Let’s clear the area of misunderstandings immediately: I am not here to regret my adolescence nor
to pause on my green valley. It’s possible to communicate in the new Big Brother language style
profitably, by changing the detrimental approach imposed.
In order to reach this result, we have already provided quite a few solutions along with Polaris
Study Center, to appropriate the tool rather than be hypnotized or annihilated by it
(www.centrostudipolaris.org).
The observation of the present – and, we hope, temporary-existential and mental slipping in the
kingdom of epidermal, superficial, fast mood, erythema, exhibitionism of quickie, should be a
prerequisite to something else than expressing skin rashes and to the intention of the least try to
impact on its own destiny.
Without acquiring the awareness and, although sheltering and antagonistic illusion, letting oneself
be, live and think the itchy way of the moment, we cannot reach any conclusion because, as we will
deepen further, today the culture that prevails everywhere, not only in the sexual matter, is called
trans gender .
Dominant is the extemporaneous individualism: the claim of every atom provided with a name and
surname (sometimes only a nickname) and a sometimes confusing biological function, to become
something anything, above all which hasn’t appeared yet. Who has ever acted will retain the right to
judge who is now acting, to spit verdicts based on beliefs thought its own though simply borrowed
to finally make any choice dictated by whims, lusts of undetermined duration, ending soon after to
embrace the opposite of the initial reason of thrill in tones just as broken.
The individual now reduced to the memory and mental capacity of a fly, irritable, dissatisfied,
restless, looks for a way out acting like a mutant in all areas of daily life.
Therefore is always a trans-gender.
“The gender theory” that denies completely the sexual identity, last heritage of identity in a world
which has already denied the biological, historical, cultural and community’s, sustains we are not
male or females, of homosexual or transsexual tendencies, so that any day one can choose to
transform oneself in something sexually new: transient identity and of consumption.
Reflecting to the political expressions we are fully in the same scheme: you may be intermittently
sexists and anti-sexists, racists and gooders, proponents of the repression order and libertarians, men
of character and open books to be written at will, secessionists and nationalists, fascists and fans of
anti-fascist soviets, anti parlamentarian and servile, legalists and criminals, anti semites and
zionists, religious and atheists, careerists and moralists. It is required by the culture of times, asked
by daily hypnosis, imposed by daily language. Everything is possible with no investigation, no full
study, nor assuring any roots in past. This is rather related to aesthetics which often today, in
striking contrast with our history, is just a depressing ugliness. Still in this area, then, or rather in the
identification assigned to symbols on t-shirts or logoi in blog, on the community whole prevail the
fragmentation, the tribalisation, atomization, because we still speak of an imploded environment as
the rest of the world. An environment of beam consumers, beam moaners, beam presumptuous and
beam bar with a few concepts stuck in their pumpkin heads, lacking appraisal needed to weigh and
radiograph.
A small world of individuals taught to the times and ways of Big Brother, to the frantic search of
instant success, boisterous, ephemeral, founded on shifting sands and which must be propitious
meeting hastily the so-called market laws: namely the supposed demand of the mass. So they

hungrily wander, untiring, without offering medium or long-range prospects, not acting on
themselves or on their own thought.
Own? Thought?
Come on now!

If from the twenties to the seventies from environments of national revolutions emerged the
political vanguards, cultural, artistic and even intellectual not only of the West but from all over the
world, was certainly not by chance. They obviously didn’t hold the exclusive of the vanguards
because there were others with different ideals and orientations, but for sure ours were of high
standards, of great value, strong innovative capacity and even in the analyzes they had anticipated
for long the times and had done it more than anyone else.
For almost four decades to present, instead, the residue of that world resort to crutches provided to
them from previous generations without being able to hardly ever innovate and actualize thought
when they rather remove every vital element to replace it with the deadly legacies of other political
traditions, of reactionary kind, famous for their incapacitating ability. This is because so it’s not
hard: clinging to stereotypes of inertia you move from cradle to grave without being creators of
something nor having posted an alternative.
They mumble, they growl, they escape in dogmas, they howl soured, embittered because unhappy
with themselves and life, but almost never involve into play.
If previous generations had behaved in a completely different way and had offered many insights,
many sparks and many positive vital guidelines, there is a reason as well.
In fact more than one.
Some of these depend on objective conditions: a society not yet atomized, a full daily vitality, a
much less existential conditioning, the physical nature of relationships and conflicts.
In other words they hadn’t yet entered the dimension of zombies, vampires, open concentration
camps with whom we must reckon up the bills today.
Very little can be done to fill this objective gap, but even the awareness of our distance from real
life would be a great starting point to start thinking and to stop being designed.
Once done, with a great effort of will, this arduous transition, we have to understand why those
generations were both brilliant and active and see to correct all that we lack to reconnect to that
tradition.
Education, instruction, culture and the same common sense imposed at the time to check, to weigh,
to deepen what one proposed. A political thought cannot be exhausted in an attempt to impose a
postulate: it is valid only if accompanied by a serious verification which is obtained by comparing
data to useful elements mainly to update the formulation. It is not a selfie anyway: it must not be
fine for today and the maximum for tomorrow, but roam about in time, backward and forward.
Only then one can speak of political thinking.
Finally, or rather firstly, it must be addressed not only to contemporaries but to the descendants, and
should correspond to the history, the gene, the principles, the ethos of the ancestors and respect the
lines, the choices, the main ways.
Otherwise it is not rooted, let alone identitarian.
Moreover it is an absolute nothing if it is not driven by will of power and if it becomes practice.
It should be added that all the people who dictated the line were once an organic movement, or a
party-movement, involved in every militant aspect, from clashes in the square to martyrdom in front
of firing squads. They couldn’t be named, as they do today, ideologists, a horrible term and nothing
short of incompatible with the ideal led to a thought that is action; which is why neither is correct
dismiss them as intellectuals.
The theorists lecturers, born on a desk or on a sofa but certainly not from fight, phrase-bearers of
final solutions, miraculous and apocalyptic, learned parrot-fashion from sensationalistic readings, or
from academic studies, have appeared quite recently and provide one of the most clear and evident
signs of nothing which forwards merciless and assuming to mask the void and disorientation.

I was perhaps overly synthetic in the assumption, but I think you can realize why and how it has
been gone from nearly seven decades of pioneering to around four of court. If we wish to change
registry - and I think that at least one qualified minority wants to do it - then we need to weld the
broken sword and start from what the previous generations had anticipated and that, today, is still
some improvement over the present.
If forward stood abundantly in the analysis, something now objectively proven and shared, it had to
be mandatorily as in the synthesis and the proposal from where we must absolutely start.
The synthesis and the proposal are called precisely Nation Europe.

EUROPE AS A NECESSITY

It was already in the twenties when one began to think in a european dimension.
The Great War and the bolshevik Revolution had made known that the Old Europe, center of the
world, was threatened by decadence, marginalization and possibly extinction. It was due to the
communist revolutions, the cosmopolitan finance and the League of Nations.
Until the crisis risen to the Second World War, the recovery of the central european state was
imagined as consequential to the resumption of its national power by either Italy, France or
Germany. Gradually, though, a universal logic took over, which, while on one hand, was in favor of
decolonization or, however, of the national emancipation in the Third World, on the other, noticed
the need for Europe to become a compact block power in defense of its civilization and its role in
the world, where America and Asia were preparing to break through as master.
Today we talk about only one aspect of Europeanism, the federal antifascists of Ventotene, that
rhymes with the masonic parisian and Central Europe universality, but the idea of Europe belonged
mainly to the Axis powers and their political vanguards.
In Germany, for example, the resistance to this new suggestion that every day made its way among
youth, was represented by the army, the Wehrmacht, while the idea of a voluntary European army
had matured in youth teams, advocated precisely by Hitlerjugend and was soon welcomed by the

National Socialist weapon, by definition, the Kriegsmarine, which opened recruitment to non-
German. Thence is proceeded to the establishment of the european Waffen SS which, incidentally,

were the last defenders of Berlin.
This idea had become so popular in a party born chauvinist and pan-German that Chancellor Adolf
Hitler, when drawing the post-war order, had decided that he would even rename the German
capital
by the name, precisely, of Europe.
In Italy the Rsi expressed its european vocation, perhaps a little less pronounced than in Germany or
elsewhere due to the fact that our living space was partially in Africa and also because the founding
idea of Europe, unlike that of the EU, disliked to the cosmopolitan Vatican which covered from us a
great underground influence and who bitterly opposed to the fascist Mysticism and to all the
European unity intended as pagan, vitalist and openness of mind looking for a common
denominator that could not dominate, at least in its entirety.
In other countries the anti- bolshevik crusade - and anti -capitalist -was by no means the only reason
for joining the Axis army of dozens and dozens of thousands of volunteers, it was equally the belief
that it was at a crossroads: the salvation and domination of Europe or the risk of its final decline.
Pierre Drieu La Rochelle send us like no other the idea of this firm belief, the great French author of
Norman race, amicable collaborationist and remarkably independent character that would have
voluntarily given his death not to survive the broken action.
We are men of today.
We are alone.
We have no more gods.
We have no more ideas.
We don’t believe in Jesus Christ, nor Marx.
We must immediately,
right away,
at this very moment,
build the tower
of our despair and our pride.
With the sweat and the blood of all classes
we must build a homeland
as never seen;
compact as a steel block,
like a magnet.

Any filing of Europe will join you,
by hook or by crook.
And then in front of our Europe block,
Asia, America and Africa
will become dust.

Immediately after the war the union between fascism in any form and Europe was absolute as it was
the consideration that the World War had been won by the maddest and most shapeless continental
masses while it had been lost by Europe as a whole. This was also understood by intellectuals who
had worked well on other option during the conflict, such as Curzio Malaparte.
The Europe Nation ideal among less nostalgic of the losers developed as motion of rescue.
It even recognized a forerunner in the Belgian collaborationist Jean Thiriart founder of Jeune
Europe and author of Europe: an empire of four hundred million men.
With a Leninist methodology in Mazzinian pattern in almost all European countries he opened
sections of what he wanted the party-tow to mean to the continental unification.
That speech had success a bit everywhere and especially in Italy, which provided the young party
with activists and cadres and was so captivated by the prospect that more or less all the university
neofascist circles took the name of New Europe and adopted the Celtic Cross considered symbol of
the European ideal.
The same MSI fully welcomed the suggestion expressed in the formula "Europe Nation of
Homelands" and coined the most beautiful and comprehensive postwar motto "Fascism, Europe,
Revolution".
Sometimes, to bypass the legal sanctions, turned it into "Italy, Europe, Revolution" still wanting to
mean exactly that.
Vanguards for vanguards,in chauvinistic France those who have founded Grece - also known as the
Nouvelle Droite - in clear break with the patriotic and even with maurrassiani of Action Française
propounded the force-idea of Europe.
A Europe of the Regions, according to the map of the Waffen SS which were not so alien to
dictation of the line, and nor was the great essayist, journalist and idealist Giorgio Locchi.
The most solid and elevated product of Grece, scouting organization that forms its boys for over
forty years, is called not surprisingly Europe Jeunesse.

Europe as a necessity, we were saying.
Which all the nationalist revolutionary vanguards meant, without exception, at least since 1952
(signature of the Atlantic Treaty) until 1989 (fall of the Berlin Wall) was quite clear.
Let's recap.
1) World conflicts have served to defeat, to divide and to subject Europe and projected to the
domain of the world scenario two different continents and its enemies: America personified
by the US and Asia by the USSR (Soviet Russia).

2) The merchant, colonial, economist world, is divided into areas of influence by two rival-
accomplices: USA and USSR that with the Yalta accords feast on our remains.

3) Europe divided and enslaved is also threatened spiritually, culturally and biologically.
It is no longer possible in the atomic age and the dawn of the satellite to be independent and
assume a historical role if you do not acquire continental power.
4) Europe Nation is the only possibility to crack the duopoly of Yalta and, if it was equipped
with instruments of power and nuclear deterrent, will be reborn again and play a leading role
in world history.

Note, in this regard, the position of the MSI not by chance in favor of military nuclear and its
opposition to the ordnance non-proliferation treaties. "No to the atomic diktat" was one of its
most interesting battles and particularly disliked by the Americans.
This mythical and fate perspective also dictated very wise political choices which seem quite

forgotten. Anti-communism was not considered sufficient because it favored liberal capitalism;
anti-capitalism was not considered sufficient because it favored communism; the one as the

other helped an anti-European block: one had to be at the same time anti-communist and anti-
capitalist. Today with that regurgitant imaginary that has appropriated an imploded environment

one has to listen to the nonsense! One actually feels to reassess communism in anti-capitalist
key! Which is totally devoid of meaning both from the structural point of view (the real
capitalism and globalism are purely communist) and the historical-political. And, worse, the
whole brisk and fertile neofascist experience is underestimated, forgotten or devalued,
dismissed foolishly and thoughtlessly as Atlanticist.
Those who accuse the extreme right of the past not to have broken with Occidentalism to rather
wink to the Soviets, not only is the prey of a distorted belief and an inferiority complex towards
the left but can no longer think in perspective of autonomy and freedom, as was the case before.
Then they reasoned, throbbed, fought, to be protagonists and not to choose a master to serve.
One wanted, seriously wanted, make Europe the Third subject, a center of resistance, power and
rebirth. That Europe that saw threat in its culture, its traditions and its DNA, that was expected
to be invaded and subjugated and that intended to affirm in order to prevent it, to overturn the
balance of power and change things radically.
Europe was a historical and biological necessity: it was understood at the beginning of the
forties by the most discerning nationalist revolutionaries; twenty years later everyone included it
in that historical ideal and militant genre.
Europe Nation, an absolute necessity, unavoidable already fifty years ago, seen clearly as such
even then when one could still delude to do something advocating an average national power.

EUROPE AS IDENTITY

Thermopylae.
The birth of the European conscience was attached to the heroic sacrifice of Leonidas and the
three hundred Spartans, accompanied, however, by more than a thousand Greek volunteers of
which unfortunately we forget systematically. In front was lined an army of endless different
people with a ratio of forces that legend says one to a thousand but to history was at least one to
two hundred. Those brave kept pace until they were bypassed for treason. That they could not
sacrifice to gain a few hours to the Greeks to organize the defense of although historic rival
Athens was out of the question: they were facing certain death. The Persians offered them safe
lives and freedom to leave if only they had surrendered their weapons. "Come and take them!"
had replied laconically the Spartan king. Words immortalized that dominate carved next to his
hoplite statue in the place of the ultimate sacrifice.
“We will lash out so many arrows to obscure the sun" had warned Xerxes.
"Better, so we will fight in the shade" was the reply of the Lacedaemonian king. As memorable
as the one that had given to the emissary of the king of Persia when, in Sparta, had tried to
captivate him offering the control over all Greece from the King of kings but, if he refused, he
had detailed what would become of his city and his people, completely wiped off the face of the
earth, if the Persians had won.
"If" - Leonidas replied.
That moment, dated 480 years before the Common Era, marked the birth of the European
conscience. Because it opposed to the massive invasion from Asia of a melting pot ante litteram;
because it expressed a courage not only a warlike but noble, from who is Lord and dies not to be
a slave; finally, because all this did not happen for imposition or by chance or because it was an
inescapable fact but it was a free choice, consciously assumed.
This was Europe and in this differed from the rest of the world. From Thermopylae on one tried
to identify the historical events which expressed the European conscience or, at least, the
conscience of the Europeans: Poitiers, Lepanto, Vienna, Berlin.
The epic defense of the Bunker until May 2 submitted was conceived by most as the new Battle
of Thermopylae and it was even a well-known comic book writer for guys who claimed it
clearly.
To the need to form Europe, the compact block invoked by La Rochelle, was added the idea of
identity and, therefore, the search for the common denominator, precisely of that common
identity that united with each other peoples and historically rival clan. The common
denominator was recognized even in the spirit expressed in these rivalries.
Which one?
As rightly pointed out by Jean Mabire in Drieu et le tempérament cotentinais, Northern men
possess an innate sense of freedom but they are also and above all men of action and are
therefore willing to discipline themselves to fulfill the duty they have chosen. Away from
tyranny and massification.
Northmen were said?
A flourishing of paleo-anthropological studies, historic and prehistoric surveys, the comparative
study of languages, certify that the Indo-European type has an origin located north
(Hyperborean seat) prior to the ice melting and that, in its descent to the south (via Thule), met
other populations
to which it has imposed.
Dorians, Achaeans, Illyrians, Latins and Germans come from a common stock from which are
differentiated through the centuries but without losing its DNA.
Several linguists pointed out that the word Ari, with which the Indo-Europeans called
themselves, meant both clear, bright, and masters, self masters. Herr is a form of the word
Aryan, free men near the Germans were called Arimanni. The concept was, however, common
to the various Indo-European branches. It was on this dual logic of freedom and discipline

thatgave birth to the Poleis too summarily dismissed as the birthplace of democracy - which
however was born there - when they were rather examples of participation which in many cases
did not affect the freedom and authority.
It was not by chance if Sparta had two kings and responded to the assembly of warriors, or if in
Rome the Res Publica was endowed with two consuls.
The idea of subjection was foreign to the Indo-Europeans who governed voluntarily. The idea of
irrational tyranny, founded on fear if not even on terror of metaphysical entities that dictate the
law that must be done to avoid horrendous punishment, was for them alien and unacceptable.
When Julius Caesar tried to make Rome the center of the Empire, the nations of the East
demanded the deification of the Emperor and the European ones, especially the Roman, rejected
it. It took the immeasurable greatness of Octavian Augustus so that Rome could be both the
consular Polis of the Indo-Europeans and the deified center for the people of Asia Minor. This
happened, however, in the typical mentality of those who today we would call Western and the
fusion between unity and multiplicity was marked by the Pantheon, unmatched emblem of
plurality and tolerance.
Lex Romana, Pax Romana and the boundaries of the Empire sacralised the spaces where our
civilization is expressed. The split occurred between the shores of the Mediterranean, the
division of East and West and the rise of the monotheistic religions of Asia Minor produced a
collapse from which it emerged only later with the Holy Roman Empire.
It was long discussed on the reasons for the spiritual and cultural rescue that condensed itself in
monasticism, in feudalism and especially in the Ideal of Chivalry.
It is not up to us to define what depended on paganism and Germanism welding with the
remnants of the Fathers’ tradition. The important thing is the corpus that has gone realizing,
where even the monarchy, unlike for example the Tsarist Russia, was understood as a common
good, so much so that the very idea of popular monarchy that took place in the Modern Age
(1492 -1789) partially resumed the tribunitian functions that Augustus had praised into the
imperial idea of Princeps.
In the heyday of European dominion (XVII - XIX century) all the characteristics simultaneously
individualistic and communitarian, particularist and unitary, manifested in their fullness while it
was expressed an aristocratic lifestyle, marked by a nobility that often made its own way, not
necessarily through its rank acquired.
I add a matter upon which very little was reflected and that marks the transition from the
classical Age, from the Roman Empire, to the new mixture tending to synthesis.
When in 476 (1229 ab Urbe Condita) the Roman Empire of the West fell, Romulus Augustus
was deposed, at least as we know, by King Odoacer of the Heruli.
The fact is that Odowakhr is not as is commonly believed a proper name but the name that is
given to the one who takes on the role of Grand Master of the Runes. The Heruli are the keepers
of the runic wisdom alphabetically known precisely as Erilaz.
One can only conclude that we are in the presence of a moment that plays exceptional and deep
meanings: the subtle transmission in ancestral sense: historical, prehistorical and metahistorical
at the same time. From this Roman-Germanic transmission - or from the acknowledgment of the
same root - the Ghibelline spring will come and, as a result, the best expressions of European
history will emerge.
Whatever the future prospects ignoring this bond would be criminal.
What marks the fundamental unity in the multiplicity of Europe? How can it be recognized and
how is it established?
On one hand we have scholars who dealt with the search of the roots. They did not merely
document the linguistic links but tracked down the traces of migration from the North,
identifying various objective factors proving routes of our ancestors, including birch, amber and
pork. The biological influences were distinct from those of other ethnic groups documenting
ours from the men of Aurignac and Cromagnon.
After the Second World War all these searches were denied and refuted institutionally for

ideological decision, however is enough following on the same Republic the current evolutions
of paleontological studies to understand that they are well-founded.
This biological / linguistic ensemble in itself is not, however, merely a material aspect of
identity, which may expire in materialistic positivism and thus does not make sufficient the idea
of European specificity, reducing it to a simple zoo factor.
The characteristics that make complete an identity are of another type. They're in the mindset
that we have defined above: that of free men who choose discipline, escape promiscuity and
subjection, do not bend to laws based on terror.
Beyond the materialistic studies, establishing Indo-European identity in its various aspects are
the sagas, fairy tales, oral traditions. That the Iliad is truly the translated remembrance of an epic
on the Baltic is possible and, if it were a fact, would perfectly clarify that continuity of an
identity intimately felt beyond space and time constraints.
But there is no identity without limitation and separation.
What enabled the Indo-Europeans to realize that synthesis between freedom and discipline,
between Polis and Imperium? Axiallity, spiritual virility. That which is marked by the scepter,
by the ax, the sword, the spear and the beam that for our ancestors was synonymous with the
male organ. Charm literally means the seduction emitted by manhood.
The warrior, virile, patriarchal appearance, the same axis that, internal more than external,
provided the soul of the Imperium, clashed with the pole of promiscuity, shapelessness that
Frithjof Schuon identified in the southern cult of the Great Mother. Julius Evola went further in
this process of identification. Nonetheless did dozens of thinkers and the same School of Fascist
Mysticism which established that the clash was between two poles, played one by Rome and the
other by Carthage, precisely the virile and the anti-virile. The school did not stop there also
stating that it was the clash between Aries and Taurus, between Rome and Jerusalem.
The fact is that the tendency to shapelessness, promiscuity, annihilation, subjection, hectic
telluric state, was fought and won for centuries and this was the main aspect that distinguished
European civilization, as had been the specificity so unique of the refusal of human sacrifice
present practically in all other cultures.

This spiritual polarity remains unchanged, so the assault to Europe, to its spirit, to its being,
which is not coincidentally expressed today in the theory of genre that enhances the
shapelessness, promiscuity, existential indiscipline, is but the last stage of a long anti-virile
Subversion, anti-patriarchal, anti-state, launched after the war and accompanied, so consciously
provocatively by the hippie symbol which is nothing but the Tree of Life deliberately
overturned.
Of all this we must be aware. In recent decades we have the impression that each basic element
and character has been removed. An environment that in the past had made the mistake of not
devoting to the economic aspects that he considered of lower order than the spiritual, existential
and warrior, overturned everything today. It petrified on economic theories, not always correct
and often digested in bulk, and is committed exclusively on social ground, strangely oblivious
that this may not be enough, since the profit sharing was incorporated in large multinationals
and the Rhenish social capitalism is still capitalism.
Confining to socioeconomic claims, those who should be the heirs of a nationalist revolutionary
line, have lost the sense of the Enemy.
When they accuse politicians of being the lackeys of the bankers they are right but that only
explains the situation partially. What those who direct want, in which spiritual pole they
respond, how they are mentally and morally programmed, is the real problem: to share we must
face it and solve it, turning around only serves to waste time and dignity.
The reformist and moralistic battles being moved, are mostly sterile and often improperly set.
For example, the whole issue of homophobia that today serves as a crowbar to the advance of
the "gender theory" is skillfully set by the subversive power playing on the free nature,
respectful and tolerant of the Indo-European and that is why it broke through, because there is

deep distaste for the discriminator laws.
This corrosive enterprise should be countered on criteria rather than by requesting prohibition
laws that attest the confusion of who should instead refocus.
The combined attack (cultural, spiritual, economic and biological) to Europe and all that it
represents, only finds sectorial resistance, partial, fragmented, often manipulated and
counterproductive and still almost never conscious.
Yet at stake is our survival and our civilization, not to be confused with the Civilization that is,
the latter, a specific expression historically limited of civilization and remains from relative to
absolute exactly how values are base to principles.
Trying to defend stages of civilization which are often rotting themselves is not opposed to
Subversion but, as even Guenon noted, assists it.
Today, even more than yesterday, Europe - that is all of us - is threatened with extinction and its
power unit is both a necessity and identity.
We must be aware and fight to tear it to subversive dictatorship, matriarchal, cosmopolitan
which is prey to.

EUROPE SKETCHED

The fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989 represented the fulfillment of a wish. Europe
got rid of its internal barrier and Germany could eventually reunify.
The dream cherished of forty-four years by nationalist revolutionaries of all nations came true.
And it truly became, thanks to the failure of the communist monster, due in part to the
ecclesiastical influence, much more to the loss of belief of the Soviet Bolshevik ruling classes,
quite finally to the economic policy of the German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who had invested
the east and had become the main financier of Gorbachev.
It was not a popular revolution to realize the dream, as incidentally was unthinkable that he
could succeed the Yalta agreements and, therefore, the mutual support between the Russians and
Americans in their specific areas of influence. They were men of great ability who had moved
within the schemes post-war and who had capitalized at the same time their firmness in the Cold
War and their economic and diplomatic opening beyond the Iron Curtain. Were the Chancellor
of West Germany Helmut Kohl and French President, François Mitterrand, with the support of
other prominent politicians, as our Prime Minister Bettino Craxi, to perform the miracle.
They went further: they proposed the creation of a European army and an economic space with
Russia. The story seemed to have taken the right path.
But history is made by men, by the objective needs, is made by the centers of power.
The journey was difficult because the process undertaken was objectively the only one that
made sense and was led by men with a great awareness. The centers of power, however, were
another matter and, above all, men are changed.
So those who were quite worried of the European emancipation, that they wanted it to happen
only partially, worked on the selection of the men who would have replaced those who had
surprised them.
Emblematic is what would have happened in France with the promotion of Sarkozy, where CIA
and Mossad were not strangers, promotion accompanied by a series of obscene advances such
as the French participation to the Latin- american narco- system and the advent of privileged
relationship between the stock market of Paris and that of New York.
The return of France into NATO, in itself irrelevant, had the strength of a signal.
A strong signal was also the arrest in the US of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, IMF director and
candidate for the Elysee, in a trap mounted by American services. He was preparing to propose
to the IMF summit the introduction of the Euro as an international currency exchange.
When speaking of the euro there are many and diverse the considerations that you make and I
chose in this political statement to leave to each the task to pronounce pro or con.
It surely should be borne in mind that the concrete hypothesis that it would rival the dollar in
international transactions has led the Americans to attack in one way or another different
countries, such as Argentina, Iraq and Libya; that the possibility of moving investments from
New York to Frankfurt from Saudi Arabia has cooled bilateral relations with Washington.

The City then plays speculative remittance alongside the Eurozone. The proposal of Strauss-
Kahn preoccupied it to the point that since then finances Eurosceptic parties around Europe.

Emblematic is also the Russian behavior. As long as the idea of Euro- Russian alliance was
concrete, the Kremlin stated to support the Euro. Precisely Strauss-Kahn was chosen by Putin as
a man symbol for the South Stream, the rival pipeline of Nabucco in the Russian- American
energy struggle to control southern Europe.
When the American advance and the turnaround French played the cards and Russia found itself
forced to accept the logic of a new energy Yalta and to seek alliances elsewhere (China, Israel,
Saudi Arabia), when, in fact, even for Moscow Europe became an object of contention and
division not a potential ally, even the Kremlin suddenly began to support the eurosceptics.
These considerations are not sufficient to take a position on the euro, but not take it into account
would be delinquency.
Obviously you cannot even do the opposite and accept the policy of the EU on this basis alone.

It is no secret to anyone that it is sometimes bankrupt, and sometimes harmful.
Noting it does not serve, however, to anything; we must act, and to act, we must clear away
hasty postulates not always grounded and almost always inaccurate.
Before turning to the proposals that will be of two different natures - programmatic solutions
and direct interventions - we summarize what in our view should not be in the EU, splitting
even this into two parts. First we recap clichés, dogmas; then we will try to see how much of the
summary criticism that is leveled against them is well founded, how much goes instead removed
and how much, finally, you need to add to get a real political criticism and move efficacy.

THE EUROPE THAT DOESN'T EXCITE US

Summarily the allegations to the EU are the following: to be an American product; Masonic
creature; represent a stage in the globalist process; be undemocratic or even anti-democratic; be
in the hands of the bankers; remove national sovereignty; promote an antisocial policy;
represent a German tool.
These accusations are joined to the ECB’s: independent of politics, above the sovereign states,
the bearer of an economic policy which paralyzes, usurping the right to issue currency.
Some of these statements are true but rarely focused as they should to draw something from the
easy but incapacitating slogans, some are inaccurate, another one is even unfounded.
Let's see one by one.

Is the European Union an American product
and does it serve the interests of Washington?

Not at all. The US controls the European process with suspicion and circumspection and
intervenes mainly to restrain it and to lead into blind alleys. They do it with speculation, with
the rating, with commercial diktats, with direct interference. The main American fear, clearly
expressed by its main political scientists, is precisely the European emancipation; the bulk of the
US strategy, which has been largely defined by Brzezinski before and Cheney later and that is
pursued blindly, aims to keep Europe weak and to move it away from its partners in the south
and east.
The era of satellites and space openings, the era of extended market, made objectively necessary
the unification of Europe. On this unification they act as controllers, as containers and as
deviant, the United States and England. Obviously they do it also through the direct and indirect
influences they may exercise in the complex and contradictory corpus of the EU.

Is the EU a Masonic creature?

Neither more nor less than any other. Freemasonry is everywhere, starting from the Vatican. But
what is Freemasonry? It is necessary to distinguish. If we talk about a spiritual clash, if we refer
to metaphysical dimensions, all of this transcends the human organizations that are instruments,
conscious or unconscious. If we abseiled in a more terrain plan then we must consider two
illuminating statements, the first is that of Julius Evola who explains that the Masonic
sensationalism is the only way in which the bourgeoisie is able to have its own sacral parody;
the second is the one with which the Marshal Petain commented on his law of dissolution of the
Lodges.
"Not for religious reasons, but because Freemasonry is an organization through which the
mediocre, supporting each other, make their way to the detriment of the excellent and to the
detriment of the nation.”
It should be added a further element: Freemasonry has been for over a century, the British
Trojan horse in the world, a tool that also endowed the Prussians and especially the French.
Then it has also become an American tool.
In conclusion, the EU is no more Masonic than are Italy, France or the Vatican. The accounts
with the influences of the Lodge are made everywhere.
If there is a difference, this is in the fact that the EU, too democratic and therefore too devoid of
authority, is prey to compromises and uses released decision-making shortcuts and that is why it
is easier for mediocre men, belonging to lobby organizations (Masonic or non-Masonic) to take
excessive influences. In midstream wallow the piranhas.

Is the EU a phase in the globalist process?

Yes absolutely and absolutely no. Here it should be made clear surpassing the ideological
conceptual left / right hemiplegia that has an impact everywhere with the respective summary
liquidations that, in this case, we can define conspiracy and determinism.
To reactionaries only count the decision makers, to progressives are events that require them to
decide. In each pole of this dualism are condemned to impotence. It’s only the taking charge of
both elements and the pursuit of synthesis that allows you to change the course of history.
Therefore for reactionaries EU is the stage of a globalist conspiracy. For progressives it is a
phase of Globalization. They are both right as they are both wrong.
The material history is the continuous conjunction of two axes, one vertical, is the one that
comprises the hierarchies, structures; the other, horizontal, is the one that expresses the
evolution of the technical, economic, cultural etc.
If we limit ourselves to the vertical axis it goes without saying that whatever the EU is (and
whatever every other subject is) it undergoes the influence of the few families holding the
world's wealth, the centers of financial power, energy and strategic and their ideology, globalist
and not only: it is anti-virile and anti-traditional. This is true both for the EU and for Italy, the
Vatican, the entire West but also, with different dosages, the Chinese and Russian East.
If we move to the horizontal axis, the EU is primarily a product of historical development and of
need to cope. In this axis meet and often clash interests and different centers; especially German
and English.
Those who believe that we are at the end of history, the end of time, cannot but have an
apocalyptic vision of everything and surrender to the inevitability of Globalization under the
sign of globalism.
Who has instead a vital approach and active to existence is able to distinguish, recognize in the
vertical axis the fault lines between the centers of power, then to trust in the variations of the
horizontal axis, and thus try to act, not to stop the course of history, which is impossible, but to
change its sign.
On the horizontal axis is a question of method, on the vertical it is much more.
In ‘New World Order between imperialism and Empire’, Barbarossa editions, 2002, I pointed
out that since 1945 there are no ideologies, much less political interpretations different from
globalism but I also argued that there are spaces and ways to return to counterpose to it the
universal ideal of national Revolutions and Imperium.
Without this ideal one can not only complain or hang to the phenomenon of socio-psychological
reaction of populism that will not go anywhere unless they are equipped with a strategic
concept, active, positive, revolutionary, and if they are not guided by authentic militant elites .

Is the EU undemocratic or even anti-democratic?

The opposite is true. Not only in terms of ontological for which democracy, contrary to common
belief, is not a participatory power but a leveling totalitarian tyranny, but also from the point of
view expressed by the concept more widespread, namely that of a management subjected to
discussion and sharing that, in the EU is actually excessive.
Just when the enlargement of spaces, the contraction of times, the concentration of means of
power, dictate everywhere a reduction in ceremonial shareholders' meetings and an increase of
decision-making powers, is, paradoxically, the search for compromise in a logic of equitable
participation among members who make the European Union a halved power that pales in
comparison with the authoritarian powers in force in the US, Russia, China, Israel and much of
the emerging powers such as Turkey and Kazakhstan.
Contrary to the commonplace is precisely this federated egalitarianism, added to the prevailing
ideological bias, which paralyzes the European Union by offering the right to interventions of
commissioners or experts who, just as non- subject to hierarchical decisiveness, but free to wade
in a confused democracy, there are almost always men who respond to lobbies, to lodges or

organized multinational transverse parties.

Is EU in the hands of the bankers?

It is not a prerogative of the EU but of the entire world system. The caste of bankers is
predominant and we must come to terms. When you say the caste of bankers we should not,
however, lazily refrain from deepening. Or if you did you would realize at least three things: the

first is that the Eurozone and European economies suffer more the maneuvers of Anglo-
American bankers rather than those of the European; the second is that around the ECB are

raging disputes between German bankers, British, French, etc.; the third is that we are in the
presence of a conflict between large and medium bankers, particularly as a result of the Basel
Accords.
This means in turn other things. The first is that if the EU is synonymous with the bankers the
reverse is not true. The second is that there are fault lines within the same caste of financiers.
The third is that there are, at least theoretically, the possibilities of amending the framework and
power relations.
A far reasoning is what attaches to the EU and the Euro the end of monetary sovereignty. The
speech is wide and varied; in doing so we must not forget that, actually, the ECB pursues a
policy of monetary stability, the power to issue currency is in fact the ESCB, based in
Frankfurt, made up of 27 national banks and the ECB, the last one having the exclusive right to
issue 8% of the mass exchange. The fact is that national banks are private institutions for a long
time (the Italian, one of the last to break free from the laws wanted by Mussolini from 1981).
The problem is thus ahead of the ECB which combines to it two aggravating circumstances: the
fact of being released from political power (and we return to the excess of democracy) and not
having the obligation to underwrite the debt.
A final gloss on monetary sovereignty, recent totem of the extreme right. It is fundamental, but
certainly not true that it is enough: in Italy from 1945 to 1981 it was complete: yet of national
sovereignty, there was no trace.

Is the EU removing national sovereignty?

The reality is a little different. National sovereignties have literally received a deadly blow since
the advent of satellites. Already in the nineties France snatched the wire of a series of contracts
with African countries from the Americans who, precisely thanks to satellites were familiar with
their offers in real time and could intervene. The information, trade, war, now take place via
satellite and here is also held the entire social communication (google, facebook, twitter etc.).
What had predicted the nationalist revolutionary vanguard since the forties came true. Needless
to cry (for those who had reasons to cry) or scream. There is no possible sovereignty if not at the
level of continental power and without a satellite autonomy.
The EU, neither fish nor fowl, subsists in this no man's land, trying to find a balance between
the obsolete residues of national sovereignties and a central decisiveness that is not there and
that is then surreptitiously acquitted by special commissioners.
National sovereignty then died? Not necessarily: on the condition to revive a social logic,
territorial and an imperial confederate ideal, they can live with a European sovereignty. At
present we have neither this nor that.

Does the European Union have an antisocial policy?

Once again we must not linger to the reductive pictures we habitually have before our eyes. The
social state is a common prerogative in Europe, although the social logics are different nation by
nation. The policy of austerity that has been dictated by the global crisis and the policy of price
stability is in fact undermining European societies affecting wages, property, savings and

enterprise.
Causes of all this are definitely those identified by the most: the German stubbornness, the
bankers’ excessive power. To them we must add, however, at least four others. First, the lack of
power of the EU that, crock pot among the iron pots (USA, China), has little power to act
against other powers which unload on them their own crisis. Emblematic is what made the US
from 2009 to get us to pay their holes and their debts.
Therefore we experience the world competition of non-European economies that ignore or
minimize the social state. This competition, added to the indisputable rotting plague that has
opened in the Mediterranean because of individualistic opportunism and political union, makes
necessary real structural reforms.
Here enters the third element: having to necessarily make copious cuts, are the most powerful
classes and the most organized centrals that impose to download costs on less powerful and less
organized. So, employees and SMEs.
Finally, the fourth element is cronyism. Without going into the merits of the Fiscal Compact that
25 member states, including Hungary, have signed and 24 have then ratified but that not being a
European law can be more easily refuted, it should be emphasized that there was absolutely no
one who, imposing on us to shell out fifty billion a year, to have argued that these had to be
obtained by taxing the productive classes and cutting health instead of going to dismantle the
parasitic system of patronage that stands at around two hundred and fifty billion totally wasted.
It was the rotting scourge of a partitocracy and a parasitic associationism that once again
prevailed in Italy.
We must conclude from everything we are witnessing the unleashing of the class offensive in a
political framework overly democratic and too little sovereign in the global economic strife. It is
this offensive of class and caste, which is producing the social contraction and mass
proletarianization. In the chaos, however, the various European nations are moving differently:
Hungary, the Scandinavian countries, Germany, are not so clearly meeting the social dissolution
as other countries are doing, particularly those who have taken advantage of welfarism.
Finally, it is not true that welfarism is synonymous with social state or that the latter must
necessarily be dismantled, but on condition that goes back to being what it was when it was
conceived.
The answer is all one: only organic but authoritarian coordination of European domestic and
foreign policy can allow us to reject the dual attack of foreign anti-social competition and
international class offensive, through a total renovation that includes the renovation of the social
state within a society supplemented once again.

Is the EU a German tool?

Germany is the European locomotive, it is both economically and for the policy accompanying
economic and energy negotiations that has determined the euro Russian relations and openings
to Asia.
Obviously Germany reflects on its own model and is convinced that this would lead to the
advent of a more compact EU. The austerity policy is dictated exactly by this reasoning, since
for the Germans is primary the prices’ containment.
Accusations that cater to the Germans wanting to do their own and being determined to crush
the Mediterranean countries, however, are misguided.
To shoulder the bulk of the financial support they are particularly wary of the Mediterranean
countries that have long produced parasitism, cronyism and corruption in massive measures.
With the bathwater (our fault that it continues to stagnate in the tank), however, is thrown away
- from us! - the baby, or small business owners and employees. Our wealth is the SMEs that, in
any case will not survive global competition if they do not make the system. In this the SMEs
(small and medium enterprises) are deficient and Italian governments are deserters.
The monetary and economic policy of the EU must be absolutely changed but one cannot make

a cross to the only attempting something proactive. Nor is it true that the Germans want to go it
alone as they called both Paris and London to the management in building a Kerneuropa, or a
hard core Europe, which is opposed by the US and the City.
Neither are sharable the accusations against the Germans of getting paid by us, with the change
Marco -Euro, the national unification. They are not, as Germany was already then our economic
and financial locomotive and, if they had been, what would have meant for us all, the union and
cohesion of Germany, would have been sufficient to consider the outlay as an investment. As to
soaring in prices to the advent of the Euro, is certainly not the German responsibility but of
merchants of the individual countries. The market reacts psychologically: it is no coincidence if
an item of approximately 10 euro is offered at 9.90 as well, sounding cheap, the consumer buys
it. The figures are working on the subconscious. So the collapse of the purchase value after the
advent of the Euro has been manifested in varying degrees nation to nation. Where was 1 euro
for 1 marc no damage .. In France, where one euro was worth about six francs a habit of mind to
consider expendable an apparently low figure or passing as such (say 8 euro that previously
would have been about 50 francs) helped sellers make consumers spend more without
corresponding wage growth. In Italy, where one euro was at nearly 2,000 pounds, of course, the
backlash was devastating. But it was for the mass psychology and the shopkeepers’ interests.
Culprit was the institutional absence of a body that could have prevented or at least contain the
havoc of which is incorrect to consider Prodi responsible for accepting a wrong change.
In conclusion Germany continues alone more from others’ inertia, or the obstacles that stand in
its way, than by choice or by greed. Not everything we accuse it of is well founded.
In his model, there are questionable adaptable items, positive elements and negative elements.
Let's try to summarize them.

What does Germany represent?

Let’s see the positives and the negatives of the European locomotive.
Social cohesion, participation, local anchoring that, as we shall see later, prevents the
outsourcing of work, the efficiency of the social and fiscal system, are data that sign up to the
German assets. Even more is the foreign function, primarily the economy that extends east
taking the policy with it (in fact in the Asian meetings of the SCO are often invited think tank
German officers, unique European players) and that opens up prospects for balancing to
American dominance. On this point, the policy is not inert since the Schäuble doctrine, called
"reciprocity", aims explicitly just to emancipate and strengthen Europe to induce the US to
accept it as interlocutor and not as a fief. Even in the gap between TTIP and the Eurasian
Economic Community, Germany plays balance keeping in view the emancipation.
In the States and the City are aware of it to the point where Financial Times admits clearly being
in conflict with Berlin; in the rest the Ukrainian crisis had as target more Germany than Russia.
All things considered, the anti-German campaign that accompanies not only the euro-skepticism
but also the lamentable demagogy of clientelist parties is misleading and indicates as enemy
who more embarrasses the enemy.
Hence to support Germany to the hilt takes more. Not only because you cannot do it without
systemic interventions in defense of SMEs and of the best Mediterranean socioeconomic
specificities but because, if, on one hand the Germans are the only possible hitch for the
preservation and recovery in Europe, on the other hand are also leaders of the cultural and
ideological model soaked in dissolution and subversion and these are with the aggravating
circumstance of a feeling of guilt that not only paralyzes them but is often transformed into an
alleged preacher who drives them to unacceptable existential and ideological crusades. Such as,
for example, the introduction of Parent 1 and 2 or the offensive against Corrida (Bullfight).
Jekyll und Hide.

Eurosceptics, eurofans or a third way?

After the overview we cannot but conclude that most of the criticisms of the EU are set wrong,

based on ignorance and superficiality, and that, somewhat distorted, often make the Anglo-
American game. This does not mean one should become eurofan. If it is false that the EU is at

the root of the social, economic, cultural crisis occurring in Europe and even that it is
undemocratic, if not from the EU depends the sunset of national sovereignty, and if it does not
have the exclusive of the banking power and the Masonic, if, finally, the European cohesion is
the only chance of survival that we have ahead of us, this does not mean that the EU has not its
own tare added to those of each of its components.
The problem is that the EU, arbitration and confused sum of our societies, is a mirror. It suffers
the same defects, the same distortions, the same subversion of all our countries, to its
foundations are the same pathologies, the same poisons, the same fevers and they are always a
mercantile structure and a deforming ideology.
The answer, however, is likely to be of the same kind.
In full industrialization and class struggle financiers and speculators were foraging everywhere
and for very long the communists in their action against the industrial and entrepreneurial
bosses. It was convenient to support the process of internationalization and social dismantling.
Staying with the Communists against the industrial meant at the time paralyzing and disrupting
society and the nation; defending bosses against the workers meant being scabs and servile. No
way out, so it seemed. Then the fascist electrocution intervened who did loosen the grip of both
jaws, internalized the class struggle and solved it- at least to a large extent - with the
participation and the company trench socialism .
Until then the charges against the employers were quite correct but the impo-station of the battle
was wrong, was not aimed at the real culprits that, on the contrary, benefited from the socialist
action.
I seem to find myself in the presence of the same device when today the EU is being criticized.
The charges are all addressed to Germany that, no more or less of the employers business of the
nineteenth century, has its own responsibilities, but is only fleetingly thought of the credit rating
companies, moneylenders and the Wasp elite who are our main enemy, nor of the Morgenthau
plans and the Kalergi for neutralization and the extinction of the European man.
Then there was no fight against the spirit of capitalism but against a specific aspect of its
structure and not to change it, but to help exploiters, parasites and vampires to feast about.
The Euroscepticism devices today look exactly the same, not only because they are objectively
useful to the City but because they are not intended to impose justice and logic to the power, but
to weaken a company that would remain unjust and illogical.
The reaction to the EU is understandable and justified, but it is badly oriented, almost always by
those who are most responsible for the ruin in place and have every incentive to keep it in place,
preventing antibodies to arise.
The question is what to do with popular reaction in turmoil today, if channel it into the dead end
of a no slogan and a sterile nostalgia, which moreover is so absurd that it proposes today the
Democrat corruption as a past golden age, or if instead we want to bring it to the forefront to
revolutionize Europe both for fidelity to the myth, ideal consistency, historical necessity,
longing for identity, and, finally, by the will of autonomy and power.
In the latter case there will be plenty to do. I undertake directly with proposals and guidelines
that must be viewed and integrated a lot and require long investigations by the best frameworks
from all over Europe.

THE OTHER POSSIBLE EUROPE

The European Union is not the monster some agitate nor is the cause of the evils that rain down
on us, it is, at most, a contributing cause. However it has background tare, some on the
functional level, some on the structural, other, more serious ones, has in the soul.
That it is not the Europe we dream of is obvious. That the solution is to paralyze it, to crumble it
in order to build another one later is a foolish superficial statement, daughter of a surprising
ignorance of history that teaches us how no reaction is possible if it is not inherent to a radical
correction of dynamic in place, or if it is not a revolution, or at least a counter-revolution.
They howl against Brussels those who play the blame because they have sins to be forgiven, as
our politicians of the para- governmental area, or who in opposition chooses to capitalize
quickly the popular discontent in the local competition or who, finally, only knows to propose
and build.
If the EU goes on like this there is no doubt that will drag us into an abyss but, if it were
blocked, paralyzed, eroded, the abyss where we would be swallowed up would be much deeper,
and we would have no more chance to restore.
Once again we find ourselves between two opposite poles that are not encouraging: surviving as
sufferers until we can or die hurt.
It is not so difficult to understand that it is about dying hurt. If it were possible a return to
individual national sovereignties these would also bring around the same people and the same
tare of the whole Europe, only with much less power. In the global era if you do not make
power you die: Greece, for example, has a GDP per annum equivalent to one-half day of China.
In addition, which synergies would lead us to conquer our role in space, in the satellite?
That this is not our Europe is peaceful, but this is not even our Italy (or our France, our Spain,
our Greece); nobody talks to undo Italy but all hope of changing it. As if it was easier than
changing Europe.
But why the poles must be two? Why accept the incapacitating scheme of dualism?
There is another possibility: revolutionize Europe, pressing it in every field, institutional,
cultural, social, to get out of this impasse.
The major tares of the European Union are its cut exclusively mercantile and uniform, its
subversive ideology, anti- virile and thus, paradoxically, anti-European, its excess of democracy
that allows the commissioners of oligarchies to usurp the role of politics and its being at the
mercy of the class and caste offensive. In other words, the EU is too weak where it should be
strong, while it is stupidly strong where encounters weakness.
The changes that need to be made to the European corpus, even in its institutions and its
functions, are so profound, cannot be limited to the functioning of the organs, but should help to
bring out the spirit of identity and the solar tradition of the fathers; should lead to synergy in the
complementarity, or exalt the differences that come into harmony; we must assume Auctoritas
and Imperium and eventually represent all classes rather than lend to the offensive from above
which tends to eliminate the producers and enslave wage earners. We must finally provide full
awareness, military autonomy, satellite power to enter the game between players of
asymmetrical multipolarity of our global age.
"Si vis pacem para bellum".

Let's start with some institutional restructuring that, of course, can only take the form of
programmatic proposal until they are imposed by organized forces with the right mixture of
avant-gardism and lobbying that represents the current version of squadrism and the Leninist
organization.

As we walk with our feet in the air, let's start with what should not be at the top, but now there
is: the Bank and the currency system.
The writer has always been in favor of maintaining the Euro but at revolutionized parameters.

Being, however, here, a dynamic proposition, we will not fossilize, leaving space open to
different solutions, provided they fulfill the same spirit.
We start from the ECB and the ESCB we saw represent, the first, the actual towing of the EU
and, the second, to which the ECB also belongs, the currency issuing organ in which national
banks are participating, now in name only.
It is unacceptable that the ECB is an independent policy and has no obligation to underwrite the
public debt of several European nations not absorbed by the markets.
For its reform we make our proposals by Alberto Micalizzi.
You can propose for example the election of a majority of the members of the Executive Board
of the central from the national parliaments, which would end the farce of central bank
independence, which is nothing else if not the usual financial club dependence. Recall that the
Central Bank of the second largest economy in the world, the Chinese, is totally up to "political"
nomination.
It should also push for the underlying objective of the central bank to move from the "financial
stability and inflation control" to "GDP growth" and including also "social fairness."In fact the
equation should be three-dimensional: economic growth, financial stability and social equity.
The weight of the coefficients should be in the ratio of 50:30:20 (regardless that today this
equation is abnormal and monstrous and is: 0: 100: 0).
It should be finally proposed that the central bank ensures all currency issues.
We would go further by proposing the effective nationalization of all national banks and
therefore the ECB which represents in fact the Board of Directors, the central banks being
shareholders and would end up automatically belonging to the people of Europe Nation, if that
were the case, however, it would be represented not only by the individual national banks but
also by the expression of social categories.
A corporate Confederate logic should appropriate the Central Bank which, as we have already
said should have as one of the primary purposes the repurchase of the securities of public debt
in foreign hands in order to make Europe in all its individual components independent of usury
and cosmopolitan caste dictatorship.
Independence is based on monetary sovereignty but also on the military, energy, satellite,
environmental and health and it is not possible that such independence be achieved without the
power being the organic expression of the entire corpus components.
With the same logic and structure with which one should revolutionize the ECB, a compulsory
European military service should be set up, with integrated control and high nuclear potential.
Its cutting edge should be the aerospace industry.
On the sidelines three essential pillars should be developed. First and foremost the one for
culture and communication independence, with the creation of a European information space
supplanting not only CNN but google, twitter, facebook etc. in order to create a degree of
waterproofing to Big Brother.
So the rating: Europe must be equipped with tools and rating criteria entirely independent that
deal with economies, and evaluate the foreign rather than remaining at the mercy of the current
imperialism instrument with which the US has managed to download on us the costs of their
failures.
Finally, a health and environment sector, with strong localized articulation, is absolutely
necessary if we want to get out of blind alleys in which the WHO relegates us, that responds to
interests, often gangster, of multinational pharmaceutical companies and the research pouring
useless vaccines, nailing ineffective and expensive therapies when not deleterious, having in
practice slowed the evolution of medicine for over half a century by committing to muzzle any
research whose conclusions do not allow you to die in agony after spending capital getting into
the pockets of Al Capone with a doctoral smile.
Making Europe a compact corpus also means ensuring and developing its national, ethnic,
cultural singularity.

It is therefore about proposing a new socio-economic model and of political representation but it
also means to enhance and integrate the specificities going to form, in a matrjoska logic, areas
that can assume a relative internal independence, then pouring on the imperial axis as primary
subjects Confederate logic.
We therefore propose the articulation of the Union in different areas of cultural, commercial
and social homogeneity.
The areas with cultural and social homogeneity or according to commercial and diplomatic
dynamic, should develop in three directions:
1. Paris-Berlin-Riga / Moscow (in this capacity by offering Russia a partnership with
Switzerland)
2. Rome-Vienna-Budapest-Kiev
3. Madrid-Rome-Athens
This is the north-east, the Central European and Mediterranean area.
Each of them, following the example of the Hungarian Constitution, would have authority to
organize themselves according their own traditions and their own social models while observing
the parameters established, fixed, however, as we have seen, not so much from a balanced
budget as also by the growth and social fairness where we would add more specifically also the
development of environmental policies and that of local and regional authorities. This implies
that there are financial and fiscal policies differentiated and agreed.
Each area should define its fiscal policies in coordination with the European Union and could
obtain local currencies of internal use to facilitate its economy.
On this road, as we shall see shortly, we would go beyond proposing, again with Alberto
Micalizzi, the Complementary Currency.
All this would ensure autonomy and particularities without ever downgrade Europe and its
political and economic weight in relation to not only the US but the BRICS and any emerging
economy, as well as Japan and Korea.

Further structural reform that would be appropriate to prosecute should take account of social
organ unity and local development (ethno regionalist or völkische logic not contrary to national
sovereignty, to the confederal and the imperial).
The best model in this field is provided by the German Länder that not only can develop the full
autonomy without challenging the federal government but have a participatory culture so wide
as to subject the top local businesses to popular shareholding. And this is the obstacle to the
closing of companies at home for reopening elsewhere: namely that between popular
shareholding and workers’ profit sharing, to relocate permanently the co-owner workers should
lay off themselves.
Even from the environmental standpoint the Länder are exemplary.
To this model, which obviously cannot be copied slavishly but adapted, we must add the
necessary elements. The participatory and harmonic approach of the Land is added to a new
social and political structure that can produce a non-atomized society and therefore no longer
prey to wear and lobbies.
It’s from the local that we must to start with corporate logic, beginning to transform regional
parliaments in corporations’ ethno regional Chambers.
Finally in the local sphere will be appropriate to make a system, especially in support of small
and medium-sized enterprises - particularly by providing them with financial of which they are
shareholders and members - and creating internal trading systems that do not conflict with the
unitary and that encourage the development of genius .
Once again, in this field, we adopt a practical proposal of Micalizzi.
"The system of complementary currency (CC) that we have developed is based on a certificate
called SRS (Self-liquidating Receipt of Subscription). In fact, it is the receipt issued by a
consortium of companies that certifies the contribution of business goods by an associate. The
SRS is then credited to a bank account and becomes expendable currency within the circuit of

members (other companies, staff, retail outlets etc.)
The CC that results is then fully guaranteed by the equivalent appraised of corporate assets such
as inventories, accounts receivable, tax credits, cars, real estate, which are awarded in the
consortium, while remaining in use to the company.
From the financial point of view the MC circulates within the State as a foreign currency
alongside the Euro. The banks on which operate the current accounts of CC will also offer an
exchange dealing room, establishing how many euros can be exchanged against the CC. The
reference exchange can swing freely without affecting the operation of the economy mainly
because while the Euro will increasingly become an accumulating currency the CC will be a
trading currency so the supply and demand of the two currencies would follow different
principles. "

We would this way create different levels of representation and power.
Local autonomy, focusing on solidarity economy, corporate structure and complementary
finance, would have achieved the category representatives in the House of corporations, arts

and crafts that would replace the national Parliament, aseptic and weakened, heavy absent-
present today in this post-democracy.

National states, respectful of the same principles enunciated by Hungary, would intervene to
regulate the autonomies in order not to atomize them and in turn would send representatives in
the corresponding Confederate Assembly between the three existing (Northeast, Central
Europe, Mediterranean). To dictate the number of representatives of each country should
intervene parameters related not only to demographics but also social equity, to the defense of
the cultural, artistic and environmental heritage and ultimately to productivity.

To ultimately ensure the Union and the Centrality no longer another useless Parliament and a
plethora of commissions from whose folds jump out as mice those in charge of lobbies and alien
powers, but a Senate of excellence.
As to the central executive, of confederate expression, it should have the powers as large as
possible and produce a Consular Res Publica. That is a long-lasting power, not six months, but
at least three years, when two consuls would work side by side but, as was the case in Rome,
would alternate in command, one in the domestic issue, the other in foreign and military policy.
Obviously if it were not possible to reach the optimum we would settle for a Presidential
Republic.
Beside the Consuls (or in the alternative of the President) some emergency cabinets should
coordinate national policies relating to public health emergencies, climatic, demographic
and, of course, immigration.
Aware that the solution in all these areas is achieved not only by giving voice - contrary to what
happens today - to the wisdom of the people and priority to those who are directly involved in
issues of emergency but also through cooperation with the countries of emigration aimed to
develop locally breaking the monopoly of the big banks and multinational companies and
helping them to escape from the sector that these have imposed on them.
A strong incentive to births should ultimately be primary objective to be pursued simultaneously
to the adjustment of migration policy.
As well as the disruption of the drug trafficking system, should be mandatory commitment of
the central executive; but in the end it is all one in the fight with gangster anarchy of the big
banks and corporations who cause the traffic of people, arms, drugs and organs and often even
coordinate them.

Obviously this is an ideal prospect, a trend line on which basis to conduct an articulated battle to
hit at least some of the objectives set.
The achievement of only a part of this program and even in one country would have a
revolutionary impact.

All this then, or even part of it, maybe more what will be proposed by others later, would
radically change course and rise to power, but only on condition of having worked on the soul
and the spirit, reversing the reversal of the Tree of Life and making Europe not the latest
offshoot of a West sick and emasculated but the backbone of Hercules and Apollo.
This is achieved with both the Apollonian consciousness of light that will not darken and the
Herculean strength which shall bear the cost of any enterprise, and does not stop it until it has
concluded.
Thermopylae as history, myth and primordial consciousness, we said. It is not a coincidence if
they are adjacent to Euripos, in the east coast of Locri, parallel linear distance to the sanctuary
of Delphi in Phocis where Apollo triumphantly dominates the Omphalos radiant celestial foot
Oracle and where his mountain dominates the other sea expanse, the Gulf of Corinth. Between
the two expressions of virile sunshine, Delphi and Thermopylae, majestically rises Parnassus.

NOBODY WILL DO IT IN YOUR PLACE

Almost all are content to have a program, to propose it, to put it up for grabs in the election
fiction and think that the solution lies there: having convinced the majority then it will apply.
Nothing further from the truth; believing means not to have understood anything of delegated
democracy, oligarchy and sociology of power.
Once expressed a program you can bring into play only you are organized minorities and if, at
the same time, you have around yourself a social organization (class or people) which
becomes the autonomous power, or if we want to counter-power, and therefore allows to
enter the lists effectively and not in the virtual.
You have to create the power to affect the existing power. The necessary and profitable action is
summed up in liberation, organization and sacralization of space around them.
Surely something escapes me, and I make amends with those who have forgotten, but we have
concrete examples in Italy and Greece.
In the Peninsula Casapound has provided it, first with the Orp (Occupations on residential
purposes), then with the work in Abruzzo during the earthquake of L'Aquila and then with
organized volunteering plus Gramscian penetration of sports sections arisen around its Student
Block . In a completely different context proceeded in its direct and effective involvement
against the mondialist coils the Community of Peoples. In Lombardy, Action Loyalty moves
along the lines of territorial roots.
We are, of course, still to small sketches of people organization.
Much more did Alba Dorata in Greece which uses blue cars as popular ambulances, that turns
half of the salaries and emoluments of those elected to fund supermarkets for the poor, which
released some neighborhoods from drug dealers. Its election result, which is already
considerable, has a specific gravity much greater than that of traditional national parties that are
based on the emotion of the crowd but did not build anything concrete and lasting on which to
pin nor any real power to be in dispute with the dominant ones. So they growl, make dark face,
pronounce bombastic slogans, individual careers aside, they beat up the most total inertia,
neutralized at departing.
As the Bolshevik and the national revolutions have taught, there is no possibility of an
alternative to an established power, especially if it is of class and / or caste, if you do not start
from a class organization (the Communists) or a people organization, therefore interclass (the
nationalist revolutionaries).
There is no program that takes any worthy election result if it hasn’t been first done the people
organization. Which, in a certain proletarian sense as contrasted with the dominant class / caste
and with its offensive in place, being interclass opens to all manufacturing categories and thus
gains the potential for the creation of an autonomous power, synergistic and self-managed (we
talked above about, for example, the autonomous fund) and therefore also to the creation of
benchmarks from which to effectively treat and even compete with the dominant lobbies.
Otherwise we stay in the gossip, the farce, in fiction and in the ideological neurosis. Or we
expire in the scam and parasitism.
It is by pivoting the class organization that develops the Leninist strategy. It would not be worth
without the first one that, though, would not lead to anything if there was not the second.
For who is a son of another mentality, the more spaces to be left to the inventiveness and
improvisation but they must take action on those (the organization and strategy) and not try to
disguise the absence or compensate because this charlatan artifice does not work for nothing
more than abstract fiction: you can go too far, but without being able to conclude anything.
And this is the lesson that should be drawn from the national right: they have been growing and
getting fat yet without leaving the web and even resembling the spider every minute more.
To go in the opposite direction is primary to assume a militant mindset and take a total
commitment that becomes the bearer of autonomy against heteronomy: that gives voice to the
people and gives it the opportunity to organize in order not to depend on who decides for it

against it. Some define this as a direct democracy as opposed to delegated democracy.

Only starting from this premise and the effort made to be up to the task you can even imagine a
European coordination between those who pursue the same purposes.
Engaging on social issues and everything that matches, from the threat of war between the poor
inherent in the slave trade that defines immigration; but also leveraging on topics of common
sensibility, such as the preservation of the historical, artistic, state property, wildlife and
environmental heritage, of the linguistic and cultural, and, finally, the traditions.
Alongside militant commitment on the social front line should be organized socioeconomic
autonomies, starting from the investment funds, but it would be appropriate to also launch
subscription campaigns for the repurchase by the Europeans, with the priorities of the citizens of
the single nation from time to time concerned, of strategic assets and the historical and cultural
heritage today for sale or selling off, from Enel to Piraeus port. A real European share
ownership of reconquest.
There may also develop small spearheads engaged in pressure on the environment and health;
these campaigns being particularly potable as they appear politically correct, it would be
necessary not only to check that they are clear enough to not get bogged down in the current
weak thought but it would be appropriate to assisting them with other, devoted to the existential
clash in place against the removal of the ancestral heritage.
Let me give an example: there are idiots who from various European countries, with funds of
others, are regularly trying to prevent, even violently, bullfights in Spain. They are so poor in
spirit to not understand that, if they prevail, the alternative that would be presented to the bull
would be to stop it run free and willingly mate with the cows to come neutered almost
immediately and end up in pieces and in gelatin in some Simmenthal cans. Should be countered,
these idiots, by common European forces. .
It would not be bad if the girls exposed on the occasion of these disputes banners saying
something like: "You have castrated our men, you won’t castrate also our bulls".
Alternating seductive campaigns (environment, health) to provocative, such as the bullfighting
actually, it would be a good way to establish oneself to public opinion even beyond the social
grounding and the creation of power that must still remain the primary purpose to pursue,
stubbornly, without too much spotlight, almost in silence.
From this ensemble can start a counteroffensive that can be defined, improperly but
understandably, ideological.

You can then move from sterile protest to shocking and engaging proposal.
But it is necessary that all this accompanies both the militant formation and political and
popular propaganda, which becomes breath, automatism and not just a label.
With the foresight to break the rules to which we are accustomed, aware that all the political and
ideological debate, even in expressions that seem more radical, today is distorted, poisoned,
trapped in the schemes of anti-virile Subversion, anti-identity and anti- European.
When is opposed to overwhelming dementia an apparent common sense, often it is not a real
common sense, but only a form of caution, the defense of a previous step of the descent.
If the ideological, cultural, mental and especially spiritual assumptions are not due to root, any
battle has no meaning.
It is therefore not a simple coincidence that now the clash of civilizations ran out in grotesque, if
its demarcation line has become that of the buttocks: gay marriage.
In this emblematic sign of times, on the one hand, from the subversive, is played on
misinformation and relying on the Indo-European generosity and its rejection of excessive
regulations, it is rowdy pushed beyond any criterion.
Because something else is the recognition of civil rights (and I take this opportunity to say that
I, as a pure Indo-European, am in favor since the seventies when there was no such fashion),
another thing is to define them marriages, yet another one is to talk about adoptions, then

another thing is to claim that males have the right to be mothers and perhaps to give birth, and
so on up to the commercialization of eggs and wombs.
But the counterparty is also acting nasty. Because if it is true that this campaign is part of the
subversive and anti- initiatory offensive underway for some time, we must not take corners.
The family under attack. What family? That of couples who remain unconnected from the clan
married for a few years if all goes well; intending marriage as a contract based on their rights
and the limitation of the partner’s? Family is or patriarchal, clan type, or is a surrogate. It is not
true that it is the traditional family to suffer today the attack, it is its deformed surrogate. That
goes also defended, I do not say no, but with a very different transportation.
It must be revolutionized, in the traditional way of course, the same family and, in full, its
relationship with the social fabric. Otherwise I can only cite Drieu also in this regard: "Neither
the property nor the family, nor the person can be restored according to the utopia of the past."
Ditto for the child adoption. It circumvents that made by homosexuals but the image that gives
the heterosexual family in which the couple happily kill each other, often suppress the offspring
and mothers train baby-ring? And don’t you come and say that these are exceptions because
chloroforming and castrating mothers don’t seem much better. No need some kind of effort to
realize the debacle of character, psychological and even sexual of the past generations,
especially in males, if you can even call them that.
I had my way, I would take their children from all at the age of three and I would educate them
the Spartan way until adulthood.
You don’t fight the vertigo trying to cling to a little less vertigo.

This is to emphasize that the reaction does not make sense unless it is illuminated by a higher
consciousness and unless it is led by rectifier revolutionaries.
To the nationalist revolutionary variant, winning, of Leninism must be added also a Gramscian
action that is not, nor can be, the search for mundane consensus, can and must be instead a
barbaric statement, subjected to style and discipline but still deeply wild, driving common sense
in the right direction and cruel to make of it a virus or an epidemic.
"Always remember that the first enemy is you and you are when you resemble to others and
even worse when you try to be like them."
We want an action and thought that are enemies of the common conceptions, free from any
sense of guilt, inferiority, acceptance, nauseated by all conformism and the idea to please the
vestal virgins of moralism, of doing good, and linguistic behavioral codes that act as a shield
against ongoing corrosion against Hercules and Apollo, against Sparta and against Rome,
against Germany and against the Cavalry, against the Pater and against Vir.

Europe is an absolute necessity, but it will never be if is not first a conscious identity and fighter
up to its myth.
The right answer is entirely in those three words that, joined together, represented the program
to fight put together after the war by our vanguards and provided their reason for living, their
legacy to us and then our commitment with destiny:
Fascism. Europe. Revolution.
Or to put it another way, with our ancestors: "Hic manebimus optime".
And if all of you, eurofans and eurosceptics, progressives and reactionaries, enemies and fifth
columns, want at all costs to deprive us of our histories, our traditions, our freedom of our souls,
offering in exchange to save our earthly lives, then you already have the answer, is from Sparta,
resonates from Thermopylae and its echo becomes a chorus: "Come and take them!"