1st Paneuropa Conference Report
The 1st Paneuropa conference, which took place in Kyiv on the 28th of April, 2017 under the auspices of the all-European Reconquista movement, was attended by representatives of Casapound Italia, which has been keeping the beacon of pan-European solidarity alight for over a decade since its inception, French militants Groupe Union Defense (GUD) founded back in 1968 as a counterweight to the student revolution of the Left, French Nouvelle Droite, Scandinavian organization Nordisk Ungdom, German third positionists, Swiss branch of the Reconquista, Russian Centre and Wotan Jugend (Russia), Croatian Generacija Obnove, Polish organizations SZTURM and Niklot, Lithuanian Nationalist Union, Estonian Sinine Äratus (the youth wing of Conservative People’s Party), as well as a number of Ukrainian, Belarusian, Russian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Polish and even Chilean guests, later joined by a Spanish representative. Expected visit of a Greek delegation will be held separately.
On behalf of the Ukrainian conference hosts, the event began with a welcome word by Mykola Kravchenko, head of the ideology and propaganda bloc of National Corps. He took a step back and reflected on the format of the Reconquista project as a result of two years of development. Currently, as he fairly observed, it exists as a wide and largely decentralized network movement comprised of respective national branches and a coordination board in Kyiv. However, the task is to upgrade it to the level of a single pan-European organization consisting of national delegations and initiative groups. Rapid geopolitical transformations in the world map and even more urgent threats which require our joint reaction mean that we need to self-organize and create structures upholding the alternative European integration and security system.
To erase doubts from the minds of those distrustful of all kinds of supranational unity as an ideal, Mykola Kravchenko referred to the historical rivalry in the past out of concern for competing national interests. Today, he went on to say, we met as representatives of the same nations, as nationalists wishing good to their peoples. Yet, as Europeans, at present our national interests are the same, they coincide just like our problems. So, the pan-European unity, first of all, is dictated by pragmatic and “patriotic” considerations understandable for the most passionate nationalists. Unless we unite our efforts now, the European culture and peoples might never recover after the ongoing deliberate destruction of the very European identity by hostile agents and ideologies.
Further, Mykola Kravchenko gave the floor to Olena Semenyaka, International Secretary of National Corps and coordinator of the Reconquista project on the part of Ukraine (“alternative diplomacy and geopolitics” dimension of international relations). Before disclosing the vision of the theoretic principles of the pan-European unity as seen by the Reconquista’s Ukrainian wing and relevant authors, she introduced and invited to speak each conference participant starting with Western Europe.
Conference Speeches Report
W e s t e r n E u r o p e
Sebastien Manificat, well-known in Europe due to his effective tenure of the position in charge of international activities of Casapound Italia, was the first conference speaker from Western Europe. Casapound Italia, representing “neither left-wing, nor right-wing Fascism of the 21st century,” has a long history of igniting “eurosynergies” by comprehensive social work and metapolitical activities on the Web, which continue attracting foreign volunteers to CPI from all over the world. Many of them end up moving there, since operating under the banner of Casapound is naturally perceived as a contribution to the all-European cause and each particular nation of Europe. As the movement named after Ezra Pound, renowned American poet and sympathizer of the revolutionary potential of Italian fascism, first and foremost, in culture and economy, it has always illuminated the idea of pan-European solidarity, never homogenizing and only brightening each particular national character involved.
Having dwelled on the history of CPI established on the 26th of December, 2003 with the occupation of Via Napoleone III, a building in Rome meant to solve the housing problem of Italian families, Sebastien Manificat disclosed its multiple activities and basic principles: “culture, solidarity, sports and (obviously) politics.” If conducted by Casapound exemplary cultural and social activism, especially youth-oriented, gained fame far beyond Italy, not everyone knows that their understanding of politics is unique. For Casapound, regular politics, which is reduced to the mediocrity-driven struggle for seats in the parliament and overburdened by bureaucracy, is a dead end. Obsessed with the mania of “being accepted,” modern politicians get detached from the very purpose of politics: securing the common good and changing the world. It does not mean that CPI does not have parliamentary ambitions or wishes to be underground. As the movement which counts over 6 000 members and in the Bolzano election last year gained 6,6 %, Casapound is not about dismissing politics. As Sebastien Manificat remarked, redefining politics (language, symbolism and aesthetics) is what should be done instead. Thus CPI’s revolutionary aspirations consist in overcoming common disappointment with politics and escapism by opening a new era in the sociopolitical struggle.
Casapound Italia, the pioneer organization to support the struggle of Ukrainian nationalists captured between Putin’s neo-Sovietism and Western Cultural Marxism, closely observed the developments in the Maidan and in many respects triggered the birth of the young pan-European movement in Kyiv – Reconquista. Not incidentally, Ukrainian Cossack House (Kozatsky Dim) is designed after the Italian Pound’s House, the heart of CPI.
“Neither Russia, nor the EU. Sovereign Ukraine”
Further, the audience’s attention was redirected from the European South up to the North – to Scandinavia represented at the conference by Swedes Nordisk Ungdom (Nordic Youth), as well as Sonic, Swedish volunteer of the AZOV regiment. Another organization that was the first to issue a note of support “for a free Ukraine” among European nationalist organizations and sent delegations to the revolutionary Maidan, Nordisk Ungdom has quite a rich history of cooperation with Ukrainian nationalists. Not only them: for instance, NU regularly participates in Polish nationalist festivities and welcomes the ongoing process of the Polish-Ukrainian nationalist reconciliation. Overall, they define themselves as a Scandinavian identitarian organization and believe that Scandinavia will only benefit from surpassing modern national divisions at a higher organic level. Not surprisingly, NU favors the creation of the Scandinavian bloc and considers its ties with the Intermarium countries (lands between the Adriatic, Baltic and Black Seas) “natural.” Moreover, its members are quite unequivocal regarding the shortcomings of “old nationalist” megalomania and rivalry in times of the entire European civilization’s collapse.
Fredrik Hagberg, as a person in charge of NU’s international relations, neither arrived, nor spoke in Ukraine for the first time, just like his colleague Christian Mattsson. The first address by Fredrik Hagberg to the Ukrainian nation happened in the most direct and public way: he delivered a speech in front of Ukrainian revolutionaries in the captured building of the Kyiv City State administration during the dramatic events of 2013-2014. The topic and the main message of his address are easy to guess: he described in detail shocking for the Eastern European mentality legislation and practices aimed at imposing the ultraliberal agenda in a Swedish society and called Ukrainians to refuse from choosing between the EU and Russia, for there is no “lesser evil” among them, all the more so a non-existent “paradise.” Western globalists’ reaction was not long in coming: Fredrik Hagberg was fired from the Swedish Army on his return home after a “political journey” to Ukraine. Luckily, the course towards the alternative pan-European union set in Kyiv after the revolution and war with Putin-backed forces shows that the seeds planted by foreign friends of Ukraine will yield a fruitful harvest for all Europe and its devoted patriots like Hagberg.
This time, Fredrik Hagberg did not have to open anybody’s eyes to what is happening in Sweden and the world in general. Aggressive globalization carried out by the Swedish government brought its fruits, too: Apr.7, on the eve of the conference, the asylum seeker (known to the Swedish secret police) drove a stolen truck into the crowd walking through the busy street in the center of Stockholm. Besides, he commented on scandalous words by Turkey’s president Tayyip Erdogan who warned Europeans that they would not be able to walk safely on their streets if the EU continued bargaining and pushing Turkey away. What is worse, as Fredrik Hagberg fairly remarked, the situation in Sweden resembles the conditions under which the latest presidential elections in France were held: the non-European population of European countries might easily outvote the indigenous population regardless of the latter’s decisions.
This is one of the reasons why Nordisk Ungdom does not participate or rely so much on the parliamentary politics trying to change the very mindset of the Swedish society instead. In defiance of the information blockade by the mainstream media, as persistent as NU’s actions are creative and bright, they continue drawing the public attention to criminal outcomes of the EU’s and Swedish government’s policies endorsing the “clash of the cultures” in Europe:
You may find the full text of Fredrik Hagberg’s speech “For a United Europe” here: http://nordiskungdom.com/fredrik-hagbergs-speech-in-ukraine/
The next two speakers came from France, the land which renounced its heritage along with the anti-feudal revolution of 1789, which inspired the bloodiest leftist upheavals of the XXth century, and simultaneously gave birth to the first synthesis of the European political tradition with the spirit of modernity – Action Francaise, if not Counterrevolution (which does not equal restauration) itself. French New Right, linked to us through Dominique Venner, an encyclopedic intellectual and a man of action in one, still leads the way in communicating the legacy of the classic Third Way to the next generation of third positionists.
Groupe Union Défense (GUD) represented at the 1st Paneuropa conference in Kyiv by Steven Bissuel, the leading member of GUD-Lyon, in fact, is closer to the emblematic national-revolutionaries of the former century. Founded in the turbulent 68th as a radical student organization against time itself, it has always combined metapolitics with social initiatives and the direct street action. “Revolt against fatality” bequeathed by Dominique Venner, long before his death became the main principle of the community of French who, in Steven Bissuel’s words, do not want to lose a centuries-old civilization because of the fault of globalization.
Since October 2016, the movement established its “fortress” in Lyon – Pavillion Noir. Far from an intent to settle down and switch to calmer activities, GUD marked the fourth anniversary of Dominique Venner’s power suicide on May 21, 2013 by occupying an abandoned house at Rue du Port-du-Temple 18 in Lyon to provide decent free housing for the French. As Steven Bissuel explained in his recent interviews, many considered it impossible in France, and June 13 the police, after previous failed attempts to enter the house, finally brutally expulsed its barricaded defenders. However, following the groundbreaking example of Casapound Italia (Gianluca Iannone, President of CPI, paid a symbolic visit to Bastion Social), as well as Spanish Hogar Social, GUD has managed not only to seize a building named Bastion Social, but to launch the social movement of the same title aimed at the revision and requisition of the abandoned houses in all France, as well as facilitating terms of the residence acquisition for students and low-income families. So after the expulsion by the police, GUD says to take only a short break on the way to a new suitable free housing target. Dozens of organization worldwide has already expressed their passionate support for the Bastion Social movement.
According to Bastion Social, more than 8.8 million French people are below the poverty line, that is, one in seven people; between 140,000 and 150,000 citizens are homeless. That being said, the French state currently owns 78 million square meters of which 11 million are officially vacant (unoccupied), including 1 million dwellings. Yet the government spends billions to allocate non-European economic refugees who continue arriving to France on a daily basis, since no restrictions have been imposed after the gruesome terror acts in Paris and Nice. That’s why GUD feels fully justified in launching this long-term social program, thus building “a state within a state” and preparing for a quite possible future “civil” war in migrant-flooded European countries.
Pincers closing around the French, oligarchs surrendering the country to the foreign capital and the replacement of population aggravated by the US-led destabilization in the Middle East, was one of the main messages of Steven Bissuel’s speech. But the sharpest attention of the audience drew his commentary on the presidential election in France the final round of which happened in the aftermath of the conference in Kyiv, for the opinions about led by Marine Le Pen Front National are heavily polarized. Not only in the case of Ukrainians who are well aware of the political alliance between the Kremlin and Front National and the infamous change of political partnership after Marine Le Pen’s visit to Crimea in 2013 and obtaining a 9-million-euro loan from the First Russian bank in the Czech Republic in 2014.
(In 2005, Ukrainian nationalist Svoboda party was the first to make a public statement in support of Front National which condemned the violent immigrant gangs on the streets setting hundreds of cars on fire and the policy of unlimited immigration as a whole. The same 2005 year, in the Western Ukrainian city of Lviv was held a meeting of FN’s delegation with Svoboda invariably led by Oleh Tiahnybok. In 2009, Jean-Marie Le Pen, having underlined common political attitudes, signed a memorandum of cooperation between Svoboda and FN. In 2011, after Marine Le Pen took leadership of FN, Tiahnybok also met with her at FN’s headquarters on the outskirts of Paris and extended their partnership. The next year, when Europarliament adopted an amendment warning the democratic parties against forming a coalition with “racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic” Svoboda party on the rise, FN returned a favor to Svoboda and didn’t concur with this assessment.)
French and other European nationalists also understand that moderate “civic nationalism” of Front National will hardly make any change in France which in some respects has already passed the point of no return. However, Steven Bissuel emphasized that his organization, once embracing the elder Le Pen in its ranks, had no illusions about FN but considered Marine Le Pen’s candidateship far better than that of Emmanuel Macron and, what is more important, believed that on condition of FN’s victory the political climate in France would be much more favorable for the nationalist forces, including the collaboration with Ukrainian patriots and gradual promotion of their perspective.
Such plans are set, anyway. After all, GUD was one of the first French and, overall, European organizations to support the struggle of Ukrainian nationalists for the third way, for Ukraine and all Europe. Just to quote an excerpt from GUD’s statement on Ukraine’s war with Putin-backed militants in 2014:
“In this context, it seemed natural for GUD to support the initiative of Pravyi Sektor and the Ukrainian army that are fighting for Ukraine’s right to self-determination and against the interference of the pro-Russian terrorist militias. GUD consists of young activists that may find common grounds with the AZOV battalion that is also formed by the young volunteers who fight by improvised means and are not funded, as some gossips claim, by CIA, Mossad and Soros. History has shown that young people who fight for their land and die for it, as a rule, are very rarely supported by the global powers.
It is strange to look deeper at the supporters of the pro-Russian militias and encounter bizzare acquaintances with the antifascists from all countries…
However, we would like to say that we are not fooled by the game of the big world powers. We are against interference in Ukraine and anywhere else of both Russian and Western agents (NATO, EU…), our only party are people. On the contrary to those who want to force people into a rigid bilateral system, Russia or the West, we promote our third way, beyond the current geopolitical chessboard.”
Read the full statement here: http://rozum.info/news/2014-09-14-381
Quite surprisingly, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the candidate of the extreme Left, took over 19% of votes in the first-round count. In tune with Sebastien Manificat’s take on modern “politics,” Steven Bissuel remarked that this result showed not so much the strength of the Left as the complete disorientation of a society and the absurdity of contemporary “ideological” parties totally separated from the social action: “You can’t be a revolutionary when you have been a senator for the traditional Left for thirty years.” The decisive disposition that informs the national-revolutionary current and transcends the narrow ideological divisions is what truly attracted vanguard movements of our time like GUD and Casapound to first the street, then the front struggle of Ukrainian patriots.
Nevertheless, there are pioneers of the French Nouvelle Droite (New Right) who also supported Ukrainian nationalists. Pascal Lassalle, a long-time member of the French New Right and an ardent defender of the Ukrainian cause in this traditionally Russia-oriented intellectual milieu (it’s enough to mention Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye and related authorship of Jean Parvulesco), is a cofounder of the Méridien Zéro web radio, host of Radio Courtoisie and is engaged in Gabriele Adinolfi’s project Guild of Landsknechts.
Thus he not only delivered a speech in front of the conference’s audience, but also recited an honorable address to the Ukrainian revolution by this legendary co-founder of Italian Terza Posizione who back in times of the Maidan revolution was far-sighted enough to see that “Eurasia is a Utopia, the Kremlin and the White House are the Heirs of Yalta” http://rozum.info/news/2014-05-13-356. Gabriele Adinolfi’s address will be published separately on the Reconquista resources.
Besides, Pascal Lassalle co-organized and participated in multiple events in France, Switzerland and Ukraine aimed at highlighting historical foundations of the Ukrainian right to the national self-determination and developments of Ukrainian nationalists’ struggle for the third geopolitical way between the Euroatlanticism and Eurasianism. One of such conferences was arranged by Bjorn Sigvald, Swiss representative of the Reconquista movement closely connected with the French segment of European third positionists as a natural born Francophone. Back in 2015, Pascal Lassalle delivered in Kyiv a lecture entitled “For the Pan-European Third Way. French Solidarity with Ukraine at War” and launched the French branch of Reconquista.
This time, Pascal Lassalle’s speech also incorporated the topic of the imperium as an archetype of the European great-powerness: “France, Ukraine, Imperium Principle and Third Way for our Great Europe.” At this point, the difference between Western European visions of a united Europe revolving around the European Empire, “beyond narrow nationalist or sovereignist views,” and the common Eastern European “Europe of Nations” project has already given a lot of food for thought.
Pascal Lassalle’s point of departure was the decline of the Romano-Germanic European area, especially its French-German Carolingian core. In the French case, well-known internal problems are aggravated by the typical pro-Kremlin orientation of the French collective mentality, which, in Pascal Lassalle’s words, is explained by the proximity between the French and Russian egalitarian and communist creeds in the turning historical points of two former centuries. Even French New Right and nationalists misled by “patrimonial autocratism” of Putin’s pet oligarchy in combination with natural for Eastern Europeans “traditionalism” are heavily affected by this unconscious inclination. Preconditions for the unawareness and disregard of the Ukrainian national myth in the French historiography Pascal Lassalle disclosed in more detail in his 2015 lecture in Kyiv.
As opposed to the West, Eastern Europe is on the rise. Pascal Lassalle admitted that the aggression of Putin’s Russia turned out to be both a tragedy and a chance for Ukraine. And the political force that has managed to seize this chance has become the AZOV movement which not so long ago established a party – National Corps. In his opinion, it embodies unique “soldierly nationalism” of the 21st century, but also neonationalism with strong leanings for the East Slavic unity (New Kyivan Rus’/Intermarium) and paneuropeanism. Moreover, National Corps does not endorse provincial “old nationalism” nourishing chauvinistic attitudes. As a result of the fruitful synergy between the AZOV movement and Polish nationalists (who after the Wolyn ethnic conflict in the 40-s of the 20th century consider Ukrainian nationalists their enemies), the counterpart of the Western European core national alliance, an alliance of two biggest Eastern European countries, Ukraine and Poland, is taking shape.
Just like National Corps develops “a state within a state” in order to subvert “the system of internal occupation,” the countries of the Visegrad Four, especially Poland and Hungary, break from within the political order of the EU challenging its cultural (above all, the refugee policy) and economic dictate. Thus the growing autonomization of the V4 and efforts of the Intermarium Development Assistance Group launched by National Corps offer the corridor of geopolitical opportunities for Western Europe. In this context, Pascal Lassalle metaphorically refers to Ukraine as possible “Piedmont” of Europe: the country which, starting with the regional and national levels, would be able to proceed to the continental integration dragging the rest of the countries into the new pan-European union.
Here Pascal Lassalle arrived at the main point of his speech: we need not simply “a continental bloc,” but the full-scale implementation of the imperium principle. He reminded that thinkers like Julius Evola and Dominique Venner easily defined the Empire as a core of the European historical and political tradition. European peoples witnessed both true (Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation) and false (Napoleon’s empire, Third Reich, USSR) empires. True empires meet the criteria for a traditional rooted and uniting power that is able to protect the identities of diverse peoples on a basis of the well-elaborated federal model and the subsidiarity principle. To secure our continental future, today we strongly need this higher ideal the practical realization of which might stretch as far as to the Pacific Ocean (in a Euro-Siberian perspective).
Current European Union, undoubtedly, is the very opposite of the traditional empire: it’s artificial, maintained by the police control and devoid of the cultural foundation. In full accord with Gabriele Adinolfi, Pascal Lassalle underlines that Europe hasn’t really broken free from the post-war Yalta world’s partition into the Washington-dominated (along with its Brussels puppets) and Moscow-dominated areas. Notwithstanding the ongoing chauvinistic encroachments of the neo-Soviet Russian Federation, Ukrainians, in his opinion, should also beware the threat of American globalization.
Western Europeans suffered a lot from liberal neototalitarianism and can share their experience with Eastern Europeans who often naively believe that the West is the land of freedom contrary to the post-Soviet space. In turn, Eastern Europeans should demystify the Russian “Potemkin village” opening the eyes of Western Europeans to the oppressive anti-national reality of Putin’s Russian Federation that turns the infamous “anti-extremist” article of the Criminal Code #282 against Russians themselves.
Western Europeans’ knowledge of the real face of post-war “democracy,” combined with the experience of anti-Soviet resistance by Ukrainians, Poles, Balts, etc., will give birth to the long-anticipated Third Way beyond Euro-Atlanticism and neo-Eurasianism. In this context, Pascal Lassalle made a fair observation about the strong points of each European pole: Eastern European peoples have preserved described by Lev Gumilev “passionarity,” an ability to react properly to serious vital and historical challenges; however, Western Europeans have more elaborated intellectual tools to improve and promote the archeofuturistic “Weltanschauung.” United, they will defeat the two-headed Hydra from the East and West.
R u s s i a
After Pascal Lassalle’s speech as a symbolic summary of the Western European conference part, the floor was given to the representative of Russian Centre and Wotan Jugend, Alexei Levkin. Russian political migrant who long before the Ukrainian Maidan revolution has gained fame as a relentless fighter against Putin’s anti-national regime, currently he is actively engaged in the education and metapolitical activities of the AZOV movement as a lecturer upbringing the younger generation of Ukrainians and others.
Besides, as a vocalist of the well-known Black Metal “M8L8TH” band, Alexei’s updates serve as an intellectual compass for the all-European Right-oriented counterculture and beyond. Since his coming to Ukraine in 2015, he has participated or headlined a series of extreme metal concerts as the homage to the military feat of Ukrainian volunteers at war. In 2016 and 2017, he co-organized along with Militant Zone annual Asgardsrei festivals which attracted fans and supporters from all over Europe. This year’s Asgardsrei Fest on Dec. 18 was preceded by the metapolitical conference “Pact of Steel” (between West and East Europe), which may be considered the 1st Paneuropa conference in Kyiv, too.
In its first part, Alexei Levkin on behalf of M8L8TH and Famine of Peste Noire were the main interlocutors in an open talk with the audience, among others, answering the questions about the political situations in today’s Russia and France respectively. June 11-14, Alexei co-organized and participated in shooting a video clip for Peste Noire’s “Le Dernier Putsch,” the dedication song for the AZOV movement (in Kyiv).
Besides, as a representative of Russian Centre, a Kyiv-based coordination platform of the Russian nationalist emigration, and the Wotan Jugend metapolitical project, Alexei was interviewed many times by his foreign followers, Polish nationalists of Szturm in particular, as well as participated in the conferences of the Intermarium Development Assistance Group. In other words, he has always been in the forefront of pan-European communications.
In times of the Maidan revolution and the subsequent war in East Ukraine after the annexation of Crimea, Wotan Jugend, which mostly deals with cultural topics, transformed into a powerful information platform spreading the truth about the “democratic choice” of “Russian people” in the Donbas and Crimea. Coordinated, instructed, sponsored and armed by the Russian FSB officers Eastern Ukrainian “rebels,” Ramzan Kadyrov’s Chechen fighters, all kinds of European and non-European communists and “anti-fascists,” as well as sporadic Western right-wingers trying to turn a blind eye to Stalin’s portraits in the “DNR’s” headquarters, etc. were regularly highlighted in English on the Wotand Jugend’s website. As a result, in accordance with the typical tactics, it was hijacked by Russian special services who staged a “split” in the ranks of Russian nationalists who “expelled” the pro-Ukrainian segment and started promoting the “real” (anti-Ukrainian) stance of the Russian Right. The hijacked resource did not last long, but related persons, including Alexei Levkin, had to take a one-way ticket to Ukraine.
However, it was not only a natural outcome of the Russian nationalists’ solidarity with a brotherly people against the neo-Bolshevik enemy. In his speech, Alexei Levkin underlined that Russian nationalists, above all, were inspired by the success achieved by Ukrainian nationalists on a European scale and view Ukraine as a focal point of the post-war European revival. The ability to take up arms and defend your homeland against the communistic invader once has already united passionary youth from all over Europe. Today, the AZOV regiment has become the true gift for European patriots with a heroic mentality who do not fit into the “modern world.”
It is true that in the Russian Federation, went on to say Alexei Levkin, all nationalist organizations are banned (the last one was forbidden in 2015), however, in Ukraine it is not only a matter of much bigger freedom and opportunities for the activists on the Right. As he remarked, in every movement there is always a difference of functions performed by certain people: some constitute a material basis of the movement, others determine its spiritual ideals and help to shape the raw material into something greater like an ancient statue.
This is what persons like Alexei Levkin found in the AZOV movement: the metapolitical component comprised of Evolian “differentiated persons” or “humans of a special type” who preserved the intrinsic relation to Being and reveal the metaphysical dimension of the political and military struggle to the involved. Alexei’s instructorship in the AZOV movement includes lecturing and paramilitary training, for, in his opinion, activities like airsoft are one of the few domains of the modern society in which a person still can feel the elemental without “raising suspicions.” However, the European radical manifestation of the political will is still possible.
Alexei Levkin gave the following example of a heroic act under modern conditions. He told the story of a young (17 year old) Russian nationalist, Anton Konev, who not so long ago (Apr. 21) shot a high-ranking Russian FSB (Federal Security Service) officer, in their own reception room in the city of Khabarovsk. For some, the “feat” may be darkened by the fact that in order to get a gun, Konev also killed a civil person, a guard of a shooting gallery, and, incidentally, a translator in the reception room. Others do not fully understand why the main enemy for Russian nationalists is the special services of the Russian Federation. Alexei Levkin emphasized that this deed is worthy of respect, because, as opposed to Muslim suicide bombers who consciously target civil population, Konev (who was also shot at the crime scene), has chosen a victim whose list of atrocities against Russian patriots is immense and successfully fulfilled a deadly mission. Expectedly, the FSB promoted a version according to which this “neo-Nazi” (whom they linked to Wotan Jugend, an honor denied by Alexei Levkin) was an IS sympathizer.
Having ended his speech with a reference to the higher human type found in sagas and epic poems, which is the real goal of the political struggle, Alexei Levkin called to keep ablaze the flame of European Reconquista beyond old national divisions, for we are the future of Europe.
E a s t e r n E u r o p e
After the lunch, began the next conference part which thematically overlapped with the 2nd conference of the Intermarium Development Assistance Group held in Kyiv the day before, on the 27th of April. You may read the official report here: http://reconquista-europe.tumblr.com/post/160510944016/the-2-nd-conference-of-the-intermarium. It addressed specific for Eastern Europe problems and angles of discussion which evoke the vivid response from the Western European audience.
The sequence of Eastern European speeches proceeded from the north to the south, from the Baltics to Ukraine and Croatia. Mindaugas Sidaravicius (the youth wing of the Lithuanian Nationalist Union), like many other conference participants, was not in Ukraine for the first time. In 2016, on behalf of the same organization, he participated in the Inaugural conference of the Intermarium Development Assistance Group. Historically, Ukrainians and Balts have all reasons to unite against the common neo-Soviet enemy; however, both are generally believed to “have issues” with Poland. Back then, Mindaugas Sidaravicius have already remarked that his discussion with Polish nationalists at the Intermarium conference was a truly historical moment. He also interviewed the Russian Centre. At the 1st Paneuropean conference his estimation of the Lithuanian-Polish reconciliation and cooperation reached the whole new level.
This time, Mindaugas made the Polish-Lithuanian solidarity a cornerstone of his speech which also dealt with the “vacuum of power” in Lithuania. He fairly remarked that the first attempts to build the Intermarium in the 20th century failed, because the region’s countries, Poland and Lithuania in particular, did not abandon the chauvinistic attitudes. As a result, the region fell under the Soviet rule. Today, the Adriatic-Baltic-Black Sea area again experiences double pressure, if not offensive, from the East and West. Caught between Western Cultural Marxism and Eastern neo-Sovietism, the Intermarium region has no right to repeat the mistake of the past. If we want to say goodbye to Brussels and the Kremlin alike, summed up the speaker, we first of all have to renounce chauvinism.
Mindaugas Sidaravicius offered the following practical model for the Lithuanian-Polish reconciliation. As the first step, must be created a common think-tank which unites the representatives of Polish and Lithuanian sides. They would elaborate the vision of how the relations between both nations should develop in the future, the status of respective national minorities in particular. As a result of joint efforts, it would be proposed to the rest of a society in each country. Overcoming the divisions which weaken Europe and make it an easy prey for the anti-European globalist ideologies should steadily take place across all Europe. Indeed, it should be noted that Poles are eager to implement this idea, so the foundation is laid.
Finally, Mindaugas Sidaravicius remarked that he usually dislikes being referred to as a “conservative” or a “traditionalist,” because it creates an impression of our ideology’s backwardness. Refusal from chauvinism and embracing the pan-European ideal would be the best explanation for why he proudly considers his views “progressive.”
Quite logically, the next speaker, Pawel Bielawski, was from Poland and dedicated his speech to the topic of new nationalism: “Eastern European New Right and New Nationalism.” He has been engaged in the intellectual exchange with Ukrainian colleagues long before the beginning of political cooperation in 2016 when he came to support the demands of the “March of the Nation” held by National Corps in front of Ukrainian Parliament along with Polish organizations “SZTURM” and “Trzecia Droga.”
As a representative of the Association for Tradition and Culture “Niklot,” Pawel Bielawski, though, started from afar: with economic issues. In a power point presentation in support of his speech, he quoted two citations by Alain de Benoist, the founder of French New Right. In the first of them, de Benoist criticizes the EU project and calls for an alternative union, probably beginning with a “little” Carolingian Europe. In the second, he admits his sympathy for the Ukrainian struggle for the national identity, albeit unequivocally claiming that if the Maidan revolution results in strengthening of the Western, American pole “on the detriment of Russia,” he will be “the first to condemn it.” It means, in Pawel’s opinion, that Western Europe always retains the possibility of “sacrificing” Eastern Europe to Russia as a presumable counterweight to the US or simply a superpower separated from Europe by a buffer zone. On the contrary, we view Intermarium as the heart of Europe opposing both kinds of globalization.
In the economic respect, continues his thought Pawel Bielawski, at present this possibility is fully realized as the centre-periphery relations between Western and Eastern Europe. The main message here as follows:
“Poor nations provide raw materials, cheap labor and market for old technologies for the highly developed countries – without which the latter ones could not afford the living standard they have now.”
In other words, rich countries are interested in perpetuation of this state of affairs. The speaker, among others, refers to Brazilian Professor Emil Sedar who observed how neoliberalism dragged “periphery” countries of Latin America into extreme poverty and exploitation which depraved the workers of the very “public identity.” Overall, Pawel Bielawski completely agrees with Jarosław Tomasiewicz that Eastern European countries should refuse from the West-like interpretation of what is left-wing and right-wing and strive both for the national and socioeconomic liberation.
Hence is the diagnosis or, more precisely, premises formulated by Pawel Bielawski:
1) the political struggle in the West of Europe is mainly cultural, whereas in Eastern Europe it is mainly economical, that is, aimed against economic imperialism;
2) the economic dependence is complemented by the cultural and ideological (West-centrism);
3) (neo)liberal capitalism is, above all, an anthropological system (homo economicus) equating money with god.
Accordingly, Pawel Bielawski suggests the following ways out for Eastern Europe:
1) primacy of the economic struggle over the cultural one (national syndicalism) understood in terms of Ernst Jünger’s new nationalism which, on the one hand, holds that the worker can overcome capitalism only by developing a sense of community (nation) that is bonded by blood, on the other, contends that the nationalist movement should grow into the labour movement turning workers into political soldiers;
2) elaborating a comprehensive Eastern European narrative and promoting an Eastern European identity at the all-European level;
3) parallelism of the economic and spiritual struggle aimed at upbringing homo religiousus in Mircea Eliade’s sense (a person that restores the pivotal role of the sacred in life).
Geopolitically, this programme is being realized by the proponents of the sovereign Intermarium. In this context, Pawel Bielawski expressed his total support for the Wage Union project launched by 8 Central and Eastern European countries in order to harmonize salaries across the European continent and prevent the qualified young labor force from emigrating into richer Western European countries. This project was discussed it more detail at the 2nd Intermarium conference (and its report).
Culturally, what we need is the creation of the Institute for the Reconstruction of Culture in Jan Stachniuk’s sense – “a think tank and intellectual center of the revolution which would lay the groundwork for the change of the dominant ideomatrix (ideological superstructure) of a society.”
Pawel Bielawski’s speech arose great fascination and interest, but also heated debates. Serious accusations towards Western European economic imperialism echoing official statements by the region’s state leaders who criticize economic policies of the core EU countries, Germany and France, partially created an impression of a splitting rather than integrating message. Others felt that the speaker promotes a false “economic worldview,” although he quoted Julius Evola’s words about the madness of measuring the culture’s progress by the degree of wealth and the level of productivity and consumption. Some were even wondering whether Wage Union promotes a kind of artificial communistic homogenization of national economies. Bjorn Sigvald, who moved from rich Switzerland to stricken by the economic crisis Ukraine at war, argued that insanely high living standards of Western Europe were the root of the Western decline, and this is what Eastern Europe least needs.
And, quite the opposite, another part of the audience came to the conclusion that at this stage many Western European nationalists, having left the economic problems in the former century, have no idea what are the main topics of public life in Eastern Europe (corruption, oligarchy, unemployment, a law quality of social services, high tariffs, etc.). Polish enthusiast of the Ukrainian-Polish reconciliation Filip Januszewski and Olena Semenyaka helped to clarify the speech’s “moral.” Filip fairly remarked that the negative economic situation makes many Polish women refuse from giving birth to many children or postpone creating a family because of hard daily work. Olena underlined that Wage Union advocated only the balancing of salaries and prices (too high as compared to wages in Eastern Europe’s case) in all European countries. Moreover, Sebastian Manificat of CPI expressed his support for the Wage Union initiative precisely because Italy also loses people due to higher salaries in France, Germany or United Kingdom, so it is not only an Eastern European “ambition.”
Besides, Olena Semenyaka reminded of the fact that many regular Ukrainians participating in the Maidan revolution were pro-EU, because they falsely imagined it an “economic paradise,” and economic weakness of Ukraine is the main reason why it falls victim of either of the globalist blocks (Western or “Russian” transnational capital), as well as pushes some Ukrainian women into the marriage with wealthy non-European men. Thus she concluded that the goal of “economic nationalism” (which is also favored in the party programme of National Corps) is not to divide Europe or make Eastern Europeans sink into the utter comfort, but to elaborate together a healthy alternative to capitalism for all Europe and the world. After all, for everyone familiar with the ideologies of the Third Way, there is no need to explain that capitalism is not only about economy, and each serious movement defending classic right-wing values should be able to suggest a proper economic model.
The next two speeches confirmed that for Eastern Europe the political struggle was mostly about the economic development and autarky in the name of the nations’ well-being. Witold Dobrowolski, editor of the Polish “SZTURM” magazine and, simultaneously, an association of Polish nationalist organizations and movements, was one of the first to launch the Polish-Ukrainian reconciliation and cooperation along with Vladyslav Kovalchuk, on the Ukrainian part.
Apart from contributing thematic materials to “SZTURM” and other editions, Witold arrived as a photo correspondent at the revolutionary Maidan in its bloodiest period to highlight these events in Poland. Right afterwards, he went on the expedition to the war-torn Donbas, having visited Donetsk and besieged Slovyansk, where he was almost captured by the militants of “DNR,” as well as Pisky, Debaltsevo and Mariupol (as a guest of the AZOV battalion). Along with the Donbas battalion he witnessed the deadliest Ilovaysk battle in which participated the regular army of the Russian Federation. The results of these risky trips Witold Dobrowolski presented in the series of photo exhibitions “From Maidan to Donbas. Ukraine 2014-2015,” which took place in Warsaw and Zakopane. Besides, Witold academically studies the history of Ukrainian nationalism and the AZOV movement in particular.
Soon after the solidarity action with Ukrainian nationalists of National Corps at the March of the Nation on the 20th of May, 2016, Witold Dobrowolski, on behalf of the “SZTURM” magazine, presented the programme of the Polish-Ukrainian reconciliation at the 1st conference of the Intermarium Development Assistance Group held July 2-3, 2016. Among other issues, on the conference’s sidelines was planned a joint commemoration action of Ukrainian and Polish civil victims of the ethnic clashes in the 40-s of the 20th century, the Wolyn massacre in particular. This idea was successfully implemented in August when Polish and Ukrainian nationalists put flowers at the memorials to the victims on both sides as their common stance against chauvinism and in favor of the “futurology” of international relations instead of the focus on the past. Actually, the step that was made in the Ukrainian-Polish relations was so big that the region’s enemies, the current Russian regime in particular, made everything possible to stage chauvinistic provocations against the new East Slavic reconciliation that is taking shape.
In his speech at the 1stPaneuropa conference, Witold Dobrowolski mentioned such instances: in October of 2016, was destroyed the grave of the UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army) soldiers in the Polish village of Werchrata; in January of 2017, was desecrated the monument in Huta Pieniacka and in the Bykownia Cemetery; in March of 2017, a sign of the Idea of Nation used by the AZOV movement and an anti-Polish slogan were painted on the commemorative crucifix in Gdansk by the unknown perpetrators, and this list is not exhaustive. Recently, the provocations reached a whole new level: overnight into March 29, 2017, Poland’s Consulate in the Ukrainian city of Lutsk was shelled with a grenade launcher. However, the provocateurs who dared to commit similar actions openly did not remain unpunished: for instance, Polish nationalists seized banners and “conducted a preventive talk” with Damian Bienko, leader of Narodowa Wolna Polska who burned a Ukrainian flag at the Polish Independence March in 2016, which has become a powerful message to the intrudes opposing the Intermarium and Polish-Ukrainian friendship.
“Nationalism against chauvinism”
Yet lately emerged another challenge to the Ukrainian-Polish friendship caused by the economic destabilization in Ukraine as a result of a hybrid war in the East: economic migration of Ukrainians to Poland. In the light of the previous speech, it is clear that both countries suffer from this growing tendency. At present, there are over 1 million economic immigrants in Poland; by the end of this year, their number will have doubled.
The problem has many facets: ethical, economic, and social. Polish nationalists, undoubtedly, are willing to preserve Poland as an exemplary monoethnic state. They anxiously observe the ghettoization process among Ukrainian students who resist assimilation and in the future might play a subversive role in a Polish society. In the economic respect, Poles are afraid of the job deprivation due to the cheaper Ukrainian labour force, which feeds chauvinistic sentiments. In the social field, Ukrainians are being exploited by the capitalists who underpay the wages, provide low work conditions, give no medical insurance, etc. Polish nationalists, stressed Witold Dobrowolski, are well aware of the fact that Poles abroad, especially in London, face exactly the same problem.
Given that the Ukrainian immigration to Poland is favored both by the conservative government formed by the Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc (Law and Justice) ruling party and entrepreneurs who plan to bring 4 million immigrants more in the future, Witold Dobrowolski suggests the following measures: attacking international corporations, stigmatizing entrepreneurs exploiting and bringing Ukrainians, starting work with trade unions to combat exploitation (both of Ukrainians and Poles abroad), carrying out information campaigns and initiating the legislative changes on both sides.
It should be noted that negotiations with various Polish anti-immigrant forces and Ukrainian patriots has already successfully begun. During the discussions, was also raised the importance of highlighting in a common information space the historical figures like Marshal Josef Pilsudski under whose command, along with the Army of the Ukrainian People’s Republic headed by Symon Petliura, took place the famous anti-Bolshevik campaign under the slogan “For Our Freedom and Yours!” The request was eagerly fulfilled. May 12, 2017, Polish nationalists commemorated Josef Pilsudski in Warsaw, which is the anniversary of not only the May Coup in Poland carried out by Marshal, but also the day he died, and drew public attention to his Intermarium project and the agreement on the creation of the Polish-Ukrainian federation as our guideline today.
The next speaker was Leo Maric, International Secretary of the Croatian Generacija Obnove (Generation of Renewal) party, who, in accord with Josef Pilsudski, believes that the best model of the Intermarium is the Adriatic-Baltic-Black Sea Union instead of its narrower Baltic-Black Sea version. Such a vision, undeniably, meets the newest tendencies in Central Europe towards the restoration of the Intermarium project. The topic of his speech, in turn, resonated with the party’s name: “The Idea of Generational Politics and the Political Platform of Generation of Renewal.”
Like many others, Leo Maric cooperated with Ukrainian nationalists on many occasions, starting with defending Croatian volunteers in the Ukrainian armed forces and the AZOV regiment in particular (there were a plenty of them), the right which was also advocated by Vesna Pusic, Croatian Foreign Minister, in the 2015 conversation with Al Jezeera reporter. In 2016, Leo Maric, back then as the journalist of the Sloboda.hr news portal, was the speaker at the Inaugural conference of the Intermarium Development Assistance Group. He highlighted the preservation of a cultural identity in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in defiance of Western Cultural Marxism (neo-Trotskyism) and Russian Cultural Stalinism.
In October of 2016, Leo Maric and Frano Cirko were invited to the founding party congress of National Corps. During the visit, they shared their plans to establish their own party that aims at converting a high level of patriotism in a Croatian society into the long-anticipated political changes. February 4, 2017, by a group of young activists under 30 was established a political party of a new generation and of an eponymous title – Generacija Obnove (GO!), meaning the Generation of Renewal, under the presidency of Frano Cirko.
Since its inception, the party has become the partner of National Corps and took a course towards the Intermarium. The day before the Reconquista conference, April 27, 2017, Leo Maric, developing his message at the previous conference and referring to multiple examples of the harmful monopolistic behavior of the EU, explained why the Intermarium countries willing to maintain their cultural values and identity should break free from the economic dependence on the West (“a geoeconomic aspect”). Besides, he once again dwelled on the purpose and possible outcomes of Wage Union.
The main idea of the generational politics is very simple and is understood intuitively: the old generation of politicians cannot keep up with the new challenges and becomes the very personification of the country’s stagnation, its face. According to Leo Maric, the new generation embodies the future of the country, and only the complete renewal (that is, replacement or a “generational shift”) of officials in all structures and fields of the Croatian society (political, economic, juridical, etc.) can make a difference. Further, similar to National Corps taking measures against the Ukrainian oligarchy and foreign monopolists, Generacija Obnove demands lowering the tax burden for the middle and small entrepreneurship and facilitating the private economic initiative. Further, the positive generational difference consists in the fact that only younger patriots can raise the issue of Croatia’s sovereignty and question the benefits of its political dissolution in the international associations like the EU. The same goes for the distribution of the migrant quotas, aggressive multicultural globalization and, overall, ultraliberal agenda in the education system that is imposed by the EU. It is no wonder that Croatian patriots of a new generation view the Intermarium as a means to secure their future and the Croatian generations to come.
Interestingly enough, the main idea of the book by Julien Langella, a young French catholic author who supported the struggle of Ukrainian nationalists, is the same and is well conveyed by the title: “La Jeunesse au Pouvoir” (The Youth in Power). In other words, the advent to power of the new generation of European patriots as the revolt against the political and ideological senility is the path to the renaissance of Europe as a whole.
Finally, Leo Maric disclosed the international relations and activities of GO. The party cooperates with Slovakians, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Poles, Balts, recently also Slovenians, and more. Generacija Obnove regularly supports the initiatives of the Intermarium Development Assistance Group and plans its own political education projects.
The next and concluding conference part consisted of the speeches by the Ukrainian delegation at the 1stPaneuropa conference. Andriy Voloshyn, representative of NGO “MIPU” (International Initiative to Support Ukraine), as a long-time member of the Ukrainian nationalist movement, co-founder of the Ukrainian Traditionalist Club and many other metapolitical Ukrainian projects, also often participates in the projects and events of National Corps and the Reconquista movement. November 12, 2015 MIPU held in Kyiv the international conference entitled “Baltic-Black Sea Forum: Historical Similarity and Modern Challenges.” Later, its head, MP Taras Osaulenko delivered a speech at the Inaugural Conference of the Intermarium Development Assistance Group on the joint resistance to methods of the information warfare employed by the Russian Federation. This time, Andriy Voloshyn, as the founder of the archeofuturistic association “ARFA” and the author of archeofuturistic poetry himself, applied the principles of this dynamic worldview to geopolitics in a speech entitled “The Archeofuturistic Integration of Baltic-Black Sea Union” (meaning potentially Adriatic-Baltic Black Sea Union).
Andriy Voloshyn’s premise was considering the Intermarium project as a fundamentally archeofuturistic one: this is the project that extends into the future and, simultaneously, is based on ancestral values and thus opposes the (neo)liberal hegemony and domination of the so-called Western world. Not incidentally, it is mostly favored by conservative, right-wing, right-centrist political parties of the region. Their inter-party and inter-state cooperation will strengthen the positions of a new paradigm in the region and the whole world in the face of imposed problems like mass migration, abstract human rights, LGBT, etc. Given the disintegration tendencies in the EU like Brexit, in the future this union may cease to exist, and Baltic-Black Sea Union will become its real alternative for Eastern Europe.
The growing popularity of the Intermarium project in Ukraine is explained by the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine which showed the complete uselessness of the Budapest memorandum (securing the territorial integrity of Ukraine) and the international law in particular. Therefore, Ukrainians and other peoples of the region that feel threatened by Russia, above all, are interested in the Intermarium as a defense alliance. However, argues Andriy Voloshyn, the real locomotive of the baltic-black sea integration should be economic, because the proper investment will automatically increase cultural and political significance of the union.
The main trigger of the archeofuturistic regional development (belated due to the reasons well-described in Eric Reinert’s bestseller), according to Andriy Voloshyn, should be high technologies. Consequently, the regions’ countries should arrange the exchange of raw materials and minimize or ban their exportation. New technologies, having entered the region, should leave it only in the form of licenses, new services and products. The archeofuturistic turn in the regional economy might consist in the restoration of the old transport routes like the “route from the Varangians to Greeks,” but on condition of an optimized exploitation of space and time. In particular, archeofuturism should manifest itself in the proper organization of big spaces. Old post-Soviet buildings should give place to skyscrapers, abandoned castles should become new hotels, restaurants and residences.
However, the “archeo-” part represented by the cultural cooperation in the region must be no less elaborated. Andriy Voloshyn fairly remarks that it should begin with the information interaction, which, in turn, depends on the development of tourism and infrastructure. In its recent history, the Baltic-Black Sea region experienced a heavy foreign cultural influence. However, if the Russian (Soviet) cultural impact is declining, the grip of a Western cosmopolitan lobby, Hollywood’s in particular, is still quite strong. The growth of the annual film production by joint efforts of the Intermarium countries, accordingly, would create new jobs and facilitate cultural communication and integration of its peoples.
Andriy Voloshyn suggests the following common projects:
- Investment fund of the Baltic-Black Sea area;
- Joint Bank, with the creation of its own cryptocurrency based on the blockchain;
- Creation of MP groups promoting BBSU in Ukraine and other countries;
- Launching a multilingual tourist entertainment portal;
- Creation of a Baltic-Black Sea News Agency;
- Establishment of the Baltic Black Sea company specializing in shooting, dubbing and translating the movies;
- Elaboration of a Baltic-Black Sea social network;
- Joint cultural projects, organization of musical performances, festivals, translations and book presentations, art exhibitions, etc.
Everyone who does not wish to go with the flow and feels inspired by the archeofuturistic dream, concludes Andriy Voloshyn, can contribute to its turning to reality via diplomacy or more specialized fields.
The next Ukrainian participant, Yury Noievyi (member of the higher council of the Svoboda party), took a wider perspective – “The Right-Wing International of Europe.” Another “veteran” of the Ukrainian nationalist movement, he was the most active lobbyist of the inter-party Ukrainian nationalist alliance, which finally resulted in the National Manifesto signed by National Corps, Svoboda, Right Sector and other nationalist organizations.
As he had to leave the conference earlier, Yury Noievyi passed to the conference participants the following theses of his speech, more precisely, conditions under which the Paneuropean union can come true:
1. In spite of developed right-wing projects of the united Europe, the latter was implemented namely by liberals. It goes without saying that this implementation is inefficient, catastrophic and, basically, anti-European; however, nationalists should learn to transcend their national interests for the sake of the strong Europe preserving its traditional identities and values;
2. There is no solidary geopolitical position on the Right on the number of problematic issues, the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in particular: some support the Kremlin, others support Ukrainian nationalists, the rest stay neutral. If it goes on like this, no “Europe of Nations” will ever be possible;
3. European nationalists should understand that the attack on one European nation by an external force is an attack against all and take respective measures. Otherwise, they should not be surprised that Ukrainians have to partially ally with the West which imposes on them in exchange its destructive agenda;
4. The 1st Paneuropa conference should end with signing the Paneuropean Manifesto obliging the signatories to follow a jointly determined geopolitical course.
The concluding speaker who represented the Paneuropean vision on behalf of the Reconquista movement was Ukrainian Reconquista project coordinator and International Secretary of National Corps Olena Semenyaka. Her speech had a lot of common points with that of Pascal Lassalle’s, as well as some other speeches, and was dedicated precisely to the projects of the United Europe “from the Right” by well-known theorists of the Third Way like Ernst Jünger, Pierre Drieu la Rochelle, Julius Evola, Oswald Mosley, and more. The title of her speech, accordingly, was “The Third Geopolitical Way and Paneuropa.”
Olena Semenyaka reminded of the fact that an archetype of the united Europe, excepr for the excesses of the imperial Romanization, has always remained the Roman Empire. The Second Reich of Otto von Bismarck, in turn, has become an embodiment of the dynamic defensible power bloc. Although his wars were compared by Gustav Droysen to the “civilizational mission” of Alexander the Great who first united under Macedonia’s rule Greek poleis and then conquered Eurasia, Bismarck has chosen the so-called “little German” solution and focused on the state’s “modernization from the Right.” Not incidentally, precisely Friedrich the Great, Bismarck’s predecessor, is considered a founder of the geopolitical “Third Way.” The “Greater German” solution was revived during the first world war, went on to say Olena Semenyaka, and we are interested in its both identity-based and free of chauvinism or aggressive pan-Germanism models like that of Friedrich Naumann or Rudolf Kjellen who offered a political and military protectorate to Eastern Europe with its growing national liberation movements. Their geopolitical doctrines may be viewed as the authentic project of the European Union. Original idea of the Third Reich elaborated in the interwar period by Arthur Moeller van den Bruck also presupposed “a broad alliance” of “old” Western and “young” Eastern European nations.
Nevertheless, probably the first theorist of the united / imperial Europe beyond nationalist chauvinism and liberal cosmopolitanism was Friedrich Nietzsche, self-proclaimed “bad German, albeit a good European” who was one of the first to introduce the organic concept of the “old” vs. “young” peoples. In his opinion, Germans represented a yet incomplete, although “young” nation that preserved its vital forces. French, on the contrary, were an “older” people, which is proved by their humanism and skepticism resulting into an all-European illness of the “will’s paralysis,” but they were much more sophisticated in terms of culture and morals. That is why Nietzsche welcomed the German-French or, wider, Romano-Germanic synthesis which could enrich each side with lacking features. “Synthetic” personalities who, according to Nietzsche, productively transcended their national limitations, were Friedrich the Great, Napoleon, Beethoven, Heinrich Heine, Goethe, Stendhal, Richard Wagner.
The same division is true with regard to West and East Europe. Considering himself an heir of Polish aristocrats, Nietzsche sympathized with “young” Eastern European peoples and hoped that accumulated might of Russia would finally force Europe to become equally dangerous and powerful, thus making it abandon its “long comedy of small states and dynastic as well as democratic multi-willing.” Nietzsche’s ideas were revived in times of the first world war by Georg Simmel (“Idea of Europe,” “Europe and America in World History”). Combined with Oswald Spengler’s distinction of the “culture” as the maximum of vital powers of a cultural organism, or a being of the higher type, and the “civilization” as a phase of its collapse, when only a material and technical shell of the once creative culture remains, the difference between the “old” and “young” (or belated) nations explains why the Intermarium union plays a role of the platform for the Paneuropean Reconquista, or the laboratory of the all-European revival. Of course, underlined Olena Semenyaka, it is not a dogma, there are no such peoples sensu stricto, and modern Scandinavians, for instance, under certain conditions can regain their passionary (“Viking”) potential anew.
Post-(inter-)war theories of the united Europe suggested by Ernst Jünger, Pierre Drieu la Rochelle, Julius Evola, Oswald Mosley, etc., who advocated different yet similar models of the supranational European unity, may be summarized under the idea of the Paneuropean confederation of sovereign nations which tends to the full-scale implementation of the imperium principle as understood by New Right.
Read the conference prehistory here: http://reconquista-europe.tumblr.com/post/161055976221/reconquista-conference-report-first-paneuropa