Martin A. Schwarz

Eurasia-Islam: The Future Reich

"Imperialism imposes, the Empire composes²
Julius Evola

"Eurasianism is an open, non-dogmatic philosophy that can be enriched with new content: religion, sociological and ethnological discoveries, geopolitics, economics, national geography, culture, strategic and political research, etc. Moreover, Eurasian philosophy offers original solutions in specific cultural and lingual contexts: Russian Eurasianism will not be the same as French, German, or Iranian versions. However, the main framework of the philosophy will remain invariable.²
Alexander Dugin, The Eurasian Idea (, 2004) The (neo-)Eurasian idea, as presented in a visionary but distinct framework of ideology and geopolitics by Alexander Dugin, was born in the center of the Eurasian Kontinentalblock. The integration of the whole continent from Porto to Vladivostok can be an inspiring motive, the importance lies in the realisation of the anti-American imperative: to stop the growth of the atlantist influence and dominance and to roll it back with the measures of culture, economy, policy and - whenever necessary ­ also military. The details of such an integration are however bound to local circumstances. And as exciting the drafts by A. Dugin regarding for example the integration of the axis Moscow-Tehran are, the perspectives and priorities from a Central-European and German point of view can be different, although they might converge in the end.

(Interjection: For persons living in the territory of the USA the Eurasian idea can be seen as an ally, as long as they wish to discontinue the (pseudo-)messianic imperialist adventures and therefore reduce the USA to their national territory. In this sense they can even follow the anti-American imperative themeselves.)

The only possible starting point for an ideological reconstruction of Western-Europe, this being the non-Orthodox countries, can be the Reichsidee, the idea of the Imperium in the organic grown form of European history. As "Reich² can be considered here a supra-national unity which does not impose a homogenous structure on the peoples, religions and traditions, but rather composes them under a common idea or goal. Of course there is no need to use the term "Reich² in order to have in fact such a system of order. It is the substance that counts. The idea of the Reich, an heritage of the Roman Empire as much as of the Hyperborean memory, is already a synthesis in opposition to the Western concepts of totalitarian nation-state and liberal democracy, who converge with the interests with the imperialist British "Empire² and now the American Empire of market and materialism of the atlantist Globalisation. The Reichsidee comes from a distant past but the three major events of the history of the 20th century are nothing but attempts of adaptations and interpretations of this idea. Firstly in the Nibelungenbund of the Emperors Wilhelm of Prussia and Franz-Joseph of Austria against the aggression of the Western powers (Einkreisungspolitik), but fatally also against the Empire of Russia, which as the third inheritor of the Christian form of the Imperium beside the Austrian and the Prussian versions, should have been instead an ally against the forces of dissolution like in the "holy alliance², whose historical momentum was left unrealised. Secondly the Reichsidee was the driving force of the so-called Conservative Revolution in Germany and Austria where thinkers like Moeller van den Bruck, Edgar Julius Jung and Othmar Spann reformulated the Reichsidee as a bastion against the continuing and enforced atlantist subversion through liberalism and marxism. But into reality the Reich was brought only in a deficient or heretical form, in the "Third Reich² or "Tausendjährige Reich² of Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler, and again the exclusion of Russia was the reason of its ultimate failure. Thirdly under the domination of the Anglo-American "liberators² an attempt to re-model the Reichsidee into the European Community and then Union was made on the basis of the French-German reconciliation. The impulses of independence from the American domination came in this case mostly from the French - Gaullist ­ side, and again the question of "to be or not be² will be the inclusion or exclusion of Russia, and this exactly is the Eurasian question as seen of Central-Europe or Zwischeneuropa (as termed by Giselher Wirsing).

But today, at the begin of the third millennium this is not the only urging problem. Also and maybe even more urgent seems the question of the relation to the Islamic neighbouring countries, a good relation being the vital backbone of the geopolitcs of the Mediterranean area. The Islamic countries have been designated as the principal enemies of the Anglo-globalisation and large parts of the Arabic world are already occupied by US-imperialist military. It would be an enormous error to exclude the Islamic countries from the perspective of an organic and graduate integration in the Eurasian Empire, if the goal is the containment of the world-wide American influence. Concepts of the "Festung Europa², fortress Europe, are doomed to fail equally as any concept of Europe in opposition of Russia. In both cases only the forces of the Axis Tel Aviv-London-Washington will triumph with their arrogant "divide et impera² policy. As a matter of fact such concepts of an European isolation in the name of a Romantic Reconquista à la 1492 and 1683 still exist in the brains of some exponents of an identitarian "New Right². These propagandists of self-mutilation of perspectives, driven by irrational Islamophobia are the "crusaders of Uncle Sam² or the "ideological infantry of the Likud². This said, the possibility of an arrangement with the Islamic world must be explored. With whom can be co-operated? With the corrupt regimes, who are in bondage by Washington? Certainly not. The alternative must be compatible in terms of the structure both of ideology as of organisation with the model of the Reich or Imperium with his hierarchical, but autonomous structure, based on respect of Tradition and of openness for the future. Indeed the Khalifate would be exactly a counter-part for the Reich and we would suggest to envision the project Eurasia-Islam foremost as the integration of Imperium (Roman and Christian), Reich (German), Third Rome (Russia) and Khalifate (Arabic and Islamic). As the Reich knew incarnations ranging wide in concepts and contents there is in the moment ­ and maybe always ­ a struggle between the correct interpretation and realisation of the Khalifate, mainly in and between the so-called Islamist movements. It must be known who is the friend and who the enemy ­ from a Traditional Islamic point of view and from an European point of view, too. The important conference in Moscow, whose documents are published under the title "The Islamic threat or the threat to islam?", has pointed in the right direction. The enemy is clearly the Wahhabite Islam, a long time ally of the atlantists and in conflict with the Tradition and with the plurality of Islam. The question of the ally can not so easy been answered as the differences of Arabic, Turkish and Persian branches have to be settled in the realms of those Islamic peoples. Any application of an imperialist strategy of splitting is counter-productive for the Eurasian project in the long term. The Islamic vision of the Khalifate has to be supra-national in the same way as the Imperium.

So for us the Eurasian idea is at the core the peaceful co-existence of the European Reich and the Islamic Khalifate on the basis of anti-imperialism and independence. A connection either with China, India or Japan is welcomed ­ and economically a growing reality -, but not as urgent as the conciliation between Europe and its nearest neighbours.

The important link between Europe and the Islamic living space is Turkey. Turkey is also a country where interesting developments take place. Turkey seems to be in the process of developing a stable balance with its Arabic and Iranian neighbours ­ against the destructive policy of the USA and Israel and their Kurdic proxy. An encouragement from the side of Europe for the new politics of Erdogan and his moderate Islamists is an urgent necessity, any snub from the European Union could prove to be disastrous for European interests. Also the relations between the old rivals Turkey and Russia are improving, while on the other hand it can already be spoken from an axis Moscow-Tehran, which is again the target of aggression by the USA and Israel, under the pretext of the "nuclear danger².

The rising tide of anti-Turkish agitation by the old atlantist parties like CDU and FPÖ, accompanied by the media in the hand of the Springer group, is the biggest obstacle for the prospects to replace the old axis Washington-Ankara-Tel Aviv, which has hindered for a long time the Eurasian integration, with an axis Paris-Berlin-Ankara-Teheran.

Now, what are the prospects to propagate the Eurasian idea on the level of Weltanschauung, and not only on the Economic level, in Central Europe? There is a big leap between the ripeness of the situation "an sich² and the awareness of the situation "für sich², due to the high amount of money of the atlantist circles and to the mentally inert so-called German right and therefore in the moment the prospects even only to influence the discourse through this way are bad. The self-declared "New Right² or "intellectual right² is in fact not much more than a lobbying group for the small right fringe of the neo-liberal Christian Democrats or in the case of Austria for the German nationalists (who neglect simply the 20th century and still live in the 19th) of the Freedom Party, whose heroes like Martin Hohmann or Andreas Mölzer emanate the discrete charm of the Fifties, the "golden age² of this kind of conservatism with their pompous anti-Communism and their crusades against the muslim headscarves, unable to see greater perspectives. In the Sixties and the Seventies an impressive person like Armin Mohler, considered the spiritus rector of the German New Right, helped to tie the conservatives to the CDU, and their more militant sister party CSU, but at least he imported the Gaullistic impulse and paved the way for the limited, but important reception of the Nouvelle Droite. Today the "Mini-Mohlers² (Mohler en miniature) still are in bondage of the CDU, but instead to open up new horizons for new ideas, they use their energy only to ruminate the heroes of the Fifties (Gehlen, Nebel,...) and to block the new ideas like the Eurasian and the Euro-Islamic alternatives (for examples: Karlheinz Weißmann: Delikatesse gegenüber dem Hegemon, in "Sezession", n.2 , july 2003; and more simple minded:²Die Aula", n. 1/2004, "Europa oder Eurasien?"). Mohler´s Waffen-SS has been replaced by the more fashionable Widerstand (terrorists against the Reich with the aim of Anglo-American appeasement), and the rest is nostalgia for the Prussian virtues, honourable but untraceable in reality. The real possibility of the reincarnation of the Reich in Eurasian extension and with an Islamic partner is neglected for the sake of populist successes of some more conservative or "volkstreue² candidates like Hohmann and Mölzer. Similar in France some proponents of the old "Nouvelle Droite², now redressed as "Identitaires² invest their indisputable knowledge in history and geopolitics for the prospect of a "Fortress Europe², doomed from the beginning due to the hard facts of demography, being nothing more than a high-armed old people´s home for the last ones of yesterday.

Instead the small core of the Eurasian vanguard in Central Europe must take over to new shores, in order to see new dawns of the eternal Tradition, and on this way become the first ones of tomorrow.

Eurasia-Islam, the future Reich, we must, can and will build you!

Martin A. Schwarz

EISERNE KRONE Projekt Eurasien-Islam