От Жана Батиста Дюрозеля (и его книги) к созданию (и разрушению) Европы и к (возвышению) последней империи в России
Several friends from different countries read with great interest and greater amusement my recent article about the Duroselle Affair back in 1990-1991:
Plea for Jean Baptiste Duroselle’s Brilliant Book, Europe: A History of its Peoples
Most of them did not know either the late French academician or his book, let alone the ridiculous and ignominious reaction of the average Greeks and of the barbarian Modern Greek elite to the truths revealed in the book of the French academician.
Then, these friends of mine made their own research for some time; subsequently, they came back with plenty of questions as regards my wholehearted support for Jean Baptiste Duroselle and his book. Some of them asked me why I supported so fervently a book that does not reflect my approach and evaluation of the History of Europe. Others asked me at what point this affair stands in my progressive adhesion to Islam, because in reality 25-26 months after the moment I wrote the Plea, I took my final decision to become Muslim.
Their questions offer me therefore the opportunity of a retrospective view on my spiritual path, academic career, intellectual progress, and cultural development; they are therefore quite challenging for me as they force me to stand in front of the mirror of my life.
I – My view of Europe in the 1980s and now
Since my childhood, I have never been Euro-centric; I went to a French school during the primary and the secondary education, but this was not a reason for me to see France as the sole point of reference. I went to France for postgraduate studies, but this was only one of the countries where I pursued this level of studies. I spent my life’s first 27 years in six European countries, also traveling to many other European states, but I was not Eurocentric at all. Until the end of 1983, my few travels to non-European lands were not the reason of my universalism. Certainly, this tendency must be attributed to aspects of inherent spirituality, to home culture and education, to my personal readings, and above all, to the fact that my parents and grandparents were -all- born in Anatolia, a major Asiatic land of civilization and eschatology.
Due to my strong European linguistic background (seven modern and two ancient European languages), I was well versed in European History; but I never viewed it as an autonomous historical knowledge, markedly delineated and clearly distinct from that about other lands or continents. In other words, I never felt and I never experienced, let alone accepted, the existence of borders; to me all borders are meaningless, useless and even profane. Therefore, I never considered Europe as a possibly standalone entity or land. My strong family connections with Turkey and Russia, my knowledge of these major European and Asiatic languages, and my intensive studies in Orientalist disciplines made me ‘balance’ and ‘temper’ what was absolute for many of the institutions that I frequented: the European culture and civilization.
This was my feeling at the time (and still is today): if you take off from Lisbon and land in Chelyabinsk, you will find an enormous cultural and behavioral difference; then you conclude that somewhere in-between there must be ‘borders’. But in real terms, this is absolutely fictional. How can you understand that? If you travel by land, you will see the many similarities and the few dissimilarities that you will encounter every now and then from Lisbon to Valladolid, to Montauban and thence to Strasbourg, Dresden, Warsaw, Minsk, Moscow, Kazan, Ufa and Chelyabinsk. In reality, cultural continuity prevails over state borders.
My long years in the Middle East (where, while exploring the past, I extensively became acquainted with the local culture and the daily life of numerous nations and ethnic-religious groups) helped me shape my approach, corroborate my conclusions, and consolidate my conviction about the disappointing limits of the conventional modern scholarship (including my Greek, French, English, Belgian and German professors). Still, there was no systematic criticism of the European project of ‘unification’ from my side at the time; it simply did not interest me. Last, I did not express a straightforward rejection of the European colonial powers, of their deeds, and of the ensuing calamitous results back in the middle-late 1980s.
All the same; at the time, I did not approach the topic (History of Europe) in the same manner (as Jean Baptiste Duroselle did) either. To me, his approach was only one out of many possible approaches. I remember very well that at those days I was saying (as I do right now) that the History of Europe begins in Egypt and in Mesopotamia. This means automatically that I already did not accept either borders or continents.
II – Europe begins in Egypt and in Mesopotamia
There cannot be History of Europe without
– the Phoenician colonization of the Aegean Sea, South Balkans, and North Africa,
– the Carthaginian presence in Sicily, Sardinia and the Iberian Peninsula,
– the Scythians, the Cimmerians, the Celts and the Teutons, who are of Asiatic origin,
– the Egyptian priests of Isis, Horus, Anubis and Sarapis, who propagated their cults,
– the Mithraic pirates who imposed Mithraism in South Balkans and South Italy,
– the Mithraic priests, who revealed Mithras’ mysteries throughout Europe,
– the Aramaean origin Emperor Elagabalus, for whom Syria was holier than Europe,
– the Edict of Caracalla that turned Syrians, Egyptians & Berbers to Roman citizens,
– the Chaldean Oracles & the Babylonian spiritual heritage that they brought in,
– the Manicheans, whose faith was preached by an Iranian mystic in Mesopotamia,
– the Huns and all the other Turanian or not invaders who settled in Europe,
– the Muslims of Andalusia, who turned their land into Europe’s scientific center,
– the Volga Bulgars who were Islamized before the Kievan Rus were Christianized,
– the Tatars & the Mongols (Golden Horde), who are Russia’s vertebral column, and
– the Ottomans, whose European lands were larger than any other European empire’s except for Napoleon’s momentary state, Russia, and the Roman Empire.
Still, all this was missing in Jean Baptiste Duroselle’s book.
Certainly, an academic criticism of Duroselle’s book could be founded, but any perspicacious scholar would instantly understand the purpose of that book: it was not a strictly educational material. It was written to become (as it really did) the cornerstone of the European unification. Today many people forget that, when Duroselle was writing his book, the USSR and the Warsaw Pact were still there. As educational material, it was meant to be that of at least one generation.
Then, why should one write an academic criticism of a book that has an exclusively political purpose and scope (except the scope is nefarious and destructive)?
I never believed that Duroselle’s book was written with bad intentions. As member of the same elite, which sought to establish the European Union on sound and solid bases, Jean Baptiste Duroselle advanced, at the academic/educational level, in the same manner statesmen and legislators did at the political level: step by step. Or if you prefer, one step at a time! The European Coal and Steel Community had only six (6) member states in 1952; but the European Communities had twelve (12) member states when, 37 years later, in 1989, Duroselle was writing his book.
Then, I realized that in the elaboration of the (demanded by the Commission of the European Communities) book, Duroselle proceeded in the same manner. Most probably, if everything went well, another historian 25-30 years later would compose another «Europe: A History of its Peoples» to incorporate material, facts, cultures and nations that I suggested (as per above) and which Duroselle fully omitted. Then, a fully successful European Union would incorporate Turkey and Russia, thus transforming its nature and changing its name (once more) into Eurasiatic Union. This would be a most propitious development – not only for Europe but for the entire world.
As I saw the entire project as an open-ended effort, I did not feel the need to criticize Duroselle’s book at the time, hoping that things would progress beneficially to all, with the elimination of narrow-minded approaches, discriminatory theories, and racist schemes which help raise fictional barriers and fake borders, turning peoples and nations to conflicting parts in a destructive game.
III – Many different plans for a Unified Europe
One should not associate Jean Baptiste Duroselle and his book with today’s calamitous and anti-European leadership of the European Union and of many of its countries. Duroselle belonged to a totally different elite, which simply failed to keep the evil forces out.
It is also erroneous to think that the problem is due to a divide between forces that intend to establish and consolidate a Unified Europe and those who intend to plunge the countries of the European Union into endless strives, fraternal conflicts, and catastrophic wars. I don’t mean that there are not forces acting to damage the European Union; they certainly exist and they deploy every possible effort to harm the European project.
However, the greatest trouble has been the existence of several parallel agendas providing for different versions of the European project. There were plans which equated the European unification, not only with the fall of the Soviet system but also, with the split and destruction of Russia. Duroselle was a close associate of Jean Monnet and a French Freemason. But their plans about Europe included also the split and destruction of Russia (then known as USSR). This became fully evident with Charles de Gaulle, who did not say the words «Union soviétique» (or U.R.S.S.) even once. He used to call it «Russie». So, de Gaulle spoke about a Europe «de Lisbonne aux Ourals», which means a de facto split of Russia.
I beg you not to misunderstand me! I do not equate Charles de Gaulle with all those who wanted to destroy Russia. His idea reflected the targets and the agenda of only one group. That group wanted (and still wants) to include European Russia into the European project. But there are other groups with other targets and very different agendas, as per which Russia must not be cut to just two parts, but to ten or fifteen pieces.
With the aforementioned, I don’t mean recent but old groups, secret societies, and long enduring, evil plans providing for Russia’s pulverization. To add further perplexity to the already confusing story, I must add that there is no unity of purpose even among those who intend to fully pulverize Russia. There are some who are very cheerful for the European unification project and have malicious intentions toward Russia; and there are others who want to see both, Europe and Russia, plunged in division, turned to endless battlefields, and mercilessly destroyed.
IV – Serious mistakes committed by past European leadership
And the forces that were in charge committed many mistakes. Things did not go out of control with the beginning of the Russian special operation in Ukraine in 2022; the real problems started at the time of Mitterrand (1916-1996), Kohl (1930-2017) and Gorbachev (1931-2022). The earliest form of these problems appeared in the minds of people like Jean Monnet (1888-1979), Pierre Renouvin (1893-1974), and Jean Baptiste Duroselle (1917-1994), who kept in their heads a pre-WW II image of the world. This fact prevented them from fully realizing that their project was in striking contrast with three different agendas:
– the Jesuit agenda providing for European unification and for Russia’s division and subordination,
– the US-Zionist agenda implying US predominance in Europe, and Russia’s final pulverization, and
– the UK-Fake Freemasonic agenda intending to cause conflict everywhere between the Atlantic and the Pacific.
Of course, the existence of an agenda does not mean that it will be materialized, but for this to be done, mistakes must not be made. Unfortunately, the aforementioned three leaders made colossal mistakes. Their intention to advance in small steps only guaranteed that catastrophic errors would be produced in the process; they should have advanced in a very bold and most impulsive manner, which would change everything in the horizon so quickly that others would never be in a position to react. Many times, what does not change in a second, fails to evolve and, due to other changes occurred elsewhere, becomes obsolete.
Mitterrand, Kohl and Gorbachev should make an agreement as per which the termination of the Soviet/Russian presence in East Germany would imply the immediate termination of French/English/ American presence in West Germany.
UK and US should be kept out of every discussion pertaining to Germany and France. Gorbachev’s agreement with Helmut Kohl dates back to July 1990 (during their meeting on 14th July); but the Warsaw Pact was dissolved one year later (July 1991). East Germany’s exit from the Warsaw Pact should occur at the same moment as West Germany’s exit from NATO. The momentous advent of a neutral, united Germany should be the sole and undisputed target of Mitterrand, Kohl and Gorbachev. With the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the leading states of the European Communities, namely France, Italy, Spain and Portugal, should withdraw from NATO to become militarily neutral countries – just like Germany and all the former Warsaw Pact member states.
European Communities should then immediately start discussions with Russia and other Eastern European states for the establishment of a new European organization of security and military cooperation.
All the other European Communities member states that had not withdrawn from NATO should be asked to either follow the example of the major states or cease to be part of the European project.
Specific legislation in the European Parliament should be voted to permanently block academic exchanges with US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (and with UK if the insular state did not withdraw from NATO), making it impossible for European students to ever study in US, Canadian, etc. universities. The relations between the European Communities and the US should be limited at the level of simple trade.
As a matter of fact, the mistakes of Mitterrand, Kohl and Gorbachev were those of their mentors, and the reason for them was the fact that they kept having a pre-WW II world view in a post-WW II world. This was preposterous. They failed to accurately assess the deep seated hatred that post-WW II American elites had of Europe, and which was superbly encapsulated in John Kennedy’s silly words about France (‘a country the size of Texas’ having the pretension of ‘grandeur’ and ‘universal relevance’).
Example of typically American trash that is absolutely impermissible on European soil: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/france-united-states-iraq/
Post WW II America evolved from a supportive friend of Europe to an encumbering ally only to dare finally assert her claim to world supremacy. It goes without saying that the rise of an empire is achieved either in parity with another or with the collapse of another. In fact, after the end of what is conventionally called WW II, any truthful vision of a United Europe is that of an Empire, and it cannot be achieved within the concept of a Res Publica. Consequently and by definition, the US and the UK are the ‘enemies’ and all the states of Asia and Africa are the potential allies.
V – The rise of a self-destructive establishment in Europe
Failing to understand that America is the enemy and not the ally or partner of Europe was not the only mistake of the last representatives of the old guard of European statesmen and politicians. They failed to identify a series of challenges, to come up with their own responses to them, to spot groups using a perverse language to corrupt European ideals and principles, to outmaneuver them, to eliminate subversive theories like today’s biased and fake multiculturalism, to find various alternatives to the supposed ‘need’ of cheap labor force (which in turn translates to unnecessary millions of ‘refugees’), to examine worldwide threats, notably the case of Islamic extremism, to avert the existing dangers, to address all major issues (Food and Water, Energy, Labor, Worldwide Competitiveness, Security, Health, Education, Internet-Mobile Telephony-Disruptive Technology, and the inevitable termination of the Welfare State), and to envision common national and supranational survival in an exceptionally different future.
The old guard of European statesmen and politicians proved to be too small, too mean, and too conventional to possibly stand the exam. Their traditional practice to please all the important groups of power by means of endless compromises, their unconditional relativism, their tactics to promise everything to everyone, and their absurd aversion to fix strict limits to their concepts, principles and values made them look absolutely useless. This situation was exemplified by Jacques Chirac, who was foolish enough not to realize that, when you don’t stand for your values, you get supplanted. Elasticity is not a virtue for emperors.
And this is what really happened in Europe; the old guard of European statesmen and politicians, provenly useless, got effectively supplanted by valueless aliens and enemies of the European culture, who can easily promote by means of lawless laws any sort of bestial and villainous absurdity to a supposed ‘value’, only thanks to the long lasting relativism that corrupted the European societies.
The rise of a self-destructive establishment in Europe did not and will not end up with its subordination to the US; this is so because the American society collapsed too due to the rise of similar chaotic and inhuman elements and groups. And this is exactly what the old guard of European statesmen and politicians (Reagan, Thatcher, Kohl and Chirac) failed to understand: it they put strict limits, stated their purposes clearly, and clashed with the disparate, corrupt and chaotic elements of the Evil Left, there would be a thunderous clash and they would eliminate the evilness, preventing the corruption from spreading across their societies. Their conformism, compromises and conventionalism (superbly described and decried by the perspicacious Pope Benedict XVI as ‘relativism’) did actually ensure calmness and placidity in their time only to bring about corruption, disintegration, and dissolution 20-30 years later.
Now, alas, it will take extreme brutality, foremost violence, and overwhelming totalitarianism to save the European Union; but what will be saved will have nothing to do with ‘democracy’, ‘human rights’, ‘civil rights’, and ‘republican’ states. It will come with dozens of millions of dead on European soil and -above all- with fierce countenance. Many expect it to be based in Eastern Europe; they believe that the land of Russia, east of Moscow, the confines of Volga Bulgaria, the periphery of the Tatars, and Sibir (Siberia), as far as Chelyabinsk, are the world’s most blessed Earth as past covenant and future pledge. It may appear to be like the Jack of all trades; what Christianity and Islam failed to achieve with their interminable wars, Tengrism and Shamanism may eventually achieve. And who knows? Those who wanted for more than 100 years to consecrate Russia may see their urban state desecrated forever! I guess one would even call it orbital deformity!
What was then Duroselle’s error? I would not call it like that; as a matter of fact, it was an oversight. Although he fortunately avoided referring to nonsensical lines of division of which others were fascinated, he did not explicitly state that in Eastern Europe the only possibly peaceful borders are those between Austria-Hungary, Imperial Germany, and Czarist Russia.
Download the article: