment. He flooded us with written documents, reports of oral interventions. The flood never seemed to stop! As if it sought to catch up with time that it had lost in a scornful silence.

Driven by a youthful enthusiasm, sometimes excessive and aggravating, Thiriart recovered to give lessons of history and geopolitics, exact sciences and of political economy, right and all other conceivable disciplines, with the Generals and the journalists, the members of Parliament and the writers, the politicians of the ex-USSR and the Islamic militants of the CEI, and, of course, with us, the Italians present who had, at the same time as him, known changes of opinion, seemingly unexpected. And all that has occurred in Russia today, where all is now possible and nothing is certain (and which could be, given the Russia of yesterday); we have indeed a situation in Russia suspended between a glorious past and a dark future, but also pregnant with unimaginable potentialities. It is there that Jean Thiriart found a new youth.

In a town of Moscow which survives from day to day between apathy and febrility, pretence to await "something" which one knows neither the name yet nor the face; a city where all occurs, where all can occur as in a special dimension, between sky and ground. Russian ground can spout out into safety and extreme perdition, rebirth or end, a new power or the total disintegration of a people which was imperial and became, today, miserable and plebian. Lastly, it is there, and there only, that the destiny of all the European people is played and, ultimately, of the whole planet. The alternative is quite clear: we will have a new empire eurasiatic which will guide us in the struggle to release ALL the people of the sphere or we will attend the triumph of mondialism and American hegemonism for the next millenium. It is over there that the writer and politician Jean Thiriart had found the HOPE to be able to put his intuitions of the past into practice, this time on a scale much vaster.

In this ground of Russia, from where can emerge the Messiah armed with the people of Eurasia, new misadventure of a cycle of civilization or Antichrist of johannic prophecies, we will have a space for all alchemies and the political experiments, inconceivable if one looks at them with the eyes of the Westerner. Current Russia is an immense laboratory, a politically virgin ground which one will be able to fertilize, a virgin land where FREEDOM and the POWER will be sought to couple and try new syntheses: "the path of freedom passes by that of the power", underlined Thiriart in his fundamental book, "It would thus not have to be forgotten, or it would have to be learned with those who are unaware of it. The freedom of the weak is a myth vertuist, an ingenuity with demagogic or electoral use. The weak ones were never free and will never be. there only exists the freedom of the forts. That which wants to be free, must want to be powerful. That which wants to be free must be able to stop other freedoms, because freedom is invading and tends to encroach on that of the weak neighbours". Or: "It is criminal from the point of view of political education to tolerate that the masses can be poisoned by weakening lies as those which consist in "declaring peace" with its neighbors while thus thinking it can preserve its freedom. Each one of our freedoms was acquired following repeated bloody combat and each one of them will be maintained only if we can make display of a force likely to discourage those which would like to deprive it to us. More than others, we like certain freedoms. But we know how much these freedoms are perpetually threatened. That it is as an individual, so it is as a nation, we know the source of freedom and it is power. If we want to preserve the first, we must cultivate the second. They are inseparable " (p. 301-302).

Here is a page which could ensure its author a station in a faculty of history of political sciences. When all seemed again possible and when the play of the great political strategies returned to the foreground, on a large chess-board like the world, when Thiriart hardly had just foreseen the possibility of giving life to this great idea of the Unit, the last blow dealt by fate emerged: death.

In spite of its ineluctability, it is an event which always surprises us, which leaves us with a feeling of regret and incompl�tude. In the case of Thiriart, the fact of death makes rove the spirit and we imagine all that this man of elitism could still have brought to us in our engagements, all that he could still have learned with those who share our cause, was this only in simple exchanges of opinions, was this only by formulating proposals out of matters cultural and political.

Lastly, it rests with to us to underline the compl�tude work of Thiriart. More than very other, he had completely systematized his political thought while remaining always fully coherent with his own premises and remaining faithful to the style which he had given to his life.

Others will not be able to make him say postmortem other things which he did not really say, nor to adapt his texts and theses to the political requirements of the moment. There remains the fact, indubitable, that without Jean Thiriart, we would not have been what we became. Indeed, we are all his heirs in the field of ideas that we know only through his writings.

We have all been, at one moment or another of our political life or our ideological search, the debtors of his analyses and its fulgurating intuitions. Today, we all feel like a little orphan.

In this moment, we want to remember a political writer, a man who was quite simply impassioned, impetuous, of an overflowing vitality, the always illuminated face of a young smile and the heart agitated by a devouring passion, the same one as that which burns in us, without wavering, of least uncertainty and least bending.

The case of Jean Thiriart? It is the incarnation alive, vital, of a man of the elite who carries his glance towards the distance, who sees above, beyond the contingencies of the present, where the masses remain captive. I have traced the portrait of a MILITANT PROPHET.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws