Jean Thiriart spent much of the post-World War II period in a very long ostracism under the pretext of having been an instrument of the Nazi expansion. In fact, it wasn’t until the final year of his life in 1992, in meetings with Alexandr Dugin and others in Moscow, that he received his due.
Jean Thiriart was the prophet & theorist of the European Revolution against the New World Order. One could even call him the Lenin of the European Revolution but that would cause aphasia in the ranks of the official Left. For this reason, most partisans of Thiriart would call themselves the National Left though most outside observers would place them in the ranks of the European New Right. As a partisan of Thiriart, I can call myself both National Left and New Right. But I prefer to be considered part of where Thiriart placed himself, in the Avant-garde Center.
(más…)
Views may vary as to the causes of the division of Europe and the restoration of the Balance of Power, but dispute can scarcely arise concerning the re-emergence of a situation and a system which has invariably brought war. It is to the solution of this problem thus recreated that this article is addressed, and in searching for that solution we must return to the fundamental conception of European union which animated the war generation in 1918 and has been frustrated by the perversion of the League of Nations to exactly the opposite purpose that it was intended to serve. This examination, therefore, begins with an inquiry into the factors which divide the individual nations, and in particular into the factors which inhibit peaceful and friendly relations between Great Britain and other great nations.
Circumstances have rendered the need for European unity imperative on our continent. Until now, this need has been fuelled principally by negative factors : the nations of Europe seek a defensive unity, not so much on the basis of anything positive and pre-existing, as because of the lack of any other choice in the face of the threatening pressure of non-European blocs and interests. This circumstance makes it difficult to see the inner form of any possible real European unity very clearly. Thought seems not to go much beyond the project of a coalition or federation, which, as such, will always have an extrinsic, aggregative, rather than organic, character. A unity which would really be organic could be only conceived on the basis of the formative force from inside and from above which is peculiar to a positive idea, a common culture, and a tradition. If we look at the European problem in these terms, it is clear that the situation is painful, and that problematic factors prevent us from indulging in an easy optimism.
The greatest achievement of Syndicalism, however, is likely to be in the European field. European Socialism, which is its modern form, stands for the Union of Europe on a Socialist basis. This has become necessary if the international operations of capitalism are ever to be overcome. Capitalism is organised and entrenched on an essentially world-wide scale. The low-wage countries of Asia are being exploited industrially for still bigger profits than those made by capitalism in the West. As a result, British workers face the certainty of losing their markets to sweatshops in Asia financed by the money lenders of Europe and America.
