Supporters of partisans who end up fighting among themselves, champions of the Resistance who do not want Americans at the celebrations, Shoah uncompromising who turn out to be antisemitic, anti-semites who exalt zionism, communists reinventing themselves as sovereigntists, former National Socialists who despise Europe, radical movements rooted in ancient heroic mythology that proclaim themselves pacifist, biological racists who identify with the Global South, admirers of the Charlemagne Division applauding Russia’s patriotic victory of 1945, absolute censors of September 8 (the day of Italan King’s betrayal in World War II) who preach disarmament and desertion: this is the Kali Yuga according to Mel Brooks.
Beyond laughing about it, can anything be done?
Perhaps we should understand that, if the imbalance is this severe, the reasons must be sought upstream: positions are no longer the product of a harmonious architecture, but the outcome of individual opinions, of real or presumed opportunism, following no coherent path and rooted in no deep tradition.
These are individualistic positions, inert atoms. People look to what appears to be the immediate advantage in order to rid themselves of this or that (as if this or that were the real problem), acting not in the name of a past or a future, but out of the irritation of dissatisfaction.
If one does not clearly know who one is and where one comes from, one cannot know where one wants to go.
If one lacks the analytical capacity to understand history, economics, and sociology, one cannot know how to get there.
If one fails to understand that there are at least two fault lines that must be considered simultaneously, one is tossed about like a crazed pinball and remains inexorably trapped in ridicule.
In my very recent Call it revolution, if you like, I distinguish them as follows:
“The existing fault lines are of two different types, as if there were a horizontal demarcation dividing every society according to existential attitude, and a vertical one separating powers and individual national actors from one another.
The horizontal fracture is the one opposing globalist fanaticism to the rejection of the anthropological transformation it advocates, as well as the social engineering that accompanies it.”
I believe this is where we must begin
in order to dispel the fog clouding people’s minds when, as often happens today, everything proceeds in utter confusion.
Because the conflict, even if we rarely think about it, unfolds on two fronts: one cultural, existential, and internal to our societies; the other one of power—economic, military, and energy-related—which has set emerging or re-emerging powers against one another, compressed between those that won in 1945 and China.
In the general chaos and ideological confusion that characterize this era, priorities become subjective. Some believe everything here should collapse so that something new may arise afterward. I think they are mistaken, because history shows that such “solutions” always condemn societies to centuries of irrelevance.
For this reason, they root for the supposed antagonists of our society—particularly Russia, Iran, and sometimes China—entrusting them with the task of regenerating our societies as invaders or satraps.
In my view, this makes no sense and offers no real prospect. Moreover, it entails glorifying highly questionable models, which suddenly become virtuous simply because they are removed from our daily reality.
There are those, like me, who instead see the European process—and I stress the process, not the model—as the only possibility for redemption and regeneration, as well as the deep and silent continuity of the past and the main road toward our future.
The problem is that it is not enough to choose which side of this demarcation to stand on
—whether on the side of our blood, our physical space, our genius loci, or against all of this in the name of one crusader or another. One must always remember the other demarcation: the social, cultural, and existential one that opposes common sense and nature to the psychopathic impositions of ruling oligarchies. These oligarchies exist here just as elsewhere, because in the supposedly antagonistic “paradises” they are often even worse than ours.
But ultimately this matters little. One cannot limit oneself to choosing a camp—for or against us, the peoples of Europe and our living space—without engaging on the internal front as well.
Because while it is true that those who place their hopes in an exotic invader are trapped in a delusion, it is equally insufficient to support a powerful Europe within the framework of today’s world if, in doing so, one abandons the duty to serve as an avant-garde of people, nation, and empire, and to fight within a positive dynamic.
By analogy
toward anyone or anything opposing the European dynamic, the Shield is necessary: defense without hesitation or remorse. But we must also raise the Sword within our societies—Durendal, Excalibur, the Gladius.
An inner, sacred, regenerative axis.
And here we return to the starting point, where all the mistakes of recent decades truly become clear.
If one does not clearly know who one is and where one comes from, one cannot know where one wants to go.
If one lacks the analytical capacity to understand history, economics, and sociology, one cannot know how to get there.
If we fail to use our minds clearly, then let the heart speak, because it always leads us to the right side. When we stray elsewhere, it is because we have allowed ourselves to be guided by prejudices cultivated in marginalization, by defeatism, existential laziness, or complacency disguised as what calls itself “intelligent transcendence of old frameworks,” always moving in one direction only and invariably proclaimed to justify one’s own surrender and submission to someone else.
The heart tells us something very different:
if we pair it with the mind, we will avoid drifting like dead leaves in moments that will nonetheless prove decisive—and victorious, with us or despite us.