Amerika

History and geopolitics

History knows about state-cities: Thebes, Sparta, Athens, later Venice, Florence, Milan, Genoa.
Today it knows about territorial states: France, Spain, England, Russia.
Finally it discovers continental states, such as the United States of America, present China and yesterday’s USSR (1).
Today’s Europe undergoes a stage of transformations.
She has to proceed from the more or less stable stage of territorial states to the stage of the continental state.

For the majority of the people, this transition is hindered by mental inertia, not to mention laziness of thinking.
Though no larger than a piece of yarn, Sparta had a strong vitality, from an hiostorical point of view, being first of all vital in her military aspect. Her dimensions and her resources were enough to contain an army capable of gaining respect from all her neighbours.

Here we approach the basic problem of vitality of states. The historical state-city was superseded by the territorial state. The Roman Empire superseded Athens, Sparta, Thebes. And with no strong effort (2).
Today the historical vitality of the state depends on its military vitality, which in turn depends on its economic vitality; which leads us to the following alternative.
First hypothesis: territorial states are compelled to become satellites of continental states. France, Italy, Spain, Germany, England represent but a fiction of independent states. Since a long time ago, since 1945, all these countries have become satellites of the United States of America.
Second hypothesis: these territorial states are turned into a single continental state – Europe.

The historical failure of one continental state: the USSR

The regretful disintegration of the USSR is explained, in particular, by the insufficient theoretical understanding of the state by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and in some way Stalin. Already in in 1984 my disciple and collaborator, José Cuadrado Costa, based on works by Ortega y Gasset and myself, published a brilliant and prophetical essay under the title “Inadequacy and Obsolescence of Marxist-Leninist Theory of Nationality” (3).
As far as the understanding of the essence of the state is concerned, Jacobins were obviously far ahead of Marxists. In this area Marx ever remained bound to the romantic era of Revolution of 1848. Already at the end of the XVIII century Sieyes wrote about the way to obtain an “homogeneous” nation-state. The nation-state is a fruit of political will.
Another example of Marxist idiocy, ascending to XIX century romanticism, is the idea of the withering away of the state. It is difficult to think of a bigger nonsense. It is an old anarchists’ dream (4).

So Lenin did preserve the formal existence of the republics. I purposedly write the word as plural number.
Due to the application of the principle of centralism within the communist party and to the peculiar personality of Stalin, this fiction or comedy lasted till 1990. The weakening of the Party resulted in the break-up of the USSR along fault lines ascending to the 1917-1922 epoch.
Fiction became reality.

In 1917 the Russian Jacobins created the Republic of Councils (I draw your attention to the singular). Lenin agreed with this fiction of the Union of Soviet Republics (I draw your attention to the plural) and tolerated it. From 1946 to 1949, at the climax of his power, Stalin too preserved this appearance of “Independent” States, extending from Poland to Bulgaria. One more theoretical imprudence.
The political state as opposed to the ethnic state
In the French dictionary “Le Petit Larousse” it is written that the conditions of uniformity for an ethnos are its language and its culture.

For the purposes of this analysis, I will give my own extended interpretation of this concept, having said that the unity of the ethnic state has its roots in the unity of race, religion, language, common imageries, common memories, common frustrations or fears.
The concept of the political state (as an open, expanding system) is fully opposite to the concept of the ethnic state (as a closed, fixed system). The political state is the expression of the will of free men to have a common future.

The political state, or more precisely the political nation-state – of which I am considered the modern theorist, after Ortega-y-Gasset (5) – allows the individuals to preserve their personal individuality (please forgive this barbarous, rough pleonasm) within the framework of society.
Less than two months ago (6) I stated my opinion about the importance of the concepts of Imperium and Dominium. Since 1964 I never stopped developing this concept of Roman origins.
To one political friend who called me “Vallon” (it was not enough for me!), I wrote, as usual, that I am neither Vallon, nor Flemish, neither German, nor Belgian, and not even European. I am me. The person of Jean Thiriart – this is Jean Thiriart, I wrote him. I do not like at all appearing together with other people in any file, in which it is said they “remember me”.
I want to constantly save my Socratic irony. A supporter of totalitarianism when the talk is about Imperium, I become an anarchist in the sphere of Dominium.

Marx and Engels knew absolutely nothing about this fundamental dicotomy Imperium/Dominium; this is why they wrote “The German Ideology”, addressed against Max Stirner. Stirner’s vision of Imperium (free federative choice, the right to secession, and so on) will always remain utopical and inapplicable. On the contrary, his vision of internal freedom, of the sphere of Dominium, will always be interesting. I am Bolshevik, Jacobin, Prussiam, Stalinan, whenever the speech goes about Imperium and its civil discipline, but my taste and intellectual interests concerning my private life, my life within the framework of Dominium, they go to Odysseus, the champion in imitating the Cynics, to Diogenes, who in reply to the question: “Can you see any good man in Greece?”, – answered ” Nowhere; but I see some good lads in Lacedemones…”.
It is known that Diogenes and the other Cynics admired the Spartan system because the Spartans were partisans of discipline and austerity and enemies of luxury and laziness.
So, like Diagoras, I am against religion. In the private sphere, of course!
Surely, I am famous as the messenger of united Europe from Dublin as far as Vladivostok (7).
But this united Europe, which I describe and invoke, is connected to the sphere of Imperium. And in my opinion such Imperium has to be powerful, dynamic, merciless – in order to be effective.
As to personality, it is connected to the cathegory of Dominium.

My cultural personality forbids me to choose among cathegories. It is unique, as unique is my genetic code.
Biologically, each person is an embodiment of a unique code. He is one. In the field of culture – music, architecture, literature, painting etc. – I claim for myself the status of unshakable individualist.
In the political state there can be no “minorities”, as these deal only with individualities, while collectivity deals with the Imperium.

These binds represent limitations, which I already mentioned above.
Recent misfortunes : federalism, confederalism
As soon as in the concept of construction of the state the twine concept of “Imperium-Dominium” is indroduced, such wicked solutions, as federalism or even worse than that, confederalism, lose any sense and usefulness.
I can not refrain from quoting here an American author, which I konow but for one single quote of his – but such a relevant quote:
“Any group of persons, whatever their number and reciprocal similarity, and whichever the degree of their firmness in assessing their opinion – any group ends with breaking into smaller groups adhering to different variants of the same opinion; in these subgroups in turn there emerge under-subgroups, and further on, down to last limit of such division – the single individual”.
These words are attributed to Adam Ostwald, author of a book under the title “Human Society”.

The anarchists of the XIX century and many others, including Proudhon, persisted in the gross blunder of believing that conflicts and tensions within the LARGE groups could almost disappear, finding themselves a solution in the SMALL groups.
That is the social harmony of the XIX century – the harmony of the small group, opposed to the horror of the intolerable domination of the large goup.
Even Lenin invented an historical nonsense within the framework of the absurd concept of the “ever-well-doing-and-harmonious-small-group” – which later forced him to write about the withering away of state, and also to wish and foretell it.

Europe as far as Vladivostok : the minimum size
The nation-state, wishing to be independent, is compelled to have adequate military means.
Possessing these means depends on demography, autarchy of raw materials, and the industrial power of the state. Between Iceland and Vladivostok we can unite 800 million people (at least for the sake of keeping the balance with the 1,200 millions Chinese) and yet find in the Siberian soil all that is needed to satisfy energetic and strategic requirements.
I affirm that, from the economic point of view, Siberia is the province of the European empire most necessary to its viability.

A great union of highly industrialized and technologically leading Western Europe with Siberian Europe, disposing of almost inexhaustible commodity reserves, will allow the creation of a most powerful republican Empire, with which nobody will but come to an agreement.
Limitations imposed by the European empire
This state is a unity. It does not want to know and will not suffer horizontal division (regional autonomies), or vertical division (social classes) (8).

Its main principle forms a uniform citizenship: in any place of the European empire, the citizen has the right to elect, to be elected and to work. He can absolutely freely change his residence and fis job. His professional qualification is recognized through all the Empire: the doctor who received his diploma in Madrid, without any limitations can practice in St.Petersburg.
Any regional corporativism is excluded.

Separation of any portion of territory is excluded by virtue of the main principle, postulate.
We shall again make use of the Jacobins’ principle: “The Republic is unitary and INDIVISIBLE”. It is not advisable to repeat Lenin’s mistake about “the right to self-determination “.
The “region” or the former national state enter in it forever. The unity of this state is irreversible consolidated by the constitutional law.

0n the contrary, this Empire can expand, not by “seizures”, but through annexation of those who want to join.
The army is popular and integrated. A military caste can not enjoy any monopoly or privileges under the excuse of professionalism. This army will be completely subordinated to political authority.
Within its first 25-50 years of existence, this integrated army will be given special attention so that that the recruits from different regions of Empire serve together.
It is not necessary to suppose the existence of Croatian regiments or French divisions or German or Russian armies.

There is one single currency. Possessing foreign exchange or using it as a means of payment is punishable.
Is not it humiliating, shameful, that today it is possible to go to Russia only having provided oneself with American dollars?

It is humiliating indeed both for the tourists from Western Europe, and for the Russians.
It is a symbol of our common fall: the West Europeans colonized since 1945, the East Europeans balkanized and colonized since 1990. It would be more correct to pay the Moscow hotel in European ECUs, instead of foreign dollars. English should be the common language (9). I did not write ‘American’. In it consists my pragmatical, inevitable choice. The concept of a uniform legislation is one of fundamental principles of this Empire. Civil laws, criminal laws, labour laws and commercial laws are uniform. Interpretation and application of the law are identical everywhere.

Dominium and its limitations

Each one knows the saying that one person’s freedom ends there, where freedom of another person begins.
In a previous article (6) I have indicated, among the general areas of Imperium, those in which unitary Republic “… never recedes… “. As to Dominium, it assumes unlimited freedom of choice, disposing of all personal liberties which do not harm the Imperium.
These freedoms are granted within the framework of private life.
In old (worn out, ailing) political systems and regimes, feelings, emotions, fears from private life will inevitably try to enter – much too often, alas – into political life.
Imperium should remain an area elaborated, structured and directed by the neo-cortex only.

In order to understand one person’s behaviour, it is necessary to study the mechanisms of the brain (10).
I shall repeat here my favourite joke about myself: “… I do not have soul. I have a brain. Actually, as any other individual, I have three brains, namely:
– the originary cortex, the most ancientt one (the old skin of brain), allowing to us to walk, climb, creep or give a basketball a spin;
– the “intermediate” brain (meso-cortex)), containing all my “programmed” emotional “software”, necessary for survival. Sergey Chakhotin, Pavlov’s scholar, long time ago has described these passions and emotions.
The survival of the individual is promoted by the impulses to fight and nutrition; thed preservation of a species – by sexual and parental (associative) inclination.
And finally the most modern of our three “maintenance programs” is the neo-cortex, this magnificent tool of the human being. An insuffiently used tool.
The ancient skin of the brain is already 200 millions years old. The neo-cortex was formed only one million years ago.

This doctrine (or thesis) about the three kinds of brain, “overimposed against each other”, or about a
three-fold brain, as written by the French translator Roland Guyon, was put forward by the American physiologist Paul D.MacLean (10). Itwas then made popular by Arthur Koestler (10).
In Otto Klineberg’s “Social psychology” there is a lenghty duscussion about the question of the emotional behaviour of the person.
Two centuries before the scientific works of Paul D. Mac Lean appeared, Sieyes anticipated this modern thesis about the superposition of three brains.

Bastide, in his 328 pages long dissertation, mentions Sieyes manuscript “About brain and instinct”.
Long before me, Sieyes was surprised and irritated because of pseudo-demonstrations in political language
If I too impose this digression on the reader, it is only to show that a very large part of bitter, aggressive political speeches stems from our superemotional average brain.
A good study of political speech is possible only knowing the working mechanism of human brain.
In this case it is easy to detect the reason of introversion, of hatred towards something. It becomes a simple clinical problem explained by brain physiology.
For many years I had to deal with “writers” describing politics as a reflection of “meso-cortical” behaviour (passion, emotion, impulse, frustration, fear, repulsion), whereas I with all my forces try to describe a “neo-cortical” Republic… sic!

One of my critics said that I am a “rational cold monster”.
I agree with him, and I prefer this condition to that of “irrational Bacchic monster”, so much loved by post-nietzschean rascals.
I persistently recommend the educated reader, who is interested in politics, to familiarize with the works of Paul D. Mac Lean.

The absurdity of pseudo-rational political speeches pretending to be persuasive (the attorney persuades, the scientist proves), is clearly evident from this statement by Marc Jeannerod:
“… the indirect character of relations between the subject and the external world. The subject creates to itself its own representation of this world, and this representation guides his action. In this prespective, action is not the answer to any external SITUATION, as the consequence or product of that particulat REPRESENTATION”.

Any primitive vaniloquy about “ethnos” is very simply explained through this concept of (fictitios) “representation” of a rejected reality (production of reality). Reject of reality, need for day-dream.
For the person who has received a rigid scientific education, politics and its language represent obvious absurdities.
People throw in each other’s faces inventions and fictions of personal hostility, refusing to accept those situations…

But we shall return to Mac Lean’s three kinds of brain.
When we consider the orbits of satellites, trajectory of space probes, durability of steel, optical corrections introduced in building a photolens, we use only our neo-cortex.

Duiring a quarrel between drivers, ending up in a fight, we use the so-called reactive (archeo-cortical) and emotional (meso-cortical) brain mechanisms and we behave as mammals and reptiles.
In the fight between drivers, aggressive impulses take the lead, gradually suppressing the regulating function of the neo-cortex. Sexual inclination, sometimes unbearable, will force us to desire the minor daughter of the neighbour.

The same person always functions with the help of this double “program”: the programs of impulses-passions-feelings-emotions, and the program of absolutely rational thinking.
This digression was necessary as a transition to the question of the government of peoples.
Religion refers to area of Dominium.

It is a private kind of activity, which should not have any possibility at all to exert influence on public life (with the consequent risk to see how “Islamists” challenged the authority in Yugoslavia). It is ridiculous to suppose that religion should interfere with a reasonable political life, in Imperium. Just because of neglecting this principle, mean and silly slaughters have taken place in Lebanon, Palestine, Armenia, Yugoslavia and Moldova.

Those who mix religion with politics are the present “apprentice sorcerers”. He is criminal, who has created this condition of strained relations, but, from the historical point of view, also criminal is he, who turned his eyes away from the fact that religious passions can be used in a political context.

In the laical Imperium of the United republics of Europe, religious freedom will be allowed (I would rather write “admitted”) within the framework of Dominium, and ruthlessly suppressed at the first attempt of interfering in the area belonging to Imperium. Unashamed and false racists coined the thesis of ethno-differentiation (sic) and of “ethno-cultural identities” (re-sic). As a result of it, true wars have arisen in Moldova, Yugoslavia, Caucasus – wars waged by common criminals, or, for the sake of precision¸ by gangsters.
Besides robberies, prostitution, gambling and narco-traffic, criminals and thugs for at least twenty years have been showing interest even for the question of “oppressed minorities”.

These religious and ethno-differential follies have been duly manipulated first by charlatans, and then gangsters – these so-called follies, leaning on deseperates with automatic gun in their hands, will throw us so low that we shall turn into the “thousands tribes of New Guinea”, hunting heads.
In summary, I shall say that Dominium means almost uncontrolled freedom of opinion (even the most idiot), but the Imperium of United laical republics never, even for instant, will admit the freedom to “do everything you want”. Since 1945 history teaches us clear and bloody examples of what ought NOT to be done. Of what should not be allowed to happen tomorrow.
When ill Moscow calls the aid of “old hands”
It is simply crazy, what is going on in Russia in the last two years.
The economy should have been liberalized step by step, from bottom (11) to top, staying on each stage for 2-3 years.

Instead of this, in Moscow the worst adventurers of international finance were admitted. The bargain sale of the results of the work of three generations of Soviet people is open.
Wall Street sharks begin excessively to show interest in the economy of the former USSR.
She should not weaken her political nuts, consenting to the separation of her peoples, even if Lenin, in his political illiteracy (an heritage of rising Marxism around 1848) conceded (very hypocritically and very carelessly) “the right to self-determination”.
The political and military partition of the USSR is and will always remain an unforgivable historical mistake. A fateful and irreversible event.

Centrifugal force will destroy in five years what centripetal forces had created in four or five centuries.
At first it would have been advisable to fill shops with sausage and bread, favouring the creation of one million small-sized economic enterprises (from l up to 50 workers). Simultaneously it was necessary to strengthen political repression AGAINST all these “fighters” for separation, independence and autonomy.
Another example of the suicidal behaviour of the new Russian leaders is their “trips” to Washington instead of agreeing upon receiving economic help from Western Europe.
From an historical and geopolitical point of view, the US are the special enemy of the USSR.
US historical strategy is to separate Europe and to partition the USSR.
All along four centuries England conducted the same politics against the Spanish kings, against France and Germany.

Today England left her place to the US. But only yesterday she tirelessly aimed at destroying the main continental force, capable to unite the european continent into a federation: the Spanish Absburgs, Bonaparte, Wilhelm II, Hitler.
“Lonely” Russia is the future “Brazil in the snow”
The partition of the USSR is irreversible. “Great Russia” is left with no more chances to be a great power.
Then “lonely Russia” is country with no the future, same as Germany since 1945, and France since 1962.
From an historical point of view Germany was devoided of any significance in 1945. Though she is today a great industrial power, she is completely passive, absolutely ininfluent in the international arena (12).
Yes – 47 years have already passed, since Germany does not have any more foreign policy. In itself, this is not so bad for European unity.

Nationalistic hysteria caused a lot of evil to Europe: two suicidal wars – in 1914 and 1939.
If some dreamer still hopes that Russia will become again “Great Russia”, a first-class power, let him know from the start that Washington has already many weapons left. Washington cynically played the Baghdad card against Teheran, and then the Riyadh card, and that of her accomplices in Damascus and Cairo, against Baghdad. Washington has still many knives in stock with which, in case of necessity, to finish the partition of the USSR, and then to attend to the partition of Russia itself.
If required, Washington without the slightest doubt will play against Moscow the Pekin card or the Islamist world card (from Pakistan to Morocco).
Today France, England, Germany are but the historical fiction of independent states, the parodies of them.
All these so-called “great” countries do not have foreign policies anymore.
The Iraqi war has shown that Washington needs France and England only as suppliers of “senegalese fusillers”.

NOTES

(1) From 1981 to 1985 I published a number of works (some of them translated into Russian), advancing the theoretical possibility of uniting Europe from East to West through the repetition of an historical scenario so-called “Macedon”… Since 338 to the revolt in Galilee, at Cheronea, Philip Macedon actually accomplished the unification of Greece.
In those works the argumentation went about the proper ideological-military method of uniting Europe in the direction from Vladivostok to Dublin.
The Chinese continent was united 22 centuries ago by an outstanding politician – Tsin Shihuanti.
Tsin dynasty (221-206). Unitary centralized state, beaurocraric leadership; subordination of the feudal lords. Construction of the Great Chinese wall.

Subsequent events compelled to forget about fearing the Soviet Army and about the skilfully alimented disgust for communism. In 1992 the “Macedon” solution already appeared inadequate in comparison with the 1982-1984 period. Today we should elaborate a concept of regaining back the whole Soviet territory through the construction of Great Europe, formulate it¸ and urgently wish for its realization.
Child-like, antihistorical concept of the “Commonwealth of Independent States”, propoised by the ingenuous Gorbachev, had not the least chance of success. It was a dead born child. Its semantic absurdity is obvious: commonwealth of independents (sic)…; equally well it would be possible to speak about devote Catholics couples practising the free love.

(2) Rome was a POLITICAL STATE aiming to the expansion of its borders.
Not such were, on the theoretical plan, cities Sparta, Athens, and Thebes, with their concept, doomed to paralysis, of the “immanent and eternal state-city”. Approximately 2000 years after Prussia too would have become an expanding political state. However such expansion does not necessarily imply conquest. A theoretical and concrete example of this. If during the years 1950-55, in full cold war, the US had offered us the political integration of Western Europe into an honest and sincere “Atlantic” structure, we would have been witnesses of the birth of the Atlantic Republic, extending from San Francisco to Venice and from Los Angeles to Luebeck.
I bring this theoretical example so that the reader can distinguish a usual enslaving imperialism from integrating imperialism.
Such obvious ability to expand also should have the Uniform European Republic. All my geopolitical concepts postulate the necessity of preserving a of a vital nation-state.
I shall use geopolitics with the purposes of creation of the concept and description of vitality of Republic.
I am not a geopolitical theorist, whereas Haushofer and Spykman were among its ideologists.
Both are badly disguised imperialists.
The difference between the theorist and the ideologist is huge.
Haushofer only rationalized his animal pan-germanism. His concept of the “Berlin-Moscow-Tokyo” block is no more than rational masking his pan-germanist fictions.
As to the United States, they refer to their “Manifest Destiny”. It is ideological, messianic geopolitics, born out of imaginations, in turn caused by regular reading of a paranoid literature and raids through the biblical text.

Weinberg lists the expressive chapter titles to this historical paranoia: “geographical predestination”, “mission of regeneration”, “inevitable destiny”, “international police power”. Psychologists and psychiatrists will find there food for reflection and entertainment.
My geopolitical concept is completely different. I would say, that “the industrial and technological advance peculiar to United States must or can create such a situation, when one will reasonably and fairly administer the Continental State extending from Alaska to Patagonia.
Instead of provocatively “walk around” their fleet in the Chinese and Mediterranean seas.
Ideological geopolitical theories operate in the terms of subordination and/or explotation, whereas the theoretical geopolitics “in its pure state” deals with development and construction of vital states.

(3) Jose Cuadrado Costa “Insuffisance et depassement du concept marxiste-leniniste de nationalite”, October 1984, in “Conscience Europeenne” n.9, Charleroi Belgique. (Concept of “nationality” in Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Ortega-y-Gasset and Jean Thiriart). It exists in Spanish, French and Russian language.

(4) It is necessary to critically read this work by Daniel Guerin (“L’Anarchisme”, Poche Gallimard). There all nonsenses of XIXth century romanticism are written. It is difficult to find somebody more ingenous and more silly than Proudhon. He described an idyllic world, the world of “federations of federations”. He did not expect Moldavian, Croatian and Armenian wars with the purpose of brutal destruction of the “Minority of Minorities”. And with just one burst from an automatic gun!

(5) Jose Ortega-y-Gasset “La Revolte des Masses”, Editions Stock 1961; Jose Ortega-y-Gasset “La vocation de la Jeune Europe”, Revue de la S.S. Universitaire “LA JEUNE EUROPE” Berlin 1942, Cahier 8.

(6) Jean Thiriart “EUROPE: I’Etat-Nation Politique”, revue “Nationalisme et Republique” n.8, juin 1992 25, Cours Foch 13640, La Roque d’Antheron (France).

(7) Since already more than a quarter of century I have been developing the concept of Europe as: (a) unitary state, (b) of European nations. General De Gaulle wanted a strong (and united) France in an impotent (confederal) Europe.
Europe did not like such. As well as Maurras, he was caught in an impasse.
In 1965 the German writer Heinz Kubi attacked me about the ancient prophets of Great Germany, to which I supposedly belonged.
Kubi writes:
“L’Europe: une nation? (Europe: one nation?). The paradox of political landscape in Western Europe is that same people most intolerant to each other’s opponents (on the European question: gollists-confederalists and thiriarists-unionists – J.Th.) are supporters of the same concept of state. For De Gaulle it was unthinkable that the state could and should be something different from national state, as the nation is the only lawful basis for politics. The same concept is dominant among one faction of the European opposition, (“Jeune Europe ” – J.Th.). This one last wants to quit the national framework, but can not offer any other kind of state, except for national. So, they want to substitute the present states with the European national state. They dream of the European nation, and it is not casual, that on this matter they agree with the prophets of “Great Germany” and other fascists from the past.” (see page 312 of the French issue).
See ” PROVOKATION EUROPA “, Kiepenheuer und Witsch, Koln-Berlin, 1965. French translation: ” Defi à l’Europe “, Seuil, 1967.
The defeat of racist “Great Germany” I all too well have learnt, during war and after, in the years of reclusion. I have taken from it useful lesson about the fact that the racially united state (Hitler’s) could not extend without constant wars. Therefore in a dark cell I have worked out the concept of the expansionist political (not racial) united state.
I have taken and developed the concepts of Sieyes and Ortega-y-Gasset, the concept of political nation to be “rounded off” into a higher destiny, a European destiny.

(8) On a meeting, the 7th of September 1789, the abbey Sieyes clearly and unambiguously stated said and has repeated: “Sovereign is only the Nation. The Nation has neither orders, nor classes, nor groups. Sovereignity can not be divided and transmitted”. See Colette Clavreuil “L’influence de la theorie d’Emmannuel Sieyes sur les origines de la representation en droit public”, doctoral dissertations, Université de Paris, 1982. ; Jean-Denis Bredin “Sieyes, la clé de la Revolution française”, Editions de Fallois, Paris 1988; Paul Bastid “Sieyes et sa pensée” re-ed. Hachette 1970.
Nobody could formulate the concept of the Unitary state better than Sieyes. As to me, I transfer this concept of United and indivisible republic to my reflections about the creation of an Imperial republic from Dublin to Vladivostok. As well as Sieyes, I am sick of all these federative theories, sources of threats of civil wars, sources of territorial partitions.

(9) For the science educated person, all our languages are too weak, indistinct, obsolescing means of expression. Scientific language is unequivocal, the literary language is always ambiguous. For this reason “writers” are expressed so not clearly in sociology or politics. See the capital work by Louis Rougier “La metaphysique et le langage”, Denoel 1973.
Actually all over the world English is already and inevitably is the common language of science and technology. The Parisian Institute Pasteur does not publish anything any more in French. All its works are issued only in English.

(10) Paul D. Mac Lean “Les trois cerveaux de l’homme”, Robert Laffont 1990 (French translation); Arthur Koestler “Le cheval dans la locomotive ou le paradoxe humain”, Caiman-Levy 1968; see Chapter XVI “Les trois cerveaux”. Koestler addresses himself to the many educated readers. MacLean writes for the reader well familiar with brain neuropsychology.
Sergey Chakotin “Le viol des foules par la propagande politique”, Gallimard 1952. Chakotin is disciple and follower of Pavlov. His “Violence upon crowds” is a capital work indispensible to those, who want do go more in deep into the given question.
Otto Klineberg “Psychologie Sociale”, Presses Universitaires de France 1967.
Josè M.R. Delgado “Le conditionnement du cerveau et la liberte de L’esprit” Charles Dessart, Bruxelles 1972 (French translation).
Jean-Didier Vincent “Biologie des Passions”, Seuil 1986.
Marc Jeannerod “Le cerveau-machine”, Fayard 1986. Guy Lazorthes “Le cerveau et l’esprit – Complexité et malleabilité “, Flammarion 1982.

(11) Jean Thiriart et Rene Dastier (1962-1965) ” Principes d’Economie Communautaire “, 170 pages (various ed. by Luc Michel, 1986). A comprehensive work on socio-economic theories of Jean Thiriart. (Socialism on European scale: communitarianism). There is also a brief exposition of this doctrine in a small volume of 42 pages: Yannik Sauveur et Luc Michel “Esquisse du Communautarisme” (1987). And at last, the article by Jean Thiriart “Esquisse du communautarisme”, published in the journal “La nation européenne “, n.l, February 1966.
The present Russian regime is accomplishing the liberalization of the economy in the most pernicious direction. At first they invoked the aid of international financial sharks, which was the last thing to be done. And Yeltsin did it, proving himself to be a layman, a person without any knowledge both in the fields of economics and history.

It would have been much more correct: (a) immediately to liberalize all enterprises with a labour work force from l to 50 people; (b) in 2-3 years to liberalize enterprises with a labour work force from 50 to 500 people. It would have been necessary to go bottom-up, from immediate liberalization of very small enterprises to those of very major concern in 6-8 years. Free enterprise stimulates work. It is impossible to say the same about the speculative international finance, looking only to its own immediate benefit. Here we shall not describe the wide margin between industrial capitalism (“Ford”, “Renault”, “Citroen”) and speculative bank capitalism (International Monetary Fund). Hundreds pages of economic researches by Dastier and Thiriart (1962-1965) are devoted to this subject. Considerably simplifying, one might say that communitarism means a completely free economy for the enterprises with a volume of employment up to 50 people, regulated economy for those with more than 500, controlled – those above 5000, and state-economy for those with more than 50,000. It is “variable geometry” system, half-way between industrial capitalism and classical socialism.

(12) Modern Germany is an economic giant, on one hand, and political dwarf, on the other hand. It is a country historically evirated since 1945. Present Germany is one of the exploitation zones of the cosmopolitan economy based on Wall Street.
List brilliantly demonstrated the difference between cosmopolitan and political economy. Proceeding from this difference, Thiriart built the theory of the economy of power as opposed to the American economy focused on profit.

There is an excellent analysis of List’s ideas by the American author Edward Mead Earl (see Edward Mead Earl in “Makers of Modern Strategy”, Princeton University 1943). In 1980 the publishing house Berger-Levrault issued this work in French translation under the title “Les maitres de la strategie” (Chapitre 6: “Adam Smith, Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List: les fondements economiques de la puissance militaire”).
List spent many years in the US. He said that “riches are useless without unity and power of a nation “. About the analytical quality of his work Edward Mead Earl wrote that it could be worth being included in an anthology of geopolitical studies.

Tags: Geopolitics and Eurasia, Jean Thiriart