In Defense of Eurosiberia

[Menydh]

In Defense of Eurosiberia

(summary of the II Symposium of Tierra y Pueblo)

Between 4-6 November it was held near Segorbe the II Symposium of Tierra y Pueblo, which we were honoured to attend [...]
This was not a formal meeting where to find any "homologation" with other European parties. This was about the exchange of ideas, communication of projects and of analysis of the situation. It is worth to outline what was dealt with in those days.

Enrique Ravello, president of TyP, opened the symposium by lightening three candles: one to remember our ancestors, one to remember our community, and one to evoke the compromise with our children. These three candles stayed on during the three days that lasted the symposium. Right after, he made a general introduction to the conference establishing the differences between the geopolitical concept of "Eurasia", too wide to be able to have a political projection, and the much more viable and realistic concept of "Eurosiberia", i.e. Europa + Russia and her Siberian extension. Ravello defined geopolitics as an auxiliary science to political sciences and, therefore, with an indicative but not determining value. The Eurosiberian possibility suposses a formidable axis of power, able to counter the North American unilateralism and to open new spaces of civilisation and culture for our block of power.

The turn of the communications was opened by Carlos Doufur, an Argentinean professor of philosophy in Germany, who made an interesting analysis on the structure of the system and on its posibilities to be reformed. Modern democracies are becoming increasingly less representatives and transformed in plutocracies where the true power is money, and where any other consideration --"democracy as the power of the people"-- is a mere resource of demagogy. Doufur ended his communication proposing some viable corrections inside the system, appealing to the new information technologies.

The former leader of Terza Posizione, Gabriele Adinolfi, who had suffered imprisonment and exile, analyzed the structures of world power. He explained that the State, the only which could react before the phenomenon of globalisation, has an existance which in increasingly fading. Power is no longer in the hands of some organisms democratically elected, but on the hands of the world power organisations which draw the lines that the world must follow, something that today can still be considered a task of the governments. The analysis of such organisation allowed Adinolfi to be in conditions to define the origin and the composition of these structures of world power.

A former leader of Ordine Nuovo since the 50s and currently director of the magazine Identità, Salvatore Francia, described the path of this organisation which was inspired after Julius Evola's Rivolta contro il mondo moderno and Gli uomine e le rovine. Francia explained that Ordine Nuovo, an Italian organisation from its origins, always felt the spirit of Europe. He emphasised when describing what was the integration of Pino Rauti in the MSI during 1969 and the transformation of the Centro de Studi Ordine Nuovo into Movimento Politico Ordine Nuovo. He reminded that those who integrated inside the MSI together with Rauti did not manage to take the MSI out of its moderated dynamic and, a few years later, the MPON had become the victim of provocation and of a generalised represion, while the MSI had been unable to overcome the electoral limit that already had in the 50s.

Pierre Krebs, a Franco-German intellectual adscribed to the ideas of the Nouveau Droite, and a broadcaster of such ideas, dedicated some initial words to remind that the Germany of 1945 had been defeated but not humiliated, and that it was thanks to the generation which was formed in the schools of National Socialism that it was possible to reconstruct the country after the 1945 tragedy. Germany, said Krebs, was only humiliated after the generation of 1969, the first generation forged in the schools and the principles of the winners. After this introduction, Krebs reviewed the main problem of modern Germany: Turkish immigration. Krebs explained the excesses committed in the policies of "assimilation" of the Turkish minority, and the lack of results. He also explained that in 2005 a part of this German political class continues accomodated in the implants of the winners and with the backs to the German tradition and to the interests of the German nation. Krebs ended his turn forseeing the awakening of the energies of Germany within the frame of a new awakening of Europe.

Pierre Vial started his speech transmitting the last news on the ethnic war that in those precise moments (the weekend 5-6 of November) had reached its highest peaks. Vial showed happy that the insurgents had attacked the neighbourhoods of the bourgeoisie: this way the bourgeoise is going to realize that this is not an imaginary enemy, and that no one is safe in his neighbourhoods. Vial went on declaring: "The ethnic war has started". He then went to the subject of his conference: a report on the current situation of Russia and her role in the awakening of Euro-Siberia. Vial explained the essential landmarks of the history of Russia. The role of the Varengians --arrived from the North-- in the making of the historical kernel of Russia, is central to understand the current course of the events. During centuries, Russia was in the first line of the fight against Islam, and this historical clash has marked the profound psychology of that country. Vial went then on to examine the current situation in Russia, highlighting the fact that President Putin has put much emphasis in dearticulating the "oligarchy" which, during the period of Boris Eltsin, managed to impoverish the wealth of the Russian nation and to appropriate itself of a de-statalized industry. This gesture extols the person of Putin beyond any other critique that could be made to his policies. The extermination of Chechen terrorists is, likewise, a point in favour of Putin who has decided to return her lost dignity to Russia, after the fall of Communism. Gestures like the return of the ashes of General Denikin or that of the warning to the protagonists of the "orange revolution", favoured by the U.S. in Ukraine, are sufficiently illustrative that Russia is raising again. Today, Russia cannot be considered by the European militants as a frontier, but as a part of an European territorial space. Ethnically, the Slavs are a branch of the Indo-Europeans, similar to the other groups that populate the European continent in everything. Thanks to Vial we could understand a bit better the need to stop speaking of "Eurasia" (a geopolitical concept which is ambiguous, vague and impossible to crystalize) to speak of "Eurosiberia", the geopolitical space of the future.

In the morning of the 6th of November, I the chance to expose before the assistants the gravity of the situation with Morocco, where I resumed the actual phase of the conflict. On the one side, I exposed the doctrine of National Defense and its evolution since the 50s. I focused on the geopolitical role of Spain and the axis Canaries-Gibraltar-Balearics, as a new basic concept for our defense. I also explained how this idea has gone on evolving since Franco until the government of Zapatero. Then I concluded that a national defense precises to define the "enemy" and that, for the strategists of Defense --not so for the political class-- there is only one enemy and this lies in the South: in Morocco. From that point on we defined the main fronts of conflict: oil, Ceuta, Melilla, the delimitation of the seas, the fifth column which is the immigration, terrorism, etc. In the following days I will publish some of these subjects in infoKrisis.

This second symposium of Tierra y Pueblo was closed by Andreas Molau, director fo Deutsche Stimme, the magazine of the NPD. He spoke of the growth that his party had experienced since Udo Voigt leads it. We could understand perfectly how the German leading class practices some kind of masochism against the patriots, and gives itself to the Turkish minority. Molau also explained the perspectives which open in 2006 for the NPD, which will go together with the DVU of Dr. Gerhard Frey to the partial elections in two landers.

To put an end to this symposium a message of hope in our peoples and etnias was repeated in the different European languages. Pierre Vial, as president of Terre et Peuple, the matrix, read the the message of future in the ancient language of our ancestors, Latin. The three candles which represented our ancestors, ourcommunity and our children, were put off, concluding this way the II Symposium of Tierra y Pueblo.

Like the men who travelled from Northern Europe used to say: "love your wife, honour your land, defend your children". Such is the code, the only code that we can assume in these times of crisis.


by Ernesto Milà -- infoKrisis

[Austrvegr]

That makes sense to me.

[Judon ap Concar]

Europe is a geographical concept and therefore quite loose. Western civilisation is something I am more familiar with. It has emerged from a peculiar sincretism between Roman, Celtic and Teutonic heritages. By the way, I think North America used to be an integral part of the western civilisation, but their identity is being challenged by major ethnic changes.

The Byzantine heritage that eastern Slavs and Balkanic people share is belonging to another cultural realm. We see it at a very practical levels with the difficulty that the Greeks have to integrate in the EU.

I do not think that western and Byzantine civilisations could cohabit in a single state. We shall seek strategic partnership for sure, and this is even vital. But it is an illusion to believe that we are one and the same.

[Menydh]

Actually, "Westernism" is more a problem than a solution. Indeed North America was/is a component of... "the western construct" as it is, in origins, Anglo-Saxon. I think that the English coined the term "West" to attempt to have some claim or linkage the Graeco-Roman heritage. Which is funny since, at least the Hellenic part of it is Eastern and not Western.

The roots of Europe are varied. But it first defines herself as Christendom, something that in the grand picture is common for both Eastern and Western Europe. The big socio-cultural division between the East and the West is religious, with the Schism of the East. This schism has its origins in the germanisation of the Church in the West and the subsequent turn of the Patriarch of Rome into the absolute power. So in a way the Celtic and Romance (or, should I say, proper "Western" indigenous peoples) are alien to it. Though just in a way since heritage is a dynamic process.

You are taking the European Union as an example of difficulty for integration in an idea[l] in Europe. There lies your mistake. That is, I'm afraid, Pan-Europeanism. From such a perspective (Pan-European) we lose the insight and the matter of Europe: i.e. that Europe is a common environment with a much varied compound of ethno-cultural nations.

Only from a Traditional perspective we can aim for preservation at its best. So Russians or Serbs are not "westerners". So what? Incidentally I've never found another European group as different and far away to mine as the Finnish, well beyond Russians or Serbs. And the Finns.. are they "westerners"? Further, since "westernism" would include North America, how do I relate to a yankee or a canook... or a kangaroo? I mean, we are talking about Europe, aren't we?

The complex mosaic of Europe is --I've repeated this times and again-- rich, varied and unique as it is fragile for its richness, variety and uniqueness. And it stretches from her Eastern and Western extremes as well as her Southern and Northern extremes.

Further, in the tradition of making the best out of the worst of the situations, we should look forward to seizing the current crisis to turn it once and for all in a unique chance to build a strong and as complete as possible Europe. Or at the very least to set this as the ideal and the goal to achieve. What you see as countries far east to you, are in reality your Eastern frontiers. Be glad that there are fellow Europeans there to take care of those frontiers.

In the future world of blocks, Europe does not stand a chance without her full strength. And you can be sure that those "westerner" Americans will bring nothing good, as they have not in the past.

[rodion raskolnikov]

In a sense, Eurosiberia is less wider conception of Europe than Eurasia but it is a good one. The problem now is that the EU is an ideological contruction and it is hard to tell Europeans something about a Great Europe (they look this project with suspicion as it is saw as a Russian project).
Fundamentally i am for Eurasia or Eurosiberia.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by rodion raskolnikov

Fundamentally i am for Eurasia or Eurosiberia.

Those two projects seem to be opposed, no ?

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by rodion raskolnikov

In a sense, Eurosiberia is less wider conception of Europe than Eurasia but it is a good one.

Yes, Eurosiberia is a more restricted concept than Eurasia, just like Eurasia is a more restricted concept than the European Union.

The problem now is that the EU is an ideological contruction and it is hard to tell Europeans something about a Great Europe (they look this project with suspicion as it is saw as a Russian project).

In short, something along those lines.

However the problem that I see with either ideological construct, be it the European Union or Eurosiberia, is that neither of them takes a ground stand on national sovereignty and freedom.

Ideally, a proposal should be a balance of Eurosiberia and national sovereignty and identity.

I wouldn't even consider the idea of Eurasia. And, quite honestly, I don't know how any Russian Nationalist can ever find it attractive. It is precisely those "Eurasians" which are an ethnic problem in Russia. It would be as crazy as proposing a Eurafrica, taking Lybia and the Maghreb into the picture.

Originally Posted by Salaün

Those two projects seem to be opposed, no ?

The idea of Eurosiberia expands into the Asian continent, but only at the lands of ethnic Russians there. Eurasianists must be tied in short or else they'll reach Beijin before you even notice.

In any case, a degree of control over Central Asia would be the best possible option. As it would be too a degree of control over Northern Africa. (hint! )

[Carnyx]

Yep, Europe needs limes.

[rodion raskolnikov]

"Ideally, a proposal should be a balance of Eurosiberia and national sovereignty and identity." You are quite right. I think that the solution is on three levels: regional identity, national identity and European identity.

Concerning Eurasia or Eurosiberia i do not show a clear support for one or the other concept. I think that a Great Europe is the general direction we have to follow. Ethnically, Eurosiberia seems to be more manageable than Eurasia.
I agree with the map shown by Carnyx but why does it stop in the Ural zone? What happens with Siberia? Historically and geographically it is should be a component of a Great Europe (and the Russian Federation can only be entirely part of this Great Europe). I am happy to see that Caucasus appears on that map...

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by rodion raskolnikov

I agree with the map shown by Carnyx but why does it stop in the Ural zone? What happens with Siberia? Historically and geographically it is should be a component of a Great Europe (and the Russian Federation can only be entirely part of this Great Europe). I am happy to see that Caucasus appears on that map...

I was looking for a map of Europe that didn't include Turkey.

There you go:



or



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by rodion raskolnikov

"Ideally, a proposal should be a balance of Eurosiberia and national sovereignty and identity." You are quite right. I think that the solution is on three levels: regional identity, national identity and European identity.

Well, yes. What you call "regional identity" is probably what I call "Identidad Foral" here. It is important to notice it as a difference because there cannot be one model to follow for all nations.

Concerning Eurasia or Eurosiberia i do not show a clear support for one or the other concept. I think that a Great Europe is the general direction we have to follow. Ethnically, Eurosiberia seems to be more manageable than Eurasia.
I agree with the map shown by Carnyx but why does it stop in the Ural zone? What happens with Siberia? Historically and geographically it is should be a component of a Great Europe (and the Russian Federation can only be entirely part of this Great Europe). I am happy to see that Caucasus appears on that map...

Concerning "Eurasia" and Caucasus, one must make a difference between what is Europe proper and Europe's areas of influence and interests.

[rodion raskolnikov]

I think that Caucasus is not an European area of influence but it is properly Europe if you consider ethnolinguistic and religious elements. A Great Europe could also be an equilibrium in Russia-Caucasus (especially with Georgia) relationship. A Great Europe should be seen as a shield for the little nations against the bigger state's imperialism.
Concerning the problem of non European immigration, a Great Europe is also a solution by promoting easy immigration and facilities for European citizens and restricting non European immigration. Many young Romanians or Bulgarians come for working here at West. As a consequence, Romanians or BG employers must hire non European immigrates. A Great Europe should permit to Western Europeans to settle easily at East (and the same at West for Eastern Europeans). The problem here concerns the salary. A Great Europe should grant a minimal socio-economical standard for all the citizens (with a focus on salaries increase).


---------------------
RODION RASKOLNIKOV

[LoKi]

Originally Posted by Carnyx

I was looking for a map of Europe that didn't include Turkey.

There you go:



or

Groeland does not appear on the map, but they are part of Europe too.

[Uri]

Originally Posted by LoKi

Groeland does not appear on the map, but they are part of Europe too.

Althoug it's a danish crown posession, Groenland it's geographically in America, but I agree that along with the Canary Islands, Açores, Madeira and other european posessions overseas it should be part of a future Eurosiberia (or better, Eurorussia).