Models, symbols, and references shape actions in life and history.
Riyadh follows in the wake of Yalta
in the spirit of a “Yalta 2.0” that involves Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Africa.
In reality, more than Yalta—where, in February 1945, the fates of peoples were recorded under the control of an international alliance of criminals and merchants—the summit of bandits in Saudi Arabia evokes Tehran, where, in late November 1943, those fates were actually decided.
Yet, Yalta remains the symbol, the model
That is all people talk about now, and—ironically—it is even praised as a stabilizing factor. “very well, we shall be slaves again!” exclaims a freedman whose freedom has been taken away in the italian film Scipio, Also Known as the African.
In reality, Riyadh
saw very little discussion about Ukraine, but plenty about the exploitation of rare earth minerals, the development of pipelines, and the division of spoils—complete disregard for all the subjects of the planet.
And there are even—quite a few, in fact—who rejoice because U.S. Vice President Vance, a man with no real power and a troubling figure who even changed his religious denomination as a young man to climb the establishment, humiliated the Europeans.
Can you imagine a future German Chancellor feeling pleased because a French representative humiliated the Germans in the Ruhr in 1923, simply because it was a slap to Weimar?
Weimar, indeed
it seems to be the model chosen by the EU, with inconclusive meetings and a thousand different positions, like what happened in Paris on Monday night. Weimar, where decadence reigned, where gender and woke ideologies emerged, and where people believed Germany could be revived through economy and diplomacy alone.
This German interlude, which relied on the unifying economic process of the Rhenish Zollverein, was actually less disastrous than it is remembered in history. It was later echoed in the idea of a united Europe—one that, unfortunately, never truly united and never had real central power.
During Weimar
there were many impulses and trends, but not all opponents were anti-German—just as today, those who screech against the EU are not necessarily anti-European.
There were those who—just like many today who exalt nothingness—cheered at every German humiliation because, whether communist or monarchist right-wingers, they either hoped to be dominated by the Russians or to serve as London’s chamberlains.
But there were also those who, in opposition to the Weimar ruling class, wanted a united, strong, and engaged Germany, one that was not subjected to any internal or external influence.
They were the ones who closed the Weimar chapter
But they loved their people, their land; they were driven by dignity. They did not see themselves as citizens of the world, so much so that they never sought to be at the orders of Stalin or Chamberlain—or even Mussolini.
Today, however, many have a globalized imagination, speaking of Trump, Putin, and Netanyahu as if they were here, as if they were compatible with our history, with our genius loci, with our very being.
But those others had faith; they were not extinguished, not dead. They did not mock those who, even in the midst of disaster and total decline—like in 1923 or 1929—still believed in Germany. And they never claimed that Germany had died at Verdun or Versailles.
Find the difference
and you will understand why we are weak. And you will know how we will rise again.
With you or without you!
