Horia Sima – “THE FATE OF NATIONALISM”

HORIA SIMA –  THE FATE OF NATIONALISM

P.E.G.  Paris, 1951

I. Communism and the Bourgeois and Capitalist Society

The cause of the actual disorder – The tribunal of humanity – Bolshevism and the bourgeois and capitalist society – The value of political freedom. The responsibilities of the West

II. The Phenomenon of Nationalism

Nationalism and fascism – Nationalism and bourgeoisie – The nationalist phenomenon in its pure state – “National” and “nationalism” – Nationalism and Christianity

III. The Errors of Nationalism

Ambiguities of the doctrine – Imperialism – Ideological imperialism – Totalitarianism – Nationalism and dictatorship – Materialism – Race and people

IV. The Constructive Experience of Nationalism

The inherent forces of the nation – Nationalism and Socialism – Nationalism and economic freedom – Planned economy – The nationalist victory of Spain – The Russian campaign

V. The Tragedies of Nationalism

Nationalist movements that did not reach the stage of maturity – The causes of their failure – The enmity of the democracies – The trials of the nationalist movements during World War II – The attitude of Italy and Germany

VI. Premises of a Valid History

The future of Nationalism – The nationalist-democratic Christian synthesis – The spiritual vacuum of the Western world – The Marshall Plan and the European crisis – The nationalist-democratic alliance – The dangers of a fallacious peace – The revolutionary strength of Christianity

VII. Nations or Social Masses?

The bases of democratic revolution according to Tocqueville – The appearance of the masses in history – Meaning of the phenomenon people and mass – Historical value of the nation – Masses and technology – The elite and the mass – Nationalism and the problem of the masses – Nationalism and federalism

*

 

Preface

This is not a book about abstract doctrine. It deals with political problems such as they appeared to men engaged in action. The author has analyzed the facts, the events which have profoundly shaken the soul of a whole generation of his country. It is the Rumanian Legionary Movement which is here making its deposition. The points of view expressed in this book and the conclusions which it draws are the result of an experience acquired by its leaders during 30 years’ struggle. The only relationship that could be established between this work and books of pure speculation is that in both cases the historical detail disappears in favor of its intelligible expression.

But, one may ask, apart from the history of the Rumanian people, why would the political experience of the Legionary Movement be of interest to Europe? As we will try to explain precisely in this book, the nationalist movements of Italy, Spain, Germany, Poland, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Rumania, Latvia, Norway, England, France and Belgium arise from a similar frame of mind, from a social and political phenomenon common to all Europe. None of these movements imitated another – insofar as this happened, its creative potential was weakened –  but each one answered an appeal which history addresses to all nations. Mussolini was right to affirm that Fascism –that is to say Italian nationalism- was no product for exportation. No people can credit itself with having brought nationalism into being and of having spread it throughout the world. Each nation hides within its depths its own nationalism; it is up to each nation to mold it in the die of reality. If nationalism manifested itself with more vigor after World War I by creating a style of life, an era which replaced the Bourgeois period, it is to be explained by the fact that conditions favorable to its full bloom were reunited only at that moment (the awakening of popular masses). The Legionary Movement did not appear as the continuation of an impulse coming from outside the frontiers, as has so often been affirmed in jest or in bad faith; it is truly an expression of the necessities of life of the Rumanian people. The fact that one may see in it certain relationships with other movements or note certain ideological similarities can be explained by the common ground which exists at the basis of all nationalist groups.

Our expose does not aim at explaining the history of the Romanian Legionary Movement; it endeavors to include the general panorama of the nationalist phenomenon, and to do this with the aid of facts which our own experience gives us. Since ideas which are characteristic of our country are reflected in the history of the Legionary Movement, we have applied ourselves to the job of bringing out the factors common to all nationalist movements, the elements capable of clarifying the phenomenon as a whole.

This does not mean that our sole aim is to explain the bases of nationalism and its historical vicissitudes. It is not our intention in writing this book to study a recent phase of European history. It is rather concern for the future which has compelled us to write it. This book is a book of attitude, of combat. It is committed to supporting the cause of Nationalism and, if possible, to detaching it from the damages of the war. But how can we stain this result without first knowing its true face, without defining what it really is? Both friends and enemies have judged it falsely. The nationalism which the world knows and evaluates does not correspond to its authentic image. The aspirations of the peoples have been adulterated. People talked about nationalism, acts have been committed in its name, but in reality the survival of the bourgeois and capitalist era, the era of imperialism and chauvinism, has been troubling the conscience of the peoples and poisoning the international atmosphere. The defeat which the nationalists have undergone is, in the first place, the result of this false appreciation of the phenomenon.

Nationalism finds itself once more at a crossroad. Vanquished on the political level by the military victory of the Allies, the nationalist myth has not ceased to move the soul of the peoples. The nationalist states, with their formidable armies, have disappeared from the world scene, but the spiritual energy which gave rise to these forces has not died. Dispersed, decapitated and haunted from all sides, but nonetheless alive, present and indestructible, nationalism could disappear only if the nations disappeared.

What direction will the survivors of the nationalist catastrophe of 1945 take? Will the tragic experience of the war be of some use? Will it enable us to discern in the political past what was good and what was erroneous? Or will the nostalgia of vanquished ideals be stronger than the lessons which life teaches, even to the point of preventing a new orientation of the peoples, which would be in greater conformity with the profound meaning of nationalism?

The nationalist world with its diverse ethnical baggage, is solicited today by diverging tendencies. Certain people continue to confound nationalism with its historic tragedies, without going back to its principle, without searching for its real meaning. For this category of Nationalists the cause of the defeat, a superficial defeat, goes back to the absurd coalition of Democracy and Bolshevism. They believe in this all the more since the disappearance of the great nationalist powers has opened the door to the bolshevist invasion of Europe, and because no Western state is capable of replacing their political and military potential.

There is also another current, which without sacrificing anything of the spiritual treasury of nationalism tries to detach it from all manifestations which  have corrupted its character, and tries to put it back into world circulation in its pure form. Under this aspect, nationalism loses its aggressive characteristics and becomes a factor for cresting harmony between peoples.

The first attitude is entirely lacking in foresight. The historical outline or outline of nationalism is lost in a multitude of wanderings, and disordered engagements; to continue the same policy would mean to repeat tomorrow the errors of yesterday. A nationalism focused on the past would never be able to dissipate the suspicions which the public opinion of the democratic states manifest toward it. In order for the nationalist idea to become again an active an constructive political value, it must be separated from the acts and attitudes which do not belong to it by nature.

This reconciliation is even more necessary since the nationalist energies have become indispensable for the creation of a powerful anti-communist front. The democracies are passing through a grave ideological crisis. Liberalism has entered a phase of decline and no longer has any influence with the masses. It is impossible to start the battle against Communism – all the virtues of which are open to dispute except for elan and militant spirit – with an ideology which is in the process of decay. In order to compensate for their spiritual vacuum, the Democracies must look to the support of the nationalist movements.

Whether one wishes it or not, from 1945 on, the fate of nationalism has been confounded with the fate of the democracies. If there still exist democrats who, blinded by passion, do not even see in their last hour where death will strike from, the nationalists must not fall in the same error. It is their task to see to it with perseverence that their friendship with democracies is not compromised by unthoughtful acts or by unreasonable demands. If the nationalists insist upon extremist and rigid attitudes which cannot at least boast the unreserved support of truth, they could impede the process of unification of European forces and indirectly increase the chances for the victory of bolshevism. Let us suppose that the democracies feel strong enough to defeat bolshevism alone. Should we conclude that because of this nationalism would lose its reason for existence, that it will no longer play any role whatsoever in the life of the peoples?

The error would be great. In bolshevism the nations are threatened with an acute and immediate danger, but even without the intervention of the Bolshevik plague they could lose their vital balance and perish. Man in our era is too much deprived of spiritual life to be able to dispense with the crutch of nationalism. Deprived of this spiritual force, he would be exposed to the most harmful ideas and political conceptions. Without the living presence of nationalism, without the permanent action of this principle in the conscience of the individual, the popular masses would destroy the natural frame of history, formed by ethnical categories, and would disappear in a degrading mixture of races, of peoples and of cultures. Nationalism is not only a useful ideology for the present moment, it is the creative element in history, an element which will be even more indispensable in the future.

The ideas which we expound here are not the result of meditations suggested by the war. They belong to the “first principles” of the Rumanian Legionary Movement and events have only confirmed them in a way for which we had never hoped. The singular fate of the Rumanian Legionary Movement, the persecutions which it suffered even during the period which was, from the political point of view, most favorable to it, can be explained by its constant faithfullness to the fundamental truths of the nationalist doctrine. In the West the Legionary Movement has few friends. Apart from the defamations and lies which have been widely bandied by its enemies, practically nothing is known about its past, its sufferings, and its aims. This book has no intention of reestablishing the truth as far as we are concerned. It deals with a question of general interest. It restricts itself to revealing to the readers one single fact which we think is eloquent enough to make it unncessary to accompany it with commentaries: from 1938 on, the concentration camp regime became a new universe for the Legionaries. They emerged from one concentration camp only to be directed to another camp. Rumanian camps, German camps, allied camps, Soviet camps! And their calvary continues today behind the Iron Curtain.

In these considerations we have been guided by one single thought: the catastrophe which threatens the existence of all peoples. Too much hatred, too much despair have risen in the world for individuals and nations to continue to allow themselves to take truth lightly. We no longer can permit history to develop haphazardly, ruled by chaotic aims. The moment for the Great Reform has arrived. All the ideas, all the systems, and all the conceptions of the past centuries must be revised and adapted to the inner man, to his structure and to his ends. We must cease to separate the spiritual man from the political man. History is an aspect of the great life of the spirit. The unending quarrels which the peoples have among themselves over territory to conquer, or for objectives of glory or interest, represent only his lower nature which must be defeated and must be subordinated to peremptory ends.

The aim of history is the liberation of peoples from fear, from oppression, from injustices, so that their purest and best energies can be utilized in the realm of cultural creation, the only creation which is gifted with the halo of immortality.

Chapter 1. Communism and the Bourgeois and Capitalist Society

The lack of progress which can be found in the moral and political sciences is caused by the inability of man to improve the results obtained by his predecessors in the realm of social organization. A long time ago this “disorder” was already no longer part of the realm of the positive sciences where discoveries and inventions can be transferred from one country to another, where no one dares operate with notions which have been contradicted by experience. The spirit of improvisation which rules over social activities makes the art and sciences of governing suffer from the gravest contradictions: on one hand the progress achieved in that order by one generation is blurred by the following generations; on the other, errors which have been branded by the experience of peoples reappear after having remained buried for a long while and once more enjoy the confidence of the masses as well as of their rulers. How much suffering and torment could have been spared humanity if its past had been analyzed so as to discover that has proven to be false, unjust, absurd, destructive, and what has proved to be valuable, so that from this selection a criterion, something like a fundamental concept of humanity, a concept which could at the same time serve as a central idea for political coordination and a frame of reference for the sciences, whose aim is related to the destiny of human groups or collectivities, could come into being.

In order to distinguish between truth and error in the frame of history, more is needed than just a rational effort. The human intelligence can easily detach itself from the facts observed by the physical sciences, because in that case it is dealing with a matter which is inert, anonymous and subjugated to our destiny. But it is incapable of retaining the same objectivity when dealing with human events. Judging and at the same time participating in history, man ends by yielding to inclinations which are foreign to his vocation. Egotisms, vanities, unreasonable interests falsify the past of a people, thus preventing the authentic lessons of history from penetrating the soul of future generations.

This does not mean that the art of governing, that is the political sciences, are subject to a perpetual instability; the preceding remark indicates only that the means of investigation with which we want to decipher the mysteries of social institutions are not adapted to the objective of its investigation, and we must come to its aid with a tool of greater subtlety, a tool which would have greater impact. In order to elucidate or solve the problems of history, reason should be supported by a great and disinterested vitality. Man should first purify his thoughts from this complex of egotisms in order to obtain a real knowledge of the complexities of society.

For having delayed the composition of this “Magna Charta” of universal history, preconditioned, it is true, by the development of the spiritual nature of man, humanity wanders today in the labyrinth of its own faults. Peoples and individuals struggle with each other to see to it that theses and ideals whose bases are equally weak may triumph.

A profound uneasiness, a terrible fear of the future arises from today’s torment – while the extraordinary advances of technology should assure us of the contrary- because everything that is started is done in a haphazard manner, without probing the unknown, without knowing where we are going to stop in the future. Rumanity has only partial visions of life which interfere with each other in limitless confusion. In a period where we constantly speak in terms of the political unification of continents, what man lacks the most is the principle which could animate such an effort and such an accomplishment, that is, enlightened historical insight.

The war over, the victors overran the vanquished. Accusations are made, the search for the responsibles is started, they are found, they are punished. The procedure in itself would not have been bad if the tribunal of humanity had tried all the criminals of war, without taking the question of nationality or political color of the delinquents into account, and, naturally, without sparing the victors. Otherwise this international tribunal is in great danger of appearing to be an instrument of vengeance rather than a means of expiation in the service of the inherent justice of history. There is no doubt that the nationalist movements have made mistakes. But how can we isolate these errors from their historical frame and present them in a separate file? These are the errors of an era, they correspond to a state of mind, they have their antecedents. There are mistakes which preceed the faults of the nationalists, which accompanied them, and which have never ceased to exist, even after the brakdown of the Axis powers. One cannot speak of the errors of nationalism without dealing with those errors which brought up the apparition of this movement. Nationalism is only the reaction of national collectivity against the errors of the bourgeois and capitalist society. Is it possible to consider these errors with indulgence when it is through their accumulation that the pedestal of Bolshevism, that abomination of human history, was created?

It would be entirely incorrect to liken Bolshevism to an error. To do so would even be to pay a compliment. Error exists only in relationship to what is good and true. Error results because there is a lack of asiduity in man to discover an serve higher values. Bolshevism cannon even boast of this privilege. Truth is entirely banished from its sphere, from the vision of the new world which its rulers wish to build. Not only does Bolshevism think that truth has no usefulness for the life of the State; truth is persecuted and condemned, even when it remains in a latent state, without any relationships to action. Whosoever attempts to give to it the most innocent or the most timorous expression, risks being branded an enemy of the people and disappearing into the unending ranks of those who no longer have any name or any family.

Bolshevism is engaged in permanent warfare with the truth; its entire system was built in order to persecute and exterminate it. The Bolshevik State ist not so much at grips with the political and social entity of man as with the truth which lies in his soul. It is not content with asking from its subjects an impeccable civic conformism, but pursues them and controls them in their inner selves. The model citizens of the soviet state are individuals separated from their internal world, incapable of thinking by themselves or affirming personal aspirations; they are men whose spiritual functions have been standardized and who can be perfectly controlled from the exterior. After the expropriation of property and the confiscation of work, comes the expropriation of the spirit. The slightest bit of truth left ignored in a corner of the soul constitutes for the bolshevik an explosive substance of unbelievable efficacy, capable of creating the most stubborn resistance and endangering the very continuity of the regime.

Let us not imagine that the triumph of Bolshevism will take the form of a political or military victory. This triumph will be celebrated on the day when the Soviet monoculture has succeeded in killing the last spiritual vestiges of humanity. The ideal of Bolshevism is the expropriation of the human person.

How was the creation if this monstrous organization made possible? How can one explain its extreme virulence and its universal apparition? The answer could not be conclusive if we mentioned only the hundred-year struggle of the different communist groups over the whole world. This revolutionary tradition started by the Russian Decembrists explains only one phase of the problem, the least important one: the existence of an organized force, which, profiting of the difficulties of the period, captivates all popular discontents. In order to become a worldwide calamity, communism had to find an environment in which it could develop freely, within the very society which it hated and wished to destroy. A handful of fanatics in the service of a fatal idea would never have been able to constitute a danger to the security of peoples without the complicity of those who precisely today do not know where to hide to escape from it, or how to stop it.

The advanced state of disintegration in which the bourgeois and capitalist society found itself has been communism’s best propaganda agent. The forces which today are plotting against the fundamental institutions of humanity were brought into being by the vices, the injustices, the cowardly acts and the cruelties of the bourgeois and capitalist society. It was this society which fed the fire of world revolution by disinteresting itself in the fate of the masses, and by abandoning them to poverty, corruption and ignorance. The proletariat of today is first of all the result of the egotistical bourgeois morale, the mentality of businessmen. Incapable of sacrificing a bit of their opulence to raise the living standards of the masses, they preferred to see the ranks of their adversaries grow with new categories of malcontents and to the extent of endangering the very existence of the peoples.

One could doubtless reply that this picture is not that of a particular social phenomenon of our era, that at all times the transition from one type of society to another starts when the old type shows signs of weariness and lets itself die. Our remarks would therefore tend to describe a normal historical procedure, a phenomenon which repeated itself often; this time it would be the turn of the bourgeois and capitalist society to disappear and for another social system to replace it.

This explanation would disturb no one if an unexpected complication had not made its appearance; if between the two forces which today are struggling for mastery of the world – one conservative, the other revolutionary – one could distinguish clearly what separates them, what innovation one brings in comparison with the other? Unfortunately, we do not see in the name of what reform program the communists justify their pretentions of overthrowing and replacing the old world. The capitalist society in its time made justified its existance by rejuvenating feudal society, by recreating it in a more spacious way, by making it conform better to the necessities of the era. But what horizons does communism open to humanity?

This question is nevertheless debated in all newspapers, in all marxist-inspired publications and reviews, and it is discussed over and over again in all communist meetings. If one were to believe them, communism brings a superior social structure in which all the old abuses disappear. Nevertheless when one analyzes carefully the achievements of communism in Russia and elsewhere, one realizes with astonishment that it is not reform of the old society or a program which seeks to correct the errors of the capitalist system. On the contrary – and it is the only innovation that can be attributed to communism- these same errors reappear with an aggravated intensity and a force of generalization up till now unkown.

 

Bourgeois and capitalist society	Soviet world
1. ATHEISM: state of mind of a few restricted circles, without signs of agressiveness toward those who keep their faith.	ATHEISM: official religion, exclusive and intolerant
2. MATERIALISM: dominating concept of our period, less of a doctrinary aspect than a rule of conduct for modern man.	MATERIALISM: philosophic system raised to the rank of absolute truth, the only one to be admitted in the schools, universities and State cultural dispensaries.
3. EXPLOITATION OF MAN BY MAN	EXPLOITATION TILL EXHAUSTION OF MAN BY MAN: creation of modern slavery. The robot man as the unit of labor.
4. TENDENCY TO CONCENTRATE CAPITAL: dispossessing small capitalists in favor of a restricted group of financiers.	GENERAL EXPROPRIATION OF CAPITAL: a parasitic bureaucracy disposes of the wealth and the work of a subjugated people.
5. ADVANCED STATE OF DISINTEGRATION OF THE HUMAN PERSON	LIQUIDATION OF PERSONAL CHARACTER of man with the help of collective breaking [as in “breaking” a horse].
6. THE INNER LIBERTY OF MAN IS THWARTED BY THE GIGANTIC ACHIEVEMENTS OF TECHNOLOGY	MEN ARE THE SLAVES OF THE MACHINE. TECHNOLOGY IS THE SUPREME ACHIEVEMENT OF THEIR ASPIRATIONS:
7. PERIL OF THE DISINTEGRATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL through his detachment from the body of tradition: nation, homeland, history, national culture, religion, customs.	TRANSPLANTATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO SURROUNDIOUS WHICH ARE FOREIGN to all the institutions of his national past.

In these considerations we have omitted everything in the history of Bolshevism which has only maneuver value or is only a modification of a tactical order. Russian imperialism, religious freedom, the orthodox offensive, panslavism, color nationalism, are just means of action for Bolshevism. They do not indicate a conversion of communism toward nationalism, its evolution toward specifically Russian ends; they represent only intermediary ends. All the concessions made in one sense or in another will be destroyed by the fire of purification as soon as their tactical advantages have been spent.

This comparative table shows in quite an explicit manner what relation communism bears to the bourgeois and capitalist world. The great innovation consists in the feverish search for the negative aspects of the bourgeois and capitalist society. Bolshevism does not change anything; it does not improve anything whatsoever, does not bring any generous idea, but seeks to activate in the highest degree the causes of social disintegration. It extracts all the evil which prevails in society and cultivates it in its pure state, just as microbe cultures are cultivated in a surrounding dedicated exclusively to their development. A bizarre phenomenon is occuring, and for the first time in history, continuity of substance between two social structures which fight against each other bitterly. It is not a question here of positive continuity, of the torch of a tradition which a period passes on to the one that comes after it, but as we have already remarked, it is a revival of the dead matter produced by the bourgeois world. Communism hates the real values of bourgeois and capitalist society, but it is avid to avail itself of all the cast-offs which are the result of wear, time and old age.

The revolutionary force arises against the conservative force not with an eye to suppressing the abuses, but only because this conservative force has not pushed far enough the perfecting of the techiques of evil and does not wish to abandon the last vestiges of humanity and free life.

The bolshevist spirit is the bourgeois spirit without the intermediary nuances of evil. Whereas in the bourgeois and capitalist society evil appears through lack of spiritual vigilance, through error, in the Soviet world it is adopted as a general norm of government, as a constitutional principle of State. It is endowed by a hierarchy, by a status, by a code, by a police, by a justice which defends it against all deviations. He who still has a longing for good, who tries to discover in his inner self another meaning to life than that prescribed by the thought of the regime is ousted from the ranks of the collectivity like a sterile plant.

These conclusions have been dictated to us by reality as it appears in Soviet Russia or in the countries invaded by her armies. We arrive at the same result by studying directly the Marxist doctrine, the concept which dominates its politica attitudes. Marxist dialectic foresees a general settlement of accounts with the past once the bourgeoisie has been vanquished by the proletariat – last episode of the class struggle – a past which be succeeded by the communist ideal, the classless and stateless society. None of the traditional institutions created by the millenary work of the peoples will pe spared by the wave of destruction. Nation, country, religion, family, propriety, rights, morale, individuality, liberty, will be equally swept by the wave of the proletariat. Nevertheless, for a doctrine which pretends to erect a new world the constructive part shows an astonishing weakness. Whereas the destructive mission of the proletarit is scrupulously described, the texts dedicated to the construction of the future society appear brief and inarticulate. All which is related to conquest of power is presented in a masterly way, whereas all that concerns the use of power after the victory remains wrapped in mystery. The formulas whichh are dedicated to the future do not seem to rise from the same precise and sagacious analyst; we are suddenly transported into a world of unreal dimensions.

It is evident that these formulas have not been enounced in order to represent something tangible, to suggest an achievable image of the future, but rather to hide an inner emptiness, a weakness of the thinker, an abdication of his creative energies.

By making a tabula rasa of the past, Marxist thought annihilates implicitly all its creative possibilities. It has reached the point where it no longer can underake anything. In front of it lies the dark immensity of an abyss. The revolutionary synthesis can no longer take place, because the matter which it was supposed to utilise lies dying under a pile of rubbbish. It ist then that Marxist thought dissimulates its own catastrophe by transforming negation into virtue, by adopting the formula of the concentrated evil – a formula which distinguishes itself also from the parallelism of the bourgeois-communist manifestations – as a durable system of government. The critics and adversaries of Marxism have not seen that this doctrine is entirely lacking in the essential thing, an ideal, a creative vision of society. It is a formidable dialectic of destruction, and not a dialectic of creation.

Communist society constitutes an enigma only for the one who wishes it to be that way. It is identical with the Soviet Leviathan. One can accuse the actual leaders of Soviet Russia of all evils, except that of not having remained faithful to the founder of the communist movement. The western socialist parties no longer have anything in common with Marxism, apart from a relationship of prestige. (Many other reasons bind us to the West. What sympathy could Soviet Russia – that immense slaughterhouse of peoples, where everything which belongs to a nation, to a culture is destined to disappear, buried in a shapeless form – awake in us?)

Having noted that the ideological differences between the bourgeois and capitalist society and communism are much slighter than would habe been thought and that what one starts, the other achieves, for what reasons do we nevertheless not hesitate to declare ourselves the supporters of the western world? Because in the West, evil has not taken the form of an institution; it has not yet become a State ethic.

The peoples of the West live in a climate of freedom. Theire technique of government, Democracy, cannot prevent evil from manifesting itself, but if it does not do anything about it, at least it does not offer to it the direct support of the state, a symbiosis which has been achieved in Soviet Russia. Democracy is a neutral political frame, a rule of game which accepts and can sustain diverse ideological contents. In the XIX-th century the welcomed economic liberalism and a capitalism of a most advanced type; today the socialists of diverse tendencies do not feel disturbed at all by her company. She is responsible neither for the political content elaborated by the diverse currents which aggitate the collectivity, neither for the results homologated under her arbitration. She registers the fluctuations of the public opinion, but it is not her task to evaluate or influence them. Democracy is rather a procedure to be followed in public affairs, than a concept of life. She plays a role in society analogous to the free arbiter in the life of the individual. It follows that materialism, atheism, and the other defects of modern society are not the product of the system of government inaugurated by Democracy, and that their apparition concomitant with the victory of democratic ideas is only fortuitous. We could not therefore ask Democracy, which called upon to respect with impartiality all principles and all parties, to rule out social evils or to undertake crusades in order to fight them. Democracy does not oppose herself to the appearance of sane ideas, but she can offer to reformers of society only the guarantee of political liberties.

Democracy distributes equal opportunities to everyone; the result of the struggle between good and evil depends upon the wiseness of the leaders and upon the virtues of the collectivity.

This fortunate separation, which was able to take place in the West, between political opinion and its mode of expression is not respected by communism. Its technique of government is an instrument of expansion for the communist ideal. It does not register the opinions of the citizens to utilize them in the framework of the State, but to discover and to annihilate those which could cause disturbances to its all-powerfulness. The Soviet State admits no exceptions, does not tolerate any heresies, does not recognize anyone’s right to nonconformism. The iniquitous treatment which it applies to its subjects, its violent intervention each time they attempt to manifest personal viewpoints is the result of the principle upon which it is based. The communist State is a diabolical breach in the forehead of humanity, a complete projection of evil. The demoniacal powers told themselves, without doubt, that the spiritual bases of humanity were so damaged, that humanity was so degraded, was so sick, that they (the demoniacal powers) would find no obstacles if they manifested one fine day their desires for world domination. When communism succeeds in taking in hand the destinies of a people, it immediately gets rid of all tactical hesitations, rejects little by little all the masks of occasion, and by its acts, by the terror which it exercises, by the horror which it has aquired rivalry with other forces, by all this ferocious cloak, characteristic of the regime installed in Russia, it reveals its identity with evil. It finds the view of what is good, what is right, intolerable, for the contradictions which good would raise in the souls of people would be fatal to its existence. Placed in the presence of a means of comparison, the latter would not take long to recognize the true face of the State which rules them. In order to mainatin itself, the communist State must transform terror into a permanent principle of government.

Supposing that the development of the actual conflict favors the western democracies, as everything would tend to have us believe; this would not mean that the danger of communism is definitely over, and that a period of prosperity and of peace would establish itself between the peoples. The bourgeois and capitalist society carries in itself the germs of communism. The whole of humanity has suffered from a tendency toward evil and communism represents only the extreme of this tendency. It follows, therefore that its effects will continue to threaten the existence of the peoples. If evil is not confrontes with energetic means, it will one day feel strong enough to suppress – even without exterior aid – liberty in the world. This new social form would perhaps not be called communism, but that would not prevent its structure from resembling it.

The Western world must not think that it is sheltered from such a change of fortune. Its great advantage is that of having kept intact the opportunities of achieving good – in the communist world these chances no longer exist – and its unexploited reserves, its possibilities of improvement suffice to keep alive the flame of our hope.

However, an overestimation of its spiritual forces, an attitude of arrogance and heedlessness, the illusion that things might arrange themselves automatically for the West would be fatal for the future of humanity. Once the Bolshevik peril is out if the way, the peoples of the West will have to become more lucid, more conscious of the role which they are to play in the world. The revision of ideological bases weakened by the time, the rejuvenating of the political frame of Democracy because of the necessity which a new social ideal imposes must be considered, so that the tragic experiene which we are witnessing may not repeat itself.

Chapter 2. The nationalist phenomenon

The struggle between communism and capitalism becomes complicated after World War I, when a new pretender to the heritage of the old world makes its appearance: Nationalism. Nevertheless, that date only indicates the moment when its effort was most heroic, when it was able to affirm itself with courage. For, if one wishes to discover its remote origin, one must go back to the second half of the nineteenth century and even further.

We have called that phenomenon “Nationalism” or the “Nationalist Movement” rather than “Fascism” or the “Fascist Movement” because the former seem to agree better with the exact sense of things. The term “Fascism” imposed itself on the general attention in virtue of its priority in the birth of the Italian nationalist movement. In fact, Fascism was the first to conquer power and to found a State. Its emblem served as the insignia of all the political groups who were fighting for the same ideals. Nevertheless, if one compares Fascism to the nationalist movements which appeared later, one realizes that it is too impregnated with particularities, too specifically Italian for all other manifestations of nationalism to be called by that name. The term which we choose does not, on the contrary, evoke memories of any one regime, and all parties which are oriented in the same direction can be included therein without difficulty.

What new factors did the nationalist movements bring? What was their position in relation to the forces which dominated international rivalries? Their opponents classified them among freak occurences of history: phenomena whose antecedents are not discernible, without roots in the past, arising from the unknown to destroy all the hypotheses for the future; phenomena permitting of no explanation, unless it be described as having its origin in the depths of primitive man, reappearing on the surface from time to time, in spite of the thousands of years of civilization which separate us from the cave dwellers. In reality, the nationalist phenomenon is not at all obscure. It is a normal product of history and its origins can be extricated with precision. It was born of the same social conditions, from the same sort of turmoil which caused the eruption of communism in history. Its doctrine and its policies represent a reaction against the errors of society. The deficiencies of that society determined the appearance of the revolutionary movement parallel to the reforms projected by communism. These two transformers of social life, both desiring to become the unique inhariter of the old society, sprang from the same old root.

The tendencies of communism are known: in its dialectic one encounters no positive idea, no trace whatsoever of good or of truth. An emanation of evil, its principal aim is to tear man from his national, cultural and religious surroundings, so as to render him apt to lead the termite’s existence which is that of the soviet citizen. The reactions of nationalism are of an entirely different nature. They have nothing in common with that assiduous hatred which communism manifests toward all the institutions of the past. Its inner creative principle is particularly constructive. Whereas the communists work with all their strength to prepare the destruction of the old world, their bitterness going so far as to make them willing to destroy its every vestige in history, the nationalists are only engaged in a family dispute with this world. The nationalists, also remarking the existing disorder under bourgeois leadership, do not have the intention of exploiting it as the communists do, but, rather, intend putting an end to it through a new social synthesis.

Communism represents the negative achievements of the bourgeois and capitalist society. Nationalism inclines toward a positive solution of contemporary difficulties. It detaches itself from the bourgeois and capitalist society in order to find a remedy for its faults, thereby giving it a new creative impulse. To this end it incorporates tha part of the national organism which is sound, that part which has not been yet ravaged by the ferment of disintegration. The effort of the nationalist movements is oriented toward the conversion of the bourgeoisie into a new social form which conservs its real social values, meanwhile causing all its abuses to disappear. A society of a capitalist type can no longer go on existing, even should it escape the revolutionary explosion if communism. It is threatened by another death, that caused by the slow accumulation of evil. The mercantile and anarchic individualism which created the glory of that society, which once represented its factor of progress, has now become its principal agent of destruction. One can no longer base his existence on that concept, for life itself surpassed it and eliminated it from the social cycle. The sudden appearance of the “extremism of the right” is not a pure accident. The sane or healthy forces of Europe intervene in the combat only when the bourgeois and capitalist type of democracies prove themselves too weak to confront the attacks of bolshevism with an efficient resistance.

To what extent can nationalism assume the bourgeois heritage? For what reason does the attitude of the nationalist movements toward the institutions of the past differ from that of bolshevism?

This can be explained by the fact that the bourgeoisei and nationalism belong to the same type of civilization. Nationalism could not wish for the old world to disappear entirely, for it regards itself as the continuator of that world. Nationalism knows how to distinguish the faults of the bourgeois and capitalist society, which it hates and oppose unmercifully, form its permanent content which surpasses in interest and in value its historical formula.

Bourgeois society came into being through a revolution, but it was a revolution which kept the pillars of European civilization intact. In the same way, if the nationalist revolution had met with a complete victory, it would have developed itself in the midst of a better grouping of the social forces and would not have affected the constitutive elements of that civilization. The transition from the bourgeoisie to nationalism would not have meant estrangement from the spiritual patrimony of Europe, but only its reconstitution in another form. The transition would have taken place within the same culture and within the same social group. The way in which the innovating action would have occurred, the mechanism involved, quiet changes or revolutionary shocks, all this would have been a question related to the particularities of each people and not essential to the basis of the problem. What is important to know is that the divergencies which exist between liberal democracy and nationalism are of an accidental nature, whereas, what brings them close together is related to their similar structure. The reaction of nationalism is the reaction of the archetype of European culture against forms which no longer relate to its development. It is a phenomenon of growth and the realization of the same spiritual efflorescence as took place during the middle ages.

The bourgeoisie, used in its nineteenth century sense, cannot survive. This does not mean that it is in irremediable opposition with the new social order. A multitude of antiquated tendencies merged themselves in the bourgeois and capitalist society. The true history of the bourgeoisie does not start with the nineteenth century, but two thousand years earlier. By passing into the nationalist phase, bourgeoisie only brings on to the plunge into the prospects of a millenial organism. It is not vanquished, but a continuator. It would be vanquished for certain if it did not transmit any of its historical substance to the future generations. This disaster would occur only if it permitted itself to be aborted by the tidal wave of communism. The victory of communism would not only result in the transfer of political center of gravity to that social class which is actually in distress, as the doctrinaires affirm it, but also the substitution of one type of civilization for another. Communism is alien to Europe, alien also to the succesion of events which determined the appearance of the bourgeoisie.

The conflict between the past and the future should have been solved according to the rules which went into effect at the time feudal society disappeared – a disappearance succeeded by rebirth. Why was this experience not followed up? For what reason did bourgeoisie prefer an alliance with bolshevism, a moment with which she had neither common origin, nor creative affinity? All this constitutes one of the strangest events in history.

In what follows we are going to try to throw some light upon the errors committed by the nationalist movements in their relations with the democratic powers. We are going to attempt to establish their share of responsibility for the European disaster.

The errors in the conduct of nationalism cannot be discovered unless one posseses a general view of the nationalist phenomenon. One cannot judge the nationalist movements according to what the democracies or communism think about them, but only by taking their real aims into account. In order to approach the question of responsibilities, one must proceed first toward a “restitutio in integrum” of the nationalist phenomenon, toward a reconstitution of that movement in its initial aspect. This operation of delimitation is necessary because the differences between the impulses to which it owes its birth and its historical achievements are sometimes quite large.

What we have said about the nationalist movement up to now does not affect this question. We have eetablished its historical justifications and the contacts which it has mainteined with democracy and with communism, but we have revealed almost nothing about its structure. By taking the word “national” as a starting point, we will find the genesis and meaning of nationalism. “National” and “nationalism” represent two different stages in the life of a nation -two different periods in its life- one directed particularly toward the exterior world, toward the “epos”, the other toward the internal world, toward the “ethos”. The term “national” contains in itself the movements of political unification of the European peoples, their grouping in independent states. These movements, generalised after the French Revolution, ended, in the majority of cases, at the beginning of the twentieth century. Nationalism presupposes this stage as already achieved. It appears only when the ethnical borders of peoples have already been established. With nationalism there begins the period of organisation of the very depths of a nation, the period when its spiritual content is being explored. The nation abandons the era of external conquests and concentrates on itself. The term “national” represents the phase of geographical delimitation of the nations, the period of fixation of sovereignty over a determined territory. It has an extensive sense. “Nationalism” transfigures “national”. It expresses its virtualities, its profound creative energies. The term “national” represents the territorial mobilisation of a people; the term “Nationalism” takes this aquisition as a point of departure and undertakes the spiritual mobilisation of the people.

There exists between them two terms a difference of perspective in the hierarchy of values. The nation “nationalises”  itself from the moment it leaves its material life; it interests itself in its spiritual destiny. In the “national” phase, history expands beyond the natural necessities of the peoples and creates unnecessary superstructures which impede their destinies and consume the greatest part of their creative energies. In the “nationalist” phase, the principal preocupation of the peoples becomes culture, the contemplation of the internal world. History then serves mainly as a protective wall. Political activity does not cease. The people continue to interest themselves in the State, in the way public affairs function, but in the discovery of the splendors of life they find a sort of imunity against aggressive attitudes. The seal manifested in that direction is limited by the necessity of defending the freedom of expression of the national genius. Nationalism has nothing to do with imperialism and chauvinism, specific forms of the manifestations  of the “national’, which, in the history of the European peoples, accompanied the bourgeois period.

From “national” to “nationalism” there is the same distance as between a shapeless block of marble and the same block after it has been carved by the hand of the sculptor. Centuries are necessary for a people to be able to form its personality.

A people which has attained the height of the “national” phase, which is at the saturation point of all its territorial pretensions, is threatened by the most violent crisis of its history– by the crisis inhering in a lack of ideal. The aspirations which till then had stimulated it are suddenly antiquated and no new vision enlarges its horizon. At that point of spiritual weakness, when peoples are stifled under the weight of the past, the creative power of nationalism intervenes. It directs the energies of the peoples toward superior aims and gives a new impulse to history.

On the level of international  relations nationalism favors understanding between peoples. The period of “national” history is dominated by mutual suspicions,           perpetual conflicts provoked by the thirst for territorial conquests. In the nationalist period the peoples interest themselves more and more in their inward life, feel themselves more attracted by the fearlessness of the spirit. Then the old hostilities weaken. Their reconciliation is no longer the result of efforts which were often unfruitful, but the natural achievement of their way of life. A people which has discovered its soul can only be filled with reepect toward the other peoples, who, like them, are a unique appearance in history, an entirely different universe, representing an intransmiasible creative genius, the destruction of which would be equivalent to an outrage against humanity. It is only by elevation to this conception that a group can become a messenger of peace and fraternity among other peoples.

A nation cannot refine its customs with its resources alone. Whatever the desire of the peoples to direct their destiny in an honest way, if they do not invoke the aid of the religious sentiment, they will never be able to master their baser instincts. Nationalism tends to discipline nations with the aid of transcendental realities. The nationalist spirituality is inseparable from the ultimate mysteries of our existence as they were revealed to man in the Gospel. There is no nationalist movement which is not tributary of religious truths.

One must not forget thet the Lateran Agreement, which put an end to the conflict between the Italian State and the Vatican, was a result of a nationalist movement, that the Spanish phalangism had its basis in Catholicism, that the legionary Rumanian Government sent its best representative to Spain for the defense of the Cross. Even National Socialism, the evolution of which tends toward a nebulous pantheism, does not hesitate in its beginnings to speak of Christianity. In general, all tbe nationalist movements, more or less conscious of this fact, have borrowed something from the mystic and from the revolutionary flavor of Christianity.

Chapter 3. The errors of nationalism

Now that we have examined the content and the characteristic traits of the nationalist concept, let us return to the study of nationalism as a historical event.

The greatest error of the nationalist movements was to act before having fully elaborated their ideological basis. What does the new phenomenon represent and what is its historical mission? Its deepest meaning was never revealed to the public, whereas this was done in the case of the French Revolution, which had precursors of such genius as Locke, Montesqiueu and Rousseau. The nationalist movements have had to struggle not only against their enemies, but also against their own insufficiencies. And if their leaders have had to suffer so many resounding defeats, it is because they failed to seek the ultimate goals of nationalism. They wanted to contain in too narrow and too rigid a frame realities which were much too vast and too complex. Their political programs were subject to troublesome influences because they became an undigested mixture of original ideas and imitations, instead of being a unique expression of independent thought. Carried away, by diverse tendencies (at times even contradictory), misunderstanding the new European spirit, they ended by definitely losing the initiative to their adversaries.

The defeat suffered by the nationalists was caused, to a certain extent, by a lack of clearness in their ideology. The absurd coalition between democracy and bolshevism was its gravest consequence. Naturally, all the nationalist movements are not equally responsible.

It was chiefly the great nationalist movements which, through their political and military strength, could have been answerable for Europe. We mean fascism and national socialism. Even within this restricted circle, a further line of demarcation is neceesary. From 1936 on national socialism surpasses fascism in combative force, as in political ascent. It is equally just, therefore, that the center of responsibility transfer itself from South to North of the Rome-Berlin Axis.

As soon as these two movements appeared, they declared themselves the  irreducible adversaries of bolshevism, and the leitmotif of their propaganda was to denounce the peril coming from the East. Conscious of belonging to the Western world, they addressed themselves to all of its combative forms in order to create a single front against the common danger. This attitude could not do otherwise than to attract the sympathy of the democratic ruling circles. ln any case, even if certain tensions between them were inevitable, it would never have led to World War II if other factors had not intervened. The real difficulties began only when Italy and Germany abandoned the antibolshevik struggle and manifested ideas of revenge and territorial conquest. Let us remember the indulgence which the Western allies manifested toward these nationalist movements during the years necessary for the consolidation of their power.

One who closely examines the foreign policy of Great Britain will not fail to recognize the considerable concessions which were made to Germany for the purpose of conserving her as an essential part of the famous European balance. Unfortunately, after having benefited from this conciliatory attitude, the national socialists forgot that England had contributed to their success. Hitler, instead of understanding the price of the concessions which were made to him as head of an anticommunist power in Europe, lost all sense of limits and gravitated toward a policy of force. Through his rush actions he then furnished decisive arguments to those who were preaching for a war against Germany, and all the efforts of those who still believed that a reconciliation between the nationalist states could be obtained remained in vain.

The long period of fascist government profited in the same way from a climate proper for its development. Without the consent of England it is not very probable that Mussolini could have remained in power for long, alone in the midst of an unfriendly world. The bolshevik threat imposed on the democratic powers the obligation of handling these new political forces with tact as long as principal aims of those forces did not exceed the limit of their European interests.

The increasing suspicion with which these same powers eyed the nationalist states later, was caused by the changes which occurred in the external policy of the latter. Tempted by the artificial advantages of an imperialistic nationalism the nationalist states threatened the Peace of Europe by timeworn claims. The heads of the nationalist states did not understand the difference between “national” and “nationalism”, and adopted an obsolete ideological stand in foreign policy. “Nationalist” as they were, they called for the “national”, a political conception which was particularly bourgeois and capitalist.

From the strategic point or view, this divergent policy of the axis powers created an untenable situation, caused an unnecessary and dangerous disunity among the forces at their disposal. A crusade against bolshevism (under pretense of which Hitler wished to present his Russian campaign to the world) presupposed the removal of all European difficulties and then the enthusiastic participation of the majority of the peoples of our continent. But where could this giant enterprise have obtained the necessary stimulus, what internal springs could have motivated this formidable coalition which was to destroy Moscow, when the supreme head of this ccalition himself trampled the liberty and life of other peoples under his feet? With the exception of Russia’s neighbor states, the European peoples abandoned the idea of putting up a common front against bolshevism because Hitler himself was the first to give the signal of defection.

The result of this absurd association of aims was that the war ended as a disaster for both theaters of operation. Germany – an empire covering all of Europe – and Italy – a great maritime power, master of the key positions of the Mediterranean – were annihilated. On the other hand, bolshevism became more powerful and more dangerous than it bad been on the eve of the war.

We must, out of respect to truth, make a distinction between the attitude of Italy and that of Germany. Mussolini, it is true, nursed dreams of imperial grandeur, but he was too much of a realist not to realise that one lifetime would not be enough. His Caesar-like attitude was caused particularly by his desire to secure a place in history for the Italian people, and this renewal of national energy did not seem possible to him without reviving the glorious past of  of the Roman legions. Mussolini only elaborated an imperialist vision, the achievement of which required centuries and generations. For the other part of his reign, he had no other aim than that of assuring his country a position of first rank is the concert of European peoples, and to give her possibilities for colonisation. One can consider fascist expansion as ended with the Ethiopian campaign. The pretensions which Italy raised in 1938 were not born from the same inspiration. They were caused by the fascination which the German victories had for the Duce. A powerful jealousy urged Mussolini to claim his share of the national socialist booty.

Hitler had an entirely different political vision. He thought himself predestined to solve once and for all the problem of vital space for Germany. In his view, Germany should expand to the extreme limits of our continent, and from the heart or Europe should rule over the whole world. If the imperialistic formula of Mussolini was destined to serve as an element of stimulation for Italian history, the German empire imagined by Hitler was to attain a definitive form during the very life of the dictator. In the mind of Hitler, the vital necessities of other peoples were of interest so long as they could serve his plans of world domination. He did not content himself with a preponderant influence on the part of the Germamy within the frame of the European community, with a “Führung” [leadership] which, to a certain extant, would not have been abnormal, but he aspired also to the “Herrschaft” [domination], to the total submission of other peoples to Germany.

When, after having signed the treaty of Munich, Hitler occupied Czechoslovakia, he at the same time took away from national socialism the prestige of being a great historical revelation. Till that time the political acts of Germany had not caused any suspicion in the nationalist world, being justified by the need of the German people for unity. Upon the occasion of the Anschluss, Corneliu Codreanu, head of the Rumanian Legionary movement, sent a telegram in which he paid his respects to Hitler, celebrating the triumph of truth in Austria. Codreanu was no longer living in 1939, and therefore could not be witness to the pact of nonagression between Hitler and the Soviets, nor could he see “the Armies of the Cross and of Christianity” (it was in these terms that he spoke of the Rome-Berlin Axis) extend their hands to the armies of evil intentions, so as to join forces in crushing the small peoples of the East. When Corneliu Codreanu declared himself a supporter of the Axis (which he believed was at the service of the European and Christian cause) he placed in that adherence all the ardor of his idealism and all the purity of his sentiment. He judged the nationalist manifestations in relation to their intrinsic truth and could never have conceived the fact that the protagonists of the new Europe might one day separate themselves from the fundamental truths of their doctrine.

In the realm of ideas Hitler gave proof of the same uncompromising spirit. The difference between Hitler and Mussolini in this respect is even more striking. The “Duce” of Fascism pursued only the spiritual preeminence of his doctrine, a recognition from thr other movements of the path which he had chosen in history. It is his merit to have perceived early the political and spiritual unrest of the European peoples, and of having been able to give it a form of expression.

(…)

National Socialism assumed an attitude of indifference toward the Roman initiative because its doctrine lacked too much of universality to harmonise with other movements. The National Socialist doctrine lacked that generosity which opens the hearts of peoples toward a political idea. The Hitlerian ideology means the complete triumph of the “national” to the detriment of “nationalism”, the interest in Germany alone absorbs all the doctrine and takes the form of a myth. Even the racial idea was not cultivated for its instrinsic value, but to contribute to the domination of the world by the Reich. Hitler hated William II and presented his in the eyes of the German people as a poor example of a leader. But in reality he only reproduced him in greater proportions.

Making his appearance in a nationalist period, Hitler stood aloof from its atmosphere. He used the frame of nationalism, but he distorted its origin and meaning. Rather inclined toward tbe past, Hitler, without discerning what was false and what was true in the history of Germany, what out of the bulk of events was in accordance with the new European spirit, made German Nationalism out of all this heritage. This would have been of no importance if the Fuhrer had been the hed of a small country with limited possibilities of action. In that case, he would have become noted for his chauvinism. Unfortunately, the one who disposed of the greatest military and political force among the heads of nationalist states, was also the one who understood the least the basis of nationalism. His errors did not effect only a single country, they caused the ruin of our whole continent. Even more considerable than the political defeat of Europe -for, apart from Soviet Russia, no State came out of World War II as a victorious power –  was the failure of the new historical synthesis toward which it was inclined.

National socialism was, of all nationalist ideologies, the least accessible to other peoples. And, although it willingly abandoned the idea of a European collaboration, it nevertheless attempted to model all other movements in its own image. How was this possible?

The egocentric position of National Socialism deprived it of the hope of ever being welcomed in Europe. A conception which remained so exclusive could not in fact be accepted as the spiritual image of the new Europe. At that point there remained only the messianic idea of a people elected by providence to achieve the highest ideals of humanity. Rendered powerful by their military success, the Germans declare themselves the sole leaders of the destiny of Europe and regard the other movements with an attitude of indifference. To the National Socialists, the new European conscience is no longer forged by the common assets of all the Nationalist movements of Europe, but is delegated to them alone as representatives of the most valiant of peoples.

The leaders of the Third Reich only saw in the Nationalist movements bothersome companions of whom they would readily have freed themselves if necessities of a tactical nature had not restrained them from doing so. This conviction was so clear that they did not even try to hide it until the day of final victory. Even when the risk of war had become apparent, they devoted themselved to making plans to bring the nationalist movements umder their subjection. We do not knov the details of this plan. It was never revealed. But a multitude of actions started by those who are accountable for the Third Reich confirm it:

1. The fate of the nationalist movements never interested the external policy of the Third Reich. The national socialists pursued their aims without ever concerning themselves with knowing if, under their ways, a nationalist movement would not be entirely destroyed, and if these would not affect the very idea of European solidarity. How could the nationalist movements of Yugoslavia, Poland and Czechoslovakia maintain their popularity when the force which polarised the rebirth of hope in Europe was preoccupied exclusively with territorial conquests, and had no respect for the rights of other nations? When the national socialist diplomacy was asked to explain the curious friendship which it gave proof toward the nationalist movements, it would prevent the excuse of tactical necessity. Finally, the lack of good will on the part of the German government no longer deceived anyone. The fear of contracting commitments which would prove too inconvenient to fulfill on the day of victory induced the Germans to employ trickery in dealing with the nationalist movements. It was only at the moment when their whole political system collapsed that the Germans called upon the nationalists to save a hopeless situation. The example of Hungary, of Rumania, of the Vlassov army and of the Ukrainian units, which were permitted to appear only on the eve of defeat, is evident proof of this fact.
2. National socialism did not favor the creation of a spirit of cooperation among the nationalist movements. Not only did it not favor in any way the interrelation of nationalist groups, but it was also suspicious of rising friendships. The nationalist movements were waiting for a watchword, for a signal from somewhere. But Mussolini, who was the only chief of state capable of answering their appeal and of imposing on the national socialist leaders a more reasonable policy, did not move.
3. After her territorial conquests, Germany demonstrated her aim of absorbing on the ideological level the countries which she had occupied or which had become subject to her influence. The remote aim of Gelman policy was to substitute the autonomous nationalist movements with that of the national socialist.
4. The nationalist movements which were too independent, which rebelled ageinst being reduced to bondage, were prevented from developing too rapidly. As soon as a nationalist movement found itself in difficulty, the leaders of the Third Reich profited by the occasion to take away its liberty. Jean Tuba, former President of the Council of the Slovak Republic and successor of Bishop Hlinka as head of the Slovak National Guards, bitterly admitted to us the lack of consideration which the national socialist diplomacy manifested toward the new Slovak State, created in 1939, after the dissolution of Czechoslovakia. The Slovak nationalist movements, which for years had been struggling for the liberation of the Slovak people, were forced to abandon their initial pozitions and to participate in a hybrid government. The man who received the order from the Reich to crush the movement of the Slovak Nationalists was the Baron Manfred von Killinger, a person who was later entrusted by Ribbentrop with a similar task in Bucharest. The coup d’etat of Antonescu, who, in January 1941, overthrew the national legionary cabinet, was carried out with the aid of German troops stationed at the time on Rumanian soil, and coincided with the arrival of a new German plenipotentiary in Rumania.

By permitting national socialism to be usurped by the false images of the past, Hitler deprived the German people of a great historical moment. National socialism in itself is not the creation of Hitler, but corresponds to the state of mind of all the German people, who, like other peoples of Europe, were attracted hy nationalism. Through national socialism, the German people participated in a movement of universal character. Its glory would have been to assist in this great revolutionary movement by contributing its immense potential. Hitler preferred to avenge the injustices of the treaty of Versailles, and through this Wilhelmian imperialist conception made German history move back a hundred years into the past. This does not mean that the territorial problems should have been eliminated from his policy, but only that they should have been solved without endangering the whole concept of nationalism.

During Hitler’s last year one could observe among the important personalities of the party a tendency toward making national socialism milder. In January 1945, the promoter of this new conception, Professor Doctor Six, head of the cultural section of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, organized in Weimar a congress of all the nationalists who sought refuge in Germapy, with the aim of creating among them a common basis of understanding. After ten years of oblivion, Mussolini’s idea was again being considered in Germany, at a time when it could no longer have any influence on the destiny of Europe. Following the example of Professor Six, official delegate of Germany, all the speakers rejected imperialism and chauvinism as incompatible with nationalism. In the twilight of the Third Reich one could find again, after a long period of having been led astray, the true laws of nationalism. Opened under the auspices of the universalist thought of Goethe, the congress of Weimar represented, in spite of the defeat which occurred, a crucial moment in the existence of the nationalist movements and a new point of departure for their future.

Another error which was committed by European nationalism was to allow itself to be seduced by the formula of a single party. In spite of appearances and in spite of the theories to which nationalism is devoted, the single party does not constitute its essence. It was the general spread of this error from the great movements to the email which created the impression that the techniques of government and of nationalism were identical.

Totalitarianism wee introduced in history for the first time by the bolsheviks. They are the creators of the single party. Their doctrine is so destitute of humanism that it can affirm its position in the state only by the confiscation of power for the benefit of a single party and through the exercise of terror. A minority without scruples seizes power, and once it is in possession of it, suppresses the sovereignty of the people, has everyone who attempts to resist its abuses assassinated or imprisoned.

Does nationalism need to have recourse to such procedures? Is it so contrary to the souls of people that it would find itself obliged to set up a police state? Nationalism is not in conflict with the popular conscience. The ideas which it professes are not contrary to the supreme interests of the nation. Why then should it attempt to evade the trial by election which is the expression of national will? Nationalism cannot avoid this dilemma: either it is the quintessence of a nation and so does not have to fear the popular verdict, or it chooses force and recognises implicitly that it is far from the aspirations of the people.

The nationalists must admit that they permitted themselves to become fascinated by the vision of eternal power, and that they succumbed to a temptation a propos of a world of hatred and negation. It is true that through the voice of democratic liberties the progress of truth is slower. But are not truths which are acquired in the midst of difficulties more lasting? The principal preoccupation of nationaliam must be the education of the masses and not the conquest of power. If ever the responsibility of government must devolve on its representatives, it must be only through the means of universal suffrage. And if other political groups which are more active and even more conscious of public welfare should manage to assert themselves and to obtain the votes of the nation, the nationalist parties would then have to yield them the place in government with loyalty. (The position of the legionary movement toward democracy will be explained in another work.)

The obligation of having to consult the people does not exclude the fact that a nationalist movement comes to power through direct action. While the political activity of a nationalist party must generally bear the stamp of legality and avoid the use of violence, there are exceptional circumstances which absolve it from such commitments and justify the conquest of the state through abnormal means. The march on Rome in 1922 was brought about by the apathy of the Italian State, by its total lack of strength to answer the attacks of the social-communist left. If Mussolini had hesitated for a moment, a dictatorship similar to the Soviet dictatorship would have been installed in Italy. Democracy could no longer have existed even if Mussolini had not taken its place. It was, therefore, in a moment of widespread unrest that be attempted his coup d’etat. The machinery of state for the transmission of public powers had been clogged by turmoil and the nation, being delivered to the forces of anarchy, appealed to his decisive spirit. No one could have offered him a better, more valid, more legitimate command than the nation itself. Mussolini abused the call to power which he had received from the nation only when he prolonged further than was necessary an emergency by becoming the tyrant of the order which he had restored.

The situation ia Spain was entirely different. In that country, the monarchy broke down under the blows of the republicans. The regime which succeeded it transformed itself into an anarcho-communist government and, at the worst hour of this national catastrophe, a group of patriots, recruited from among the officers and members of the Phalangist Movement, reestablished order after a grueling civil war. The fact that Generalissimo Franco became the leader of the Spanish State is a natural consequence of the risks and responsibilities which he assumed when all the other national forces, monarchy, nobility, bourgeoisie, moderate socialists, had capitulated. Could the Franco regime retire and leave the power in the hands of a monarchical-democratic faction by openly consulting the popular will?

The internal situation of Spain, which is closely related to what is actually happening on the world-wide level could not permit such a solution, at least not immediately. To revert suddenly to the past would be to return to chaos. Fed as they are by the agents of international communism, the old hatreds await only one moment of weakness in the actual authority. There is no reason why the old political groups, which made such a pitiful surrrender in 1936, should declare themselves more worthy of leadership tomorrow. Apart from the communists, there is no one who could replace Franco, no political group capable of assuring a democratic succession which would survive under existing conditions.

(…)

National socialism did not restrict itself to the abuse of technical and economic formulas, it also sought to elaborate a materialistic vision of the world. It came to power in opposing the materialistic vision of history, but in another respect only repeated the same errors. Marxism attempts to explain all axial transformations by the changes which occur in the economic structure of society. Hitler emancipated man from the tyranny of the economic factor, but enslaved him to the highest degree to the biological element by subjecting him to the racial theory. The theory held that it is not man with his internal resources who creates history, but man as a racial element, differentiated, by a certain number of physical particularities. It suffices for an individual to be a member of this sacred heredity for him to be superior to his less fortunate fellow-creatures. History found itself once more under the influence of a material factor: blood, the biological entity, the physical constitution of the individual. Materialism did not disappear, it only changed its form. In the place of economic materialism, which concentrates itself on work, on production, on the relationships between man and nature, there appears biological materialism. Social relations are determined by the physical characteristics of the individuals.

Did Hitler remain faithful to his racial ideology? The existence of races cannot be denied. The error of national socialism was to consider them as distinct creative forces in history. By directing his appeal to the Nordic race, Hitler addressed himself to a group which did not exist. The races supply only the raw materials of the peoples. The same race can enter into ths composition of several peoples, in much the same way that a nation can be constituted by several races. The spiritual unity of a people does not depend on its racial purity, as Hitler believed, but on preserving its creativity. This is the reason for which the other Nordic peoples did not consent to sacrifice their national identitiy for the benefit of a greater racial community. The Dutch, the Norwegians, the Danes defended themselves against the German invaders with the same stubbornness as other peoples less qualified then themselves to understand the myth of the Nordic race.

Anyhow, Hitler never based his acts on a biological principle. He made use of the notion of the race so as to give his doctrine coherence, but he never took into account its practical consequences. All his decisions are contradictory to the historical existence of races and confirm his belief in the reality of the peoples. His fanaticism was not fed by racial notions, but by the specific energies of the German soul. His plans for the future course of the great German Reich called for depriving the Nordic nations of their historical individuality. Only the German people was to maintain its ethnical integrity, so that in the mold of its culture the ancient unity of the Anglo-Saxon world might be recreated.

Chapter 4. The constructive experience of nationalism

Having examined the deviations of nationalism, we are going to attempt to explain that part of its heritage which proved to be of value. If nationaliam has had its faults, one cannot disregard or wilfully ignore the values which it created and which henceforth belong to humanity.

Against all the tendencies of modern society toward disintegration, nationalism opposes the immanent force of the nation. As soon as the national phase of a people tends to become “nationalist”, the process of social disintegration is arrested, and the history of a people takes on a constructive rhythm. As long as the nationalist movements remained faithful to their distinct organization, they succeeded in solving with elegance and efficiency the problems which confronted them. As soon as they appealed to foreign sources for encouragement, they were led astray and came to ruin.

Who, for exemple, would not be able to recognise the decisive contribution of nationalism to the solution of the social problem? In this area filled with contradictions, wherein the bourgeoisie definitely had made a mess of things, nationalism stepped forward and found a formula for reconciling the classes of society, at the same time barring the way to communist agitations. The solution advocated by Marxism is the product of a distorted mind. Why should the achievement of social justice require the destruction of the institutions of the past, and even the disappearance of peoples as historical individuals? One might as well put fire to a house in order to repair a door or a window. It is sufficient to reestablish the normal functioning of the national organism which presupooses calling back to order the anarchical and irresponsible individual, so that by itself and through its own means, the nation may repair its affected tissues.

The great merit of nationalism is to have discovered the means for the coexistence of two notions which, according to dialectical Marxism, would be irreconcilable – the nation and socialism. The workers do not need to violate the integrity of nations to improve their living conditions. The road to the realization of the workers, claims does not necessarily require the ruin of the nation. The boldest social reforms correspond to phases of progress through which the ration as a whole must pass. The more the individuals enjoy a prosperous situation, the greater their attachment to their country. They no longer feel like outcast in the midst of society, but they enter with full rights in the ranks of decent and dignified citizens. Liberty and equality then become in their eyes consistent notions and formulas which correspond to tangible realities. To lead the workers from the periphery toward the center of society, to interest them in the great aims of the nation, to associate them with the responsibilities of the state – such is the formula of government under nationalism.

(…)

Another great victory of nationalism was to have accomplished the boldest social reforms without thereby denying the advantages of private initiative. Socialism of Marxist origin adopts in this realm a solution injurious to the interests of the peoples: the collectivization of the means of production. If one studies the effects of collectivization where it was applied in a sincere and generous way (in contrast to the USSR, where the aim of collectivization is to rob the peasant, the worker, and the intellectual of the fruit of his work and of his talents, to destroy in him the feeling of human dignity and to reduce him to an endless slavery), one cannot deny real improvement in the standard of living of the popular masses. But, it is nonetheless true that collectivization can have disturbing consequences. Where collectivization is in effect the national economy as a whole suffers from the gravest insufficiencies and enters into a period of decline, for what is won extensively for the well-being of the popular masses detracts from the intensity of the economic effort of the whole nation. Collectivism is a class solution. Desirous of improving the situation of a part of the population, collectivism ruins other important values of the nation, other factors which might guarantee its prosperity.

Private initiative is inseparable from the human being. To deprive the individual of his economic freedom signifies taking away from him one of his essential attributes. As soon as this natural type of activity is denied him, his interest in the economic life weakens. He loses his creative dynamism and acquires a bureaucratic mentality. Who could awake the taste for great enterprises in a being who is constrained to remain all hie life in the condition of a wage-earner? Who could stimulate his taste for invention, who could make him bold, assiduous, clear-sighted? The economy of a people withers away without the incentive of private initiative.

Through controlled economy, nationalism atteapted to find a remedy for all the faults of economic liberalism. This system does not suppress private initiative; it merely gives it another perspective by binding it more closely to the whole of the nation. An economy  devoted exclusively to the making of profits – the classic type of capitalist exploitation – would degenerate into an anarchical exhibition incapable of representing even the real interests of capital. In the final analysis, the social dissatisfactions and disorders arising from investment are detrimental to its own activity. It may further be said that capital interests must willingly submit to that government control which rvmaly helps them function.

Controlled economy harmonizes the fluctuations of liberal economy with the productive cycle of the whole nation. It does not reject private initiative, but it cannot ignore other economic realities which have an equal right to exist: the claims of the workers and the redivision of the material resources of the nation. These do not belong to a generation, but to a long line of generations. A sound economic system can develop only with the permanent cooperation of these three factors. The difficulties which arise in the economy of a country are caused by the preponderant role which is granted to one of these factors to the detriment of the others. These form an inseparable trinity, and it is only when they operate in perfect harmony that they can assure the material prosperity of a nation.

(…)

The social and economic conceptions of which the nationalist movements were deservedly proud are today appreciated by all the free peoples of the world. Nevertheless, the struggle these movements waged against communist infiltrations in Europe surpasses in importance what they have achieved on the economic and social level. The sacrifices made by all the nationalist movements in the battle against bolshevism will survive all the campaigns of defamation to which they were subjected. The day will come when posterity will revise the judgment which was passed by our contemporaries. The evidence that will count at that time will be the blood which was lost for the defense of European civilization.

The struggle of the nationalists against bolshevism has no parallel in any known rivalry of history. For now it is no longer a question of two peoples, two trends, or two conceptions of life struggling against each other for supremacy; it is a spiritual vacuum trying to triumph over the creative forces of humanity. This is why the champion of anticommunism who is ready to sacrifice his very life, the hero of the whole of humanity as long as he serves that cause, enjoys the support and protection of God.

The nationalist movements checked bolahevik penetration into Europe for over a quarter of a century. Let us try to remember the chaotic condition of our continent after World War I: all nations and established principles in a state of confusion. A world devastated by misery was feverishly trying to find a vent for the suffocating atmosphere emanating from the ruins of war.

In this general confusion, wh ethne dikes which had held order seemed to break, when the trumpets of world revolution already announced the end of the old world, faithful messengers of peace arrived and calmed the souls of peoples by finding an equitable solution to the social problems. It is certain that without Mussolini, without Hitler, and the most of European nationalists the bolsheviks would have installed themselves on our continent in 1930. One after the others the nations of Europe would have been conquered by the gradual penetration of communists into the country.

The intervention of the nationalist powers in the Spanish Civil War is another important fact which can be added to their activities. The secret propaganda of the bolsheviks had met with difficulties in operating from Russia. Russia needed a Western or occidental satellite, a country which could contain within itself all the revolutionary tendencies of the West and through which Europe, in a time of world conflict, would be caught between two fires. Spain seemed the country beat suited to meet those requirements. The revolutionary tradition of the Spanish anarchist movement and the poor economic conditions of the Iberian Peninsula had favored the development of a powerful Communist Party. Spain had the added advantage that it was close to Africa, and could time become a center from which to carry on agitation on the Dark Continent, to say nothing of the countries of Latin America.

Let us try to imagine for one moment what a victory for these plans of Moscow would have signified. Imagine Soviet Russia installed in Gibraltar and occupring the area of present-day Spain.

What a change of situation, what immeasurable consequences for the destiny of the three continental Spain would have become the western arsenal of the Bolshevik Revolution. In a few years the flames would have spread from this nucleus over the Mediterranean Basin, over the whole of Africa, and would have given a decisive impulse to all the communist movements of Latin America, agitation in those countries being favored by the community of origin and of language. Great Britain, France with her vast overseas territories, the United States, whose interests extend over the whole surface of the globe, all profited from the Spanish hecatomb and from the sacrifices of the nationalist volunteers.

Nationalist Spain has the honor of having saved Europe when the latter was passing through a crucial period in its existence. The democratic world can continue to brush France aside, to curse the nationalist leaders who sent reinforcements to the other side of the Pyrenees. The fact of that conflict, the victorious result of the nationalist forces in Spain, must nevertheless be considered in an objective manner. By refusing to take action against Soviet interference in the Spanish Civil war, the western democracies adopted an anti-European attitude. Were it not for the vigilance of the nationalist powers, Spain would definitely have fallen within the political orbit of Moscow.

(…)

Chapter 5. The tragedies of nationalism

Of all the nationalist movements, fascism and National Socialism are the only ones which were able to impose their power completely. They are also the only ones with whose intimate preoccupations, with whose reasons for entering into the war, and with whose past conditions and aims we are familiar. The other movements did not reach the stage of complete crystallization. Their physiognomy manifested itself because of an external complex which is difficult to understand and to grasp. At the very moment when, upon making contact with realities, their content was to became clear, a wave of enmities stopped their development and forced them to retire from the scene of history. That part of their activity which reached us revealed only the pale reflection of an inner life much richer in possibilities than they were vouchsafed to know.

With the exception of fascism and National Socialism, the other nationalist movements are characterised by a fragmentary and uncertain existence, leaving behind the impression of something issufficiently developed, of a prematurely closed case. But this ill luck which fine their past is compensated by the advantage of the free values which they still have at their disposal. An unachieved social phenomenon cannot be excluded from history by force. It works within the consciousness of peoples till they are able to find new possibilities of expressing it. This does not mean that fascism and National Socialism have been exhausted of their means of rejuvenation, merely that the other movements, less committed by their past, are more accessible to reorientation.

(…)

After the war, the allied governments, motivated by a spirit of vengeance rather than by the desire to obtain a clear view of what had really happened in Europe, found it quite natural to classify as “collaborationist” all the nationalist movements which had attached themselves to the Axis powers. According to them, this formula should have acquired the stature of an undeniable sentence of history and was to become a sort of stigma which would have disqualified the nationalist movements forever. Whoever had taken aides with Germany automatically became collaborationists in the eyes of the allies.

Even had certain partisans dishonored nationalism by their stand during the war, all nationalist movements should not therefore be considered as extensions of German imperialism. Each nationalist movement has had its internal drama, and those who collaborated with the Axis powers had to face tremendous difficulties. The very fact that these movements remained on the side of Germany till the end is a decisive indication -a real paradox, it seems – of the nobility of the ideals which animated them; it constitutes the best answer to the grave insults which were heaped on them.

(…)

The nationalist fighter did not see any honorable issue in the predicament into which the war had thrown them unless they firmly continued the struggle against the Communists. They preferred the thankless collaboration with Germany to the sad privilege of victory on the side of Soviet Russia. The survivors of these sacrificed units cannot restrain their joy when they see that today the whole of humanity adopts the attitude which they held in the pest.

Let us pay a token of respect to the nationalist movements of the West, who, although they did not belong to those countries which were directly threatened by bolshevism, who, although they had not seen the deathdealing effect of that sickness of the human spirit at close range, remained faithful to their ideal. The fact that they were situated quite far from the danger might have made them more or less conscious of the danger, more inclined toward making compromises. The fact that they did not abandon their early convictions is better proof than any other argument that they were neither the product of sterile imitation, nor the work of a few impostors. Only movements which arose from a powerful source of truth could resist the unfavorable concurrence of the war without renouncing the principles upon which their existence was based.

The combatants sent bly the nationalist moverments of France, Belgium, Holland, and Denmark deserve to be hailed with enthusiasm. In the bravery and enthusiasm of which they gave proof, we recognise the incarnation of the spirit which once asserted itself on the Catalan fronts, which emerged victorious at Tours and Poitiers, which gave birth to the great movement of the Crusades and removed the blockade from the walls of Vienna, when that city was besieged by the infidels. It is this same spirit of sacrifice and devotion toward the eternal truths which humanity must find again in order to defeat and push back the nameless hordes of the Orient.

In the countries which were allied with the Axis: Bulgaria, Rumania, and Hungary, the nationalists at least did not have to suffer from being in conflict with the people. But as regards their possibilities of action within the framework of the state, their situation was more precarious and more unfortunate than that of the Western movements. The governments which had concluded agreements with the Axis powers were composed of the very same politicians who had suppressed legal existence of the nationalists, who had thrown them into prison or interned them in camps. These persecutions did not stop when these countries affiliated themselves with the Axis powers. Not only were the nationalist movements not invited to share in the responsibilities of the state -after all, their views were triumphing in the foreign policy of their countries but the government circles displayed so much injustice and hatred toward them, that they even got Germany itself to sacrifice the nationalist movements. The anxiety of the governments was not caused by the risks which would be involved in the new foreign alignments, but steamed from fear that the nationalist groups might come to power by profiting from the new relations of force between the great powers. The new Europe, for whose sake the nationalists had made immense sacrifices, brought neither joy nor comfort to those movements. The same tyrants continued to orpress them, the same sinister parody of legality was pursued, the same prison walls crushed the hopes of an entire generation.

(…)

During the last decade of its existence, fascist Italy escaped from its obligations to the nationalist world; Germany, on the contrary, asserted its presence in every place that the nationalists took action. But, its ulterior aim ever being that of securing something for itself at the expense of others, it falsified the concept of the New Europe, wishing it to be particularly pangermanic, trying to exploit the spirit of sacrifice of the nationalist movements in order to fulfill its imperialistic aims. Norms, servitude, paths which did not agree with their internal harmony and in no way served the common cause were imposed on the nationalist movements. All this “SSization” of the nationalist groups in France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, and the Ukraine was a most poorly inspired move, a reversal of the natural vital force, and it diminished the fighting spirit of these groups and separated them from the people. The beauty and vigor of the nationalist movements consists, strictly speaking, in their distinctive tendencies, their particular type of manifestations, those through which the talents and virtues of each nation assert themselves. A universe composed of a homogeneous mass of individuals would lose all its creative possibilities, even if the qualities of the individuals comprising these masses would, when taken separately, surpass human capabilities. For, it is through a variety of feelings of motivation and through personal concepts that people influence one another. Such a universe would be consumed by its own monotony, by the exhaustion of the urge which drives people to seek to understand the unknown, by the extreme stereotyping of its resources.

(…)

Chapter 6. Premises of a valid history

What possibilities actually lie open to the nationalist movements?

The readers, and especially the “friends”, will hasten to say: the return to the past, to the ingenious form of the nationalist phenomenon, so as to go back to the very source of a process which was ill developed. It is natural to think of this solution immediately for it is a logical continuation of what we have shown. Still, it would not be entirely correct to adopt it without reserves. The course of history cannot be turned back. A film which has failed while being shown on the screen has failed forever, and cannot be repeated as a laboratory experiment can. It is to be hoped that in the midst of the present upheaval we can go back to the very sources of Nationalism, but solely for the purpose of ascertaining where it erred.

Once the true path has been chosen, it would be irritating and useless to persist in considering the past, and to attempt to revive Nationalism, as if nothing had occurred since that time. Nationalism gave birth to a certain type of mentality. It molded the thoughts of a few generations. Therefore, the hopes of those who mould like to see it sink into oblivion are vain. But equally vain are the desires of those who refuse to consider that its experiment failed, and would like to see Nationalism achieve a new world by itself. Twenty years of disappointments, of false historical orientation seriously crippled the confidence one could have in Nationalism. This confidence can be restored only if Nationalism collaborates with other political forces and with other currents of ideas.

It may be that the nationalists will not welcome this view with favor. One may ask how a compromise can help? The most it can do is alter the nature of the phenomenon. We must admit that these apprehensions are legitimate, but we believe that we can remove them by outlining the conditions of the association that we are planning. Let us hasten to say that we do not mean to “save” Nationalism by associating it with “unreal” circumstances which might be a handicap to its fundamental structure. The formula which we are thinking about would be a synthesis of the European spirit, a selection of the experiences obtained by all the peoples of our continent. Two thousand years of European history allow us to have a certain perspective of the past and to understand its strong points, its bases, and its valid premises. By proceeding to this great analysis of the European spirit of the past we see that there are three factors of vital importance to the destiny of our civilization: Christianity, Democracy, and Nationalism.

From whatever aspect we attempt to examine the problem we always find the same elements. It we refer to historical events, we note with what extraordinary force these three factors imposed themselves upon the life of the European peoples, one or another of the three dominating their entire development at some time. There was a period in which Christianity was the determining factor, another, when the problems of individual liberties won first place over all other incentives for social organization. Finally, in our period, we see that Nationalism surpasses the two other factors in interest. Each one of these European archtypes, acting alone, asserted itself too vigorously as if only it encompassed every aspect of life. But it is just these excesses which show how profound vas the source from which they steamed, and what true needs they fulfilled.

If we consider man with his need for a spiritual life the results are no different. Christianity, Nationalism, and Democracy exhaust the whole scale of human liberties and deliver the individual from every possible and conceivable type of slavery. Only their fusion, their simultaneous action can raise man to the level of human being. Each one of these concepts launched a spiritual revolution, liberated the individual from a series of temporary situations which prevented the free development of his creative faculties. Christianity freed man inwardly from the yoke of sin. Democracy emancipated him outwardly from the leadership of certain social classes. The mission of Nationalism was to save him from the tyranny of national pride.

If we now consider the logical relationship of these three concepts, we see how completely in accord they are. It is not foolish to attempt to consider these three concepts together; it is the only way of understanding them clearly. Considered in their purest forms, Christianity, Nationalism, and Democracy have the effects of magnets on one another. They presuppose and support each other mutually. What is essential in this comparison is not to draw conclusions from what has been only superficially determined, from a subject which was not studied sufficiently.

(…)

The system of democratic government is a social invention, a product of the human genius, a set of rules for group organisation. Nationalism, on the other hand, is not a technique, nor a creation of the intellect. It is a reality. The people’s spiritual state gradually penetrates their consciousness. Democracy is a means of expressing this invisible reality. Democracy registers and brings forth what is taking place in the depths of a peoples soul, the variations of its consciousness, its magnitude and its diverse aspect. Universal suffrage, parliament, and the law are means of expressing national consciousness, that is, if nothing happens to oppose their normal functioning. When the attitudes of a people change and when their new aims no longer agree with the present institutions, Democracy allows them to express themselves. Dissatisfaction is not brooded over in secret but is expressed freely. If nationalism did not support Democracy, what would be the sense of having election ballots? What would be the use of having elections? Would it be to express the vague end abstract will of the people? This will becomes intelligible only when it has bearing on a certain country and a certain people. There is French public opinion, British public opinion, Italian public opinion; each one corresponds to so many particular attitudes. There are as many ways of solving the political problem as there are peoples. Public opinion means that Nationalism is related to something real, to an immediate interest of the national group. It is in perpetual upheaval, in continuous transformation, because the questions which it challenges change constantly. However, the attentive observer will not fail to realize that the reactions of public opinion are not the results of chance, but follow a line of their own, and this line expresses the things which are permanent in a nation.

Political parties often forget that their relationships to the nation is one of dependence. Instead, they interpose thamselves like a wall between the nation’s creative forces and their own manner of expression. Instead of lending an attentive ear to the inner voice of the nation, the parties tend to set themselves apart, to substitute themselves for the nation as independent realities. They tend to throw over the role of intermediary organisms, whose purpose is to gather the many individual opinions and reduce them to their several fundamental types. Instead, they tend to take on a life of their own, by weakening the reflexes of the national consciousness and falsifying the historical meaning of these manifestations.

The third factor in this political-historical synthesis of tomorrow – Christianity – transforms these values and projects them into the world of eternal truths. As we have already indicated in the chapter devoted to the nationalist phenomenon, in order to go beyond the “National” phase, the period of external upheavals, and enter into the phase of “Nationalism”, knowledge of one’s self, the peoples must lose all their pride and accept the Christian truths. Without Christianity there can be no Nationalism. And, according to the writings of Montesquieu, there can be no effective Democracy without Nationalism.

In stating these theses, we do not affirm thqt they can come into being alone. We are only saying that the true needs of the people direct the course of history in that direction. Not as an inevitable movement, or a course of events which cannot be resisted and in which we do not believe, but as a creative system of European civilization which arose from the historical unrest of two millenia. Under the protection of these three factors, one can face the future with confidence. All the strategic elements were united together so that the results may not be deceptive. Nationalism, Democracy and Christianity represent the premises of a valid history.

(…)

Chapter 7. Nations or social masses?

(…)

Only one doctrine can solve the problem of the masses in a manner that would last and would profit all the worlds: the nationalist doctrine. Nationalism represents the inherent force of a nation and that force moves all the individuals. Each individual, no matter how obscure his existence, carries in him the seed of the nation’s destiny. Therefore, in order to obtain nationalism, it is necessary to start by awakening these latent energies. A dull people cannot be a nationalistic people. The movement toward equalization promotes Nationalism, for, through its appearance the masses, which until then have led a static life, liberate themselves from their social inferiority complex and direct their energies toward the higher realms of the nation. The masses are the natural allies of Nationalism.

Nationalism is as old as humanity. If, however, it appeared only in our period as a determining factor in history, it is because the sources of ethnical vitality acquired importance only in our time. Not only were the old class privileges an instrument for oppressing the masses, they were also a force hostile to the nation’s development. The true history of a people can start only with the realisation of their creative potentialities.

Nationalism recognizes in the stream of the masses the creative energies of the nations. But it does not stay in that primary phase. It does not allow itself to be carried away by the stream of the masses. It imposes a certain spiritual discipline upon them. Nationalism circumvents the dangers of total equality by provoking in the very center of the masses a counter movement of an anti-equalization nature. It breaks the amorphous bloc of the mass down into individuals gifted with a personal concept of life, and these individuals, through their constant growth, change those pitiful characters. Nationalism dissolves the mass into individuals and personalities. The amorphous men who compose the masses can become nationalist only at the price of a great inner effort. In order for him to discover within himself and within the circle which surrounds the nation’s existence, he must appeal to the forces of intuition and contemplation. This spiritual concentration wins over equalization. The individual who is intensely concerned over the fate of the nation frees himself of stereotyped patterns of thought, and his judgment acquires a personal accent. A new aristocracy will come into being based exclusively on the forces of the soul. Naturally, these changes encompass only the spiritual level, for on the political level the democratic principles will continue to decide the relationships between individuals.

The solutions most frequently posed and moat welcome today are those which propose to solve the problem of the masses without the nation’s participation. After World War II, Nationalism was not only vanquished on the political level, but banished from the level of speculative thought. A kind of prejudice which eliminates this concept from intellectual circulation imposed itself. Yet, to avoid Nationalism is to avoid the nation, the primary reality of history, the seat of the creative energies of humanity. That is why, all the solutions which apply directly to the masses while ignoring the existence of the national reality are based on false premises. They could hardly make the masses more noble, or differentiate them. They would only aggravate the situation by amalgating them even more.

Socialism and the non -Nationalistic European States are two concepts which are fighting to obtain public favor. They also tend to erase the ethnic diversity of the masses, a diversity which is the very source of their opportunity to renew thesselves. We do not see what spiritual progress can be made if the nationalist masses of Europe should become an amorphous bloc of 400 to 500 million souls. Will the average man, of whom the messes are composed, be able to improve his spiritual self if he is uprooted from the framework of the nation and absorbed into a nameless multitude? On the contrary, this manner of hurling him into boundless social space in the same thing as depriving him of all the moral support of his conscience. Socialism and the nonnationalistic state are attacking the last barriers which hold back the pressure of the masses.

Individual liberty itself, considered by Tooqueville as the only factor which can keep the total levelling of society from coming about, cannot very well change the crude appearance of the masses if it does not ally itself with Nationalism. External political and social liberty is not an independent value but the epiphenomenon of a fundamental condition of the soul. The need for external liberty is felt when the creative forces of the individual are in effervescence. Then, anything coming from without which impedes the creative energy of the individual is blamed upon lack of freedom. Creation is the support of freedom. If man lacked creative impulse, or if that impulse in him were killed through fear, he would not fight for external freedom. This means that it is not enough to create and maintain an environment of political liberty in a country, if, at the same time, that country lacks the proper environment for creative instincts. External freedom in itself remains’ a big question mark, for the most part a favorable supposition if not accompanied by inner liberty, if the individual is not encouraged to fulfill the social framework of freedom.

There is technological creation and cultural creation. Technological production offers products in series which can be sold and transmitted to other countries. Culture is the opposite of this imitation, of this transplantation of the values of one country to another. lt always bears a nationalist character, and its dissemination among other peoples does not play a stimulating role. The individual who wishes to shine in the cultural reels must follow the same road: always use the specific energy of the culture, which emanates from within the nation. To be a cultured man means first of all to master the spiritual coordinates of the nation. Individual liberty is inseparably bound to creativeness, and creativeness of a superior order, i.e., culture is inseparably bound to Nationalism.

The opinions that we have just expressed may give rise to the idea or opinion that we see danger in the movements for the federalisation of Europe. We are not fighting against the principle of such a union. Humanity will have taken a decisive step on the day the nations cease to tear each other apart and instead spend all their energies for constructive purposes. But the hopes which people place on the achievement of such a European Union depend, in the first place, on the moderation which is practiced in applying this principle. A united Europe is not a revolutionary end, if, by revolution, we mean a certain spiritual transformation of man. The fact that the masses will be able to circulate freely from one end of the Continent to the other will in no way improve their way of thinking. Why attribute to this Union virtues which it does not possess? In what way would the actual crisis be alleviated? A united Europe would merely represent a framework, a larger political sphere, which, in order to become productive, would have to be inspired with an ideological content.

There is a positive limit to the concept of unification, and when it surpasses this limit it becomes a handicap. The present-day federalist movements desire an organic reconstruction of Europe, that is to say, they wish to build a new building with the consent of the peoples and not by an act of force, as was the case with Napoleon, Hitler, and, in our time, Stalin.

This fact shows that they recognize implicitly the existence and individuality of the nations and, as a result, all the programs which they elaborate must be inspired by this basic truth. The fundamental criterion which must guide the federalist movements – as they themselves admit – is respect for the integrity and specific needs of each nation. A federation of the European States cannot have as its aim the destruction of the nations bases, but their preservation from the mortal danger which threatens them because of modern means of destruction.

If the federalist movement agrees on building Europe on the basis of the free union of peoples, it is inadmissible that tendencies contrary to that principle will appear at the core of that movement, tendencies which would tend to sacrifice the nationalist existence for abstract formulas. One of those ideas which lacks all sense of reality is that which proposes that the Europe of tomorrow might be built by taking the United States as a model. It would be built in the same way as the new continent, where the small States grouped themselves under a central administration. Our federalists forget one basic fact: the United States represents one single nation, and the federal State which was proclaimed at Washington is the expression of the ethnic unity which was based on ancient Anglo-Saxon traditions. The small States which agreed to become members of a greater state, represented the local particularities of the same nation. Let us take another examples the German States which existed before Bismarck were political systems which appeared within the same nation and they gravitated within the orbit of a greater state, capable of encompassing the whole of the Germanic nation. In Europe, things are otherwise. Within its confines are a multitude of nations. Each State covers the sphere of existence of one single people. European unification cannot be accomplished the way it was in America. In Europe we must, rather, proceed empirically from the particular case to the particular case, by starting with unities and regional interests, and by avoiding formulae too general which are borrowed.

A Europe which would unify itself hastily because of overenthusiasm, without taking into account the perpetual unrest of the Nationalist spirit, would easily cut its own throat. An if an outside nation took upon itself the task of establishning order on the European continent, this would be a repetition of tne same stereotyped political situation inherited from Napoleon and Hitler, and the same results would be obtained. That power would have to make itself the guardian of order without the consent of the peoples, and its accomplishments would last as long as it was capable of maintaining that order by force.

In the realm of unification also, Nationalism reestablishes a clear comprehension of things. It disposes of two great possibilities of action: on one hand, it conserves and fortifies the soul of the nations; on the other, it creates an atmosphere of reciprocal understanding and good relations between peoples. This spirit of fraternization is what makes it possible to have a union of National States, and what guarantees the feasibility of this new political formation. Nationalism prepares the minds of the peoples for what Federalism wishes to accomplish. From the national level to the international level, the transition takes place without difficulty because the nation’s spiritual contemplation also purifies their reciprocal relationships. Every nation which has reached an enlightened phase in its history sees in the existence of other peoples a miracle, and considers the creations of these peoples a divine gift in which the whole of humanity should rejoice.

END