And yet eons have past since those fervent times when people were driven to act.
Today, those times seem to belong to the archives of black-and-white cinema.
We have entered an era of anguished lethargy, marked by formulaic abstractions where the once
lively ideas have been frozen. Moreover, these abstractions have been contaminated by the
misguided beliefs of others, infiltrating their minds through casual interactions with disillusioned
individuals of various backgrounds. Once transformed, like in an ideological transgender shift,
these beliefs have surged to prominence, evolving into warped lenses through which we perceive
the wisdom passed down by our predecessors. A legacy we must admit to misinterpreting,
distorting, inverting, and ultimately, turning against ourselves.
If action once thrived devoid of meticulous reflection, planning, and strategies, yet retained a vital
connection between action and thought as an integral part of the world's essence, today marks an era
of marginalisation—whether on a mass scale or otherwise—a flurry of agitation, narcissism,
individualism, neurosis, hysteria, acidity, deferred hopes, and the abandonment of responsibilities.
The issue is objective, yet it doesn't rest solely on others. It's the result of our internal deterioration,
which we will never overcome by pointing the finger at this or that enemy, this or that culprit, this
or that traitor. The only path forward lies in self-directed action, rooted in the profound and
unequivocal self-awareness: "The first enemy is yourself."
To draw any circle, you must start from its centre; otherwise, you’re merely tracing curves and
scribbles, devoid of geometry, thus foundation, creation and action.
Nor do you free yourself from anxieties and trivialities, nor do you experience the joy of creation,
nor do you truly live.

Alright, but what can be done?

Rudjard Kipling:

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

When engaging in self-critique, I struggle with maintaining patience, I find a deficiency in this
aspect of myself: Without sounding overly wise. While I've never harbored hatred, there are
instances where I don't conceal a clear disdain.
While I can be proud particularly of what I have continued to achieve on this topic:
if you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools

However, let s not talk about me since actions speak louder than words. This endeavour must begin
with principles akin to those articulated in Kipling's "If," without which it would be mere agitation.

Of course, that alone is not sufficient, but it serves as the cornerstone.

Is the discourse overly intellectual?
Intellectual.
They label me as such now, but is it accurate?
Building upon the above-mentioned notions, I have expressed my intellectual inclinations over the
years. Especially in the last four decades: to help navigate the labyrinth of existence and try
avoiding falling, every time in the same way, every time along the same loop completely identical
to the previous one, but each time sinking lower.
There is no longer an organic clash, there is no physical confrontation that isn't a sporadic skirmish,
there is no contestation of spaces awaiting hegemony.
Hence, emotions struggle to remain vibrant and invigorating, lacking the essential zest of life,
compelling one to endure without its fundamental essence.
In the contemporary landscape, poles are fraught with neuroses and pathology, participation has
disappeared since decades, social interactions are toxic, and so is the state of politics. Everything is
tribalism, fragmented, imploded, and saturated with a palpable sense of powerlessness and
indignation.
So, is there nothing that can be done?
Of course, something can be done, even a lot. However, it's crucial to maintain awareness of one's
actions, maintain necessary detachment from the task at hand, and avoid becoming overly absorbed
in self-admiration. One shouldn't be anguished by the outcome, nor be overly eager to escape
perceived constraints—without recognising that often, we are our own primary captors.
Allow me to clarify: my inclination leans towards a warrior spirit or perhaps a practical, hands-on
intellect, rather than towards a mere enjoyment of rhetoric and theory.
I despise theories that lack practicality, serving merely as intellectual exercises rather than as
interpretive tools or actionable proposals, beneficial both for oneself and others.
I don't believe I was an intellectual before I went into hiding, nor that my twenty-year hiding was
solely driven by intellectual pursuits or marked by intellectualism and theory.
Yet, since my return, a quarter of a century ago, I have refused to found or lead political parties or
movements, and even be part of them.
Why did I retreat into “meta-politics"? Not exactly: I recognised that perpetuating past patterns
lacked political efficacy, rendering it sterile and devoid of meaningful prospects. However, I
acknowledged its potential anthropological value, serving as gathering points for the community to
foster awareness of essential matters and embark on the necessary construction demanded by
contemporary circumstances. I’ve never denied my contribution to any individuals or groups open
to constructive dialogue and learning, regardless of their political stance being vastly different from
my own.

What have I done these years in Ithaca?
Even this, ultimately, holds only relative value.
I haven't participated in elections, nor built movements, but I've never isolated myself within ivory
towers.
I've been fully active. Many have gone announcing my changes, my candidacies, my movement
foundations. Instead, I've behaved quite differently.
I've published books in multiple languages, written thousands of articles, consistently offering
unique perspectives on reality, distinct from the conformist anti-conformism that has pervaded my
surroundings since at least the fall of the Berlin Wall.
I've established two think tanks, one Italian and one European.
I've been active in Brussels, so to speak, navigating the corridors of power within the city.
I've delivered lectures across diverse spheres, ranging from the most radical to the most
institutional, treating both with equal regard.
I've tried to explain, akin to Lenin’s approach, that extremism is a juvenile ailment and has nothing
to do with revolution. I've pointed out that since the fifties, the most impactful dynamics have
stemmed from moderate environments, as exemplified by figures like Craxi, Kohl, and Orbán.
I've emphasised how extremism tends to confine its adherents within illusory fortresses that, in
reality, resemble ghettos and barriers, ultimately undermining their very ideals. Since the onset of
lockdown measures, this undermining has escalated from mere ridicule to grotesque, dramatic, and
even clinical manifestations.
I've also criticised moderation as both a plea for acceptance and structural failure.
Lack of radicalism, of anchorage, of a full Idea of the World—these are the root causes of both the
failure of extremism and the breakdowns of moderation.
For a long time, it seemed that only two positions were viable: the stubborn rigidity of entrenched
beliefs among extremists, or the pragmatism perceived as continual compromise of the supposedly
intelligent.
Is there no third way?
However, it is precisely this third option that embodies together radicalism, centrality, and true re-
volution.

I've been repeatedly criticised for seemingly devaluing my intellect and reputation by engaging in
realms deemed unacceptable; not political, alas, but most of all human.
Nonetheless, I persist because it's the underlying assumptions, the constraints, the dry and
undoubtedly pathological preconceptions that hinder and oppress various individuals, some of
whom possess immense value in their humanity—the most significant aspect. They deserve
recognition from those who share the same humanity, even when they're marginalised or subdued
by their own stagnant and uninspired communities.
I was well aware any debate would inevitably be invalidated due to the tribal dynamics of cohesion
within a fragmented society, compounded by group dynamics that would act to dismiss my words.
But concepts, whether rejected or not, will disappear. I affirmed that a single drop can hollow out a
stone.
And in the long run, this also changes the appearance of each rock, yet what's even more crucial is
the long-term effect of the flow between communicating vessels.
Communicating vessels, regardless.
So I found myself engaging in dialogue even with those who made institutional choices, branded as
traitors by extremists seeking to feel important.
Before casting any stones, it's essential for the accuser to reflect on the criteria used to label the
other a traitor, as there's much to consider on this matter. On what basis is he considered such? On a
historical model, an Idea of the World, a project? In such instances, it becomes evident that only a
rare few among the 'irreducible' are not, in fact, greater traitors than those they accuse, often
resorting to pleading from those very individuals. It's a fact.
In any case, this diatribe holds particular relevance. Before Fiuggi’s turning point in 1994, such
discourse wasn't even conceivable. In an era dominated by a radical political subjectivity that has
since dissipated, different criteria for judgement prevailed.
Moreover, it stems from a pathology wherein individuals identify either with certain affiliations or
vehement oppositions, akin to Jehovah's Witnesses rather than political soldiers. There's no
perceived movement — and I don't mean political movement, but movement in terms of dynamics.
Politics is confrontation, even tense, but it is confrontation; politics is communication; politics is
seeking and interpreting opportunities and tools for the benefit of one's own nation (state and
European) and one's own cause. It's not a caricature of football fandom, all the more for teams that
don't even exist.
Through the study centres and online Academy, where I fostered and conducted training courses
infused with philosophy and doctrine, subtly conveyed through technical analysis, I successfully
engaged several embassies, including the United Nations, the UNO and the OSCE, alongside left-
wing politicians and intellectuals; both Italian and French on the subject of Jihad.
I've connected with three Brussels foundations representing diverse national parties, facilitating
conversations among them to foster dialogue and understanding.
Paradoxically, today, many who seek connection with like-minded individuals or their neighbours
turn to me. Despite lacking a definitive stance and admittedly being cumbersome, my mindset and
the initiatives I've spearheaded often enable me to bridge these divides.
What allowed me to achieve this was undoubtedly the unexpected blend of two aspects: the
intellectual and the "terrorist," as the detractors would label me, taking advantage of the terrorism
charges that used to be slapped on everyone back then and which, in my case, stemmed from a
particularly unflattering photo on one of the identity documents used at that time.
It was this coincidence of opposites that acted as a magnet. After all, when either of these two
aspects is missing, it descends into the mundane, if not the useless. If an intellectual serves a
genuine purpose, rather than merely indulging in narcissism and grandstanding, they delve into
investigation, analysis, exploration, discovery, rectification, and proposition. But for whom? On
paper? For a politician who dismisses their responsibilities and leans towards opportunism and
tactical manoeuvring? If one remains loyal to their radical beliefs and past experiences but fails to
translate them, like Anchises on the shoulders of Aeneas, into the endeavour of guiding Iulus to
establish a Gens and lay the foundations for Rome, they risk succumbing either to nostalgia and
disdain, or to isolation within their own inner fortress.
The first fades away into solve, the second remains fossilised into coagula.
Instead, if he manages, or at least attempts, to fulfil both roles simultaneously, he begins to
recognise that, much like in this particular role, everything required is inherently dialectical and
dynamic. He comes to understand the necessity of synthesising seemingly irreconcilable aspects,
particularly to those lacking imagination. Above all, he serves as a filter for reevaluation and
connection.
It is necessary, therefore, that Yoda's wisdom is anchored to the childlike soul of Peter Pan, soaring
alongside him. It's akin to Guénon’s serving of James Dean, or rather, the Count of La Fère who
lives like Athos, although sometimes I feel more akin to Cyrano de Bergerac.
He will never personally reap the rewards of his creations by deliberate choice, a sacrifice inherent
in assuming this role. However, he hopes that others, who ideally won't always or anyhow
disappoint, can reap the benefits.

I'll refrain from discussing the relational outcomes that have enabled numerous individuals to
capitalise on professional opportunities, facilitated the global expansion of study centres, and
contributed to the development of international and intercontinental perspectives. And, naturally, the
meta-political or militant networks that have arisen from these coordinated efforts.
Now is the time to talk about the Landsknechts of Europe as it’s the right moment to elevate their
importance.

Until 2022, perhaps nobody could succinctly define what the Landsknechts were. I established them
as a “guild”, but one might also consider them a fraternity.
About them, at most, people know that there has been a yearly meeting since 2016, playful and
festive, attended by participants from France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands,
Greece, Switzerland, Romania, Hungary. From these initiatives, subsequent developments have
arisen, not all of which have necessarily reached completion.
But what are the Landsknechts? What role do they have? These questions remain unanswered by
almost everyone at this point.
Let's go in order.
Immediately following its inception in Italy, I swiftly exported the project to France.
Around ninety people attended the presentation conference. I knew that for them, the Landsknechts
resembled what is colloquially termed a "Spanish inn," essentially a place where customers can eat
what they bring. Expectations ran high, but everyone anticipated something different from what
materialised. Some expected a study centre, others a political movement, some envisioned a sect
brimming with slogans, while others anticipated an electoral platform.
For a year, I held meetings in a bistro and deliberately avoided talking about anything specific or
concrete.
I waited to see who would remain, placing trust in those willing to partake in a vaguely defined
venture. With only about ten people left, I began the activities.

These were tranquil activities focused primarily on fostering understanding, reflection, and
connection. Thus, the network relationship that birthed the Landsknecht of Europe began, leading to
further developments facilitated by their contributions.
For the first seven years, the Landsknechts were primarily a symbol, an opportunity, a connection
from which many different things unfolded and strengthened, bearing different faces and different
names. Like Russian nesting dolls, if you refrain from unveiling one layer, you remain unaware of
the subsequent layers nested within, and consequently, have limited access to them.
Perhaps no one truly understood the strategic and physiological importance of this almost invisible
and seldom activated unit, which nonetheless allowed everything else to happen.
Once again, we delve into what previously discussed concerning water and stone, the concept of
interconnected vessels, identifying and interpreting opportunities and resources for the advancement
of both one's nation (both at the state and European level) and one's own cause.
As I explained many years ago, back when I created my first study centre during my time in hiding,
Orientamenti & Ricerca, we will be the propelling force behind the machinery, not merely a
showroom, nor a vehicle's shell, nor even the ambitious driver yearning for triumphant rides.

Let's go back in time, to the second half of the 1980s and the early 1990s.
An entire world lay dismantled, ravaged not only by the aftermath of the “Years of Lead”, but also
by relentless ideological persecution. Dominated by unopposed magistrate soviets, supported by
journalist soviets and political soviets, but made strong mostly by the cowardice of their opponents.
Between the end of the "Years of Lead" and the fall of the Berlin Wall, the landscape was flat. I
gathered energies and human resources towards a project of introspection, striving to arm ourselves
with new operational and methodological tools for a new beginning that was not solely based on
idealistic enthusiasm, trends, and improvisation, as was customary in a particular milieu.

Hence, from abroad where we regularly crossed nations (France, Spain, and England), a small
group gave birth to something new, while contributing to political reform endeavours. There were
differences in the assessment of priorities between those advocating for research and education to
align with political entities and individuals such as myself, who viewed political entities as conduits
through which growth and maturation should naturally evolve. We must be able to harness our
potential – I argued – whether individually or collectively, in service of what will emerge. We were
not many. From our hiding, Walter Spedicato and I. Rainaldo Graziani supported the project while it
complemented Meridiano Zero, Stefano Schiavi, and more organically and side by side, Roberto
Salvarani; a few others joined occasionally.
The sceptics and pessimists' concerns focused on the absolute lack of feedback was an objective
consequence of our condition. So, they cautioned me, we run the risk of our writing being in vain or
allowing others to capitalise on our efforts. I countered with a simple consideration: none of the
authors whose works I had studied were ever acquainted with me, suggesting that the act of sowing
does not always directly correlate with reaping. And I emphasised that others’ fruitions, whether in
goodwill or ill intent, did not trouble me as it was the action itself that interested me, in its
continuity over time, not its commercial exploitation.

In the subsequent years I discovered that those ideas, and even our visual presentations, had
circulated widely, particularly within the “Fronte della Gioventú”, which, in 1988, I had advised to
advance the exhaustion of the far right’s historical role, believing that new social trends would turn
MSI into a governing party.

To this day, I continue to encounter unexpectedly individuals who have read Orientamento &
Ricerca or my other political documents. Certain pragmatic groups have even embraced Le api e i
fiori (2000) for political education. I emphasize non-theoretical politics. And not just in Italy.
I have already discussed the course of actions upon returning to "Ithaca." I've omitted, though, the
press agency noreporter.org that is also my platform, social media, social interventions through
"Soccorso Sociale," and the profoundly shaping experience that is the Guardia d'Onore in
Predappio.
Emerging from hiding (from 1980) or semi-hiding (from 1993), I translated the logic I had been
developing since 1984 into tangible actions in my daily life. I have never fixated on pursuing a
singular goal; instead I’ve always proceeded in steps, building on previous foundations. I have
never aimed solely at coagulating but always at both coagulating and dissolving, continuously. I
have never looked at the north without thinking of the south, and vice versa. However, a point of
convergence has emerged among various plans and trajectories, epitomised precisely by the
Landsknechts.

As I mentioned earlier, the Landsknechts likely haven't fully grasped their own role and significance
yet, but the moment has arrived for them to attain this awareness. Why now? Because nothing
should be done too quickly nor too slowly. When circumstances demand growth, action, presence,
and awareness, they must be acknowledged and pursued.

Since at least 2020, all the political certainties once asserted have vanished. All abstract endeavours
have imploded, leaving merely, for better or worse, the anthropological substance of those who had
adapted to it. Despite the clinical pathologies now dominating any "antagonism," the primal instinct
preceding rationality has keenly grasped that reliance on conditioned reflexes and routine is no
longer sustainable. Even within closed enclaves, one gradually dissipates day by day.
So we witness angry proclamations, often infused with hate, from self-proclaimed hardliners who
scrutinise every event, be it lockdowns, vaccines, or war, through a disturbed lens, while derailing
even legitimate criticism of rational doubts with their manic assertions. With their ridiculous and
embarrassing oppositions, they have unwittingly become the oligarchy's staunchest allies,
effectively neutralising any valid critique, rendering it inaccessible. This applies to everything.
In their wait for a miraculous and preferably blond saviour, or for a transformative event—an
insurgency, a rebellion—that remains elusive, they await Godot with the passive zeal of cult
devotees, perceiving demons everywhere and believing that by banishing them, the world will
revert to their idealised vision of the past.
Yet even among the less troubled, the search for a new direction or identity yields little success, as it
often amounts to regurgitated concepts that ultimately lead nowhere.
Nowadays, divisions persist only within the fervour of fanatics dedicated to their chosen saviour,
who, in truth, disregards them entirely and harbours no intent of rescue and amidst apocalyptic
scenarios clung to desperately, offering false solace in the belief that they can alleviate daily
frustrations.

Today, what truly matters, what works and is needed is the culmination of all that has been sown—
the underlying logic, the manner in which it has been executed, and the ultimate aims and
objectives. Today, the role of the Landsknechts is pivotal and decisive, and that's why it needs to be
understood as well as firmly supported.

II
WE FIND OURSELVES AT A CROSSROADS

Never before has the role that the Landsknechts play been so decisive. Since Covid times,
everything has changed, but it had already begun much earlier (in 2001 and 2008). The ruling
classes are struggling to gain popular support, leading to the growth of different forms of populism
and rejection. However, these political expressions have consistently shown that they lack the
ability and power to bring about change. Syriza under Tsipras in Greece and the 5 Star Movement in
Italy are the most evident examples of these failures.

Instead, the oligarchies maintain control because they are closely tied to real power. This power is
not only financial but also communicational, educational, rules public administration, and the
judiciary, along with the logic of capitalist reality (treaties and international connections). Other
powers such as parliaments and governments are less potent than these and lack the means to
challenge them.

Meanwhile, the system is shaken by internal struggles driven by the reconfiguration of power in the
satellite era. This leads to intense conflicts in a closely interconnected world. Regardless of the
propaganda narratives, even though there are disputes over global management, it is unlikely that
real blocs will form while what Americans defined thirty years ago as "Interdependence" and what
Indians have recently defined as "Multialignment" dominate.

Failing to understand all this has led an entire political realm to retreat into a troglodyte scenario
copied along the lines of The Lord of the Rings, and it has led them to dream of apocalyptic
scenarios or popular uprisings. Thus, at a crucial moment, they found themselves disconnected from
reality. Completely incapable of grasping international changes, despite their use of the term
"geopolitics," those who have expressed themselves in the identity sphere in recent years would
have done well to question themselves.

Slightly better outcomes have been seen in other fault lines (gender, woke), which are battlegrounds
where the oligarchies fight among themselves for their vision of the future. In this field, which is
the only one where the bulk of identity-based groups have made a correct choice, they have
generally executed it poorly.
New, current, and forward-looking models of society, but far from subversive temptations, have not
been proposed. It is emblematic that a progressive figure like Elon Musk is the one mounting a
serious counteroffensive against woke and gender ideologies.

Unfortunately, most have overturned the logic and reversed the meaning of what they emotionally
adore and idolise, aspiring to be heirs of it.
However, they have mummified and embalmed everything, transforming the Dionysian force of
what Mussolini referred to as the "church of all heresies" into an inert frost of crystals and fossils.
Friends and enemies, problems and solutions, have all been turned into dogmas that do not fit at all
but are guarded with anger, blindness, acidity, leading only to marginalisation or, even worse,
towards a clear path to madness.
As my son Carlomanno wrote in the Summer Solstice 2023 issue of the Prometheica magazine,
"We are prisoners of dogmas that we refuse to question, and when the evidence becomes imminent,
we simply exit by denying reality. It's a methodology that is quite popular in a certain dominant
culture of thought, which categorically decides what is right and what is not, and when the reality of
facts denies the doctrine, reality itself is Orwellian-counter-navigated, attempting to bend it to the
patterns of one's ideology. In a way, it's precisely a mechanism of cybernetic self-defence: reality
sends inputs, these are compared with ideology, the mechanism of negative reaction mystifies
reality to preserve the dogma. It's a loop."
This fits perfectly for the woke, gender, and Open Society enthusiasts, but also for all those who
have reversed the terms of insanity and reason in exactly the same manner. They consider
themselves antagonists, but they are the inverted version of the dominant model – binary, disturbed,
and entirely Americanized in their mindset and emotions. The more they are so, the more they
believe they are anti-American and thus delude themselves into thinking they are something. An
illusion: neither of these things is objectively true.
Even when not trapped in a loop, the identitarians struggle to be proactive and fall into three serious
self-deceptions.
They believe they can counter this offensive by simply reproducing a past model. They expect the
so-called people to reach a saturation point from which they will then overthrow the ruling classes.
They have not yet understood that in today's society, the numbers of consensus matter less than the
strength of the lobbies. If you don't lobby and act on the lobbies, all you can do is weep as times
change and yearn for a miraculous and sudden salvation that will never come.

Our task is to capitalise on the orientations and principles from which we start, so that they can
dominate in a new form that we must achieve, revolutionising and regenerating the thought of those
who are fossilised and lost, or unintentionally parked in sectarian ghettos. This is the direction the
Landsknechts have been oriented toward since their inception, despite the undeniable difficulties of
what must be a true reformatting. We must adopt these concepts, make them our own, and
implement them in various ways.

As for populist or nationalist right-wing movements, it's essential to stop judging them based on
ideological or theological dogmas. They need to be evaluated in the perspectives of European
sovereignty, patriotism, demographic and migration policies, centred culture, social conception.
We must be active in promoting what is positive and stopping those who carry negativity.

The main tasks that are pursued within this perspective are two:

a) To form a positive critical mass able of sending the right inputs;
b) To work together in a network to occupy spaces within the Deep State and build autonomous
powers.

Without these two resources, any government will fail in its mission, regardless of the time during
which it enjoys popular consensus, which technically remains a static and inert force.

It is therefore easy to deduce that for the Landsknechts, synergy is crucial, as long as it relates to a
World Idea, is centred around the idea of Europe, and acts towards the future by understanding the
current era and capitalising on its opportunities.
This means that the Landsknechts must be simultaneously flexible, unscrupulous yet solid, and
rooted. Education and self-improvement are fundamental conditions. The Landsknechts do not
define themselves by an Enemy, the defeat of which would make everything fine, but by a work—
both external and internal—in relation to which the first enemy is each of us, if not mastered by
oneself.
That's where it starts, with personal growth, with self-sublimation. This doesn't refer to the utopian
"new man," nor does it claim to become “differentiated” individuals. It's about eliminating as much
as possible the residues and conditioning that cloud our minds and bend our backs. And mind you,
I'm not talking about the easily denounced conditioning of power, but about our own daily
conditioning and what often makes those who claim to militate as antagonists petty, banal, and
presumptuous.

As for practical actions, what the Landsknechts are doing and plan to do more and more is to create
networks to intervene as a critical mass in political and metapolitical environments. Some progress
has already been made in this direction in various nations.

But why has this become particularly relevant today?

Simply because everything that has developed, stirred, and been sustained for at least twenty years
– perhaps even forty – has operated within obligatory patterns.
I form a group, make it stronger, organise concerts, prepare merchandise, choose symbols and
tattoos, express myself within a certain sphere, collaborate with those close to me, I become cocky,
give rise to structures, present myself to the public and in elections, seek results that I often don't
achieve, and if I happen to achieve them, I become a prisoner of their logics. Caught up in frenetic
activity, I don't spare time for reflection, study, or deepening. My proposals are vague, demagogic,
hanging in the air, but they seem to work.
I grow in numbers but decline in quality until I stop growing in numbers as well, and then I try to
reinvent myself to start over. Maybe I locally organise within an existing party and try to occupy
spaces for myself and my community. This, outside major cities, has had some success. However, it
has never led to a strategic result as it has always been limited to securing and managing few
spaces.
In addition, there are institutes and study centres. With some positive exceptions, these have been
limited by intellectualism, narcissism, and lack of purpose, unless they have been instrumentalized
as showcase pieces for the objectives of others, seeking to advance their careers with their help.

If we perform an X-ray, what emerges is a world whose main wealth (even though accompanied by
its main poverty) is anthropological.
It is emotionally united by symbols and memories, by a more or less clear sense of community
spirit, although often too tribalized. It is a world that is dynamic and enterprising to some extent but
confined by objective limits of expression, devoid of strategy and a holistic vision, often dragged
down by relentless logics that prevent it from looking beyond daily opportunism or shopkeeping.
Nevertheless, it is a world that has produced a myriad diverse things. Not so much in terms of
politics, as there is little that is truly political, but in terms of community, anthropology, intellect,
communication, and even in economic fields. However, the vessels refuse to naturally communicate
due to narrow and pervasive jealousies, from which perhaps no one is truly exempt.

Today, we find ourselves at a crossroads because the prevailing feeling for everyone is the lack of a
way forward for everything that exists, which rightfully doesn't want to fade away.
Today, we stand at a crossroads because this feeling, permeating an entire realm, is also a universal
feeling.
Everywhere, in the social, cultural, and economic spheres, there's a need for new compositions with
a structured identity, lobbying capabilities, strategy, able to offer answers to the times.
Genuine transversalities are possible, but we must stop thinking that “they are accepting us”, as
"normalizations," as excuses to change our skin and skeleton and fade away.

Once again, the course of events has proven right those like me who, while seemingly swimming
against the current, didn't surrender to it when it seemed easier and didn't confuse high tide with a
tsunami. Instead, they interpreted it as a passing effect of ebbs and flows.
Between 1989 and 1992, hardly anyone was on time for the appointment with history that would
vindicate us, and we appeared as failures.
Today, we face decisive and profound changes that those who have reasoned in the terms I've
expressed foresaw, have now the potential ability of capitalising.

I understand perfectly that the most widespread feeling is distrust and the most common sentiment
is discouragement. Anyone observing the evolution of things from the perspective of someone who
has a condition to preserve can't help but notice that, day by day, minute by minute, the situation
worsens and the concentration of power administrations in the hands of a few mediocre fanatics
seems to herald the end of freedom and civilization.
But this happens when one looks at reality through teary eyes, with anguish, and in the desperate
search for miraculous solutions. When, even as anti-Americans, they always await the arrival of the
Seventh Cavalry.

However, if these temptations and feelings are left behind, one might discover that the progress of
dynamics that unravel the fabric of society and power give rise to new powers, are built on new
technologies, and, above all, boil down to a game among organized minorities.
Transforming this apparent disaster into an unparalleled opportunity may not depend only on us, but
it certainly does depend on us. However, it's not just a matter of methods and tools; we must learn to
revolutionise ourselves, freeing ourselves from all psychological conditioning and interpretative and
organisational patterns of the last thirty years.
It's not impossible. As Franco Battiato sang: "and my teacher taught me how difficult it is to find the
dawn within the dusk."

Let's try not to turn this opportunity into failure once again! We can confidently state that the role
played by the Landsknechts has not exactly become crucial, because it always has been, in reality.
However, today, the necessity for this role is being understood, and that's why it's appropriate for
them to assume more significance and visibility than in the past.

III
THE SWORDSMAN AND THE SHOEMAKER

Anguish, performance anxiety, drama: these are toxins we need to cleanse ourselves from. The
situation may be tragic, but not necessarily dramatic. Tragedy is something that has a backbone and
connects us to the sacred in all its forms. Tragedy refers to Amor Fati, and if there's any vague
reminiscence of a warrior spirit, it's experienced with ironic detachment.
The key is to always do what needs to be done with a serene spirit and not to desert one's own duty.
It's absolutely wrong to succumb to discouragement. It's a failure to obsessively seek a shortcut to
reach the goal. Assuming one knows what the goal is, of which, frankly, I doubt.
In an era of Chaos – organised – and deconstruction, where the Void reigns, creativity is the
alternative, and every creation adheres to precise canons, gestures, criteria, and necessary times.

Think about the cinematic masterpiece "The Duellists".
Just before the final duel, the protagonist pauses at the first light of dawn to observe a shoemaker's
work, translating necessary canons into ritualistic artisanal gestures. He does it simply, almost
automatically, yet with conscious dedication and a clear spirit. Immediately afterward, he will
prevail in the duel, because that silent understanding, that communion at dawn, has lightened his
own spirit, enabling him to conduct the duel with the naturalness of a craftsman who has made it his
own.
This could symbolize what we intend to do to act simultaneously on the world and on ourselves.
In essence, it's simple: criteria must replace the patterns that almost everyone around us
(ir)rationalises with. Allegorically, this means that every Landsknecht, before crossing blades, must
grasp those universal criteria that will allow him to duel as he should.
First and foremost, he's a disciple: he learns naturally with appropriate selective filters, he learns
and never stops learning; if he teaches, he does it like the shoemaker, with silent and modest
examples, not by imposing assumed truths as is fashionable everywhere.
Today, on the other hand, the more ignorant people are, the more they cling to notions they don't
fully grasp, dividing the world into good and bad, framing, labelling, discriminating, choosing
themselves and others through rigid patterns, and thus remain in the quagmire from which they
squawk, insulting others. Usually through social media.

The Landsknecht is ideally at the hinge, at a point of connection. If he looks around, it's to learn and
apply what he's learned. He does this in essentials but also in the search for methods, techniques,
languages needed to live and act in our era.
This doesn't mean that every Landsknecht must attain inner, philosophical, existential growth, a role
of connection, a capacity for innovation and technical evolution. This is the vocation towards which
the Landsknechts function is oriented, carried out through all kinds of tools that are born, live, and
connect precisely thanks to the existence of the Landsknechts. Each participant has a role in the
overall merit, regardless of their competence and maturity.

In an era of individualism, let's rediscover the shared merits and the rise of individual parts through
the whole. And vice versa.

That's why participating in Landsknechts celebrations, games, encounters, tributes, memories, was
essential in itself and had a complex and constructive function, beyond individual participation in
this or that area of growth. So, let's start from here to delve into the specifics.

IV
THE LANDSKNECHT

The Landsknecht has no hope or despair, only faith.
The Landsknecht has no anguish or worry, he laughs.
The Landsknecht doesn't seek affirmation or possession, but joyful revolution.

Who is the Landsknecht?
A link in a solid chain, yet also an independent engine and an autonomous centre of communication.
Imperial unity!

How does the Landsknecht act?
To bring any event, any discussion, to something more solid, noble, and enduring. He doesn't follow
things; he acts upon them to elevate them. Not for his benefit but for the benefit of the just cause.
Paladin and knight! Bard and fairy!

Why does the Landsknecht act?
To equip the Europe that will come with new popular elites, ordered, with metaphysical awareness,
with a sense of aesthetics, with respect, dignity, education. Avant-garde!

Who is the true enemy of the Landsknecht?
He carries the enemy within himself: laziness, quarrelsomeness, presumption, bias, ambition,
narcissism. Conquering himself is his primary task. The Landsknecht neither hates nor is frustrated;
he tests himself and silently changes the world. The smile of the winner also changes the
surrounding world.
Overflowing with one's happiness is the imperative of the Landsknecht.
In any circumstance, through direct and indirect communication, he is always connected to the
tangible idea of Europe and its traditional and re-revolutionary fraternity.

We must start from these cornerstones to truly understand his model and what those who participate
in this project, in this transmission belt, must do.
I know that the name displeases some. But I've chosen it for several reasons and consider it the most
suitable at the current stage of realization. That some might wrinkle their noses shouldn't surprise
me. I've seen so many people make faces on every occasion and in front of every definition, always
and anyway. At any moment, someone isn't satisfied and would do things differently. The verb is
conditional because he would do, doesn't do, and in not doing, nuances escape him.
The criticisms were foreseeable. There's a prejudice from some Catholic circles due to the Sack of
Rome in 1527. They overlook that the sack was commanded by Emperor Charles V, a Catholic, and
that there were Catholic Landsknechts as well as Protestants. Another argument is that they were
mercenary troops, implying they wouldn't fight for an ideal. But against whom, I wonder?
In the age of mercenary armies, they were, of course, mercenaries. This isn't an offence or a demerit
since essentially all soldiers are mercenaries (those who receive “solde”, payment). Moreover, there
are known circumstances where Landsknechts fought without compensation.

But above all, they were serfs who had redeemed their condition through the profession of arms.
Against them, the same prejudice will persist as against Napoleon or the "Bohemian corporal."
Nothing irks more than the virtue of the new.

Certainly, out of megalomania or mythomania, I could have chosen other figures like Knights or
Spartiate, Samurai or Praetorians. But this would have meant denying the unavoidable need for an
initial process of shaping the elementary substance, as well as pretending to ignore our current state,
which sees us devoid of organic belonging to an ordered hierarchy. This is equivalent to the Ronin
condition in the Samurai code, and that's where we start.

For the European fraternity, I chose the term Landsknechts precisely for several reasons. For their
constant loyalty to the imperial camp and for all the Landsknechts songs that exist in various
languages in our communities since time immemorial.
Also, because their loyalty was never tied to an expectation but to service (something forgotten in
certain circles that always think about achieving shop results while losing fidelity). Additionally, for
that form of squad equality, the trench's hierarchical socialism, which then articulates itself into
virtues to display on the field, before returning, spartanly and with a touch of Boccaccian humour,
to the tavern and campfire equality. The aftertaste of the bivouac of platoons.
I chose it mainly because the fraternity's task – or guild's – is to operate inwardly to ascend, to grow,
to increase, and to refound in style, and by recovering education.
If I had proposed another model, like Chivalry, I would have taken for granted something that isn't,
and I would have forgotten how we are currently serfs, not noble warriors. Our nobility could be
similar to that of the Hidalgos, the untitled and unlucky Spanish minor nobles who rose in the
military campaigns like the Landsknechts.
Pretending not to have mud under our boots, not starting from servitude, believing that we've not
just begun but already completed a process of sublimation, would be harmful and embarrassing. To
achieve the required results, we must be mobile, like those troops, in service like those troops, with
perfected techniques like those troops, loyal like those troops, and act outside by acting primarily
within ourselves.
Which is at the core of everything else and is also an updated transposition in a liquid world of the
main characteristics of the Revolutions of the Short Century. It's a Ghibelline continuity. Once upon
a time, one would have spoken of Style. Since it's lost or buried, style must be the model and
purpose of this plastic and formative action.

To truly be Landsknechts, one must feel “esprit de corps”, sense a higher belonging that transcends
every regional and national boundary (of which individual characteristics must always be exalted),
and an indissoluble bond that cannot be anything but European.
Speaking of joy and smiles, I can't help but think of the Fighters I've known, who are no longer with
us, and who never ceased to be cheerful and combative. Like Officer Pignard-Berthet, who told us
he had lost a battle but not the war and implored us to remain faithful to the idea of Europe.
It's sacred what Jean Mabire said when he claimed to have set out to change the world and to
continue fighting so that the world doesn't change us. If it were just for this, and for the loyalty to
the Memory and Experience of the gentlemen and great women who are no longer here, it would
already be more than sufficient.
But then faith and the conviction of deep transmissions intervene, the floral pollination that also
takes place through the winds.
Besides, were they singing 'the revolution is like the wind' or not?
If the world doesn't change you, if you always ensure to compare your actions and convictions with
an archetypal Model, with Being, and conform to your sources, then imperceptibly but inevitably,
you change it through your example and healthy relationships. In your own small way, but certainly
more than the famous butterfly's wingbeat.

 

V
THE COMMUNITY

We have stated that Landsknecht must be a connection, but always within the spirit of community.
While its vocation is synergistic, and its function is mercurial, Landsknechtet also participates in
initiatives, structures, and operations that are directly fueled by the core from which it emerges and
are personally managed by Landsknechts members.
I haven't listed them, and I won't, just as I won't go into detail about the common tools with others,
the ongoing synergies, contacts, Italian or European initiatives: that would go against the spirit and
interest of our work.
As open as desired, we are not a solvent, nor a liquid: the Landsknechts already form a community
in themselves, with hierarchical and behavioural logics that will be better clarified in the subsequent
chapters.
Being a community, therefore. Open but also closed, extroverted and also introverted.

Community! It's been nearly fifty years that this word has been abused and serves more to
encourage the mediocrity and pettiness of certain groups than to regenerate as it should.
For its correct conception, both in terms of meaning and behavior, I strongly recommend reading
Essere Comunità. Orientamenti per il militante identitario by Marco Scatarzi, Passaggio al Bosco
2017. French version, translated by Gérard Boulanger, Cap sur la communauté !: Une boussole
pour les militants identitaires, Éditions Nouvelle Librairie, 2023.

The militants find themselves in a Community of destiny: they enter because they want to, often
defying the spirit of the times, disregarding material convenience, sharing a common
Weltanschauung, and donating time and energy voluntarily and passionately. (...)
In becoming an instrument, without succumbing to the allure of rewards, the militants kill their
bourgeois self to embrace the ethics of giving, accepting sacrifice, and remaining faithful to a style.
A militant has chosen to obey: a Leader, an Idea, a Community. Their obedience is the result of a
choice, making them free. Their obedience is an act of will. (...)
If it is true that Bushido is not a mere training for the warrior, it is equally true that the militant
Community is not just another way of doing politics: in both cases, the vertical dimension is
constantly sought.

Its opposite is Immunitas, the liberation from the obligation of gratitude that every gift carries, the
utilitarian and contractual conception underlying society and accompanying the logic of profit,
where everything has a price and nothing has value anymore. Cummunere, therefore,
etymologically invokes duty through a circular bond that goes beyond individual utilities and
anticipates the gratuity of the gesture.

A militant should never be thanked, as they have only fulfilled their duty.
To do what must be done, therefore, with the awareness that the only necessary purpose is to serve
the Community.
Don Quixote: a hero of uselessness, generosity, and gift. A wandering knight engaged in a titanic
struggle against the windmills of vices that crush virtues: a spirit of service and self-denial, a
tenacious and unwavering soul, a hidalgo of purity of heart. He urges us to courageously face all
battles, especially those we already consider lost.
His is a "path without a path" that begins by cleaning the rust from the weapons of his forebears: he
wants to resurrect what seems dead, surpass his own limits, disdain inheritances and privileges,
remain faithful to a love that could not unfold beyond gratuitousness.
This gratuitousness presupposes a lack of interest in what could be gained from the commitment
given freely.
To be uninterested in rewards, even avoiding considering them, means becoming estranged from
corruption and - obviously - a militant of the Community must be incorruptible.
"One becomes (incorruptible) when what they are offered to surrender frankly bores him. For that to
happen, always and in every case, one must already have progressed far as travellers of life, one
must have ventured so deeply into the woods as to carry it everywhere in the city. One must have so
identified with the Tortuga as to be the Tortuga, an island sufficient unto itself." (Tortuga, 2008)
After all, it's known, love is a gift and the gift is love: in this, there's an intimate correspondence
with what the struggle represents for us, facing it by giving ourselves in the name of boundless love.
Our existence must tend towards giving and expenditure, beyond self-preservation and exchange,
with the innocence and carefreeness of those who are unconcerned with calculation and act in full
freedom.
Militancy is a gift, the gift is life, life is Militancy.

Perpetuating Through Time
A militant Community exists when it reproduces itself. If Tradition is understood as a collection of
eternal values, it becomes necessary to comprehend it as a clear confirmation of the connection
between heaven and earth, between human and sacred: this approach, palpable in many civilizations
uncontaminated by materialism and the dominance of economic data, invokes the presence of a
higher Order that manifests itself beyond time.
Tradition is in motion, as it is continuously transmitted, walking on new legs while remaining true
to itself: it is a heritage passed down from father to son, ensuring continuity, coming to life as a
Norm of life, representing the existential orientation of those who possess a fervour for the sacred.
Furthermore, every Community should have goals that align with its own worldview. It doesn't
matter what these objectives are, as long as they exist: in this sense, the sole necessary condition is
that they are potentially achievable.
To achieve these objectives, or at least get closer to them, a method is required. Every Community
should have one: not just one that, over time, achieves physical and ideal continuity (...)
A Community should never isolate itself: it should have the means to engage with similar
experiences to acquire information, create networks, observe initiatives similar to its own, and take
in examples. It should seek out and find its counterparts to organize cohesive, transversal, and
organic fronts, whether these are structured movements or freer coordination of individual operating
units.
Confrontation and synthesis are crucial to avoid suffocation: because a Community must possess
solid foundations, but also doors and windows that allow it to breathe.
More generally, the practice of a centralized model should be prevented, as it often reproduces
defects and stifles energies: having a center doesn't necessarily mean needing to directly provoke
everything happening around us, but it can also mean being able to channel energies already present
in society, interpret them, and organize them.

The militants find a centre and cleanse themselves of the impurities with which contemporary
society has contaminated them: it will be their task to achieve self-mastery, tenaciously nurturing
their will for self-improvement and elevation.
A "war" fought while within the Community: because ultimately, no one can truly be high enough
to fight it alone. It is an internal challenge, but one that is faced alongside others, where the bonds
of brotherhood and camaraderie allow putting "We" before personal needs, whims, and weaknesses;
because sharing the struggle also means sharing its disappointments and defeats, finding the
strength by one's side to move forward, keeping pace with others.

In summary, from what has been presented, we can also deduce that for the Community to progress.
But in the spirit described here, we must:
- Reflect on the availability of the tools offered to us and consider them for what they are, without
being instrumentalized by them.
- Reject ivory towers and intellectualism to traverse the roads of the vast world differently.
- Set our conditions in the present and make history.
- Draw a clear line between what belongs to a style that drives us toward excellence and what, on
the contrary, drags us down.
- Be like fish in water, attentive and vigilant, capable of using currents without being carried away
by them.

What Marco Scatarzi highlights, in much greater detail than summarised here, certainly applies to
the Landsknechts, who conceive of themselves as a community, even though their physical
dispersion makes this community quite unique, as many of its members live in isolation in their
daily lives.
We could define the Landsknechts as common and cross-cutting, almost like a community of
communities, all of which should individually and collectively adhere to these criteria, without
which their function and reason for being would disappear.
Certainly, the Landsknechts community has distinctive characteristics, as - unlike conventional
communities - it is not tied to a specific territory. It unfolds across spaces, between cities, regions,
and nations. It feels involved in all authentic communities, regardless of whether some of its
members also belong to the Landsknechts community or maintain operational relationships with it.

The Landsknechts are the mercury that must raise the temperature to 37 degrees: they feel at home
wherever the community, as described here, has a hearth, but they also want to be carriers of an
immanent and transcendent unity that emanates from the profound essence of what gives birth to
any ordered community.
The Landsknecht is both more isolated and more accompanied than anyone else. They are the
mercury of the "missi dominici" and wandering knights, a stable nomadism. This is fully understood
and embraced when one has a specific imperial conception and when the Empire is the internal pole
that should be manifested through actions and achievements, perspectives and outcomes.

VI
LIKE A SOLAR SYSTEM

What should a Landsknecht do, and above all, how should they do it? In what ways is the action of
the Landsknechts complementary and synergistic with those who already act within communities,
clans, movements, parties, and research centers? How can a person act among the Landsknechts,
with the Landsknechts, or in external relation to them?
Let's begin by saying that the Landsknechts are somewhat like the mercurial element (that is,
transmission and connection) and at the same time the embodiment of the human type that must
animate and direct a whole set of things belonging to different levels and planes: from education to
the use of intelligence, from culture to politics, from economy to communication.
These are articulated within communities, political subjects, research centers, socioeconomic
organizations, magazines, and so on. Eventually – a lofty ambition for now – even artistic
intervention in reality.
Of course, all of this is neither exclusive to the Landsknechts nor will it ever be. All of this must be
imagined as a solar system, as the atomic nucleus of the European Empire.

In a time when the dominant conception is Chaos, every celestial body is subject to entropy, and the
perception of the harmonious laws to which it is subjected eludes it.
Such bodies also exist in our small realm. Although they are almost always planetoids or asteroids
rather than planets, the fundamental question is not their size or weight. Even if one of them were to
assume the dimensions of Jupiter, it could not escape the physical law and the limits of its valence,
which would manifest in its heaviness and the longer times of its orbit around the star. In no case
could it make the system revolve around itself. The presumption of those who combine something
that gives them minimal success and some material and numerical consistency often leads them to
believe they are essential, unique, overwhelming, and even the measure of all things, the pivot of
everything. Objectively, we always talk about dimensions and powers that are insignificant in
relation to the world, and therefore laughable if only one were to raise their gaze. The vanity that
provides such certainty of one's centrality, which blinds and neutralises, is a typical form of hubris
that might even be granted the mitigating factor of unconsciousness.
Only the awareness of the solar system, with the return to the centre that animates everything and
that no part can replace, simultaneously brings back light and harmony and restores meaning to
movement, which, in the absence of self-consciousness, is merely a wandering in the void,
interrupted by flashes of perception never fully realised.
To the extent that each individual body begins to become aware of an organic and higher belonging,
it is conceivable to reconnect to a sense, to luminosity, to harmony, to the Imperium.

This is why the Landsknechts, as I've already explained the reason behind the term, must be
imperial units of connection. They shouldn't plant their flag solely on imperial achievements, nor
should they limit themselves to their own accomplishments – which exist and will continue to – but
they should be a binding force. A binding force between vessels not yet communicating and a
binding force between the effectiveness of those who act and the rediscovery of a higher sense, so
that the outcome isn't just a workshop profit.
A binding force that sheds light around itself to the extent that it manages to generate it within.
When Prometheus brought fire to humans, thus bringing light into the darkness, he ended up
chained to a rock with an eagle devouring his liver. He remained so until Hercules, a demigod, a
hero, freed him.
This means that when dealing with fire and light, one must act within oneself to reconnect with
verticality, otherwise, you remain nailed to the rock, your liver corroded. Because, no matter how
altruistic and generous the motivation might be, it always comes down to a titanic hubris, and its
effects are always detrimental to the victim.
Prometheus must rediscover his heroic side (Hercules) to reunite himself and his work with the
Olympic spirit.
The task of someone who connects and sheds light, thereby feeding the flame, is not trivial. It will
never fully work unless it first works within itself. This is not possible if they lack humility,
impersonality, and a militant mindset.
Everything accomplished over the years following this logic, even if only as penetration and
interaction, didn't need the birth of the Landsknechts to be realised simply.
I wanted to create them precisely to always and consistently call attention to a militant
anthropology, to a spirit of service that wasn't selfish and tribal.
It's an elitist spirit. This doesn't mean – far from it – that the Landsknechts are an elite, that
participating in them transforms one into an elite, or that there aren't elites outside of them.

I want to ensure that the connection between political and metapolitical achievements will be made
by someone who raises the issue of working on himself to become men and women dedicated to a
cause, seeking original and principal sources, focused on operational abilities but propelled towards
impersonality.
It's necessary that there be humility in impersonality and in carrying out this role. Equally important
is to remind anyone who participates - from any position and in any form, in everything that
operates within a European and imperial logic - about the importance of qualities that establish
hierarchy, especially built on fidelity, loyalty, and constancy.

In a technocratic culture and a hyper-technological world that needs to be ridden and mastered
rather than foolishly and uselessly rejected, hierarchical distinctions are competence, success, and
practicality. Far from rejecting them, I don't deny their relevance, but they need to be integrated.
A computer programmer, no matter how efficient, will never become a loyal, honest, and selfless
person if they weren't that way to begin with. An intellectual with a skillful pen and extensive
knowledge will rarely be impersonal or serve an idea unless they became an intellectual with that
purpose.
Conversely, an honest, loyal, dedicated person can learn to write and even program. Perhaps not as
well, but what animates them will bring collective benefit that, if reliance is placed solely on
competencies, will certainly be lacking.
This doesn't mean that we shouldn't engage with competent egotists as well, as long as they're not
objectively performing ignoble functions. The important thing is not to grant them centrality, not to
make them indispensable for any project. One needs discernment. As I've written before, one must
reintroduce criteria into a world trapped in patterns and clichés.

For this reason, and due to the same etymology of "hierarchy," I don't necessarily deem someone
more competent as superior to someone with the right spirit.
Then there are functional hierarchies, interchangeable and specific to individual operations or tools,
but the primary hierarchy is human and existential, and that is what I primarily value. For this
reason, I've chosen to adopt the same logic as the karate school I attended in the past, where
everyone practised the same exercises and katas simultaneously, but belt colours didn't exist before
black. None of us knew how the master saw us, but we acted on ourselves to improve and try to
satisfy him without harbouring foolish pride.

VII
IMPERIUM: WHAT IS MEANT BY IMPERIAL EUROPE

Before we delve further, it's important to establish a clear understanding of the term "Empire," as it
serves as the focal point of our discussion. The following excerpt is extracted from the training
manual of the Landsknechts, entitled Imperium, and was published in January 2016.

Imperium was not merely a source and attribute of military command, but an ascending prerogative,
like the sword, the fasces, the sceptre, which, as such, represented the world’s axis. Originally
intertwined with the role of the Lictor in ancient monarchical Rome, assuming kingship was
primarily about embodying the titles of "Rex et Pontifex”, thus serving as a bridge between the
visible and invisible realms, particularly as an unwavering pillar of stability.

The holder of Imperium wielded a numinous authority, as elucidated by Mario Polia's summary of
Julius Evola: “…it allowed things and events to transition from the realm of potentiality to actuality,
whether it be victory in warfare or the prosperity of fertility, health, and the harmonious progression
of seasonal cycles."

Directly from Imperium came forth Auctoritas, closely linked to the concept and function of the
verb "augere" (augeo, es, auxi, auctum, augere), meaning increase (wealth, health, fertility, etc.),
and from which the term "Augustus" derives, as self-proclaimed by Octavian, who in historical
accounts is hailed as the Empire's founder. Originally, "Augustus" served as an adjective and was
inscribed as "Augusto Augurio Roma Condita”.

In what we now recognise as the foundation of the Empire, Augustus executed a remarkable feat by
bridging the traditions of the city (Urbe) with the imperative of assuming universal centrality.
Inspired by Janus Bifrons, the adoptive son of Julius Caesar ingeniously fused two distinct needs, in
the search of a central focal point. The reformation of the Consulate, persisting formally throughout
the Empire, saw the inception of a Princeps who, foremost, embodied the role of Tribune of the
People with augmented authority.
This fulfilled Rome's aspirations, while on a broader scale, global expectations were met by
elevating this Princeps to the status of Divus, who ensured the sacred union of a world unified yet
diverse, where all traditions, deities, and even legal systems enjoyed full autonomy, provided they
did not contravene the overarching Ius.
Note the connection between Ius and the verb "iubere" (iubeo, es, iussi, iussum iubere), which, in
contrast to "imperare," conveys a distinct aspect of commanding— that of directing or arranging.
This concept delves into normative wisdom intertwined with Imperium.

These are the distinctive traits of the Roman Empire, characteristics inherited from its historical
antecedents—the Monarchy and the Republic, that set it apart from all later iterations that have
drawn influence from it, evident even in the adoption of titles like Kaiser and Czar, derived from
Caesar.
These characteristics serve to differentiate the Empire from colonialism and imperialism, which
seek to homogenise everything. In contrast, the Empire ensures, defends, and celebrates
particularities.
It does so from a religious, cultural, moral, and even social perspective, since within the very
foundation of the Empire is the concept of Caesarism (or the Augustan Tribunate), based on the
tribunician bond between the Leader and the People, ensuring the protection of the most vulnerable.
Let's start from here to address two needs of our era, one external and one internal. Externally, we
must seek a historical pathway out of the contemporary crisis concerning civilisation and identity.
By a historical way out, we mean it must be inevitably aligned with the imperatives of our time and
its requirements.
The ongoing dynamics are undeniable; the response to them is certainly not passive resistance or a
longing for the past. Instead, it entails actively striving to redirect the course and significance of
events if we perceive them veering off track.
The age of Globalisation, of Mundialism, of confusion, of melting pots, of trans-nationalism, and
super-nationalism is inexorably destined to be the era of imperialism (or interconnected
imperialisms, in a complex interplay of unity and mutual division). It threatens to overwhelm every
freedom, every identity, and every diversity, perhaps under the guise of celebrating differences,
which are, nonetheless, being assimilated into an amorphous framework of moral uniformity, both
in customs (mores) and ethical steadfastness (ethos) of conduct.
The only possible alternative? The Empire.

When we invoke Empire, we aren't necessarily referring to a specific, delineated political structure,
but rather to the resurgence of imperial centrality with all its inherent prerogatives, leaving none
aside.
There's no alternative to counter the bureaucratic and technocratic monster of standardised
federalism except through a foundational and normative drive, that, grounded in Auctoritas and
Imperium, must address the imperatives thrust upon us by the inevitable dawn of an era
characterised by continental dimensions, satellite nomos of the air and zero time, while
safeguarding and elevating every unique aspect.
How?
We are not necessarily proposing the creation of a proclaimed Empire, ruled by an Emperor who
takes charge of all of us. Instead we emphasise the need to adhere to a guiding principle that enables
us to establish our Foundation, to delineate a Mundus and to establish an Order.
To embark on this endeavour, we need only to reconnect with the karstic river that has been flowing
since 476 AD, when the last Roman Emperor, Romulus Augustulus, relinquished his throne to
Odoacer, known as King of the Heruli, who was, in truth, the leader of the Germanic tribe holding
the esoteric knowledge of the Runes, of which he was “Odoawhkr”, roughly translated as the grand
master. Since then, the Imperium quietly persisted, evolving into what would later be known as the
Ghibelline Axis, indissolubly linking Rome and Germany, consanguineous since prehistory.
In a new manner, it embraced all imperial virtues that manifested themselves from Constantinople
to St. Petersburg, from Vienna to Berlin, and through Napoleonic Paris across the centuries.

Therefore, embracing the imperial axis means understanding and acknowledging the prehistoric and
historical connections between the poles of Europe, fostering their development both in unity and
individually.
With this understanding and acknowledgment comes the capacity to consistently adopt a stance,
dismissing the narrow disputes fuelled by recurring small-minded biases that serve any imperialism
except our own strength, unity, autonomy, and liberties.
A vision of Europe that is imperial, rather than imperialistic, implies a willingness to pursue its
power and imagine its growth towards the east and south, all while maintaining its essence intact.
If it arises from a genuine understanding of origins and a deep connection to Myth, this concept also
delineates the boundaries of identity and affinity, acknowledging the nuances of empathy and
antipathy. These cannot be arbitrarily defined by the individual taste of the atomised self, but rather
by what exists and what ought to be.

Building upon this foundation, pathways for navigating through the current crisis can be outlined
and cultivated. This is not the place for proposals – which we have presented in detail multiple
times and remain committed to keeping them current – but starting from here we can focus on
fundamentals.
To adopt an imperial perspective is to be grounded in an internal axis that must perpetually resonate
within us, and that must be characterised by the notion of heroic transcendence, and not only heroic,
of our individual identities that “merge without losing their distinctiveness”, as Meister Eckhart
would say. They do so from above, but in turn, from above, they mould us, shaping us into complete
human beings rather than mere consumers.
Given this premise, and honestly there are no alternative premises that aren't ensnared by Chaos, we
acknowledge that an imperial perspective embodies quality, autonomy, freedom, and a corpus.
All identities, whether social, cultural, anthropological, clan-based, tribal, regional, or national,
express themselves through qualities or prerogatives.
An imperial logic, inherently opposed to conformity, guarantees the defence of all individual
qualities.
It not only assures their preservation but also celebrates and uplifts them.
Therefore, at this level, both nationalism and regionalism not only coexist but also find mutual
compatibility and safeguarding. However, they don't persist in the prevalent sense today, which
often entails defending economic privileges of some at the expense of others, or retreating into
history due to fear of progress. Instead, they are revitalised through the winning mindset of who is
confident in themselves, in their Lares, their Manes, their Penates, and in their own becoming – a
future that they write in harmony with others while remaining themselves.
The imperial perspective stands as the sole entity capable of ensuring national cohesion in an era
where the nation-state model has become antiquated. This vision transforms the present state of
wavering national unity into an inherently grounded concept, one that doesn't need to be propped up
with glue or rebuilt like a golem with "codes of citizenship".
Furthermore, in the post-Jacobin era, even distinct regions—with their rich histories and unique
characteristics, not merely administrative divisions—can peacefully coexist with the notion of
nationhood, without feeling overshadowed by it or obligated to reject it entirely. The Völkische
Europa map drawn in the last century, guided by a vision rooted in essence and consciousness even
before regulations, today swiftly aligns with the preservation of national identity and the honour of
belonging to them. In the imperial consciousness, everyone finds representation and can identify
with various facets that coexist without elimination or contradiction.
Regional, national, and imperial are different dimensions that mutually complement each other,
even within each one of us.

An inner axiality binds together all the components of a bundle.
At this level of awareness and discipline, the incessant proliferation of codes, regulations, and
prohibitions—repeated in a futile endeavour to unite the fragmented elements of a civilisation
amidst a crisis of purpose—becomes obsolete.
The logic binding individual parts is akin to that which unifies the citizens of the Empire:
"maximum freedom, maximum responsibility." This invariably guarantees autonomy.
Autonomy, in its essence, entails self-governance—a concept prone to chaos and ruin without a
robust adhesive and a steadfast understanding of the principles, values, and hierarchies—ethical,
moral, and spiritual—that guide these laws with precision.

Yet today, paradoxically, in the absence of autonomy, moral anarchy and injustice across all levels
become unavoidable.
In an era of growing homogenisation, where laws no longer stem from the principles of Ius and
uphold Justice as priority (but instead morph into regulatory measures favouring uniformity) it's
clear that they frequently endanger identities, freedoms, and even economies and properties. Yet,
they offer nothing beyond a precarious, artificial, neurotic, and anxious semblance of cohesion.
There are only two possible reactions: either progressively and inexorably descending into decay or
rallying together, locally, as a collective, as a social entity.
The imperial notion, both conceptually and historically, promotes and cannot help but promote
autonomies with all their individual characteristics: autonomies that imperialism – misusing the
term – perceives only as uniform cells, merely mirroring the whole.
Indeed, the imperial concept lays the groundwork for the manifestation of local organisations and
associations in an organic and harmonious manner, rather than atomised and atrophied as seen in the
context of Globalisation. In this field, we also have a range of detailed proposals that have been
discussed elsewhere.

Finally, the Corpus.
The organic society, intricately linked to the imperial ideal, isn't a conglomeration of individuals,
masses, or individual-mass hybrids, nor is it an informal heap of social classes drawing their
strength solely from negative sentiments. Instead, it thrives on the inclination and capacity to unite
as a collective entity, giving rise to Corporations and Corporatism. The true essence of this term
diverges from its commonly misunderstood interpretation imposed by its critics.
The notion of individuality isn't a self-constructed hypothesis, as proposed by gender theory and the
concept of citizenship codes. Instead, it embodies a unique personality intricately linked to one's
heritage and roles, viewed not just as functional components but as integral parts of a cosmic
harmony. This perspective stands as an alternative to any form of present or potential materialistic
mercantilism.
The imperial ideal naturally manifests by harmonising Imperium, Auctoritas, Qualities, and
Autonomy, thereby shaping a social entity in the truest sense of Societas—a coalition of allies and
contributors to an Organic Community of Destiny.
From top to bottom, from the apex of power to the foundations of economy, from territorial to
national to continental, the imperial ideal presents, proposes, and strives to impose a complete and
unequivocal alternative.
Drafting a political and legislative program grounded in these principles isn’t enough, as we live in
an era of dis-association, post-democracy, intertwining of powers and anarchy. Gone are the days of
seizing the State as a means to reshape society with acquired authority.
We now live in an era characterised by fragmented and diffuse power, atomised locales, social
individualism expanding into geographical particularism, and economic and lobbying self-interests
pitted against formidable forces, often circumventing formal authority. As for those who lack a
defined role in society, which constitutes the majority, they are left with only the options of
welfarism and consumerism.

In this reality, one cannot afford to wait for electoral victories to materialise; action must be taken in
daily life without delay or hesitation. Consistent action is required at all times, across all spheres, to
organise and structure society, fostering an autonomous yet centred power capable of withstanding
forces that seek to homogenise and limit freedom.
This vision and approach necessitate embodying the principles of Imperial Units.
When the imperial concept is deeply understood and ingrained as the Inner Empire, the Invisible
Empire becomes our support and guiding light, empowering us to take action in every sphere.
By cultivating and ideally defending this furrow with the sword.
This brings us to the second imperative of our time: the cultivation of our inner forum.
The age of global homogenisation not only undermines but actively suppresses freedoms, all under
the guise of promoting multiple freedoms.
Despite purported aims, sexual, gender, and genetic freedoms often veer towards normalisation and
moralisation of deviations, ultimately leading to their regulation rather than genuine liberation.
Meanwhile, in the process of rejecting genetic identities and embracing boundless possibilities, their
mentors seek to sever all ties with the profound, for both individuals and the broader community.
The offspring of liberal progressivism, once champions of "forbidden to forbid," are now
prohibiting age-old practices (from eros to smoking, from alcohol consumption to pork
consumption), all in pursuit of imposing a mutated agenda in their stead.
Essentially, it's the revolt of Utopia against Myth, where the amorphous earthly realm seeks
retribution against Olympian Virility in terms of symbols and references.
It's a genuine clash of civilisations — the sole authentic one — of which we must remain aware.

The Empire is the axis of Myth and Olympian Virility.

"The Myth – as Ernst Jünger reminds us in "The Forest Passage" – is not remote history: it's a
timeless reality that repeats itself in history." We must start from here to change the course of
history. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that we currently exist under tyranny, a natural
consequence when those who utopically attempt to defy the laws of the Cosmos lead the dance.
"The majority – Jünger continues – can simultaneously act within legality and produce illegality.
(...) Oppression can become more ferocious and turn into real crimes against specific groups."
On the other hand, this so-called normality, now politically correct, thrives by singling out
"minorities as targets for persecution. It goes without saying that individuals who stand out due to
their inherited qualities or talent are not immune to this risk”.
Those who fight for norms, justice, and truth must not ignore that they are engaged in an uneven
struggle against those who not only dictate the rules of the game but constantly cheat.

And at the gaming table, they cannot help but lose. They can make swift, fleeting, and effective
incursions but cannot linger for long. If they do, they must be prepared to forfeit their stake and,
echoing Kipling's poem "If," "begin again at the starting point without dwelling on the loss."
The foremost freedom and autonomy, the primary source of power and potential, reside in
abstaining from participating in the game altogether.
Refusing to rely morally, economically, or psychologically on the necessities imposed by the
Leviathan, and not letting oneself be hypnotised by its fears, is the only, inevitable premise for a
liberating act of reconstruction.
The only possibility for the imperial rebel to prevail lies primarily in their ability to remain
impervious to all temptations and threats, to retain their essence when interacting with others, and to
resist the urge to adopt the language or behaviours of those unlike themselves.
He must, in an Augustinian manner, know how to be in this world without being of this world.
He must, as Jünger again suggests, "retreat into the forest," or more precisely, go even further and
become a forest himself amidst the urban landscape.
However, one cannot retreat into the forest, much less become the forest itself, without reclaiming
the pride within oneself, without rediscovering the roots that lend strength to the trunk.
The Imperium – which is inner axiality above all else – is precisely what enables this to happen.
Hence, the imperial response, which will be popular and communal, originates as an elitist
response, but one that is open-minded and benevolent in its approach.
Once again from Jünger: "It will be the elites who battle for a new freedom – a battle that demands
great sacrifices and an interpretation that is not unworthy of their dignity."
They must above all be aware that "one does not return to the Myth, the Myth is encountered anew
when time wavers at its foundations, under the nightmare of extreme danger."
Ernst Jünger also calls us to be always active and present: "The motto of the Rebel is Hic et nunc –
since the Rebel is man of free and independent action.”

Hic et nunc, here and now. These two words mean Imperium and guarantee, if we prove ourselves
worthy, our freedom.
While freedom may no longer be seen as a right but rather a difficult task, increasingly less
favoured amongst people, it's a responsibility we must embrace, out of honour towards our
forebears and love for our offspring to whom we must give back freedom and dignity.

Imperium, Hic et Nunc: to safeguard the future for our people, our nations, our regions, our Europe,
and to be free, like the men of the forest and the wandering knights. Centred on the Inner Empire to
gradually shape a yet Invisible Empire for those keen to see.
Centring on the Inner Empire entails perpetually aligning with an intangible axis within ourselves,
thereby embracing a purpose that transcends us and is not merely physical, political, or
circumstantial.
An axis that keeps us upright, instils a sense of impartiality, and continuously drives us to seek unity
upwards.
In essence, it's about refusing to let opinions, biases, and stances on external events fragment our
unity. Indeed, divisions ought to exist, not over superficial beliefs, but in how we live our lives,
always honouring the dignity of others, with dignity.
Just as the dignities, autonomies, and aspirations of every land, region, and nation within an Empire
are upheld, this should be mirrored on a smaller scale. Any alternative logic would not be imperial
but rather uniforming and partisan in nature.

VIII
EUROPE: LAND OF ANCESTORS AND SONS

While it is necessary to give a definition of Empire as an archetypal model, it is less so to provide a
definition of Europe.
What is it? How far does it extend? What animates it?
These would be definitions that, instead of explaining, would close off possibilities, as Europe is
still largely a project.
Not only would they close off possibilities, but they would discriminate as well. I'm not exclusively
referring to divisions between pagans and Christians or between Catholics and Protestants, which
would at least make sense, but they would discriminate on the theoretical plane and place people
who believe they're imagining the same thing, often with very different ideas, on opposing sides.
This wouldn't just be divisive, and furthermore, on a strictly theoretical level that doesn't hold in
reality, it wouldn't divide correctly because it would place people of good nature on both sides,
along with mediocre or petty individuals, in each faction.
All of this for nothing, as we're not on the threshold of an institutional work, and what matters most
is the force of enthusiasm, which must not be diminished by cerebral prejudices.
Europe is simultaneously a participant in Being (from which we originate) and in Becoming. It is
both the land of the fathers and Nietzschean "land of sons." And it's in how the sons shape this land
that the fathers must be brought back to life.
For this reason, like Aeneas who entrusted the land of the sons to Iulus Ascanius, we must carry
Anchises, at least ideally, on our shoulders, but never as a burden or limitation.
I'll now revisit some passages from the past that were dedicated to this matter.

The birth of European consciousness was crystallised in the heroic sacrifice of Leonidas and the
three hundred Spartans, accompanied, however, by a thousand and more Greek volunteers who are
systematically forgotten.
"We shall release so many arrows that they will block out the sun," Xerxes had warned. "Good.
Then we shall fight in the shade," was the reply of the Spartan king.
Equally memorable was his response to the emissary of the Persian king who, in Sparta, had tried to
win him over by offering control over all of Greece on behalf of the King of Kings. But, in case he
refused, he was told in detail what would become of his city and his people – completely wiped
from the face of the earth – if the Persians were to win.
"If," Leonidas had replied.
That moment marked the birth of European consciousness. It resisted the massive invasion from
Asia of an ante-litteram melting pot; it expressed not just warrior courage, but noble courage – that
of someone who is a lord and dies to avoid becoming a slave. This didn't happen by imposition or
by chance, nor was it an inescapable fact; it was a free choice, consciously undertaken.
This was Europe and in this it differed from the rest of the world.
From Thermopylae onwards, attempts were made to identify historical events that expressed
European consciousness, or at the very least, the consciousness of Europeans: Poitiers, Lepanto,
Vienna, Berlin.

As rightly pointed out by Jean Mabire in Drieu parmi nous, the men of the North possess an innate
sense of freedom but are also primarily men of action, willing to discipline themselves to fulfil the
duty they have chosen. Far from tyranny and massification.
Men of the North, you say? A flourishing of paleo-anthropological studies, historical and prehistoric
findings, comparative language studies, attest that the Indo-European type has an origin located in
the North (Hyperborean seat) that predates the melting of the ice and that, in its descent to the South
(through Thule), encountered other populations to which it imposed itself.
Dorians, Achaeans, Illyrians, Latins, and Germans come from a common stock from which they
differentiated over the centuries but without completely losing the DNA.
Several linguists noted that the word "Ari," with which the Indo-Europeans called themselves,
meant both clear, luminous, and lords, lords of themselves.
"Herr" is a form of the word "ario," and free men among the Germans were called "Arimanni."
However, the concept was common to different Indo-European branches. It was precisely on this
dual logic of freedom and discipline that the Poleis were born, too summarily dismissed as the
birthplace of democracy – which, however, was indeed born there – as they were rather examples of
a participation that did not undermine freedom and authority.
It was not by chance that in Sparta, there were two kings who, nonetheless, answered to the
assembly of warriors, nor that in Rome, the Res Publica was endowed with two consuls.
The idea of subjection was foreign to the Indo-Europeans, who disciplined themselves voluntarily.
The idea of irrational tyranny, based on fear and even terror of metaphysical entities dictating the
law to be executed to avoid horrible punishments, was alien and unacceptable to them.
When Julius Caesar tried to make Rome the centre of the Empire, the peoples of the southeast
demanded the deification of the Emperor, while the European, particularly Roman, rejected it.
It took the immeasurable greatness of Augustus to make Rome both the consular Polis of the Indo-
Europeans and the divinized centre for the peoples of Asia Minor.
This, however, took place in the typical mindset of what we would now call Westerners, which they
were also defined as then, and the fusion between unity and multiplicity was marked by the
Pantheon, an unparalleled emblem of plurality and tolerance.

The Lex Romana, Pax Romana, and the borders of the Empire sanctified the spaces in which our
Civilization was expressed.
The division between the shores of the Mediterranean, the division of the Empire between East and
West, and the advent of the monotheistic religions of Asia Minor produced a collapse from which
recovery only occurred later with the Holy Roman Empire.
There has long been a debate about the reasons for the spiritual and cultural resurgence that
condensed into monasticism, feudalism, and above all, the ideal of Chivalry.
It is not up to us to define how much it depended on paganism and Germanism, merged with what
remained of the tradition of the Fathers and with the philosophy and canons of beauty of the
Greeks.

The important thing is the corpus that has been realised, in which even the Monarchy, unlike, for
example, the Tsarist Russia, was understood as a common good, and the same idea of Popular
Monarchy in the Modern Era (1492-1789) partly resumed the tribunitian functions that Augustus
had exalted in the imperial idea of the Princeps.
In the height of European dominion (17th-19th century), all the characteristics, both individualistic
and communal, particularistic and unitary, manifested in their fullness while expressing an
aristocratic lifestyle, marked by a nobility that often made its own way, not necessarily by acquired
rank.

What do we mean by Europeans?
The answer can be found by digging a little deeper. Many provided it, from Georges Dumézil to
Hans Günther, but perhaps not as comprehensively as Julius Evola or Adriano Romualdi.
Europe was not merely a geographical expression or the linguistic area of the Indo-Europeans.
It wasn't even just a shared history or a necessity of our time, as explained by all those who
interpreted the Second World War and especially its outcome as the disorderly and dreadful advent
of the rule of savage masses and oligarchies that despised the Patres.
It was something deeper and more complete.
It was the place of the Heroic Cycle sung by Hesiod, which with its axiality and luminosity had
pushed back the darkness.
It was both Apollo and Hercules at the same time, as Evola had suggested. Apollo with harmony,
luminosity, detachment; Hercules with the will and strength to subdue all the monsters of the earth,
the sacred, the great mother, down to the peculiarities of the Amazons.
Certainly, it was also the Dionysus exalted by Nietzsche, because it's not necessary to be hieratic to
let the sun flow in your veins and because innovation is always necessary. Without Dionysus,
without Vulcan, without Prometheus, vitalism wanes, and the balance of Solve et Coagula becomes
unattainable. Without all this, one becomes passive and fatalistic, subject to despotism – all
characteristics that our people have rejected over the centuries.
Phenotype (the outward appearance, the physical expression) and genotype (what deeply belongs to
DNA, is transmitted, and needs to be preserved) together determined Europe, which had absolute
boundaries while each of its children carried them within as marks and as brands produced by these
types, geometrically drawn by the "world" organized through foundations.
Yet, they were also open boundaries. One can be European in Chile, Peru, Argentina, and even in
the United States if one aligns with those types.
This concept can easily fall victim to overlap by biological racism, which often happens, especially
in the WASP or Protestant world, but it's a substantial mistake. It's one thing to exalt DNA in bios,
as a potential to be expressed, and another to turn biological determinism into an absolute,
mechanistic, and materialistic value. In fact, so-called suprematism is imbued with Darwinism,
materialism, and Old Testament suggestions – it's a distortion of the concept of pride, which
degrades when it transforms into preconceived contempt for the other.
In the face of Chaos, of the night, of the advancing stepmotherly and engulfing earth, it's essential
to take on the pride of every single identity (ethnic, national, cultural) and affirm it in harmony,
rather than fragment it into various disjointed solos.
In practice, it's the idea of Empire against that of imperialism and against the tendency towards
fragmentation, towards atomization, as Evola would have said.

Paradoxically, this leap forward in post-war political consciousness had been contributed to from
another continent, albeit from a European and Latin cultural, ethnic, and mental sphere.
The Argentine leader Perón with his Tercera Posición and his active global participation in struggles
against Soviet and American imperialism – or as we used to say, Russian-American imperialism –
played a role in this shift.
Unity of purpose among peoples who sought to free themselves from the yoke of capital-
communism became a leitmotif of our creed.

Only a united and sovereign Europe, one that could not be born without the reunification of
Germany, would have allowed the cause of the people to prevail over what was for us the formless
and massifying monster of anti-European spirit, embodied by capitalism and communism – Siamese
brothers who had subdued the world with the last war.
In a few words, a political, existential, philosophical, and cultural ideal had been born. It possessed
the strength and legitimacy of Myth and encompassed all dimensions – from historical to
protostorical research, extending even into the realm of the sacred – yet it was manifested in a
future project: that of the Nation Europe which would challenge the dominant Subversion and
would surely defeat it.

The projection of our ideal was simultaneously vertical, horizontal, and voluminous.
It's impossible to decipher all this if one adheres to a single dimension, be it the economic or the
purely political.
This was an ideal for which one could continue to die and live, sacrificing everything. Not toward a
merely physical, geopolitical, biological, or cultural model, but an existential one. It can be
identified in the tri-functionality and in artistic, heroic, and erotic conceptions, as the Futurists
perfectly understood.
The ritual geometry, architecture, and manner of expression of Europeans are not the same as those
of any other, regardless of ethnic affinities. Just as sexual conceptions, from bacchanals to courtly
love, are distinctive and unique. Though customs, rules, and presumed rebellions have compressed,
repressed, or diverted them, they too refer to a uniqueness that is both animal and transcendent,
aligning with the great points of simultaneous rupture and transcendence through the confrontation
with the elemental, as seen in Jünger's "Storm of Steel."

We must unravel the thread to become Europe again.
This isn't about defining a political or societal project, but a tendency and being its bards, minstrels,
troubadours – living as Europeans everywhere, trying to blend historical, cultural, anthropological
specificities, and the greatness of each Genius Loci with what connects them all. French or Spanish,
Celtic or Germanic, Latin or Slavic, German or Italian, Irish or Polish, Greek or Norwegian. Even
Normans, Bretons, Corsicans, Catalans, Flemings, Sardinians. Embracing everything without
compressing or demeaning it, but making it the strength of the Empire.
With the awareness that we aren't awaiting apocalyptic events and that we don't even aim to
overturn anything.
What and why then, if everything is already overturned?
Ours is a creative revolution. We must fill and sanctify spaces, form within the formless, fullness in
emptiness, light in darkness, seeds of regeneration. Without the anxiety of time or outcomes, it's
always here and now. It's doing what needs to be done.

IX
BEHAVIOR AND ETHICS OF THE LANDSKNECHT

At this point, it should be evident that even just taking part in the initiatives of the Landsknechts
makes us participants part of a kind of creative communion, regardless of what each individual does
and what they have clearly in mind.
If one belongs to something alive, they grasp life, perceive it, seek to understand it, but above all,
they breathe it and live it.
Of course, the clearer one's ideas are, the better they can assert themselves and fulfil their task.

First of all, the Landsknecht possesses a sense of belonging to a community of destiny that aspires
to act to regenerate and re-enchant the world around himself, and to unite (not unify, but connect)
all positive forces.
This is not an exclusive sense of belonging because, in the name of active impersonality, it does not
conflict with other memberships.
Its intention is not to divide people; on the contrary, it tends to reconcile what appears irreconcilable
with political and spiritual elements that transcend selfish spirit and partisanship.
We are talking about differences in analysis, positioning, allegiances, not certainly about ethical and
spiritual falls, as those cannot be tolerated in any case.
It is not said that the Landsknecht has the ability to perfectly discern events, positions, political
fractures. In principle, it should always reason by placing its nation, Europe, the Genius Loci,
justice, and ethics at the centre of its evaluations.
If it cannot do this, because it is particularly demanding, it is advisable not to speak or endorse
falsehood, even for self-conviction, to defend a bias or a scheme that it cares about or reassures.
Learn not to deceive itself.

It must strive to overcome partisanship, without thereby being neutral or avoiding taking positions.
It must be the ambassador of a driving idea for the general interest of clans from every nation or
region of our Europe. Driven by this ambition, it must contribute to identifying a healthy osmosis
above internal conflicts. Pagans, Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, atheists - but rooted
metaphysically like Nietzsche - nationalists, regionalists, or deniers of national states, republicans,
or monarchists: each has their own path to and from the same centre. The common denominator
must be found above so that they do not get lost in rear-guard battles.
Regions, Nations, States, Peoples, Europe - everything is at stake today as a whole, and each must
participate in this game to ensure its survival and regeneration.

It's not just about reconciling, but also about conveying another way of conceiving oneself.

The Landsknecht is both an observer who, like a duelist, always learns from the cobbler, as well as
a messenger of a mission and a cause that transcends them.
For this reason, the Landsknechts must be intelligent, both in the sense of connecting the dots (that
means being able to understand reality) and as a cultivator of critical intelligence, from which
criteria arise.
While holding onto archetypes and principles, intelligence must prevail over presumed knowledge,
often made up of patterns and dogmas. Knowledge will remain such only to the extent that it is
questioned and refined by one's own doubt.
They seek to learn from their interlocutors, at least as much as they teach them; they do not impose
prepackaged truths, distil their ideas, and verify them, but they do not impose them.
They don't preach or dominate the conversation; in the environments they interact with, they always
look for something common that enriches them, and they refuse to speak in slogans or with
certainties brought from home.
They don't impose their monologue but try to convey messages through dialogue, paying close
attention to emotional reactions and unspoken words that can express so much.
For this reason, along with loyalty, empathy, patience, and generosity must be cultivated.
Therefore, when the Landsknecht encounters or associates with a movement, a group, or even an
individual, they must not strive to become a leader or seek the limelight. They should transmit ideal
inputs with humility and maintain an ideal behaviour.
They should never demand from others what they cannot give themselves; they must demand it
from themselves. Nor can they afford to blame others for failures; lenient with others, they must
never be lenient with themselves. They are not allowed to cheat or pretend. They should never
dramatise, even when painting the darkest scenarios; the Landsknecht should always be positive and
reassuring because they tend to embody value, not mediocrity; challenge, not complaint!
They must always be enthusiastic. Not optimistic, which is a foolish virtue, but enthusiastic, even in
pessimism.

They are not Merlin, they are not Gandalf, but nevertheless, their presence must be reassuring,
inspiring, friendly, and must demonstrate a permanent willingness when solicited. They give their
opinion but don't try to impose it; they shine in discretion.
They are not a model in themselves, but they indicate a model that transcends them. They must
express an education, discretion, a savoir-vivre, complicity, and behaviour that make them a good
comrade.
They must be clean internally as well as externally, in a perspective of spiritual aristocracy.
They must always strive for a verticality they hope to pursue.
Thus, they are regal and monarchic for a spirit of verticality aligned with God, with the Gods, with
the Logos, or with the Cosmos. They are republican in the sense that they feel belonging to what
was once defined as the Res Publica. They are revolutionary because, if they weren't, they would
end up becoming a fossil or a skeleton. They are political because they are a man of the Polis. They
are not an ecologist as understood today, as they are not a plant standing on two feet, but they are
closely related to nature of which they are a part and with which they breathe, seeing it as the
foundation, root, framework, and backdrop of our life, never conceiving themselves as external to
it, just like our ancestors.

The Landsknecht has nothing to defend; they are only loyal to the grand idea, both political and
spiritual, for which they fight.
They are not binary or dualistic because they refuse to be boxed in and reasoned with seemingly
antagonistic frameworks that are almost always functional to imposed balances.
They tend to approach what resembles them the most, but they must do so as an embodiment of
fidelity and a kept promise. In doing so, they can push themselves and stimulate others to strive for
perfection.
They must become a compass in the night. Like a sundial, they must be a fixed axis: their references
are the pole star, the sun, the moon, beauty, order, rectitude, cleanliness, dignity. In short, spiritual
aristocracy.
However, all of this is achieved and acquired; it is not inherently innate! One must continuously
work on their human behaviour if they want to become an example!

It's evident that this is what the Landsknecht must become and it indicates how they must shape
themselves.
It's a work in progress, just like the construction of everything related to the creation of the
European Empire, which we shouldn't wait to be institutionally formed, but rather, we must spread
it through communities and autonomous powers that fill the gaps and act in order, in a creative
sense.

This must be learned by the Landsknecht, and those with the same calling know that they can join
the ranks of the Landsknechts.

X
AN ESQUIRE

The Landsknecht must always operate on two levels: around himself and within himself. To do and
to be, to be in order to do, and so that doing reflects being. Amidst the ruins, he must strive to stand
upright, not merely content to observe the ruins from a distance, but to contemplate how to build
anew. Thus, he must be capable of adapting to the era he finds himself in, to his battleground, for
one cannot be an alpinist among marshes or a deep-sea diver in the Alps. Therefore, he must adapt
to the liquid society, not to be carried away by the stream, but to become a stream himself.
For these reasons, he cannot afford the arrogant acidity of those who barricade themselves, nor the
desperate illusion of those who await inevitable upheavals when the measure is full. Nor can he rely
on pragmatism and opportunism, trusting that deep down he will always remain the same, which is
usually not true. Hic Rhodus hic salta! He must be concerned with fulfilling his task in the right
way, not solely for practical results, but also not retreating into philosophical abstractions.

That's why the inner forum is so important for the Landsknecht, the need to act on himself while
always feeling under the scrutiny of an inner judge that knows no indulgence. This is why he must
retrace the paths that lead him back to historical, ideal, even prehistoric and metaphysical roots, and
the trails that will help him discover how the alternatives to capitalist-communist materialism truly
presented themselves, understanding exactly what Europe means, what sociality means, social
bodies, organicity, community, clan, nation, lineage, culture, freedom, dignity, people, and person.
Not for the purpose of having a Book containing packaged Truth, in the name of which he would
become a Mormon, an Amish, or a Jehovah's Witness preaching among people who, if they have
sound minds, will avoid him by making incantations, but to patiently reconstruct a puzzle from its
shattered fragments. In a becoming that turns towards Being.

The Landsknecht would like to establish order and justice in the world, but he knows this is not
possible without inner work that everyone must pursue individually, even while in company,
because "when one dies, one dies alone," and this is especially true when one becomes self-aware.
Thus, we will better understand why the choice of the term, the reference to serfs of the land who
redeemed themselves through a warrior-like verticality and loyalty.
The process of each one of us is, in reality, that of an Esquire, but it must become a Knight without
having any Knight to serve. Like a Ronin, he must be a wanderer of the Sword who learns the Art of
the Sword. The Landsknechts is not a superior figure, not the possessor of truth, not the most
educated, competent, courageous, valid, or wise.
He is an aspirant who feels the need to kindle this aspiration within himself and wants to share it
with anyone who pursues it. He never seeks to pose as a virtuous model or to be an example, as a
guild or as a person. He focuses as best as he can on the objective, eternal, rooted, and transcendent
goals, indicating the path to others even more than to himself.
If he becomes an example, he becomes one objectively and without self-satisfaction. If these two
conditions are absent, it will mean that he has not become one.

XI
PRACTICAL RESULTS

We have talked so far about the mindset, goals, and paths specific to the Landsknechts.
Then there's the practical aspect.
As I've written in both the first and the fifth chapter, I won't provide here a summary of what the
Landsknechts have contributed to achieving from 2015 onwards. It's an internal assessment that
would make no sense to boast about, except to violate the subtle and transversal nature of the
discrete work of what we could define as a Ghibelline Network, moving towards the realisation and
initial structuring of the European Empire.
To kindle thousands and thousands of sparks to begin illuminating the night.
And sparks have already been born, or have been nourished, in dozens.

Gaining awareness, self-work to cleanse oneself of impurities, creating and optimising bonds,
analyses, reflections, proposals, new criteria of interpretation and action. Through study centres,
associations, the web, journals, books, conferences, meetings, celebrations, training courses,
economic initiatives; all in synergy, continuously or alternately, with political entities. This has been
done and continues to be done.
From here, international connections have been born and deepened, and in certain cases,
strengthened.
From here, different points have converged—objectively, due to the dynamics—ranging from the
most extreme to the most institutional, from the most militant to the most theoretical.
In some nations, realities that organically collaborate with others have developed or strengthened,
intentionally and consciously participating in the project.
The logic of communicating vessels has moved forward, both consciously, involving those who
support it, and unconsciously, involving at least sporadically those who are not integral parts but
continually draw from it, usually without even saying thank you. But we knew this from the
beginning, and we don't brood over it because we don't seek gratitude for our fulfilled duty.
Ingratitude saddens us solely and exclusively because it reveals the limitations of those who don't
know how to give of themselves and thus are unable to receive gifts with a joyful heart.

Even the logic of water that carves the stone and alters the rock has worked.
In Italy, certainly, but from what I know, in at least four other countries, through the constant
presentation of new perspectives and pathways and the restating of core ideas, which, except for
those preserved as relics and thus rendered lifeless, had been shelved or even turned upside down
and transformed into negative concepts.
This occurred due to the assimilation, through contamination, of the sordid themes of petty
populism and its alleged sovereigntism, three centuries late and even caricatured compared to that
time.
A beggar syndicalism of trampled rights, in the name of a geographic provincialism and a fake
cultural superiority, had risen, attempting to dissolve the European bond, which is mythical, ethnic,
civilizational, prehistoric, metaphysical, as well as historical, and is the essence of what preceded us
and has always been fought against by subversive forces. All of this in the name of a surrogate
materialism, even devoid of the will to power that even exists in communism which, compared to
this form of so-called sovereigntism, is an admirable giant.

From the “Artiglio Hall” in Rome, on June 14, 2018, I launched the idea of the Reconquest of our
forgotten political and ideal conscience. I was mistaken for a madman who claimed to stop the tide.
I also wrote a book, Il Mito dell'Europa (The Myth of Europe), which was boycotted by political
groups in Italy. Back then, they were stranded on provincial and shopkeeper-like anti-European
stances, infatuated with dime-store pseudo-philosophers like Fusaro or self-proclaimed economists
who boasted about being fans of the worst expressions of historical anti-fascism, like the Actionists
with reference to Calamandrei (Mori), or who, like Bagnai, even praised the bombing of Dresden in
a tweet.
From 2018 onwards, the trend has changed significantly. Europe has returned to the centre of
attention for many groups and even euro-sceptic parties. The rest must come to terms with this, but
now they are forced to chase and attack the prevailing line, which is no longer anti-European.
If the Reconquest has been successful, it's certainly due to the fact that many among the Italexit
proponents were following orders, but they hadn't completely lost their critical thinking: the ground
was fertile.
It should be noted that subsequent events shattered many illusions and led to a search for the
essential.
Regardless, credit is due to those who pushed strongly in that direction, especially "Passaggio al
Bosco" and (Radio) KulturaEuropa, from which interesting reflections and initiatives later emerged.
Credit goes to the Landsknechts of Europe and to noreporter too.
This hasn't depended solely on us, certainly. But allow me to be proud and satisfied for the role
played and the path taken in this regard, amid the general scepticism when it seemed like an effort
in vain because anti-Europeanism was considered irreversible.
Water has carved the stone and altered the rocks.

I've limited myself to the most easily observable fact, the one that forms "public opinion".
I haven't spoken, nor will I, about matters that pertain not to the "form" but to the "substance".
It can easily be deduced that this whole project is complex, multifaceted, diverse, and
interconnected. At the heart of everything, or more precisely at its crossroads, as a strategic node,
there's my figure, which I wanted to utilise for the purpose of a work.
All the prerequisites were there for me to reach all the levels or to be reached from each level.
But the goal isn't to turn myself into the Leader (I'm too megalomaniacal for such modest
megalomania) or to become a Guru.
No one is indispensable, let alone eternal.
I've leveraged my figure and my function for a purpose, and I believe they should be further
leveraged until they are no longer necessary because they are assumed by a collective.
That's why I've tried to place a brotherhood, the Lanzichenecchi, at the centre, at the crossroads.
When it's able to fully absorb the impersonality of its role and the dynamic objectivity of what has
been set up with the right criteria, it will truly be the crossroads and the strategic point of a system
of forces.
It's a work in progress.

XII
WHAT TO DO WITH US AND HOW TO DO IT

It will be understood that I am not engaging in a mass proselytism act for myself or for the
Landsknechts. Otherwise, I would have highlighted many of the things done and those in progress
with a certain rhetoric, rather than often revealing myself in a cryptic manner. I release spores
through the wind, relying on the “Nomos of the Air” and hoping to have been sufficiently clear so
that they take root where they must, which is not everywhere and should not be in the realm of the
myriad.
Life isn't sustained by merchandising; one doesn't feel strong because of likes or applause. No one
here feels more or less important or self-assured based on the volume of others' consideration. From
what I've written so far, it will be clear that I've presented a trend line in which one participates,
consciously or even unconsciously, carried by currents and grasped by dynamics.
The role of the Landsknechts doesn't encompass everything; it's an essential but minority part. It's
not necessary for there to be thousands and thousands of Landsknechts, as long as they act
synergistically. In all of Europe, three thousand would suffice, because three thousand would mean
an influence, a synergy, an interaction of almost a million people.
Nationally, it depends on the population of each country. I'll skip Germany, which has its own set of
issues. In Italy and France, three hundred; in Spain, two hundred; in Poland, one hundred fifty; in
the Netherlands and Romania, seventy; in Greece, Portugal, Hungary, and Austria, fifty; in Norway,
twenty—this would suffice and even leave a surplus. Of course, we're talking about Landsknechts
who are already trained and solid, with the right connections and influences.
With this book, I aimed to explain what the Landsknechts are and what they must become, within
the Imperial Network project with all its components, either produced by what I am connected to or
formed on their own in the same trend and towards independently pursued goals, which is
particularly positive. Those who are already a Landsknecht or will become one in the future can
further clarify their ideas. Here, their function is explained, their purpose, their nature, and the
mentality they must adopt to work on themselves and with others.

If the objection is that this is excessively idealistic or philosophical, I want to remind you that the
oligarchic tyranny of Chaos is primarily made up of hypnosis and mental conditioning. Clarity, the
escape from anxieties and obsessions, is freedom and re-volution in itself.
As our comrade Juan Lopez Larrea rightly says, reversing the phrase from Don Quixote, "They
seem like giants, but they are windmills!" Michael Ende, the author of The Neverending Story,
among other works, writes in his Mirror in the Mirror, "Only those who leave the labyrinth are
happy, but only those who are happy can leave it."
These two phrases should be etched into the mind and serve as our guiding principles, always. It
makes no sense to anguish, torment oneself, dream of sudden upheavals, alliances with hypothetical
saviours, or even new forms of slavery to replace the current ones, which are often seen
superficially rather than deeply.

One is never a servant because they have a master; they are masters because they are servants.
No matter how much one may think about powerful machinations that we mistake for magicians or
superhumans, even of "evil," fossilising on Soros or Bill Gates can become an obsession with the
sole result of remaining obsessed, infused with them, transforming them into the masters of our
mind and soul. This isn't just a grave misinterpretation, because no matter what interpretation one
has of current events, it can't be correlated with the will of those we consider to be the managers, all
the while foolishly presuming that we've managed to see clearly through the fog.

Whether one thinks in materialistic or deterministic terms or according to randomness, there are no
individual drivers of dynamics that move on their own and can do without any Soros or any Bill
Gates, who are interchangeable in their functionality. Because that's what it's about.
If one thinks in philosophical or metaphysical terms, then personalizations of responsibilities and
anxieties should be discarded. No people are slaves even when oppressed, but they are not slaves
when they have blood in their veins and pride in their spirit. If it's lacking or if they don't hold onto
its memory, they'll be slaves under any oppressor, even without any oppressor, for they are enslaved
by themselves.

There are no political, economic, geopolitical, or even war-related solutions that can change the
substance unless one has worked on oneself to undertake the arduous path towards freedom. And
whoever is free is happy and is not a slave to anyone, on no occasion; they are free even behind the
bars of a prison.
Obviously, there are political models to pursue and accomplishments to achieve, but we must
cleanse our brains from the brainwashing with the pretence of freeing our brains. It's not a tongue-
twister; it's a snapshot of the state in which many of those who want to be antagonists, rebels, and
uncompromising figures lie, possessed like anyone else.
I won't descend into subjectivism and abstractionism, because I attribute analytical authority to
materialism and determinism, and I believe that we must operate concretely, meaning practically, in
political, economic, and social challenges and not observe them from above with disdain.
It's not up to me, and perhaps to no one, to determine how the dynamics and material interests
translate into ideology (the Marxists would say class ideology), and how much the mind contributes
to shaping the material in a certain form and is understood by us in a certain way.
What I know for certain is that the dynamics need to be understood, the material shouldn't be
rejected, but we must engage with it, attempting to shape it based on principles that are not
dominant today.
But none of this is possible if there's a hypnotic screen between us and the naked reality,
determining our understanding, emotions, and reasoning. And it hypnotises even, if not primarily,
those who want to be antagonists, rebels, and revolutionaries, yet are reasoned exactly as the Big
Brother desires.
It's up to us not only to liberate ourselves from psychological slavery but also to start shaping our
space and our time. And this is also envisaged in our project.

Let's summarize our fundamental concepts then.

Anyone who requests it by email can receive the presentation document of the Landsknechts,
which, produced by different nations, saw the light on 2023, spring equinox.

THE LANDSKNECHT

1. The Landsknecht is loyal to the grand idea, both political and spiritual, for which he fights. He
does not seek to assert or possess, but to joyfully revolutionise.

2. The Landsknechts must act within themselves, on themselves, and around themselves for
personal and communal realisation.

3. The Landsknecht has no hope or despair, only faith.

4. The Landsknecht has no anguish or concern, they laugh.

5, He doesn't define himself through an Enemy, the defeat of which would make everything fine,
but through a work—external and internal—in relation to which our first enemy is each of us when
not in control of ourselves. Thus, he never seeks excuses, external culprits, nor take refuge in a
conspiracy when and if he fails to achieve something: he always seeks the cause within himselfs.

6. The Landsknecht pursues synergy, as long as it is related to a World Idea, centred on the ideal of
Europe and oriented towards the future.

7. Synergy for the Landsknecht is impersonal, selfless, and serves what transcends himself. For this
reason, in every domain, he doesn't aspire to impose his person or his affiliation. He explores paths
for himself and for others, promoting harmony and collaboration.

8. The Landsknecht is a link in a strong chain, simultaneously an independent engine and an
autonomous centre of communication. Imperial unity!

9. He acts to provide the future Europe with new popular elites, organised, with metaphysical
awareness, aesthetic sensibilities, respect, bearing, education, style, and self-discipline. Vanguard!

10. He aims to unravel the thread of the tangle in order to regenerate Europe—imperial, identity-
bound, vertical, and social—of which we must be the bards, minstrels, troubadours, so as to live as
Europeans everywhere, seeking to blend historical, cultural, anthropological specificities, and every
Genius Loci.

11. The Landsknecht must always operate on two levels: around himself and within himself. To do
and to be, to be in order to do, and so that doing reflects being.

12. He must be a fixed axis: his references are the polar sky, the sun, the moon, beauty, order,
rectitude, cleanliness, dignity. In two words, spiritual aristocracy.

It's clear that this is a declaration of intent, a model upon which we form ourselves and others.
Changing mentality, both in introspection and education, as well as in concrete behaviours and ways
of relating: that's what it's about, according to the principles and logic we've clarified and reiterated.
But what concrete benefits are obtained in return? No one dares to ask this question directly because
they feel ashamed of it, but it's always present and hovers over the unspoken.

- A different sense of belonging, not just clan-based, tribal, communal, or movement-based, but a
belonging that transcends affiliations, connects them together, and goes beyond particularism.

- A world of European relationships that unveils itself and that everyone can explore and
experience, complete with festivals, commemorations, and events in other nations.

- A network that enables making useful connections in life, including professionally.

- The opportunity to learn about initiatives and people that maybe you have only heard about.

- The recovery of the spirit of service.

- A continuous stimulus to provide answers to questions and to work on oneself.

- Assuming a functional role and, therefore, a reason for existence beyond one's daily life.

For those who aren't Landsknechts but are interested in becoming one or cooperating with the entire
project or its individual parts, they can proceed as follows.

If you are at the head or the leader of a movement, association, study centre, institute, group,
magazine, web radio, or social platforms with a reasonable amount of followers, and you intend to
establish a relationship with us, feel free to contact me. We will discuss and determine the terms and
ways of our collaboration, which can range from sporadic and specific to organic and coordinated.

If you are a member or a local adherent of a movement, party, group, study centre, and believe you
have territorial autonomy or the ability to convince those who possess it, step forward.
However, assume that we won't engage in anything secretive. Concerning the exact positioning of
your political entity, it won't be the primary criterion, as what is currently considered political
operates under patterns and labels that rarely align with reality. I no longer believe in the distinction
between irreducibles and non-irreducibles, but in the human fabric. Nor do I believe in any political
line that is an end in itself. What remains, however, is the human individual, the community, the
gathering point, and therefore communication, even if internal and niche. This is what interests me,
as I'm tired of those who “dress the naked”: there are no barriers or barbed wires that can stand
against a confident gaze.
Of course, there are inviolable borders, which include anti-European themes and hysterical or
pathological stances towards reality, a sort of hydrophobia. Toward those who champion either or
both (usually they go hand in hand), we are only open to discussions, not unnatural collaborations.
We will wait for water to erode the rock and then free it from the fossils.

Finally, there are individuals who aren't part of any structure, perhaps only occasionally attending
one, or who are completely isolated. Once, they were accused of retreating into privacy. However,
back then, politics was intense, dangerous confrontation, and life was at stake. In the past few
decades, the reasons for political grouping, even if rooted in deep loyalty, are more psychosocial
than idealistic or warrior-like, and they rarely exert an irresistible attraction. Thus, I've noticed that
the situation hasn't exactly reversed in recent years. Not all the best have abandoned the field.
Among those who don't feel comfortable in urban tribes, there are at least as many capable people
as among those who do adapt. In fact, often among the former, due to age or introspection, there is
usually more preparedness.
I realised this almost twenty years ago when I planned the magazine for my Italian study centre. I
made a blind call for contributors and in a very short time, I attracted high-quality editors with
impressive professional backgrounds. Almost none of them were involved in political structures, but
they responded to the call of a project. I then understood that if, in addition to those who were
politically active and whom I knew and selected personally, there emerged at least a dozen high-
quality individuals from obscurity—people who followed me anonymously online, when social
media didn't function yet and I couldn't have more than six or seven thousand contacts—this meant
that there were potentially at least another two hundred whom I didn't know. And we're talking
about individuals with specific characteristics. If we extend the scope to those who are eager, the
potential is immeasurable.
So, individuals in isolation, those who aren't engaged in activities, know that your situation isn't a
problem at all and you shouldn't feel embarrassed in the least. Nor should you think that being
isolated or having what you consider limitations, makes you useless or unfit. It's not true: where
there's a will, there's always a possible path, and the chain of which you'd become links would take
you out of the isolation you find yourself in.

Those who wish to engage with this project, those who want to contact the Landsknechts, or those
aspiring to become one, must set aside hesitation, overcome timidity, and present themselves
without wondering if they're up to the task—though those who question themselves are probably
already up to it.
What one can offer in terms of skills or qualities, as well as associative or professional
opportunities, should be known without a doubt, and there's no need to be shy about proposing it.
Together, we'll determine how to capitalise on it and how to intervene with connections and
communication. Communication is often the weak point of a world that reflects the conditioned
responses of the ghettoised, the spectator, and the judge, but not those of the artisan, the farmer, the
producer, and the warrior. For these reasons, most consider themselves as the terminal point for the
news they receive, as if the news is meant specifically for them and subject to their ultimate
judgement, including initiatives. They don't think about relaying them, even when they can't
participate or if the sector or the specific topic doesn't interest them. They don't understand that by
passing on the news and initiatives, they can reach someone who is interested and will participate. It
should be the natural reflex of a militant mindset, but let's be frank, for many, it's all a game, a
hobby for idle times.
Most people are heavy, lazy, prisoners of what Nietzsche called “the spirit of gravity”, which is
their worst enemy. This is a common flaw that both the Landsknechts and the aspiring ones must rid
themselves of. We emphasise this point because the strength of our entire system lies in the logic of
communicating vessels, thus in communication. If every Landsknecht committed to finding one
aspirant per year, it would take very little time to reach the critical-strategic number necessary to
change gears.

Is that all? Of course not! Needless to say, membership fees (starting from one hundred euros per
year) and contributions fuel the machine that would otherwise remain parked. It's not my habit to
ask for money, and I'm accustomed to making do with what's available. We don't have public
funding or patrons, and it's not common for those who achieve results, including economic ones, by
leveraging our human and mental resources to remember the moral debt they've incurred.
The shortage of resources has caused some slowdowns, but the resources that interest me most are
human ones, and that's where I intend to invest. This doesn't mean that those who want to contribute
should abstain and wait to be prompted, as it's not my habit. When I remember the annual
membership fee payment, I'd rather spend a day at the dentist.
But there's nothing to be ashamed of because this is a project with ideal and communal goals. Those
who participate in or intend to support the project, as well as those who want to help, can do so
without waiting to be prompted...

All of this, of course, is complemented by the introspective commitments of education and the
extroverted commitments of promotion, in line with the criteria we've described, which together
define the Landsknecht.
There are Landsknechts festivals: one European gathering each year in Provence and one national
event. Over time, local festivities can also be organised in collaboration.
This way, cultural, social, and economic initiatives can be coordinated, both within the Landsknecht
sphere and across other sectors of the network.
Discussions can take place about this and more because, when one is dedicated to an impersonal
cause, nothing is ever set in stone, fixed, perfect, or unchangeable.
Here, there's no hierarchy of dark barracks, but an open one akin to virile civilizations, where, as in
Sparta, warriors dined with kings and could jest with them and laugh at them.
With self-discipline, education, and intelligence, every criticism, suggestion, and proposal must be
presented in the appropriate time and place, aimed at a purpose rather than showing off or climbing
positions.
That said, principles and criteria take precedence over individuals or roles, and our workshop is
always open. For workers, engineers, architects, artisans, and masters of the craft, provided they are
united by a spirit that transcends personal ambitions, vanity, and pride.

                                                                                                                                by Gabriele Adinolfi
I
THE DROP ERODES THE STONE
Yes, but what can be done?
I haven't heard this question for years, a question that had coexisted with a significant portion of my
life at a time when the urge to confront reality was ever-present.
How so? To be honest, only a select few ever posed this question. It was the life talking, the longing
to commit oneself, as in Marco Piazzesi's Diario di uno Squadrista Toscano: …”let’s create the
Republic or the Monarchy, the Revolution or the Reaction, but let's create something!
And yet eons have past since those fervent times when people were driven to act.
Today, those times seem to belong to the archives of black-and-white cinema.
We have entered an era of anguished lethargy, marked by formulaic abstractions where the once
lively ideas have been frozen. Moreover, these abstractions have been contaminated by the
misguided beliefs of others, infiltrating their minds through casual interactions with disillusioned
individuals of various backgrounds. Once transformed, like in an ideological transgender shift,
these beliefs have surged to prominence, evolving into warped lenses through which we perceive
the wisdom passed down by our predecessors. A legacy we must admit to misinterpreting,
distorting, inverting, and ultimately, turning against ourselves.
If action once thrived devoid of meticulous reflection, planning, and strategies, yet retained a vital
connection between action and thought as an integral part of the world's essence, today marks an era
of marginalisation—whether on a mass scale or otherwise—a flurry of agitation, narcissism,
individualism, neurosis, hysteria, acidity, deferred hopes, and the abandonment of responsibilities.
The issue is objective, yet it doesn't rest solely on others. It's the result of our internal deterioration,
which we will never overcome by pointing the finger at this or that enemy, this or that culprit, this
or that traitor. The only path forward lies in self-directed action, rooted in the profound and
unequivocal self-awareness: "The first enemy is yourself."
To draw any circle, you must start from its centre; otherwise, you’re merely tracing curves and
scribbles, devoid of geometry, thus foundation, creation and action.
Nor do you free yourself from anxieties and trivialities, nor do you experience the joy of creation,
nor do you truly live.
Alright, but what can be done?
Rudjard Kipling:
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!
When engaging in self-critique, I struggle with maintaining patience, I find a deficiency in this
aspect of myself: Without sounding overly wise. While I've never harbored hatred, there are
instances where I don't conceal a clear disdain.
While I can be proud particularly of what I have continued to achieve on this topic:
if you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools
However, let s not talk about me since actions speak louder than words. This endeavour must begin
with principles akin to those articulated in Kipling's "If," without which it would be mere agitation.
Of course, that alone is not sufficient, but it serves as the cornerstone.
Is the discourse overly intellectual?
Intellectual.
They label me as such now, but is it accurate?
Building upon the above-mentioned notions, I have expressed my intellectual inclinations over the
years. Especially in the last four decades: to help navigate the labyrinth of existence and try
avoiding falling, every time in the same way, every time along the same loop completely identical
to the previous one, but each time sinking lower.
There is no longer an organic clash, there is no physical confrontation that isn't a sporadic skirmish,
there is no contestation of spaces awaiting hegemony.
Hence, emotions struggle to remain vibrant and invigorating, lacking the essential zest of life,
compelling one to endure without its fundamental essence.
In the contemporary landscape, poles are fraught with neuroses and pathology, participation has
disappeared since decades, social interactions are toxic, and so is the state of politics. Everything is
tribalism, fragmented, imploded, and saturated with a palpable sense of powerlessness and
indignation.
So, is there nothing that can be done?
Of course, something can be done, even a lot. However, it's crucial to maintain awareness of one's
actions, maintain necessary detachment from the task at hand, and avoid becoming overly absorbed
in self-admiration. One shouldn't be anguished by the outcome, nor be overly eager to escape
perceived constraints—without recognising that often, we are our own primary captors.
Allow me to clarify: my inclination leans towards a warrior spirit or perhaps a practical, hands-on
intellect, rather than towards a mere enjoyment of rhetoric and theory.
I despise theories that lack practicality, serving merely as intellectual exercises rather than as
interpretive tools or actionable proposals, beneficial both for oneself and others.
I don't believe I was an intellectual before I went into hiding, nor that my twenty-year hiding was
solely driven by intellectual pursuits or marked by intellectualism and theory.
Yet, since my return, a quarter of a century ago, I have refused to found or lead political parties or
movements, and even be part of them.
Why did I retreat into “meta-politics"? Not exactly: I recognised that perpetuating past patterns
lacked political efficacy, rendering it sterile and devoid of meaningful prospects. However, I
acknowledged its potential anthropological value, serving as gathering points for the community to
foster awareness of essential matters and embark on the necessary construction demanded by
contemporary circumstances. I’ve never denied my contribution to any individuals or groups open
to constructive dialogue and learning, regardless of their political stance being vastly different from
my own.
What have I done these years in Ithaca?
Even this, ultimately, holds only relative value.
I haven't participated in elections, nor built movements, but I've never isolated myself within ivory
towers.
I've been fully active. Many have gone announcing my changes, my candidacies, my movement
foundations. Instead, I've behaved quite differently.
I've published books in multiple languages, written thousands of articles, consistently offering
unique perspectives on reality, distinct from the conformist anti-conformism that has pervaded my
surroundings since at least the fall of the Berlin Wall.
I've established two think tanks, one Italian and one European.
I've been active in Brussels, so to speak, navigating the corridors of power within the city.
I've delivered lectures across diverse spheres, ranging from the most radical to the most
institutional, treating both with equal regard.
I've tried to explain, akin to Lenin’s approach, that extremism is a juvenile ailment and has nothing
to do with revolution. I've pointed out that since the fifties, the most impactful dynamics have
stemmed from moderate environments, as exemplified by figures like Craxi, Kohl, and Orbán.
I've emphasised how extremism tends to confine its adherents within illusory fortresses that, in
reality, resemble ghettos and barriers, ultimately undermining their very ideals. Since the onset of
lockdown measures, this undermining has escalated from mere ridicule to grotesque, dramatic, and
even clinical manifestations.
I've also criticised moderation as both a plea for acceptance and structural failure.
Lack of radicalism, of anchorage, of a full Idea of the World—these are the root causes of both the
failure of extremism and the breakdowns of moderation.
For a long time, it seemed that only two positions were viable: the stubborn rigidity of entrenched
beliefs among extremists, or the pragmatism perceived as continual compromise of the supposedly
intelligent.
Is there no third way?
However, it is precisely this third option that embodies together radicalism, centrality, and true re-
volution.
I've been repeatedly criticised for seemingly devaluing my intellect and reputation by engaging in
realms deemed unacceptable; not political, alas, but most of all human.
Nonetheless, I persist because it's the underlying assumptions, the constraints, the dry and
undoubtedly pathological preconceptions that hinder and oppress various individuals, some of
whom possess immense value in their humanity—the most significant aspect. They deserve
recognition from those who share the same humanity, even when they're marginalised or subdued
by their own stagnant and uninspired communities.
I was well aware any debate would inevitably be invalidated due to the tribal dynamics of cohesion
within a fragmented society, compounded by group dynamics that would act to dismiss my words.
But concepts, whether rejected or not, will disappear. I affirmed that a single drop can hollow out a
stone.
And in the long run, this also changes the appearance of each rock, yet what's even more crucial is
the long-term effect of the flow between communicating vessels.
Communicating vessels, regardless.
So I found myself engaging in dialogue even with those who made institutional choices, branded as
traitors by extremists seeking to feel important.
Before casting any stones, it's essential for the accuser to reflect on the criteria used to label the
other a traitor, as there's much to consider on this matter. On what basis is he considered such? On a
historical model, an Idea of the World, a project? In such instances, it becomes evident that only a
rare few among the 'irreducible' are not, in fact, greater traitors than those they accuse, often
resorting to pleading from those very individuals. It's a fact.
In any case, this diatribe holds particular relevance. Before Fiuggi’s turning point in 1994, such
discourse wasn't even conceivable. In an era dominated by a radical political subjectivity that has
since dissipated, different criteria for judgement prevailed.
Moreover, it stems from a pathology wherein individuals identify either with certain affiliations or
vehement oppositions, akin to Jehovah's Witnesses rather than political soldiers. There's no
perceived movement — and I don't mean political movement, but movement in terms of dynamics.
Politics is confrontation, even tense, but it is confrontation; politics is communication; politics is
seeking and interpreting opportunities and tools for the benefit of one's own nation (state and
European) and one's own cause. It's not a caricature of football fandom, all the more for teams that
don't even exist.
Through the study centres and online Academy, where I fostered and conducted training courses
infused with philosophy and doctrine, subtly conveyed through technical analysis, I successfully
engaged several embassies, including the United Nations, the UNO and the OSCE, alongside left-
wing politicians and intellectuals; both Italian and French on the subject of Jihad.
I've connected with three Brussels foundations representing diverse national parties, facilitating
conversations among them to foster dialogue and understanding.
Paradoxically, today, many who seek connection with like-minded individuals or their neighbours
turn to me. Despite lacking a definitive stance and admittedly being cumbersome, my mindset and
the initiatives I've spearheaded often enable me to bridge these divides.
What allowed me to achieve this was undoubtedly the unexpected blend of two aspects: the
intellectual and the "terrorist," as the detractors would label me, taking advantage of the terrorism
charges that used to be slapped on everyone back then and which, in my case, stemmed from a
particularly unflattering photo on one of the identity documents used at that time.
It was this coincidence of opposites that acted as a magnet. After all, when either of these two
aspects is missing, it descends into the mundane, if not the useless. If an intellectual serves a
genuine purpose, rather than merely indulging in narcissism and grandstanding, they delve into
investigation, analysis, exploration, discovery, rectification, and proposition. But for whom? On
paper? For a politician who dismisses their responsibilities and leans towards opportunism and
tactical manoeuvring? If one remains loyal to their radical beliefs and past experiences but fails to
translate them, like Anchises on the shoulders of Aeneas, into the endeavour of guiding Iulus to
establish a Gens and lay the foundations for Rome, they risk succumbing either to nostalgia and
disdain, or to isolation within their own inner fortress.
The first fades away into solve, the second remains fossilised into coagula.
Instead, if he manages, or at least attempts, to fulfil both roles simultaneously, he begins to
recognise that, much like in this particular role, everything required is inherently dialectical and
dynamic. He comes to understand the necessity of synthesising seemingly irreconcilable aspects,
particularly to those lacking imagination. Above all, he serves as a filter for reevaluation and
connection.
It is necessary, therefore, that Yoda's wisdom is anchored to the childlike soul of Peter Pan, soaring
alongside him. It's akin to Guénon’s serving of James Dean, or rather, the Count of La Fère who
lives like Athos, although sometimes I feel more akin to Cyrano de Bergerac.
He will never personally reap the rewards of his creations by deliberate choice, a sacrifice inherent
in assuming this role. However, he hopes that others, who ideally won't always or anyhow
disappoint, can reap the benefits.
I'll refrain from discussing the relational outcomes that have enabled numerous individuals to
capitalise on professional opportunities, facilitated the global expansion of study centres, and
contributed to the development of international and intercontinental perspectives. And, naturally, the
meta-political or militant networks that have arisen from these coordinated efforts.
Now is the time to talk about the Landsknechts of Europe as it’s the right moment to elevate their
importance.
Until 2022, perhaps nobody could succinctly define what the Landsknechts were. I established them
as a “guild”, but one might also consider them a fraternity.
About them, at most, people know that there has been a yearly meeting since 2016, playful and
festive, attended by participants from France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands,
Greece, Switzerland, Romania, Hungary. From these initiatives, subsequent developments have
arisen, not all of which have necessarily reached completion.
But what are the Landsknechts? What role do they have? These questions remain unanswered by
almost everyone at this point.
Let's go in order.
Immediately following its inception in Italy, I swiftly exported the project to France.
Around ninety people attended the presentation conference. I knew that for them, the Landsknechts
resembled what is colloquially termed a "Spanish inn," essentially a place where customers can eat
what they bring. Expectations ran high, but everyone anticipated something different from what
materialised. Some expected a study centre, others a political movement, some envisioned a sect
brimming with slogans, while others anticipated an electoral platform.
For a year, I held meetings in a bistro and deliberately avoided talking about anything specific or
concrete.
I waited to see who would remain, placing trust in those willing to partake in a vaguely defined
venture. With only about ten people left, I began the activities.
These were tranquil activities focused primarily on fostering understanding, reflection, and
connection. Thus, the network relationship that birthed the Landsknecht of Europe began, leading to
further developments facilitated by their contributions.
For the first seven years, the Landsknechts were primarily a symbol, an opportunity, a connection
from which many different things unfolded and strengthened, bearing different faces and different
names. Like Russian nesting dolls, if you refrain from unveiling one layer, you remain unaware of
the subsequent layers nested within, and consequently, have limited access to them.
Perhaps no one truly understood the strategic and physiological importance of this almost invisible
and seldom activated unit, which nonetheless allowed everything else to happen.
Once again, we delve into what previously discussed concerning water and stone, the concept of
interconnected vessels, identifying and interpreting opportunities and resources for the advancement
of both one's nation (both at the state and European level) and one's own cause.
As I explained many years ago, back when I created my first study centre during my time in hiding,
Orientamenti & Ricerca, we will be the propelling force behind the machinery, not merely a
showroom, nor a vehicle's shell, nor even the ambitious driver yearning for triumphant rides.
Let's go back in time, to the second half of the 1980s and the early 1990s.
An entire world lay dismantled, ravaged not only by the aftermath of the “Years of Lead”, but also
by relentless ideological persecution. Dominated by unopposed magistrate soviets, supported by
journalist soviets and political soviets, but made strong mostly by the cowardice of their opponents.
Between the end of the "Years of Lead" and the fall of the Berlin Wall, the landscape was flat. I
gathered energies and human resources towards a project of introspection, striving to arm ourselves
with new operational and methodological tools for a new beginning that was not solely based on
idealistic enthusiasm, trends, and improvisation, as was customary in a particular milieu.
Hence, from abroad where we regularly crossed nations (France, Spain, and England), a small
group gave birth to something new, while contributing to political reform endeavours. There were
differences in the assessment of priorities between those advocating for research and education to
align with political entities and individuals such as myself, who viewed political entities as conduits
through which growth and maturation should naturally evolve. We must be able to harness our
potential – I argued – whether individually or collectively, in service of what will emerge. We were
not many. From our hiding, Walter Spedicato and I. Rainaldo Graziani supported the project while it
complemented Meridiano Zero, Stefano Schiavi, and more organically and side by side, Roberto
Salvarani; a few others joined occasionally.
The sceptics and pessimists' concerns focused on the absolute lack of feedback was an objective
consequence of our condition. So, they cautioned me, we run the risk of our writing being in vain or
allowing others to capitalise on our efforts. I countered with a simple consideration: none of the
authors whose works I had studied were ever acquainted with me, suggesting that the act of sowing
does not always directly correlate with reaping. And I emphasised that others’ fruitions, whether in
goodwill or ill intent, did not trouble me as it was the action itself that interested me, in its
continuity over time, not its commercial exploitation.
In the subsequent years I discovered that those ideas, and even our visual presentations, had
circulated widely, particularly within the “Fronte della Gioventú”, which, in 1988, I had advised to
advance the exhaustion of the far right’s historical role, believing that new social trends would turn
MSI into a governing party.
To this day, I continue to encounter unexpectedly individuals who have read Orientamento &
Ricerca or my other political documents. Certain pragmatic groups have even embraced Le api e i
fiori (2000) for political education. I emphasize non-theoretical politics. And not just in Italy.
I have already discussed the course of actions upon returning to "Ithaca." I've omitted, though, the
press agency noreporter.org that is also my platform, social media, social interventions through
"Soccorso Sociale," and the profoundly shaping experience that is the Guardia d'Onore in
Predappio.
Emerging from hiding (from 1980) or semi-hiding (from 1993), I translated the logic I had been
developing since 1984 into tangible actions in my daily life. I have never fixated on pursuing a
singular goal; instead I’ve always proceeded in steps, building on previous foundations. I have
never aimed solely at coagulating but always at both coagulating and dissolving, continuously. I
have never looked at the north without thinking of the south, and vice versa. However, a point of
convergence has emerged among various plans and trajectories, epitomised precisely by the
Landsknechts.
As I mentioned earlier, the Landsknechts likely haven't fully grasped their own role and significance
yet, but the moment has arrived for them to attain this awareness. Why now? Because nothing
should be done too quickly nor too slowly. When circumstances demand growth, action, presence,
and awareness, they must be acknowledged and pursued.
Since at least 2020, all the political certainties once asserted have vanished. All abstract endeavours
have imploded, leaving merely, for better or worse, the anthropological substance of those who had
adapted to it. Despite the clinical pathologies now dominating any "antagonism," the primal instinct
preceding rationality has keenly grasped that reliance on conditioned reflexes and routine is no
longer sustainable. Even within closed enclaves, one gradually dissipates day by day.
So we witness angry proclamations, often infused with hate, from self-proclaimed hardliners who
scrutinise every event, be it lockdowns, vaccines, or war, through a disturbed lens, while derailing
even legitimate criticism of rational doubts with their manic assertions. With their ridiculous and
embarrassing oppositions, they have unwittingly become the oligarchy's staunchest allies,
effectively neutralising any valid critique, rendering it inaccessible. This applies to everything.
In their wait for a miraculous and preferably blond saviour, or for a transformative event—an
insurgency, a rebellion—that remains elusive, they await Godot with the passive zeal of cult
devotees, perceiving demons everywhere and believing that by banishing them, the world will
revert to their idealised vision of the past.
Yet even among the less troubled, the search for a new direction or identity yields little success, as it
often amounts to regurgitated concepts that ultimately lead nowhere.
Nowadays, divisions persist only within the fervour of fanatics dedicated to their chosen saviour,
who, in truth, disregards them entirely and harbours no intent of rescue and amidst apocalyptic
scenarios clung to desperately, offering false solace in the belief that they can alleviate daily
frustrations.
Today, what truly matters, what works and is needed is the culmination of all that has been sown—
the underlying logic, the manner in which it has been executed, and the ultimate aims and
objectives. Today, the role of the Landsknechts is pivotal and decisive, and that's why it needs to be
understood as well as firmly supported.
II
WE FIND OURSELVES AT A CROSSROADS
Never before has the role that the Landsknechts play been so decisive. Since Covid times,
everything has changed, but it had already begun much earlier (in 2001 and 2008). The ruling
classes are struggling to gain popular support, leading to the growth of different forms of populism
and rejection. However, these political expressions have consistently shown that they lack the
ability and power to bring about change. Syriza under Tsipras in Greece and the 5 Star Movement in
Italy are the most evident examples of these failures.
Instead, the oligarchies maintain control because they are closely tied to real power. This power is
not only financial but also communicational, educational, rules public administration, and the
judiciary, along with the logic of capitalist reality (treaties and international connections). Other
powers such as parliaments and governments are less potent than these and lack the means to
challenge them.
Meanwhile, the system is shaken by internal struggles driven by the reconfiguration of power in the
satellite era. This leads to intense conflicts in a closely interconnected world. Regardless of the
propaganda narratives, even though there are disputes over global management, it is unlikely that
real blocs will form while what Americans defined thirty years ago as "Interdependence" and what
Indians have recently defined as "Multialignment" dominate.
Failing to understand all this has led an entire political realm to retreat into a troglodyte scenario
copied along the lines of The Lord of the Rings, and it has led them to dream of apocalyptic
scenarios or popular uprisings. Thus, at a crucial moment, they found themselves disconnected from
reality. Completely incapable of grasping international changes, despite their use of the term
"geopolitics," those who have expressed themselves in the identity sphere in recent years would
have done well to question themselves.
Slightly better outcomes have been seen in other fault lines (gender, woke), which are battlegrounds
where the oligarchies fight among themselves for their vision of the future. In this field, which is
the only one where the bulk of identity-based groups have made a correct choice, they have
generally executed it poorly.
New, current, and forward-looking models of society, but far from subversive temptations, have not
been proposed. It is emblematic that a progressive figure like Elon Musk is the one mounting a
serious counteroffensive against woke and gender ideologies.
Unfortunately, most have overturned the logic and reversed the meaning of what they emotionally
adore and idolise, aspiring to be heirs of it.
However, they have mummified and embalmed everything, transforming the Dionysian force of
what Mussolini referred to as the "church of all heresies" into an inert frost of crystals and fossils.
Friends and enemies, problems and solutions, have all been turned into dogmas that do not fit at all
but are guarded with anger, blindness, acidity, leading only to marginalisation or, even worse,
towards a clear path to madness.
As my son Carlomanno wrote in the Summer Solstice 2023 issue of the Prometheica magazine,
"We are prisoners of dogmas that we refuse to question, and when the evidence becomes imminent,
we simply exit by denying reality. It's a methodology that is quite popular in a certain dominant
culture of thought, which categorically decides what is right and what is not, and when the reality of
facts denies the doctrine, reality itself is Orwellian-counter-navigated, attempting to bend it to the
patterns of one's ideology. In a way, it's precisely a mechanism of cybernetic self-defence: reality
sends inputs, these are compared with ideology, the mechanism of negative reaction mystifies
reality to preserve the dogma. It's a loop."
This fits perfectly for the woke, gender, and Open Society enthusiasts, but also for all those who
have reversed the terms of insanity and reason in exactly the same manner. They consider
themselves antagonists, but they are the inverted version of the dominant model – binary, disturbed,
and entirely Americanized in their mindset and emotions. The more they are so, the more they
believe they are anti-American and thus delude themselves into thinking they are something. An
illusion: neither of these things is objectively true.
Even when not trapped in a loop, the identitarians struggle to be proactive and fall into three serious
self-deceptions.
They believe they can counter this offensive by simply reproducing a past model. They expect the
so-called people to reach a saturation point from which they will then overthrow the ruling classes.
They have not yet understood that in today's society, the numbers of consensus matter less than the
strength of the lobbies. If you don't lobby and act on the lobbies, all you can do is weep as times
change and yearn for a miraculous and sudden salvation that will never come.
Our task is to capitalise on the orientations and principles from which we start, so that they can
dominate in a new form that we must achieve, revolutionising and regenerating the thought of those
who are fossilised and lost, or unintentionally parked in sectarian ghettos. This is the direction the
Landsknechts have been oriented toward since their inception, despite the undeniable difficulties of
what must be a true reformatting. We must adopt these concepts, make them our own, and
implement them in various ways.
As for populist or nationalist right-wing movements, it's essential to stop judging them based on
ideological or theological dogmas. They need to be evaluated in the perspectives of European
sovereignty, patriotism, demographic and migration policies, centred culture, social conception.
We must be active in promoting what is positive and stopping those who carry negativity.
The main tasks that are pursued within this perspective are two:
a) To form a positive critical mass able of sending the right inputs;
b) To work together in a network to occupy spaces within the Deep State and build autonomous
powers.
Without these two resources, any government will fail in its mission, regardless of the time during
which it enjoys popular consensus, which technically remains a static and inert force.
It is therefore easy to deduce that for the Landsknechts, synergy is crucial, as long as it relates to a
World Idea, is centred around the idea of Europe, and acts towards the future by understanding the
current era and capitalising on its opportunities.
This means that the Landsknechts must be simultaneously flexible, unscrupulous yet solid, and
rooted. Education and self-improvement are fundamental conditions. The Landsknechts do not
define themselves by an Enemy, the defeat of which would make everything fine, but by a work—
both external and internal—in relation to which the first enemy is each of us, if not mastered by
oneself.
That's where it starts, with personal growth, with self-sublimation. This doesn't refer to the utopian
"new man," nor does it claim to become “differentiated” individuals. It's about eliminating as much
as possible the residues and conditioning that cloud our minds and bend our backs. And mind you,
I'm not talking about the easily denounced conditioning of power, but about our own daily
conditioning and what often makes those who claim to militate as antagonists petty, banal, and
presumptuous.
As for practical actions, what the Landsknechts are doing and plan to do more and more is to create
networks to intervene as a critical mass in political and metapolitical environments. Some progress
has already been made in this direction in various nations.
But why has this become particularly relevant today?
Simply because everything that has developed, stirred, and been sustained for at least twenty years
– perhaps even forty – has operated within obligatory patterns.
I form a group, make it stronger, organise concerts, prepare merchandise, choose symbols and
tattoos, express myself within a certain sphere, collaborate with those close to me, I become cocky,
give rise to structures, present myself to the public and in elections, seek results that I often don't
achieve, and if I happen to achieve them, I become a prisoner of their logics. Caught up in frenetic
activity, I don't spare time for reflection, study, or deepening. My proposals are vague, demagogic,
hanging in the air, but they seem to work.
I grow in numbers but decline in quality until I stop growing in numbers as well, and then I try to
reinvent myself to start over. Maybe I locally organise within an existing party and try to occupy
spaces for myself and my community. This, outside major cities, has had some success. However, it
has never led to a strategic result as it has always been limited to securing and managing few
spaces.
In addition, there are institutes and study centres. With some positive exceptions, these have been
limited by intellectualism, narcissism, and lack of purpose, unless they have been instrumentalized
as showcase pieces for the objectives of others, seeking to advance their careers with their help.
If we perform an X-ray, what emerges is a world whose main wealth (even though accompanied by
its main poverty) is anthropological.
It is emotionally united by symbols and memories, by a more or less clear sense of community
spirit, although often too tribalized. It is a world that is dynamic and enterprising to some extent but
confined by objective limits of expression, devoid of strategy and a holistic vision, often dragged
down by relentless logics that prevent it from looking beyond daily opportunism or shopkeeping.
Nevertheless, it is a world that has produced a myriad diverse things. Not so much in terms of
politics, as there is little that is truly political, but in terms of community, anthropology, intellect,
communication, and even in economic fields. However, the vessels refuse to naturally communicate
due to narrow and pervasive jealousies, from which perhaps no one is truly exempt.
Today, we find ourselves at a crossroads because the prevailing feeling for everyone is the lack of a
way forward for everything that exists, which rightfully doesn't want to fade away.
Today, we stand at a crossroads because this feeling, permeating an entire realm, is also a universal
feeling.
Everywhere, in the social, cultural, and economic spheres, there's a need for new compositions with
a structured identity, lobbying capabilities, strategy, able to offer answers to the times.
Genuine transversalities are possible, but we must stop thinking that “they are accepting us”, as
"normalizations," as excuses to change our skin and skeleton and fade away.
Once again, the course of events has proven right those like me who, while seemingly swimming
against the current, didn't surrender to it when it seemed easier and didn't confuse high tide with a
tsunami. Instead, they interpreted it as a passing effect of ebbs and flows.
Between 1989 and 1992, hardly anyone was on time for the appointment with history that would
vindicate us, and we appeared as failures.
Today, we face decisive and profound changes that those who have reasoned in the terms I've
expressed foresaw, have now the potential ability of capitalising.
I understand perfectly that the most widespread feeling is distrust and the most common sentiment
is discouragement. Anyone observing the evolution of things from the perspective of someone who
has a condition to preserve can't help but notice that, day by day, minute by minute, the situation
worsens and the concentration of power administrations in the hands of a few mediocre fanatics
seems to herald the end of freedom and civilization.
But this happens when one looks at reality through teary eyes, with anguish, and in the desperate
search for miraculous solutions. When, even as anti-Americans, they always await the arrival of the
Seventh Cavalry.
However, if these temptations and feelings are left behind, one might discover that the progress of
dynamics that unravel the fabric of society and power give rise to new powers, are built on new
technologies, and, above all, boil down to a game among organized minorities.
Transforming this apparent disaster into an unparalleled opportunity may not depend only on us, but
it certainly does depend on us. However, it's not just a matter of methods and tools; we must learn to
revolutionise ourselves, freeing ourselves from all psychological conditioning and interpretative and
organisational patterns of the last thirty years.
It's not impossible. As Franco Battiato sang: "and my teacher taught me how difficult it is to find the
dawn within the dusk."
Let's try not to turn this opportunity into failure once again! We can confidently state that the role
played by the Landsknechts has not exactly become crucial, because it always has been, in reality.
However, today, the necessity for this role is being understood, and that's why it's appropriate for
them to assume more significance and visibility than in the past.
III
THE SWORDSMAN AND THE SHOEMAKER
Anguish, performance anxiety, drama: these are toxins we need to cleanse ourselves from. The
situation may be tragic, but not necessarily dramatic. Tragedy is something that has a backbone and
connects us to the sacred in all its forms. Tragedy refers to Amor Fati, and if there's any vague
reminiscence of a warrior spirit, it's experienced with ironic detachment.
The key is to always do what needs to be done with a serene spirit and not to desert one's own duty.
It's absolutely wrong to succumb to discouragement. It's a failure to obsessively seek a shortcut to
reach the goal. Assuming one knows what the goal is, of which, frankly, I doubt.
In an era of Chaos – organised – and deconstruction, where the Void reigns, creativity is the
alternative, and every creation adheres to precise canons, gestures, criteria, and necessary times.
Think about the cinematic masterpiece "The Duellists".
Just before the final duel, the protagonist pauses at the first light of dawn to observe a shoemaker's
work, translating necessary canons into ritualistic artisanal gestures. He does it simply, almost
automatically, yet with conscious dedication and a clear spirit. Immediately afterward, he will
prevail in the duel, because that silent understanding, that communion at dawn, has lightened his
own spirit, enabling him to conduct the duel with the naturalness of a craftsman who has made it his
own.
This could symbolize what we intend to do to act simultaneously on the world and on ourselves.
In essence, it's simple: criteria must replace the patterns that almost everyone around us
(ir)rationalises with. Allegorically, this means that every Landsknecht, before crossing blades, must
grasp those universal criteria that will allow him to duel as he should.
First and foremost, he's a disciple: he learns naturally with appropriate selective filters, he learns
and never stops learning; if he teaches, he does it like the shoemaker, with silent and modest
examples, not by imposing assumed truths as is fashionable everywhere.
Today, on the other hand, the more ignorant people are, the more they cling to notions they don't
fully grasp, dividing the world into good and bad, framing, labelling, discriminating, choosing
themselves and others through rigid patterns, and thus remain in the quagmire from which they
squawk, insulting others. Usually through social media.
The Landsknecht is ideally at the hinge, at a point of connection. If he looks around, it's to learn and
apply what he's learned. He does this in essentials but also in the search for methods, techniques,
languages needed to live and act in our era.
This doesn't mean that every Landsknecht must attain inner, philosophical, existential growth, a role
of connection, a capacity for innovation and technical evolution. This is the vocation towards which
the Landsknechts function is oriented, carried out through all kinds of tools that are born, live, and
connect precisely thanks to the existence of the Landsknechts. Each participant has a role in the
overall merit, regardless of their competence and maturity.
In an era of individualism, let's rediscover the shared merits and the rise of individual parts through
the whole. And vice versa.
That's why participating in Landsknechts celebrations, games, encounters, tributes, memories, was
essential in itself and had a complex and constructive function, beyond individual participation in
this or that area of growth. So, let's start from here to delve into the specifics.
IV
THE LANDSKNECHT
The Landsknecht has no hope or despair, only faith.
The Landsknecht has no anguish or worry, he laughs.
The Landsknecht doesn't seek affirmation or possession, but joyful revolution.
Who is the Landsknecht?
A link in a solid chain, yet also an independent engine and an autonomous centre of communication.
Imperial unity!
How does the Landsknecht act?
To bring any event, any discussion, to something more solid, noble, and enduring. He doesn't follow
things; he acts upon them to elevate them. Not for his benefit but for the benefit of the just cause.
Paladin and knight! Bard and fairy!
Why does the Landsknecht act?
To equip the Europe that will come with new popular elites, ordered, with metaphysical awareness,
with a sense of aesthetics, with respect, dignity, education. Avant-garde!
Who is the true enemy of the Landsknecht?
He carries the enemy within himself: laziness, quarrelsomeness, presumption, bias, ambition,
narcissism. Conquering himself is his primary task. The Landsknecht neither hates nor is frustrated;
he tests himself and silently changes the world. The smile of the winner also changes the
surrounding world.
Overflowing with one's happiness is the imperative of the Landsknecht.
In any circumstance, through direct and indirect communication, he is always connected to the
tangible idea of Europe and its traditional and re-revolutionary fraternity.
We must start from these cornerstones to truly understand his model and what those who participate
in this project, in this transmission belt, must do.
I know that the name displeases some. But I've chosen it for several reasons and consider it the most
suitable at the current stage of realization. That some might wrinkle their noses shouldn't surprise
me. I've seen so many people make faces on every occasion and in front of every definition, always
and anyway. At any moment, someone isn't satisfied and would do things differently. The verb is
conditional because he would do, doesn't do, and in not doing, nuances escape him.
The criticisms were foreseeable. There's a prejudice from some Catholic circles due to the Sack of
Rome in 1527. They overlook that the sack was commanded by Emperor Charles V, a Catholic, and
that there were Catholic Landsknechts as well as Protestants. Another argument is that they were
mercenary troops, implying they wouldn't fight for an ideal. But against whom, I wonder?
In the age of mercenary armies, they were, of course, mercenaries. This isn't an offence or a demerit
since essentially all soldiers are mercenaries (those who receive “solde”, payment). Moreover, there
are known circumstances where Landsknechts fought without compensation.
But above all, they were serfs who had redeemed their condition through the profession of arms.
Against them, the same prejudice will persist as against Napoleon or the "Bohemian corporal."
Nothing irks more than the virtue of the new.
Certainly, out of megalomania or mythomania, I could have chosen other figures like Knights or
Spartiate, Samurai or Praetorians. But this would have meant denying the unavoidable need for an
initial process of shaping the elementary substance, as well as pretending to ignore our current state,
which sees us devoid of organic belonging to an ordered hierarchy. This is equivalent to the Ronin
condition in the Samurai code, and that's where we start.
For the European fraternity, I chose the term Landsknechts precisely for several reasons. For their
constant loyalty to the imperial camp and for all the Landsknechts songs that exist in various
languages in our communities since time immemorial.
Also, because their loyalty was never tied to an expectation but to service (something forgotten in
certain circles that always think about achieving shop results while losing fidelity). Additionally, for
that form of squad equality, the trench's hierarchical socialism, which then articulates itself into
virtues to display on the field, before returning, spartanly and with a touch of Boccaccian humour,
to the tavern and campfire equality. The aftertaste of the bivouac of platoons.
I chose it mainly because the fraternity's task – or guild's – is to operate inwardly to ascend, to grow,
to increase, and to refound in style, and by recovering education.
If I had proposed another model, like Chivalry, I would have taken for granted something that isn't,
and I would have forgotten how we are currently serfs, not noble warriors. Our nobility could be
similar to that of the Hidalgos, the untitled and unlucky Spanish minor nobles who rose in the
military campaigns like the Landsknechts.
Pretending not to have mud under our boots, not starting from servitude, believing that we've not
just begun but already completed a process of sublimation, would be harmful and embarrassing. To
achieve the required results, we must be mobile, like those troops, in service like those troops, with
perfected techniques like those troops, loyal like those troops, and act outside by acting primarily
within ourselves.
Which is at the core of everything else and is also an updated transposition in a liquid world of the
main characteristics of the Revolutions of the Short Century. It's a Ghibelline continuity. Once upon
a time, one would have spoken of Style. Since it's lost or buried, style must be the model and
purpose of this plastic and formative action.
To truly be Landsknechts, one must feel “esprit de corps”, sense a higher belonging that transcends
every regional and national boundary (of which individual characteristics must always be exalted),
and an indissoluble bond that cannot be anything but European.
Speaking of joy and smiles, I can't help but think of the Fighters I've known, who are no longer with
us, and who never ceased to be cheerful and combative. Like Officer Pignard-Berthet, who told us
he had lost a battle but not the war and implored us to remain faithful to the idea of Europe.
It's sacred what Jean Mabire said when he claimed to have set out to change the world and to
continue fighting so that the world doesn't change us. If it were just for this, and for the loyalty to
the Memory and Experience of the gentlemen and great women who are no longer here, it would
already be more than sufficient.
But then faith and the conviction of deep transmissions intervene, the floral pollination that also
takes place through the winds.
Besides, were they singing 'the revolution is like the wind' or not?
If the world doesn't change you, if you always ensure to compare your actions and convictions with
an archetypal Model, with Being, and conform to your sources, then imperceptibly but inevitably,
you change it through your example and healthy relationships. In your own small way, but certainly
more than the famous butterfly's wingbeat.
V
THE COMMUNITY
We have stated that Landsknecht must be a connection, but always within the spirit of community.
While its vocation is synergistic, and its function is mercurial, Landsknechtet also participates in
initiatives, structures, and operations that are directly fueled by the core from which it emerges and
are personally managed by Landsknechts members.
I haven't listed them, and I won't, just as I won't go into detail about the common tools with others,
the ongoing synergies, contacts, Italian or European initiatives: that would go against the spirit and
interest of our work.
As open as desired, we are not a solvent, nor a liquid: the Landsknechts already form a community
in themselves, with hierarchical and behavioural logics that will be better clarified in the subsequent
chapters.
Being a community, therefore. Open but also closed, extroverted and also introverted.
Community! It's been nearly fifty years that this word has been abused and serves more to
encourage the mediocrity and pettiness of certain groups than to regenerate as it should.
For its correct conception, both in terms of meaning and behavior, I strongly recommend reading
Essere Comunità. Orientamenti per il militante identitario by Marco Scatarzi, Passaggio al Bosco
2017. French version, translated by Gérard Boulanger, Cap sur la communauté !: Une boussole
pour les militants identitaires, Éditions Nouvelle Librairie, 2023.
The militants find themselves in a Community of destiny: they enter because they want to, often
defying the spirit of the times, disregarding material convenience, sharing a common
Weltanschauung, and donating time and energy voluntarily and passionately. (...)
In becoming an instrument, without succumbing to the allure of rewards, the militants kill their
bourgeois self to embrace the ethics of giving, accepting sacrifice, and remaining faithful to a style.
A militant has chosen to obey: a Leader, an Idea, a Community. Their obedience is the result of a
choice, making them free. Their obedience is an act of will. (...)
If it is true that Bushido is not a mere training for the warrior, it is equally true that the militant
Community is not just another way of doing politics: in both cases, the vertical dimension is
constantly sought.
Its opposite is Immunitas, the liberation from the obligation of gratitude that every gift carries, the
utilitarian and contractual conception underlying society and accompanying the logic of profit,
where everything has a price and nothing has value anymore. Cummunere, therefore,
etymologically invokes duty through a circular bond that goes beyond individual utilities and
anticipates the gratuity of the gesture.
A militant should never be thanked, as they have only fulfilled their duty.
To do what must be done, therefore, with the awareness that the only necessary purpose is to serve
the Community.
Don Quixote: a hero of uselessness, generosity, and gift. A wandering knight engaged in a titanic
struggle against the windmills of vices that crush virtues: a spirit of service and self-denial, a
tenacious and unwavering soul, a hidalgo of purity of heart. He urges us to courageously face all
battles, especially those we already consider lost.
His is a "path without a path" that begins by cleaning the rust from the weapons of his forebears: he
wants to resurrect what seems dead, surpass his own limits, disdain inheritances and privileges,
remain faithful to a love that could not unfold beyond gratuitousness.
This gratuitousness presupposes a lack of interest in what could be gained from the commitment
given freely.
To be uninterested in rewards, even avoiding considering them, means becoming estranged from
corruption and - obviously - a militant of the Community must be incorruptible.
"One becomes (incorruptible) when what they are offered to surrender frankly bores him. For that to
happen, always and in every case, one must already have progressed far as travellers of life, one
must have ventured so deeply into the woods as to carry it everywhere in the city. One must have so
identified with the Tortuga as to be the Tortuga, an island sufficient unto itself." (Tortuga, 2008)
After all, it's known, love is a gift and the gift is love: in this, there's an intimate correspondence
with what the struggle represents for us, facing it by giving ourselves in the name of boundless love.
Our existence must tend towards giving and expenditure, beyond self-preservation and exchange,
with the innocence and carefreeness of those who are unconcerned with calculation and act in full
freedom.
Militancy is a gift, the gift is life, life is Militancy.
Perpetuating Through Time
A militant Community exists when it reproduces itself. If Tradition is understood as a collection of
eternal values, it becomes necessary to comprehend it as a clear confirmation of the connection
between heaven and earth, between human and sacred: this approach, palpable in many civilizations
uncontaminated by materialism and the dominance of economic data, invokes the presence of a
higher Order that manifests itself beyond time.
Tradition is in motion, as it is continuously transmitted, walking on new legs while remaining true
to itself: it is a heritage passed down from father to son, ensuring continuity, coming to life as a
Norm of life, representing the existential orientation of those who possess a fervour for the sacred.
Furthermore, every Community should have goals that align with its own worldview. It doesn't
matter what these objectives are, as long as they exist: in this sense, the sole necessary condition is
that they are potentially achievable.
To achieve these objectives, or at least get closer to them, a method is required. Every Community
should have one: not just one that, over time, achieves physical and ideal continuity (...)
A Community should never isolate itself: it should have the means to engage with similar
experiences to acquire information, create networks, observe initiatives similar to its own, and take
in examples. It should seek out and find its counterparts to organize cohesive, transversal, and
organic fronts, whether these are structured movements or freer coordination of individual operating
units.
Confrontation and synthesis are crucial to avoid suffocation: because a Community must possess
solid foundations, but also doors and windows that allow it to breathe.
More generally, the practice of a centralized model should be prevented, as it often reproduces
defects and stifles energies: having a center doesn't necessarily mean needing to directly provoke
everything happening around us, but it can also mean being able to channel energies already present
in society, interpret them, and organize them.
The militants find a centre and cleanse themselves of the impurities with which contemporary
society has contaminated them: it will be their task to achieve self-mastery, tenaciously nurturing
their will for self-improvement and elevation.
A "war" fought while within the Community: because ultimately, no one can truly be high enough
to fight it alone. It is an internal challenge, but one that is faced alongside others, where the bonds
of brotherhood and camaraderie allow putting "We" before personal needs, whims, and weaknesses;
because sharing the struggle also means sharing its disappointments and defeats, finding the
strength by one's side to move forward, keeping pace with others.
In summary, from what has been presented, we can also deduce that for the Community to progress.
But in the spirit described here, we must:
- Reflect on the availability of the tools offered to us and consider them for what they are, without
being instrumentalized by them.
- Reject ivory towers and intellectualism to traverse the roads of the vast world differently.
- Set our conditions in the present and make history.
- Draw a clear line between what belongs to a style that drives us toward excellence and what, on
the contrary, drags us down.
- Be like fish in water, attentive and vigilant, capable of using currents without being carried away
by them.
What Marco Scatarzi highlights, in much greater detail than summarised here, certainly applies to
the Landsknechts, who conceive of themselves as a community, even though their physical
dispersion makes this community quite unique, as many of its members live in isolation in their
daily lives.
We could define the Landsknechts as common and cross-cutting, almost like a community of
communities, all of which should individually and collectively adhere to these criteria, without
which their function and reason for being would disappear.
Certainly, the Landsknechts community has distinctive characteristics, as - unlike conventional
communities - it is not tied to a specific territory. It unfolds across spaces, between cities, regions,
and nations. It feels involved in all authentic communities, regardless of whether some of its
members also belong to the Landsknechts community or maintain operational relationships with it.
The Landsknechts are the mercury that must raise the temperature to 37 degrees: they feel at home
wherever the community, as described here, has a hearth, but they also want to be carriers of an
immanent and transcendent unity that emanates from the profound essence of what gives birth to
any ordered community.
The Landsknecht is both more isolated and more accompanied than anyone else. They are the
mercury of the "missi dominici" and wandering knights, a stable nomadism. This is fully understood
and embraced when one has a specific imperial conception and when the Empire is the internal pole
that should be manifested through actions and achievements, perspectives and outcomes.
VI
LIKE A SOLAR SYSTEM
What should a Landsknecht do, and above all, how should they do it? In what ways is the action of
the Landsknechts complementary and synergistic with those who already act within communities,
clans, movements, parties, and research centers? How can a person act among the Landsknechts,
with the Landsknechts, or in external relation to them?
Let's begin by saying that the Landsknechts are somewhat like the mercurial element (that is,
transmission and connection) and at the same time the embodiment of the human type that must
animate and direct a whole set of things belonging to different levels and planes: from education to
the use of intelligence, from culture to politics, from economy to communication.
These are articulated within communities, political subjects, research centers, socioeconomic
organizations, magazines, and so on. Eventually – a lofty ambition for now – even artistic
intervention in reality.
Of course, all of this is neither exclusive to the Landsknechts nor will it ever be. All of this must be
imagined as a solar system, as the atomic nucleus of the European Empire.
In a time when the dominant conception is Chaos, every celestial body is subject to entropy, and the
perception of the harmonious laws to which it is subjected eludes it.
Such bodies also exist in our small realm. Although they are almost always planetoids or asteroids
rather than planets, the fundamental question is not their size or weight. Even if one of them were to
assume the dimensions of Jupiter, it could not escape the physical law and the limits of its valence,
which would manifest in its heaviness and the longer times of its orbit around the star. In no case
could it make the system revolve around itself. The presumption of those who combine something
that gives them minimal success and some material and numerical consistency often leads them to
believe they are essential, unique, overwhelming, and even the measure of all things, the pivot of
everything. Objectively, we always talk about dimensions and powers that are insignificant in
relation to the world, and therefore laughable if only one were to raise their gaze. The vanity that
provides such certainty of one's centrality, which blinds and neutralises, is a typical form of hubris
that might even be granted the mitigating factor of unconsciousness.
Only the awareness of the solar system, with the return to the centre that animates everything and
that no part can replace, simultaneously brings back light and harmony and restores meaning to
movement, which, in the absence of self-consciousness, is merely a wandering in the void,
interrupted by flashes of perception never fully realised.
To the extent that each individual body begins to become aware of an organic and higher belonging,
it is conceivable to reconnect to a sense, to luminosity, to harmony, to the Imperium.
This is why the Landsknechts, as I've already explained the reason behind the term, must be
imperial units of connection. They shouldn't plant their flag solely on imperial achievements, nor
should they limit themselves to their own accomplishments – which exist and will continue to – but
they should be a binding force. A binding force between vessels not yet communicating and a
binding force between the effectiveness of those who act and the rediscovery of a higher sense, so
that the outcome isn't just a workshop profit.
A binding force that sheds light around itself to the extent that it manages to generate it within.
When Prometheus brought fire to humans, thus bringing light into the darkness, he ended up
chained to a rock with an eagle devouring his liver. He remained so until Hercules, a demigod, a
hero, freed him.
This means that when dealing with fire and light, one must act within oneself to reconnect with
verticality, otherwise, you remain nailed to the rock, your liver corroded. Because, no matter how
altruistic and generous the motivation might be, it always comes down to a titanic hubris, and its
effects are always detrimental to the victim.
Prometheus must rediscover his heroic side (Hercules) to reunite himself and his work with the
Olympic spirit.
The task of someone who connects and sheds light, thereby feeding the flame, is not trivial. It will
never fully work unless it first works within itself. This is not possible if they lack humility,
impersonality, and a militant mindset.
Everything accomplished over the years following this logic, even if only as penetration and
interaction, didn't need the birth of the Landsknechts to be realised simply.
I wanted to create them precisely to always and consistently call attention to a militant
anthropology, to a spirit of service that wasn't selfish and tribal.
It's an elitist spirit. This doesn't mean – far from it – that the Landsknechts are an elite, that
participating in them transforms one into an elite, or that there aren't elites outside of them.
I want to ensure that the connection between political and metapolitical achievements will be made
by someone who raises the issue of working on himself to become men and women dedicated to a
cause, seeking original and principal sources, focused on operational abilities but propelled towards
impersonality.
It's necessary that there be humility in impersonality and in carrying out this role. Equally important
is to remind anyone who participates - from any position and in any form, in everything that
operates within a European and imperial logic - about the importance of qualities that establish
hierarchy, especially built on fidelity, loyalty, and constancy.
In a technocratic culture and a hyper-technological world that needs to be ridden and mastered
rather than foolishly and uselessly rejected, hierarchical distinctions are competence, success, and
practicality. Far from rejecting them, I don't deny their relevance, but they need to be integrated.
A computer programmer, no matter how efficient, will never become a loyal, honest, and selfless
person if they weren't that way to begin with. An intellectual with a skillful pen and extensive
knowledge will rarely be impersonal or serve an idea unless they became an intellectual with that
purpose.
Conversely, an honest, loyal, dedicated person can learn to write and even program. Perhaps not as
well, but what animates them will bring collective benefit that, if reliance is placed solely on
competencies, will certainly be lacking.
This doesn't mean that we shouldn't engage with competent egotists as well, as long as they're not
objectively performing ignoble functions. The important thing is not to grant them centrality, not to
make them indispensable for any project. One needs discernment. As I've written before, one must
reintroduce criteria into a world trapped in patterns and clichés.
For this reason, and due to the same etymology of "hierarchy," I don't necessarily deem someone
more competent as superior to someone with the right spirit.
Then there are functional hierarchies, interchangeable and specific to individual operations or tools,
but the primary hierarchy is human and existential, and that is what I primarily value. For this
reason, I've chosen to adopt the same logic as the karate school I attended in the past, where
everyone practised the same exercises and katas simultaneously, but belt colours didn't exist before
black. None of us knew how the master saw us, but we acted on ourselves to improve and try to
satisfy him without harbouring foolish pride.
VII
IMPERIUM: WHAT IS MEANT BY IMPERIAL EUROPE
Before we delve further, it's important to establish a clear understanding of the term "Empire," as it
serves as the focal point of our discussion. The following excerpt is extracted from the training
manual of the Landsknechts, entitled Imperium, and was published in January 2016.
Imperium was not merely a source and attribute of military command, but an ascending prerogative,
like the sword, the fasces, the sceptre, which, as such, represented the world’s axis. Originally
intertwined with the role of the Lictor in ancient monarchical Rome, assuming kingship was
primarily about embodying the titles of "Rex et Pontifex”, thus serving as a bridge between the
visible and invisible realms, particularly as an unwavering pillar of stability.
The holder of Imperium wielded a numinous authority, as elucidated by Mario Polia's summary of
Julius Evola: “…it allowed things and events to transition from the realm of potentiality to actuality,
whether it be victory in warfare or the prosperity of fertility, health, and the harmonious progression
of seasonal cycles."
Directly from Imperium came forth Auctoritas, closely linked to the concept and function of the
verb "augere" (augeo, es, auxi, auctum, augere), meaning increase (wealth, health, fertility, etc.),
and from which the term "Augustus" derives, as self-proclaimed by Octavian, who in historical
accounts is hailed as the Empire's founder. Originally, "Augustus" served as an adjective and was
inscribed as "Augusto Augurio Roma Condita”.
In what we now recognise as the foundation of the Empire, Augustus executed a remarkable feat by
bridging the traditions of the city (Urbe) with the imperative of assuming universal centrality.
Inspired by Janus Bifrons, the adoptive son of Julius Caesar ingeniously fused two distinct needs, in
the search of a central focal point. The reformation of the Consulate, persisting formally throughout
the Empire, saw the inception of a Princeps who, foremost, embodied the role of Tribune of the
People with augmented authority.
This fulfilled Rome's aspirations, while on a broader scale, global expectations were met by
elevating this Princeps to the status of Divus, who ensured the sacred union of a world unified yet
diverse, where all traditions, deities, and even legal systems enjoyed full autonomy, provided they
did not contravene the overarching Ius.
Note the connection between Ius and the verb "iubere" (iubeo, es, iussi, iussum iubere), which, in
contrast to "imperare," conveys a distinct aspect of commanding— that of directing or arranging.
This concept delves into normative wisdom intertwined with Imperium.
These are the distinctive traits of the Roman Empire, characteristics inherited from its historical
antecedents—the Monarchy and the Republic, that set it apart from all later iterations that have
drawn influence from it, evident even in the adoption of titles like Kaiser and Czar, derived from
Caesar.
These characteristics serve to differentiate the Empire from colonialism and imperialism, which
seek to homogenise everything. In contrast, the Empire ensures, defends, and celebrates
particularities.
It does so from a religious, cultural, moral, and even social perspective, since within the very
foundation of the Empire is the concept of Caesarism (or the Augustan Tribunate), based on the
tribunician bond between the Leader and the People, ensuring the protection of the most vulnerable.
Let's start from here to address two needs of our era, one external and one internal. Externally, we
must seek a historical pathway out of the contemporary crisis concerning civilisation and identity.
By a historical way out, we mean it must be inevitably aligned with the imperatives of our time and
its requirements.
The ongoing dynamics are undeniable; the response to them is certainly not passive resistance or a
longing for the past. Instead, it entails actively striving to redirect the course and significance of
events if we perceive them veering off track.
The age of Globalisation, of Mundialism, of confusion, of melting pots, of trans-nationalism, and
super-nationalism is inexorably destined to be the era of imperialism (or interconnected
imperialisms, in a complex interplay of unity and mutual division). It threatens to overwhelm every
freedom, every identity, and every diversity, perhaps under the guise of celebrating differences,
which are, nonetheless, being assimilated into an amorphous framework of moral uniformity, both
in customs (mores) and ethical steadfastness (ethos) of conduct.
The only possible alternative? The Empire.
When we invoke Empire, we aren't necessarily referring to a specific, delineated political structure,
but rather to the resurgence of imperial centrality with all its inherent prerogatives, leaving none
aside.
There's no alternative to counter the bureaucratic and technocratic monster of standardised
federalism except through a foundational and normative drive, that, grounded in Auctoritas and
Imperium, must address the imperatives thrust upon us by the inevitable dawn of an era
characterised by continental dimensions, satellite nomos of the air and zero time, while
safeguarding and elevating every unique aspect.
How?
We are not necessarily proposing the creation of a proclaimed Empire, ruled by an Emperor who
takes charge of all of us. Instead we emphasise the need to adhere to a guiding principle that enables
us to establish our Foundation, to delineate a Mundus and to establish an Order.
To embark on this endeavour, we need only to reconnect with the karstic river that has been flowing
since 476 AD, when the last Roman Emperor, Romulus Augustulus, relinquished his throne to
Odoacer, known as King of the Heruli, who was, in truth, the leader of the Germanic tribe holding
the esoteric knowledge of the Runes, of which he was “Odoawhkr”, roughly translated as the grand
master. Since then, the Imperium quietly persisted, evolving into what would later be known as the
Ghibelline Axis, indissolubly linking Rome and Germany, consanguineous since prehistory.
In a new manner, it embraced all imperial virtues that manifested themselves from Constantinople
to St. Petersburg, from Vienna to Berlin, and through Napoleonic Paris across the centuries.
Therefore, embracing the imperial axis means understanding and acknowledging the prehistoric and
historical connections between the poles of Europe, fostering their development both in unity and
individually.
With this understanding and acknowledgment comes the capacity to consistently adopt a stance,
dismissing the narrow disputes fuelled by recurring small-minded biases that serve any imperialism
except our own strength, unity, autonomy, and liberties.
A vision of Europe that is imperial, rather than imperialistic, implies a willingness to pursue its
power and imagine its growth towards the east and south, all while maintaining its essence intact.
If it arises from a genuine understanding of origins and a deep connection to Myth, this concept also
delineates the boundaries of identity and affinity, acknowledging the nuances of empathy and
antipathy. These cannot be arbitrarily defined by the individual taste of the atomised self, but rather
by what exists and what ought to be.
Building upon this foundation, pathways for navigating through the current crisis can be outlined
and cultivated. This is not the place for proposals – which we have presented in detail multiple
times and remain committed to keeping them current – but starting from here we can focus on
fundamentals.
To adopt an imperial perspective is to be grounded in an internal axis that must perpetually resonate
within us, and that must be characterised by the notion of heroic transcendence, and not only heroic,
of our individual identities that “merge without losing their distinctiveness”, as Meister Eckhart
would say. They do so from above, but in turn, from above, they mould us, shaping us into complete
human beings rather than mere consumers.
Given this premise, and honestly there are no alternative premises that aren't ensnared by Chaos, we
acknowledge that an imperial perspective embodies quality, autonomy, freedom, and a corpus.
All identities, whether social, cultural, anthropological, clan-based, tribal, regional, or national,
express themselves through qualities or prerogatives.
An imperial logic, inherently opposed to conformity, guarantees the defence of all individual
qualities.
It not only assures their preservation but also celebrates and uplifts them.
Therefore, at this level, both nationalism and regionalism not only coexist but also find mutual
compatibility and safeguarding. However, they don't persist in the prevalent sense today, which
often entails defending economic privileges of some at the expense of others, or retreating into
history due to fear of progress. Instead, they are revitalised through the winning mindset of who is
confident in themselves, in their Lares, their Manes, their Penates, and in their own becoming – a
future that they write in harmony with others while remaining themselves.
The imperial perspective stands as the sole entity capable of ensuring national cohesion in an era
where the nation-state model has become antiquated. This vision transforms the present state of
wavering national unity into an inherently grounded concept, one that doesn't need to be propped up
with glue or rebuilt like a golem with "codes of citizenship".
Furthermore, in the post-Jacobin era, even distinct regions—with their rich histories and unique
characteristics, not merely administrative divisions—can peacefully coexist with the notion of
nationhood, without feeling overshadowed by it or obligated to reject it entirely. The Völkische
Europa map drawn in the last century, guided by a vision rooted in essence and consciousness even
before regulations, today swiftly aligns with the preservation of national identity and the honour of
belonging to them. In the imperial consciousness, everyone finds representation and can identify
with various facets that coexist without elimination or contradiction.
Regional, national, and imperial are different dimensions that mutually complement each other,
even within each one of us.
An inner axiality binds together all the components of a bundle.
At this level of awareness and discipline, the incessant proliferation of codes, regulations, and
prohibitions—repeated in a futile endeavour to unite the fragmented elements of a civilisation
amidst a crisis of purpose—becomes obsolete.
The logic binding individual parts is akin to that which unifies the citizens of the Empire:
"maximum freedom, maximum responsibility." This invariably guarantees autonomy.
Autonomy, in its essence, entails self-governance—a concept prone to chaos and ruin without a
robust adhesive and a steadfast understanding of the principles, values, and hierarchies—ethical,
moral, and spiritual—that guide these laws with precision.
Yet today, paradoxically, in the absence of autonomy, moral anarchy and injustice across all levels
become unavoidable.
In an era of growing homogenisation, where laws no longer stem from the principles of Ius and
uphold Justice as priority (but instead morph into regulatory measures favouring uniformity) it's
clear that they frequently endanger identities, freedoms, and even economies and properties. Yet,
they offer nothing beyond a precarious, artificial, neurotic, and anxious semblance of cohesion.
There are only two possible reactions: either progressively and inexorably descending into decay or
rallying together, locally, as a collective, as a social entity.
The imperial notion, both conceptually and historically, promotes and cannot help but promote
autonomies with all their individual characteristics: autonomies that imperialism – misusing the
term – perceives only as uniform cells, merely mirroring the whole.
Indeed, the imperial concept lays the groundwork for the manifestation of local organisations and
associations in an organic and harmonious manner, rather than atomised and atrophied as seen in the
context of Globalisation. In this field, we also have a range of detailed proposals that have been
discussed elsewhere.
Finally, the Corpus.
The organic society, intricately linked to the imperial ideal, isn't a conglomeration of individuals,
masses, or individual-mass hybrids, nor is it an informal heap of social classes drawing their
strength solely from negative sentiments. Instead, it thrives on the inclination and capacity to unite
as a collective entity, giving rise to Corporations and Corporatism. The true essence of this term
diverges from its commonly misunderstood interpretation imposed by its critics.
The notion of individuality isn't a self-constructed hypothesis, as proposed by gender theory and the
concept of citizenship codes. Instead, it embodies a unique personality intricately linked to one's
heritage and roles, viewed not just as functional components but as integral parts of a cosmic
harmony. This perspective stands as an alternative to any form of present or potential materialistic
mercantilism.
The imperial ideal naturally manifests by harmonising Imperium, Auctoritas, Qualities, and
Autonomy, thereby shaping a social entity in the truest sense of Societas—a coalition of allies and
contributors to an Organic Community of Destiny.
From top to bottom, from the apex of power to the foundations of economy, from territorial to
national to continental, the imperial ideal presents, proposes, and strives to impose a complete and
unequivocal alternative.
Drafting a political and legislative program grounded in these principles isn’t enough, as we live in
an era of dis-association, post-democracy, intertwining of powers and anarchy. Gone are the days of
seizing the State as a means to reshape society with acquired authority.
We now live in an era characterised by fragmented and diffuse power, atomised locales, social
individualism expanding into geographical particularism, and economic and lobbying self-interests
pitted against formidable forces, often circumventing formal authority. As for those who lack a
defined role in society, which constitutes the majority, they are left with only the options of
welfarism and consumerism.
In this reality, one cannot afford to wait for electoral victories to materialise; action must be taken in
daily life without delay or hesitation. Consistent action is required at all times, across all spheres, to
organise and structure society, fostering an autonomous yet centred power capable of withstanding
forces that seek to homogenise and limit freedom.
This vision and approach necessitate embodying the principles of Imperial Units.
When the imperial concept is deeply understood and ingrained as the Inner Empire, the Invisible
Empire becomes our support and guiding light, empowering us to take action in every sphere.
By cultivating and ideally defending this furrow with the sword.
This brings us to the second imperative of our time: the cultivation of our inner forum.
The age of global homogenisation not only undermines but actively suppresses freedoms, all under
the guise of promoting multiple freedoms.
Despite purported aims, sexual, gender, and genetic freedoms often veer towards normalisation and
moralisation of deviations, ultimately leading to their regulation rather than genuine liberation.
Meanwhile, in the process of rejecting genetic identities and embracing boundless possibilities, their
mentors seek to sever all ties with the profound, for both individuals and the broader community.
The offspring of liberal progressivism, once champions of "forbidden to forbid," are now
prohibiting age-old practices (from eros to smoking, from alcohol consumption to pork
consumption), all in pursuit of imposing a mutated agenda in their stead.
Essentially, it's the revolt of Utopia against Myth, where the amorphous earthly realm seeks
retribution against Olympian Virility in terms of symbols and references.
It's a genuine clash of civilisations — the sole authentic one — of which we must remain aware.
The Empire is the axis of Myth and Olympian Virility.
"The Myth – as Ernst Jünger reminds us in "The Forest Passage" – is not remote history: it's a
timeless reality that repeats itself in history." We must start from here to change the course of
history. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that we currently exist under tyranny, a natural
consequence when those who utopically attempt to defy the laws of the Cosmos lead the dance.
"The majority – Jünger continues – can simultaneously act within legality and produce illegality.
(...) Oppression can become more ferocious and turn into real crimes against specific groups."
On the other hand, this so-called normality, now politically correct, thrives by singling out
"minorities as targets for persecution. It goes without saying that individuals who stand out due to
their inherited qualities or talent are not immune to this risk”.
Those who fight for norms, justice, and truth must not ignore that they are engaged in an uneven
struggle against those who not only dictate the rules of the game but constantly cheat.
And at the gaming table, they cannot help but lose. They can make swift, fleeting, and effective
incursions but cannot linger for long. If they do, they must be prepared to forfeit their stake and,
echoing Kipling's poem "If," "begin again at the starting point without dwelling on the loss."
The foremost freedom and autonomy, the primary source of power and potential, reside in
abstaining from participating in the game altogether.
Refusing to rely morally, economically, or psychologically on the necessities imposed by the
Leviathan, and not letting oneself be hypnotised by its fears, is the only, inevitable premise for a
liberating act of reconstruction.
The only possibility for the imperial rebel to prevail lies primarily in their ability to remain
impervious to all temptations and threats, to retain their essence when interacting with others, and to
resist the urge to adopt the language or behaviours of those unlike themselves.
He must, in an Augustinian manner, know how to be in this world without being of this world.
He must, as Jünger again suggests, "retreat into the forest," or more precisely, go even further and
become a forest himself amidst the urban landscape.
However, one cannot retreat into the forest, much less become the forest itself, without reclaiming
the pride within oneself, without rediscovering the roots that lend strength to the trunk.
The Imperium – which is inner axiality above all else – is precisely what enables this to happen.
Hence, the imperial response, which will be popular and communal, originates as an elitist
response, but one that is open-minded and benevolent in its approach.
Once again from Jünger: "It will be the elites who battle for a new freedom – a battle that demands
great sacrifices and an interpretation that is not unworthy of their dignity."
They must above all be aware that "one does not return to the Myth, the Myth is encountered anew
when time wavers at its foundations, under the nightmare of extreme danger."
Ernst Jünger also calls us to be always active and present: "The motto of the Rebel is Hic et nunc –
since the Rebel is man of free and independent action.”
Hic et nunc, here and now. These two words mean Imperium and guarantee, if we prove ourselves
worthy, our freedom.
While freedom may no longer be seen as a right but rather a difficult task, increasingly less
favoured amongst people, it's a responsibility we must embrace, out of honour towards our
forebears and love for our offspring to whom we must give back freedom and dignity.
Imperium, Hic et Nunc: to safeguard the future for our people, our nations, our regions, our Europe,
and to be free, like the men of the forest and the wandering knights. Centred on the Inner Empire to
gradually shape a yet Invisible Empire for those keen to see.
Centring on the Inner Empire entails perpetually aligning with an intangible axis within ourselves,
thereby embracing a purpose that transcends us and is not merely physical, political, or
circumstantial.
An axis that keeps us upright, instils a sense of impartiality, and continuously drives us to seek unity
upwards.
In essence, it's about refusing to let opinions, biases, and stances on external events fragment our
unity. Indeed, divisions ought to exist, not over superficial beliefs, but in how we live our lives,
always honouring the dignity of others, with dignity.
Just as the dignities, autonomies, and aspirations of every land, region, and nation within an Empire
are upheld, this should be mirrored on a smaller scale. Any alternative logic would not be imperial
but rather uniforming and partisan in nature.
VIII
EUROPE: LAND OF ANCESTORS AND SONS
While it is necessary to give a definition of Empire as an archetypal model, it is less so to provide a
definition of Europe.
What is it? How far does it extend? What animates it?
These would be definitions that, instead of explaining, would close off possibilities, as Europe is
still largely a project.
Not only would they close off possibilities, but they would discriminate as well. I'm not exclusively
referring to divisions between pagans and Christians or between Catholics and Protestants, which
would at least make sense, but they would discriminate on the theoretical plane and place people
who believe they're imagining the same thing, often with very different ideas, on opposing sides.
This wouldn't just be divisive, and furthermore, on a strictly theoretical level that doesn't hold in
reality, it wouldn't divide correctly because it would place people of good nature on both sides,
along with mediocre or petty individuals, in each faction.
All of this for nothing, as we're not on the threshold of an institutional work, and what matters most
is the force of enthusiasm, which must not be diminished by cerebral prejudices.
Europe is simultaneously a participant in Being (from which we originate) and in Becoming. It is
both the land of the fathers and Nietzschean "land of sons." And it's in how the sons shape this land
that the fathers must be brought back to life.
For this reason, like Aeneas who entrusted the land of the sons to Iulus Ascanius, we must carry
Anchises, at least ideally, on our shoulders, but never as a burden or limitation.
I'll now revisit some passages from the past that were dedicated to this matter.
The birth of European consciousness was crystallised in the heroic sacrifice of Leonidas and the
three hundred Spartans, accompanied, however, by a thousand and more Greek volunteers who are
systematically forgotten.
"We shall release so many arrows that they will block out the sun," Xerxes had warned. "Good.
Then we shall fight in the shade," was the reply of the Spartan king.
Equally memorable was his response to the emissary of the Persian king who, in Sparta, had tried to
win him over by offering control over all of Greece on behalf of the King of Kings. But, in case he
refused, he was told in detail what would become of his city and his people – completely wiped
from the face of the earth – if the Persians were to win.
"If," Leonidas had replied.
That moment marked the birth of European consciousness. It resisted the massive invasion from
Asia of an ante-litteram melting pot; it expressed not just warrior courage, but noble courage – that
of someone who is a lord and dies to avoid becoming a slave. This didn't happen by imposition or
by chance, nor was it an inescapable fact; it was a free choice, consciously undertaken.
This was Europe and in this it differed from the rest of the world.
From Thermopylae onwards, attempts were made to identify historical events that expressed
European consciousness, or at the very least, the consciousness of Europeans: Poitiers, Lepanto,
Vienna, Berlin.
As rightly pointed out by Jean Mabire in Drieu parmi nous, the men of the North possess an innate
sense of freedom but are also primarily men of action, willing to discipline themselves to fulfil the
duty they have chosen. Far from tyranny and massification.
Men of the North, you say? A flourishing of paleo-anthropological studies, historical and prehistoric
findings, comparative language studies, attest that the Indo-European type has an origin located in
the North (Hyperborean seat) that predates the melting of the ice and that, in its descent to the South
(through Thule), encountered other populations to which it imposed itself.
Dorians, Achaeans, Illyrians, Latins, and Germans come from a common stock from which they
differentiated over the centuries but without completely losing the DNA.
Several linguists noted that the word "Ari," with which the Indo-Europeans called themselves,
meant both clear, luminous, and lords, lords of themselves.
"Herr" is a form of the word "ario," and free men among the Germans were called "Arimanni."
However, the concept was common to different Indo-European branches. It was precisely on this
dual logic of freedom and discipline that the Poleis were born, too summarily dismissed as the
birthplace of democracy – which, however, was indeed born there – as they were rather examples of
a participation that did not undermine freedom and authority.
It was not by chance that in Sparta, there were two kings who, nonetheless, answered to the
assembly of warriors, nor that in Rome, the Res Publica was endowed with two consuls.
The idea of subjection was foreign to the Indo-Europeans, who disciplined themselves voluntarily.
The idea of irrational tyranny, based on fear and even terror of metaphysical entities dictating the
law to be executed to avoid horrible punishments, was alien and unacceptable to them.
When Julius Caesar tried to make Rome the centre of the Empire, the peoples of the southeast
demanded the deification of the Emperor, while the European, particularly Roman, rejected it.
It took the immeasurable greatness of Augustus to make Rome both the consular Polis of the Indo-
Europeans and the divinized centre for the peoples of Asia Minor.
This, however, took place in the typical mindset of what we would now call Westerners, which they
were also defined as then, and the fusion between unity and multiplicity was marked by the
Pantheon, an unparalleled emblem of plurality and tolerance.
The Lex Romana, Pax Romana, and the borders of the Empire sanctified the spaces in which our
Civilization was expressed.
The division between the shores of the Mediterranean, the division of the Empire between East and
West, and the advent of the monotheistic religions of Asia Minor produced a collapse from which
recovery only occurred later with the Holy Roman Empire.
There has long been a debate about the reasons for the spiritual and cultural resurgence that
condensed into monasticism, feudalism, and above all, the ideal of Chivalry.
It is not up to us to define how much it depended on paganism and Germanism, merged with what
remained of the tradition of the Fathers and with the philosophy and canons of beauty of the
Greeks.
The important thing is the corpus that has been realised, in which even the Monarchy, unlike, for
example, the Tsarist Russia, was understood as a common good, and the same idea of Popular
Monarchy in the Modern Era (1492-1789) partly resumed the tribunitian functions that Augustus
had exalted in the imperial idea of the Princeps.
In the height of European dominion (17th-19th century), all the characteristics, both individualistic
and communal, particularistic and unitary, manifested in their fullness while expressing an
aristocratic lifestyle, marked by a nobility that often made its own way, not necessarily by acquired
rank.
What do we mean by Europeans?
The answer can be found by digging a little deeper. Many provided it, from Georges Dumézil to
Hans Günther, but perhaps not as comprehensively as Julius Evola or Adriano Romualdi.
Europe was not merely a geographical expression or the linguistic area of the Indo-Europeans.
It wasn't even just a shared history or a necessity of our time, as explained by all those who
interpreted the Second World War and especially its outcome as the disorderly and dreadful advent
of the rule of savage masses and oligarchies that despised the Patres.
It was something deeper and more complete.
It was the place of the Heroic Cycle sung by Hesiod, which with its axiality and luminosity had
pushed back the darkness.
It was both Apollo and Hercules at the same time, as Evola had suggested. Apollo with harmony,
luminosity, detachment; Hercules with the will and strength to subdue all the monsters of the earth,
the sacred, the great mother, down to the peculiarities of the Amazons.
Certainly, it was also the Dionysus exalted by Nietzsche, because it's not necessary to be hieratic to
let the sun flow in your veins and because innovation is always necessary. Without Dionysus,
without Vulcan, without Prometheus, vitalism wanes, and the balance of Solve et Coagula becomes
unattainable. Without all this, one becomes passive and fatalistic, subject to despotism – all
characteristics that our people have rejected over the centuries.
Phenotype (the outward appearance, the physical expression) and genotype (what deeply belongs to
DNA, is transmitted, and needs to be preserved) together determined Europe, which had absolute
boundaries while each of its children carried them within as marks and as brands produced by these
types, geometrically drawn by the "world" organized through foundations.
Yet, they were also open boundaries. One can be European in Chile, Peru, Argentina, and even in
the United States if one aligns with those types.
This concept can easily fall victim to overlap by biological racism, which often happens, especially
in the WASP or Protestant world, but it's a substantial mistake. It's one thing to exalt DNA in bios,
as a potential to be expressed, and another to turn biological determinism into an absolute,
mechanistic, and materialistic value. In fact, so-called suprematism is imbued with Darwinism,
materialism, and Old Testament suggestions – it's a distortion of the concept of pride, which
degrades when it transforms into preconceived contempt for the other.
In the face of Chaos, of the night, of the advancing stepmotherly and engulfing earth, it's essential
to take on the pride of every single identity (ethnic, national, cultural) and affirm it in harmony,
rather than fragment it into various disjointed solos.
In practice, it's the idea of Empire against that of imperialism and against the tendency towards
fragmentation, towards atomization, as Evola would have said.
Paradoxically, this leap forward in post-war political consciousness had been contributed to from
another continent, albeit from a European and Latin cultural, ethnic, and mental sphere.
The Argentine leader Perón with his Tercera Posición and his active global participation in struggles
against Soviet and American imperialism – or as we used to say, Russian-American imperialism –
played a role in this shift.
Unity of purpose among peoples who sought to free themselves from the yoke of capital-
communism became a leitmotif of our creed.
Only a united and sovereign Europe, one that could not be born without the reunification of
Germany, would have allowed the cause of the people to prevail over what was for us the formless
and massifying monster of anti-European spirit, embodied by capitalism and communism – Siamese
brothers who had subdued the world with the last war.
In a few words, a political, existential, philosophical, and cultural ideal had been born. It possessed
the strength and legitimacy of Myth and encompassed all dimensions – from historical to
protostorical research, extending even into the realm of the sacred – yet it was manifested in a
future project: that of the Nation Europe which would challenge the dominant Subversion and
would surely defeat it.
The projection of our ideal was simultaneously vertical, horizontal, and voluminous.
It's impossible to decipher all this if one adheres to a single dimension, be it the economic or the
purely political.
This was an ideal for which one could continue to die and live, sacrificing everything. Not toward a
merely physical, geopolitical, biological, or cultural model, but an existential one. It can be
identified in the tri-functionality and in artistic, heroic, and erotic conceptions, as the Futurists
perfectly understood.
The ritual geometry, architecture, and manner of expression of Europeans are not the same as those
of any other, regardless of ethnic affinities. Just as sexual conceptions, from bacchanals to courtly
love, are distinctive and unique. Though customs, rules, and presumed rebellions have compressed,
repressed, or diverted them, they too refer to a uniqueness that is both animal and transcendent,
aligning with the great points of simultaneous rupture and transcendence through the confrontation
with the elemental, as seen in Jünger's "Storm of Steel."
We must unravel the thread to become Europe again.
This isn't about defining a political or societal project, but a tendency and being its bards, minstrels,
troubadours – living as Europeans everywhere, trying to blend historical, cultural, anthropological
specificities, and the greatness of each Genius Loci with what connects them all. French or Spanish,
Celtic or Germanic, Latin or Slavic, German or Italian, Irish or Polish, Greek or Norwegian. Even
Normans, Bretons, Corsicans, Catalans, Flemings, Sardinians. Embracing everything without
compressing or demeaning it, but making it the strength of the Empire.
With the awareness that we aren't awaiting apocalyptic events and that we don't even aim to
overturn anything.
What and why then, if everything is already overturned?
Ours is a creative revolution. We must fill and sanctify spaces, form within the formless, fullness in
emptiness, light in darkness, seeds of regeneration. Without the anxiety of time or outcomes, it's
always here and now. It's doing what needs to be done.
IX
BEHAVIOR AND ETHICS OF THE LANDSKNECHT
At this point, it should be evident that even just taking part in the initiatives of the Landsknechts
makes us participants part of a kind of creative communion, regardless of what each individual does
and what they have clearly in mind.
If one belongs to something alive, they grasp life, perceive it, seek to understand it, but above all,
they breathe it and live it.
Of course, the clearer one's ideas are, the better they can assert themselves and fulfil their task.
First of all, the Landsknecht possesses a sense of belonging to a community of destiny that aspires
to act to regenerate and re-enchant the world around himself, and to unite (not unify, but connect)
all positive forces.
This is not an exclusive sense of belonging because, in the name of active impersonality, it does not
conflict with other memberships.
Its intention is not to divide people; on the contrary, it tends to reconcile what appears irreconcilable
with political and spiritual elements that transcend selfish spirit and partisanship.
We are talking about differences in analysis, positioning, allegiances, not certainly about ethical and
spiritual falls, as those cannot be tolerated in any case.
It is not said that the Landsknecht has the ability to perfectly discern events, positions, political
fractures. In principle, it should always reason by placing its nation, Europe, the Genius Loci,
justice, and ethics at the centre of its evaluations.
If it cannot do this, because it is particularly demanding, it is advisable not to speak or endorse
falsehood, even for self-conviction, to defend a bias or a scheme that it cares about or reassures.
Learn not to deceive itself.
It must strive to overcome partisanship, without thereby being neutral or avoiding taking positions.
It must be the ambassador of a driving idea for the general interest of clans from every nation or
region of our Europe. Driven by this ambition, it must contribute to identifying a healthy osmosis
above internal conflicts. Pagans, Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, atheists - but rooted
metaphysically like Nietzsche - nationalists, regionalists, or deniers of national states, republicans,
or monarchists: each has their own path to and from the same centre. The common denominator
must be found above so that they do not get lost in rear-guard battles.
Regions, Nations, States, Peoples, Europe - everything is at stake today as a whole, and each must
participate in this game to ensure its survival and regeneration.
It's not just about reconciling, but also about conveying another way of conceiving oneself.
The Landsknecht is both an observer who, like a duelist, always learns from the cobbler, as well as
a messenger of a mission and a cause that transcends them.
For this reason, the Landsknechts must be intelligent, both in the sense of connecting the dots (that
means being able to understand reality) and as a cultivator of critical intelligence, from which
criteria arise.
While holding onto archetypes and principles, intelligence must prevail over presumed knowledge,
often made up of patterns and dogmas. Knowledge will remain such only to the extent that it is
questioned and refined by one's own doubt.
They seek to learn from their interlocutors, at least as much as they teach them; they do not impose
prepackaged truths, distil their ideas, and verify them, but they do not impose them.
They don't preach or dominate the conversation; in the environments they interact with, they always
look for something common that enriches them, and they refuse to speak in slogans or with
certainties brought from home.
They don't impose their monologue but try to convey messages through dialogue, paying close
attention to emotional reactions and unspoken words that can express so much.
For this reason, along with loyalty, empathy, patience, and generosity must be cultivated.
Therefore, when the Landsknecht encounters or associates with a movement, a group, or even an
individual, they must not strive to become a leader or seek the limelight. They should transmit ideal
inputs with humility and maintain an ideal behaviour.
They should never demand from others what they cannot give themselves; they must demand it
from themselves. Nor can they afford to blame others for failures; lenient with others, they must
never be lenient with themselves. They are not allowed to cheat or pretend. They should never
dramatise, even when painting the darkest scenarios; the Landsknecht should always be positive and
reassuring because they tend to embody value, not mediocrity; challenge, not complaint!
They must always be enthusiastic. Not optimistic, which is a foolish virtue, but enthusiastic, even in
pessimism.
They are not Merlin, they are not Gandalf, but nevertheless, their presence must be reassuring,
inspiring, friendly, and must demonstrate a permanent willingness when solicited. They give their
opinion but don't try to impose it; they shine in discretion.
They are not a model in themselves, but they indicate a model that transcends them. They must
express an education, discretion, a savoir-vivre, complicity, and behaviour that make them a good
comrade.
They must be clean internally as well as externally, in a perspective of spiritual aristocracy.
They must always strive for a verticality they hope to pursue.
Thus, they are regal and monarchic for a spirit of verticality aligned with God, with the Gods, with
the Logos, or with the Cosmos. They are republican in the sense that they feel belonging to what
was once defined as the Res Publica. They are revolutionary because, if they weren't, they would
end up becoming a fossil or a skeleton. They are political because they are a man of the Polis. They
are not an ecologist as understood today, as they are not a plant standing on two feet, but they are
closely related to nature of which they are a part and with which they breathe, seeing it as the
foundation, root, framework, and backdrop of our life, never conceiving themselves as external to
it, just like our ancestors.
The Landsknecht has nothing to defend; they are only loyal to the grand idea, both political and
spiritual, for which they fight.
They are not binary or dualistic because they refuse to be boxed in and reasoned with seemingly
antagonistic frameworks that are almost always functional to imposed balances.
They tend to approach what resembles them the most, but they must do so as an embodiment of
fidelity and a kept promise. In doing so, they can push themselves and stimulate others to strive for
perfection.
They must become a compass in the night. Like a sundial, they must be a fixed axis: their references
are the pole star, the sun, the moon, beauty, order, rectitude, cleanliness, dignity. In short, spiritual
aristocracy.
However, all of this is achieved and acquired; it is not inherently innate! One must continuously
work on their human behaviour if they want to become an example!
It's evident that this is what the Landsknecht must become and it indicates how they must shape
themselves.
It's a work in progress, just like the construction of everything related to the creation of the
European Empire, which we shouldn't wait to be institutionally formed, but rather, we must spread
it through communities and autonomous powers that fill the gaps and act in order, in a creative
sense.
This must be learned by the Landsknecht, and those with the same calling know that they can join
the ranks of the Landsknechts.
X
AN ESQUIRE
The Landsknecht must always operate on two levels: around himself and within himself. To do and
to be, to be in order to do, and so that doing reflects being. Amidst the ruins, he must strive to stand
upright, not merely content to observe the ruins from a distance, but to contemplate how to build
anew. Thus, he must be capable of adapting to the era he finds himself in, to his battleground, for
one cannot be an alpinist among marshes or a deep-sea diver in the Alps. Therefore, he must adapt
to the liquid society, not to be carried away by the stream, but to become a stream himself.
For these reasons, he cannot afford the arrogant acidity of those who barricade themselves, nor the
desperate illusion of those who await inevitable upheavals when the measure is full. Nor can he rely
on pragmatism and opportunism, trusting that deep down he will always remain the same, which is
usually not true. Hic Rhodus hic salta! He must be concerned with fulfilling his task in the right
way, not solely for practical results, but also not retreating into philosophical abstractions.
That's why the inner forum is so important for the Landsknecht, the need to act on himself while
always feeling under the scrutiny of an inner judge that knows no indulgence. This is why he must
retrace the paths that lead him back to historical, ideal, even prehistoric and metaphysical roots, and
the trails that will help him discover how the alternatives to capitalist-communist materialism truly
presented themselves, understanding exactly what Europe means, what sociality means, social
bodies, organicity, community, clan, nation, lineage, culture, freedom, dignity, people, and person.
Not for the purpose of having a Book containing packaged Truth, in the name of which he would
become a Mormon, an Amish, or a Jehovah's Witness preaching among people who, if they have
sound minds, will avoid him by making incantations, but to patiently reconstruct a puzzle from its
shattered fragments. In a becoming that turns towards Being.
The Landsknecht would like to establish order and justice in the world, but he knows this is not
possible without inner work that everyone must pursue individually, even while in company,
because "when one dies, one dies alone," and this is especially true when one becomes self-aware.
Thus, we will better understand why the choice of the term, the reference to serfs of the land who
redeemed themselves through a warrior-like verticality and loyalty.
The process of each one of us is, in reality, that of an Esquire, but it must become a Knight without
having any Knight to serve. Like a Ronin, he must be a wanderer of the Sword who learns the Art of
the Sword. The Landsknechts is not a superior figure, not the possessor of truth, not the most
educated, competent, courageous, valid, or wise.
He is an aspirant who feels the need to kindle this aspiration within himself and wants to share it
with anyone who pursues it. He never seeks to pose as a virtuous model or to be an example, as a
guild or as a person. He focuses as best as he can on the objective, eternal, rooted, and transcendent
goals, indicating the path to others even more than to himself.
If he becomes an example, he becomes one objectively and without self-satisfaction. If these two
conditions are absent, it will mean that he has not become one.
XI
PRACTICAL RESULTS
We have talked so far about the mindset, goals, and paths specific to the Landsknechts.
Then there's the practical aspect.
As I've written in both the first and the fifth chapter, I won't provide here a summary of what the
Landsknechts have contributed to achieving from 2015 onwards. It's an internal assessment that
would make no sense to boast about, except to violate the subtle and transversal nature of the
discrete work of what we could define as a Ghibelline Network, moving towards the realisation and
initial structuring of the European Empire.
To kindle thousands and thousands of sparks to begin illuminating the night.
And sparks have already been born, or have been nourished, in dozens.
Gaining awareness, self-work to cleanse oneself of impurities, creating and optimising bonds,
analyses, reflections, proposals, new criteria of interpretation and action. Through study centres,
associations, the web, journals, books, conferences, meetings, celebrations, training courses,
economic initiatives; all in synergy, continuously or alternately, with political entities. This has been
done and continues to be done.
From here, international connections have been born and deepened, and in certain cases,
strengthened.
From here, different points have converged—objectively, due to the dynamics—ranging from the
most extreme to the most institutional, from the most militant to the most theoretical.
In some nations, realities that organically collaborate with others have developed or strengthened,
intentionally and consciously participating in the project.
The logic of communicating vessels has moved forward, both consciously, involving those who
support it, and unconsciously, involving at least sporadically those who are not integral parts but
continually draw from it, usually without even saying thank you. But we knew this from the
beginning, and we don't brood over it because we don't seek gratitude for our fulfilled duty.
Ingratitude saddens us solely and exclusively because it reveals the limitations of those who don't
know how to give of themselves and thus are unable to receive gifts with a joyful heart.
Even the logic of water that carves the stone and alters the rock has worked.
In Italy, certainly, but from what I know, in at least four other countries, through the constant
presentation of new perspectives and pathways and the restating of core ideas, which, except for
those preserved as relics and thus rendered lifeless, had been shelved or even turned upside down
and transformed into negative concepts.
This occurred due to the assimilation, through contamination, of the sordid themes of petty
populism and its alleged sovereigntism, three centuries late and even caricatured compared to that
time.
A beggar syndicalism of trampled rights, in the name of a geographic provincialism and a fake
cultural superiority, had risen, attempting to dissolve the European bond, which is mythical, ethnic,
civilizational, prehistoric, metaphysical, as well as historical, and is the essence of what preceded us
and has always been fought against by subversive forces. All of this in the name of a surrogate
materialism, even devoid of the will to power that even exists in communism which, compared to
this form of so-called sovereigntism, is an admirable giant.
From the “Artiglio Hall” in Rome, on June 14, 2018, I launched the idea of the Reconquest of our
forgotten political and ideal conscience. I was mistaken for a madman who claimed to stop the tide.
I also wrote a book, Il Mito dell'Europa (The Myth of Europe), which was boycotted by political
groups in Italy. Back then, they were stranded on provincial and shopkeeper-like anti-European
stances, infatuated with dime-store pseudo-philosophers like Fusaro or self-proclaimed economists
who boasted about being fans of the worst expressions of historical anti-fascism, like the Actionists
with reference to Calamandrei (Mori), or who, like Bagnai, even praised the bombing of Dresden in
a tweet.
From 2018 onwards, the trend has changed significantly. Europe has returned to the centre of
attention for many groups and even euro-sceptic parties. The rest must come to terms with this, but
now they are forced to chase and attack the prevailing line, which is no longer anti-European.
If the Reconquest has been successful, it's certainly due to the fact that many among the Italexit
proponents were following orders, but they hadn't completely lost their critical thinking: the ground
was fertile.
It should be noted that subsequent events shattered many illusions and led to a search for the
essential.
Regardless, credit is due to those who pushed strongly in that direction, especially "Passaggio al
Bosco" and (Radio) KulturaEuropa, from which interesting reflections and initiatives later emerged.
Credit goes to the Landsknechts of Europe and to noreporter too.
This hasn't depended solely on us, certainly. But allow me to be proud and satisfied for the role
played and the path taken in this regard, amid the general scepticism when it seemed like an effort
in vain because anti-Europeanism was considered irreversible.
Water has carved the stone and altered the rocks.
I've limited myself to the most easily observable fact, the one that forms "public opinion".
I haven't spoken, nor will I, about matters that pertain not to the "form" but to the "substance".
It can easily be deduced that this whole project is complex, multifaceted, diverse, and
interconnected. At the heart of everything, or more precisely at its crossroads, as a strategic node,
there's my figure, which I wanted to utilise for the purpose of a work.
All the prerequisites were there for me to reach all the levels or to be reached from each level.
But the goal isn't to turn myself into the Leader (I'm too megalomaniacal for such modest
megalomania) or to become a Guru.
No one is indispensable, let alone eternal.
I've leveraged my figure and my function for a purpose, and I believe they should be further
leveraged until they are no longer necessary because they are assumed by a collective.
That's why I've tried to place a brotherhood, the Lanzichenecchi, at the centre, at the crossroads.
When it's able to fully absorb the impersonality of its role and the dynamic objectivity of what has
been set up with the right criteria, it will truly be the crossroads and the strategic point of a system
of forces.
It's a work in progress.
XII
WHAT TO DO WITH US AND HOW TO DO IT
It will be understood that I am not engaging in a mass proselytism act for myself or for the
Landsknechts. Otherwise, I would have highlighted many of the things done and those in progress
with a certain rhetoric, rather than often revealing myself in a cryptic manner. I release spores
through the wind, relying on the “Nomos of the Air” and hoping to have been sufficiently clear so
that they take root where they must, which is not everywhere and should not be in the realm of the
myriad.
Life isn't sustained by merchandising; one doesn't feel strong because of likes or applause. No one
here feels more or less important or self-assured based on the volume of others' consideration. From
what I've written so far, it will be clear that I've presented a trend line in which one participates,
consciously or even unconsciously, carried by currents and grasped by dynamics.
The role of the Landsknechts doesn't encompass everything; it's an essential but minority part. It's
not necessary for there to be thousands and thousands of Landsknechts, as long as they act
synergistically. In all of Europe, three thousand would suffice, because three thousand would mean
an influence, a synergy, an interaction of almost a million people.
Nationally, it depends on the population of each country. I'll skip Germany, which has its own set of
issues. In Italy and France, three hundred; in Spain, two hundred; in Poland, one hundred fifty; in
the Netherlands and Romania, seventy; in Greece, Portugal, Hungary, and Austria, fifty; in Norway,
twenty—this would suffice and even leave a surplus. Of course, we're talking about Landsknechts
who are already trained and solid, with the right connections and influences.
With this book, I aimed to explain what the Landsknechts are and what they must become, within
the Imperial Network project with all its components, either produced by what I am connected to or
formed on their own in the same trend and towards independently pursued goals, which is
particularly positive. Those who are already a Landsknecht or will become one in the future can
further clarify their ideas. Here, their function is explained, their purpose, their nature, and the
mentality they must adopt to work on themselves and with others.
If the objection is that this is excessively idealistic or philosophical, I want to remind you that the
oligarchic tyranny of Chaos is primarily made up of hypnosis and mental conditioning. Clarity, the
escape from anxieties and obsessions, is freedom and re-volution in itself.
As our comrade Juan Lopez Larrea rightly says, reversing the phrase from Don Quixote, "They
seem like giants, but they are windmills!" Michael Ende, the author of The Neverending Story,
among other works, writes in his Mirror in the Mirror, "Only those who leave the labyrinth are
happy, but only those who are happy can leave it."
These two phrases should be etched into the mind and serve as our guiding principles, always. It
makes no sense to anguish, torment oneself, dream of sudden upheavals, alliances with hypothetical
saviours, or even new forms of slavery to replace the current ones, which are often seen
superficially rather than deeply.
One is never a servant because they have a master; they are masters because they are servants.
No matter how much one may think about powerful machinations that we mistake for magicians or
superhumans, even of "evil," fossilising on Soros or Bill Gates can become an obsession with the
sole result of remaining obsessed, infused with them, transforming them into the masters of our
mind and soul. This isn't just a grave misinterpretation, because no matter what interpretation one
has of current events, it can't be correlated with the will of those we consider to be the managers, all
the while foolishly presuming that we've managed to see clearly through the fog.
Whether one thinks in materialistic or deterministic terms or according to randomness, there are no
individual drivers of dynamics that move on their own and can do without any Soros or any Bill
Gates, who are interchangeable in their functionality. Because that's what it's about.
If one thinks in philosophical or metaphysical terms, then personalizations of responsibilities and
anxieties should be discarded. No people are slaves even when oppressed, but they are not slaves
when they have blood in their veins and pride in their spirit. If it's lacking or if they don't hold onto
its memory, they'll be slaves under any oppressor, even without any oppressor, for they are enslaved
by themselves.
There are no political, economic, geopolitical, or even war-related solutions that can change the
substance unless one has worked on oneself to undertake the arduous path towards freedom. And
whoever is free is happy and is not a slave to anyone, on no occasion; they are free even behind the
bars of a prison.
Obviously, there are political models to pursue and accomplishments to achieve, but we must
cleanse our brains from the brainwashing with the pretence of freeing our brains. It's not a tongue-
twister; it's a snapshot of the state in which many of those who want to be antagonists, rebels, and
uncompromising figures lie, possessed like anyone else.
I won't descend into subjectivism and abstractionism, because I attribute analytical authority to
materialism and determinism, and I believe that we must operate concretely, meaning practically, in
political, economic, and social challenges and not observe them from above with disdain.
It's not up to me, and perhaps to no one, to determine how the dynamics and material interests
translate into ideology (the Marxists would say class ideology), and how much the mind contributes
to shaping the material in a certain form and is understood by us in a certain way.
What I know for certain is that the dynamics need to be understood, the material shouldn't be
rejected, but we must engage with it, attempting to shape it based on principles that are not
dominant today.
But none of this is possible if there's a hypnotic screen between us and the naked reality,
determining our understanding, emotions, and reasoning. And it hypnotises even, if not primarily,
those who want to be antagonists, rebels, and revolutionaries, yet are reasoned exactly as the Big
Brother desires.
It's up to us not only to liberate ourselves from psychological slavery but also to start shaping our
space and our time. And this is also envisaged in our project.
Let's summarize our fundamental concepts then.
Anyone who requests it by email can receive the presentation document of the Landsknechts,
which, produced by different nations, saw the light on 2023, spring equinox.
THE LANDSKNECHT
1. The Landsknecht is loyal to the grand idea, both political and spiritual, for which he fights. He
does not seek to assert or possess, but to joyfully revolutionise.
2. The Landsknechts must act within themselves, on themselves, and around themselves for
personal and communal realisation.
3. The Landsknecht has no hope or despair, only faith.
4. The Landsknecht has no anguish or concern, they laugh.
5, He doesn't define himself through an Enemy, the defeat of which would make everything fine,
but through a work—external and internal—in relation to which our first enemy is each of us when
not in control of ourselves. Thus, he never seeks excuses, external culprits, nor take refuge in a
conspiracy when and if he fails to achieve something: he always seeks the cause within himselfs.
6. The Landsknecht pursues synergy, as long as it is related to a World Idea, centred on the ideal of
Europe and oriented towards the future.
7. Synergy for the Landsknecht is impersonal, selfless, and serves what transcends himself. For this
reason, in every domain, he doesn't aspire to impose his person or his affiliation. He explores paths
for himself and for others, promoting harmony and collaboration.
8. The Landsknecht is a link in a strong chain, simultaneously an independent engine and an
autonomous centre of communication. Imperial unity!
9. He acts to provide the future Europe with new popular elites, organised, with metaphysical
awareness, aesthetic sensibilities, respect, bearing, education, style, and self-discipline. Vanguard!
10. He aims to unravel the thread of the tangle in order to regenerate Europe—imperial, identity-
bound, vertical, and social—of which we must be the bards, minstrels, troubadours, so as to live as
Europeans everywhere, seeking to blend historical, cultural, anthropological specificities, and every
Genius Loci.
11. The Landsknecht must always operate on two levels: around himself and within himself. To do
and to be, to be in order to do, and so that doing reflects being.
12. He must be a fixed axis: his references are the polar sky, the sun, the moon, beauty, order,
rectitude, cleanliness, dignity. In two words, spiritual aristocracy.
It's clear that this is a declaration of intent, a model upon which we form ourselves and others.
Changing mentality, both in introspection and education, as well as in concrete behaviours and ways
of relating: that's what it's about, according to the principles and logic we've clarified and reiterated.
But what concrete benefits are obtained in return? No one dares to ask this question directly because
they feel ashamed of it, but it's always present and hovers over the unspoken.
- A different sense of belonging, not just clan-based, tribal, communal, or movement-based, but a
belonging that transcends affiliations, connects them together, and goes beyond particularism.
- A world of European relationships that unveils itself and that everyone can explore and
experience, complete with festivals, commemorations, and events in other nations.
- A network that enables making useful connections in life, including professionally.
- The opportunity to learn about initiatives and people that maybe you have only heard about.
- The recovery of the spirit of service.
- A continuous stimulus to provide answers to questions and to work on oneself.
- Assuming a functional role and, therefore, a reason for existence beyond one's daily life.
For those who aren't Landsknechts but are interested in becoming one or cooperating with the entire
project or its individual parts, they can proceed as follows.
If you are at the head or the leader of a movement, association, study centre, institute, group,
magazine, web radio, or social platforms with a reasonable amount of followers, and you intend to
establish a relationship with us, feel free to contact me. We will discuss and determine the terms and
ways of our collaboration, which can range from sporadic and specific to organic and coordinated.
If you are a member or a local adherent of a movement, party, group, study centre, and believe you
have territorial autonomy or the ability to convince those who possess it, step forward.
However, assume that we won't engage in anything secretive. Concerning the exact positioning of
your political entity, it won't be the primary criterion, as what is currently considered political
operates under patterns and labels that rarely align with reality. I no longer believe in the distinction
between irreducibles and non-irreducibles, but in the human fabric. Nor do I believe in any political
line that is an end in itself. What remains, however, is the human individual, the community, the
gathering point, and therefore communication, even if internal and niche. This is what interests me,
as I'm tired of those who “dress the naked”: there are no barriers or barbed wires that can stand
against a confident gaze.
Of course, there are inviolable borders, which include anti-European themes and hysterical or
pathological stances towards reality, a sort of hydrophobia. Toward those who champion either or
both (usually they go hand in hand), we are only open to discussions, not unnatural collaborations.
We will wait for water to erode the rock and then free it from the fossils.
Finally, there are individuals who aren't part of any structure, perhaps only occasionally attending
one, or who are completely isolated. Once, they were accused of retreating into privacy. However,
back then, politics was intense, dangerous confrontation, and life was at stake. In the past few
decades, the reasons for political grouping, even if rooted in deep loyalty, are more psychosocial
than idealistic or warrior-like, and they rarely exert an irresistible attraction. Thus, I've noticed that
the situation hasn't exactly reversed in recent years. Not all the best have abandoned the field.
Among those who don't feel comfortable in urban tribes, there are at least as many capable people
as among those who do adapt. In fact, often among the former, due to age or introspection, there is
usually more preparedness.
I realised this almost twenty years ago when I planned the magazine for my Italian study centre. I
made a blind call for contributors and in a very short time, I attracted high-quality editors with
impressive professional backgrounds. Almost none of them were involved in political structures, but
they responded to the call of a project. I then understood that if, in addition to those who were
politically active and whom I knew and selected personally, there emerged at least a dozen high-
quality individuals from obscurity—people who followed me anonymously online, when social
media didn't function yet and I couldn't have more than six or seven thousand contacts—this meant
that there were potentially at least another two hundred whom I didn't know. And we're talking
about individuals with specific characteristics. If we extend the scope to those who are eager, the
potential is immeasurable.
So, individuals in isolation, those who aren't engaged in activities, know that your situation isn't a
problem at all and you shouldn't feel embarrassed in the least. Nor should you think that being
isolated or having what you consider limitations, makes you useless or unfit. It's not true: where
there's a will, there's always a possible path, and the chain of which you'd become links would take
you out of the isolation you find yourself in.
Those who wish to engage with this project, those who want to contact the Landsknechts, or those
aspiring to become one, must set aside hesitation, overcome timidity, and present themselves
without wondering if they're up to the task—though those who question themselves are probably
already up to it.
What one can offer in terms of skills or qualities, as well as associative or professional
opportunities, should be known without a doubt, and there's no need to be shy about proposing it.
Together, we'll determine how to capitalise on it and how to intervene with connections and
communication. Communication is often the weak point of a world that reflects the conditioned
responses of the ghettoised, the spectator, and the judge, but not those of the artisan, the farmer, the
producer, and the warrior. For these reasons, most consider themselves as the terminal point for the
news they receive, as if the news is meant specifically for them and subject to their ultimate
judgement, including initiatives. They don't think about relaying them, even when they can't
participate or if the sector or the specific topic doesn't interest them. They don't understand that by
passing on the news and initiatives, they can reach someone who is interested and will participate. It
should be the natural reflex of a militant mindset, but let's be frank, for many, it's all a game, a
hobby for idle times.
Most people are heavy, lazy, prisoners of what Nietzsche called “the spirit of gravity”, which is
their worst enemy. This is a common flaw that both the Landsknechts and the aspiring ones must rid
themselves of. We emphasise this point because the strength of our entire system lies in the logic of
communicating vessels, thus in communication. If every Landsknecht committed to finding one
aspirant per year, it would take very little time to reach the critical-strategic number necessary to
change gears.
Is that all? Of course not! Needless to say, membership fees (starting from one hundred euros per
year) and contributions fuel the machine that would otherwise remain parked. It's not my habit to
ask for money, and I'm accustomed to making do with what's available. We don't have public
funding or patrons, and it's not common for those who achieve results, including economic ones, by
leveraging our human and mental resources to remember the moral debt they've incurred.
The shortage of resources has caused some slowdowns, but the resources that interest me most are
human ones, and that's where I intend to invest. This doesn't mean that those who want to contribute
should abstain and wait to be prompted, as it's not my habit. When I remember the annual
membership fee payment, I'd rather spend a day at the dentist.
But there's nothing to be ashamed of because this is a project with ideal and communal goals. Those
who participate in or intend to support the project, as well as those who want to help, can do so
without waiting to be prompted...
All of this, of course, is complemented by the introspective commitments of education and the
extroverted commitments of promotion, in line with the criteria we've described, which together
define the Landsknecht.
There are Landsknechts festivals: one European gathering each year in Provence and one national
event. Over time, local festivities can also be organised in collaboration.
This way, cultural, social, and economic initiatives can be coordinated, both within the Landsknecht
sphere and across other sectors of the network.
Discussions can take place about this and more because, when one is dedicated to an impersonal
cause, nothing is ever set in stone, fixed, perfect, or unchangeable.
Here, there's no hierarchy of dark barracks, but an open one akin to virile civilizations, where, as in
Sparta, warriors dined with kings and could jest with them and laugh at them.
With self-discipline, education, and intelligence, every criticism, suggestion, and proposal must be
presented in the appropriate time and place, aimed at a purpose rather than showing off or climbing
positions.
That said, principles and criteria take precedence over individuals or roles, and our workshop is
always open. For workers, engineers, architects, artisans, and masters of the craft, provided they are
united by a spirit that transcends personal ambitions, vanity, and pride.

 

Questo indirizzo email è protetto dagli spambots. È necessario abilitare JavaScript per vederlo.

WhatsApp 00393391262293

Autocarri avanti! Trucks ahead!

(Exhortation by Filippo Tommaso Marinetti in a poem written upon returning from the Campaign in
Russia in 1944 and published posthumously in 1945).