Counter-Currents
Maurice Bardèche
2,241 words
Translated by George F. Held
Editor’s Note:
Maurice Bardèche’s Nuremberg ou la Terre promise (Nuremberg, or The Promised Land) (Paris: Les Sept Couleurs, 1948) is one of the earliest Revisionist works on the Second World War and its aftermath.
Although people who have never read the book proclaim it one of the first expressions of “Holocaust denial,” the book is nothing of the sort.
Bardèche argues two theses. The minor thesis is that the French accusations against Germany at the Nuremberg Tribunal—including the preposterous charge of an intent to exterminate the French nation—were shamefully dishonest. The major thesis is genuinely prophetic: that the Nuremberg Tribunal had laid the foundations for a globalist New World Order in which nationalism would be forever stigmatized and suppressed.
The following excerpt, on the implications of the Tribunal’s decision to treat the National Socialist party as a criminal conspiracy, is a brilliant illustration of the latter thesis.
[T]here is a very simple way to tell if the organization to which you belong runs the risk of being declared criminal one day. Essentially, you must mistrust energy. If you catch even a whiff of the adjective nationalist, if one invites you to be masters in your own lands, if one speaks to you about unity, discipline, force, grandeur, you cannot deny that this is not a very democratic vocabulary, and consequently you are likely one day to see your organization become criminal. So, beware of bad thoughts, and know that what we call criminal is always marked out with the same intentions.
The scholiasts agree here with the verdict. The Judgment, which appears in the first volume of the trial, notes the existence of a “plot or concerted plan against peace.” This declaration requires many a gloss. But it is clear, in any case, that the plot starts with the existence of the party: it is the party itself which is the instrument of the plot, and, ultimately, it is the plot. This conclusion has some singular consequences. It is actually equivalent to prohibiting people from joining together for the purpose of making certain claims and from using certain other methods for this purpose. What the court means is this: you exposed yourselves to the risk, it says, of one day committing crimes against peace or crimes against humanity, and you cannot claim that you were unaware of this risk since one has written Mein Kampf for you. It is thus, ultimately, upon the party’s program that condemnation is brought, and accordingly this judgment will constitute in the future an encroachment upon the national sovereignty of every nation. Our jurists say: your government is bad; you are free to change it. But you have the right to change it only while following certain rules. You think that the organization of the world is not perfect: you can try to modify it, but you are forbidden to make recourse to certain principles. However, it may be that the rules that they impose on us are those which perpetuate our impotence or that the principles of which we are prohibited even to think are those which would eliminate the disorder.
This accusation of joining a plot is an excellent invention. The world is from now on democratic for perpetuity. It is democratic by judicial decision. From now on a legal precedent weighs down on every sort of national rebirth. This is infinitely serious, for actually every party is by definition a plot or concerted plan, since every party is an association of men who propose to seize power and to apply their plan which they call a program, or at least to apply most of this plan. The decision of Nuremberg thus consists in making a preliminary selection between the parties. One is legitimate, and the other suspect. Those in the one are in line with the democratic spirit and have the right consequently to seize power and to have a concerted plan because it is certain that their concerted plan will never threaten democracy and peace. Those in the other party, on the contrary, are not entitled to have power, and consequently it is useless that they exist: it is understood that they contain in themselves the seeds of all kinds of crimes against peace and humanity. What is astonishing, moreover, is that the Americans do not understand Mr. Gottwald’s policies:[1] for Mr. Gottwald is doing nothing other than applying in his country the wise precautions suggested by the new Law: he is merely giving the word “democratic” a somewhat peculiar sense.
The right to interfere is therefore inherent in this simple statement. This right, however, is peculiar in that it does not entail, or does not seem to entail, an identifiable will to interfere. It is not some great power in particular or some group of great powers which is opposed to the re-establishment of nationalist movements; it is an entity much vaguer; it is an entelechy without capacities or offices; it is the conscience of humanity. “We do not want to see that again,” says the conscience of humanity. What that is, as we will see, nobody knows exactly. But this voice of humanity is quite convenient. This anonymous power is only a principle of impotence. It imposes nothing; it does not claim to impose anything. If a movement similar to National Socialism were established tomorrow, it is certain that the U.N. would not intervene to require its suppression. But the universal conscience would approve any government which announced the prohibition of such a party or, for greater convenience, of every party which it accused of resembling National Socialism. Every national resurrection, every policy of energy or simply of cleanliness, is thus struck with suspicion. They have twisted our consciences, and now they look at us limp. Who did that? Who wanted that? It is Nobody, just as the Cyclops shouted. The Super-State does not exist, but the vetoes of the Super-State do exist: they are in the verdict of Nuremberg. The Super-State does the evil which it can do, before being able to render services. The evil which it can do is to disarm us against everything, against its enemies as well as against our own.
This is a singular situation. We are disarmed and threatened by an idea and by nothing other than an idea. Nothing is prohibited, but we are warned that a certain orientation is not good. We are invited to prepare in ourselves certain sympathies and to instill in ourselves several definite refusals. They teach us how to conjugate verbs, as one does for children: “Mr. Mandel[2] is a great patriot; Mr. Roosevelt is a great citizen of the world; Mr. Jean-Richard Bloch[3] is a great writer; Mr. Benda[4] is a thinker,” and conversely: “I will never be a racist; I will like Mr. Kriegel-Valrimont;[5] I will eternally curse the SS, Charles Maurras, and Je Suis Partout.”[6]
And what about those whose minds are not open to these sympathies, or who reject these refusals? Those whose hearts answer to other calls, those whose minds think only in terms of other categories, those who are made differently? I have the same impression here as when reading certain Marxist texts: these people do not have a brain made like mine; it is another race. This thought puts us back on track. There is a closed world of democratic idealism which is of the same order as the closed world of Marxism. It is not astonishing if their methods manage to coincide, if their justice ends up being the same even though words, as they use them, do not have all the same sense. It too is a religion. It is the same attack on our hearts. When they condemn nationalism, they know well what they are doing. It is the foundation of their Law. They condemn your truth; they declare it radically wrong. They condemn our feeling, our roots even, our most profound ways of seeing and feeling. They explain to us why our brain is not made as it should be: we have the brain of barbarians.
This permanent warning prepares for us a form of political life of which we should not be unaware and of which the experience of the last three years on the continent does not permit us to be unaware. The condemnation of the National Socialist Party goes much further than it seems to. In reality, it reaches all the solid forms, all the geological forms of political life. Every nation, every party which urges us to remember our soil, our tradition, our trade, our race is suspect. Whoever claims right of the first occupant and calls to witness things as obvious as the ownership of the city offends against a universal morality which denies the right of the people to write their laws. This applies not just to the Germans; it is all of us who are dispossessed. No one has any more the right to sit down in his field and say: “This ground belongs to me.” No one has any more the right to stand up in the city and say: “We are the old ones; we built the houses of this city; anyone who does not want to obey our laws should get out.” It is written now that a council of impalpable beings has the capacity to know what occurs in our houses and our cities. Crimes against humanity: this law is good; this one is not good. Civilization has the right to veto.
We lived up to now in a solid universe whose generations had deposited stratifications, one after the other. All was clear: the father was the father; the law was the law; the foreigner was the foreigner. One had the right to say that the law was hard, but it was the law. Today these sure bases of political life are anathema: for these truths constitute the program of a racist party condemned at the court of humanity. In exchange, the foreigner recommends to us a universe according to his dreams. There are no more borders, there are no more cities. From one end to the other of the continent the laws are the same, and also the passports, and also the judges, and also the currencies. Only one police force and only one brain: the senator from Milwaukee inspects and decides.
In return for which, trade is free; at last trade is free. We plant some carrots which by chance never sell well, and we buy some hoeing machines which always happen to be very expensive.
And we are free to protest, free, infinitely free to write, to vote, to speak in public, provided that we never take measures which can change all that. We are free to get upset and to fight in a universe of wadding. One does not know very well where our freedom ends, where our nationality ends, one does not know very well where what is permitted ends. It is an elastic universe. One does not know any more where one’s feet are set; one does not even know any more if one has feet; one feels very light, as if one’s body had been lost.
But for those who grant us this simple ablation what infinite rewards, what a multitude of tips! This universe which they polish up and try to make look good to us is similar to some palace in Atlantis. There are everywhere small glasswares, columns of false marble, inscriptions, magic fruits. By entering this palace you abdicate your power, in exchange you have the right to touch the golden apples and to read the inscriptions. You are nothing any more; you do not feel any more the weight of your body; you have ceased being a man: you are one of the faithful of the religion of Humanity. At the bottom of the sanctuary there sits a Negro god. You have all the rights, except to speak evil of the god.
Notes
1. Klement Gottwald became president of Czechoslovakia in 1948. He nationalized the country’s industries, collectivised its farms, and purged many non-Communists (and later Communists) from the government. — Trans.
2. Georges Mandel (1885–1944) a French Jewish resistance leader, who was captured in 1940 in Morocco by French forces loyal to Vichy, sentenced to life imprisonment by Marshal Pétain in 1941, and executed in July 1944 in retaliation for the assassination of the Vichy Minister of Propaganda by the Resistance. — Trans.
3. Jean-Richard Bloch (1884–1947) was a French Jewish Communist writer and militant anti-fascist. — Trans.
4. Julien Benda (1867–1956) a French Jewish rationalist philosopher and novelist, who before 1930 had criticized intellectuals for their involvement with politics and nationalism, but who later supported communism, opposed fascism and in particular Nazism, and said that intellectuals “must now take sides.” — Trans.
5. Maurice Kriegel-Valrimont (1914–2006) was a French Jewish militant Communist and a Resistance leader. — Trans.
6. Je Suis Partout (I Am Everywhere) was the title of a fascist, nationalist and collaborationist journal (1930–1944) to which Charles Maurras was a contributor. Bardèche himself also wrote for it. Maurras was an agnostic anti-Semitic anti-Protestant monarchist Roman Catholic philosopher and writer who rejected much of the teachings in the New Testament. Though a confirmed Germanophobe, he called the German occupation and the subsequent Vichy government a “divine surprise.” In September 1944 he was arrested, tried as a collaborator and sentenced to death. The sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. He died shortly after being released in 1952. — Trans.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
8 comments
I think Maurice Bardèche’s critique of the nomos established at Nuremberg is one that should be pondered by those on our side who reflexively condemn and reject fascism. They may be effectively taking the side of our enemies. As Bardèche rightly pointed out:
“The condemnation of the National Socialist Party goes much further than it seems to. In reality, it reaches all the solid forms, all the geological forms of political life. Every nation, every party which urges us to remember our soil, our tradition, our trade, our race is suspect. Whoever claims right of the first occupant and calls to witness things as obvious as the ownership of the city offends against a universal morality which denies the right of the people to write their laws. This applies not just to the Germans; it is all of us who are dispossessed.”
Those who think that the system which is oppressing and destroying our people can be effectively challenged without some form of fascism — some form of radically anti-liberal nationalism — are mistaken. As Bardèche cogently demonstrated in L’Oeuf de Christophe Colomb, anti-fascism was born as a form of crypto-communism; anti-fascism is now a form of “mental AIDS” that is destroying the immune systems of White peoples, making them powerless to repel decadence, subversion, and colonization.
That said, I wouldn’t say that historical fascism was perfect, or that an effort should be made to revive fascism in its historical forms. Of course historical fascism is dated and historical fascist regimes cannot be revived. Historical fascism was in some respects premature and immature, and thinkers like Maulnier, Bardèche, Evola, and Venner have made valid criticisms of it. But this does not invalidate fascism as a political philosophy.
I wouldn’t say that archeofuturism is fascist, but Guillaume Faye has remarked that fascism was archeofuturist.
Who knows? We might one day look back upon the fascist regimes as socialists once looked back upon the Paris Commune (which, incidentally, had the sympathies of Bardèche).
I must say that the illustration preceding the notes was well chosen. Bardèche truly was a prophet.
Is the book rewieved available in english translation?
Soon!
Few people today are aware of the political nature and political intentions and implications of the Nuremberg process. Bardèche was one of the first writers to analyze this, and he had no intentions the whitewash the accused. He even writes in his book, that he thinks there are several among them who deserve to be hanged indeed.
Bardèche: “The condemnation of the National Socialist Party goes much further than it seems to. (…) Every nation, every party which urges us to remember our soil, our tradition, our trade, our race is suspect.”
Hitler had seen that the existence of his people was under attack. Bardèche also understood the problem. Today, it is clear to everyone.
Recently, there was an article at Counter Currents by Kerry Bolton about the case of the antifa Clément Méric, in France : “The fracas, according to witnesses, began when a group of Leftists “ran into” youths wearing Blood and Honor tee-shirts at a clothing sale. The deceased, Clément Méric, 19, a student at the prestigious Sciences Po college in Paris, fell and hit his head on a metal pillar after being struck twice by one of the skinheads.”
It was an accidental death, and the leftists were the attackers. Méric hit Esteban Morillo in his back and was punched once or twice in reply. It seems that it was recorded on cameras, although the footage was not released to the media. Anyway, Esteban Morillo is still in jail, and the government took pretext of the incident to ban two right-wing political organizations. It is reminiscent of the Trayvon Martin case. In both cases, the government and the media launched a massive anti-White propaganda campaign on a stupid pretext. It’s obvious that Esteban Morillo and George Zimmerman are not “violent nazis”. Zimmerman is not even White. Both of them acted in self-defense.
So, on July 25, the government decreed the dissolution of the right-wing organization “l’Oeuvre française”, which was founded in 1968. It used to be a nationalist organization, but I guess like most nationalist organizations, its main activity had come to be the denunciation of the government’s race replacement policy.
The decree can be read here. It is signed by President Hollande, Prime Minister Ayrault, and Interior Minister Valls. It is interesting because it gives a list of reasons for the dissolution. It can be summed up like this:
1. The organization has honored French Marshall Pétain, who collaborated with the enemy after France lost the war in 1940. Collaborating with the enemy or honoring collaborators is forbidden in France.
2. The organization members receive training to stay fit, learn self-defense techniques, supervise political demonstrations, and so on. Paramilitary organizations are forbidden in France.
3. It is a racist organization.
Today, French law forbids organizations (or internet forum messages) that EITHER incite discrimination, hate, or violence against a person or a group because of their origin or because they belong or don’t belong to a particular ethnic group, nation, race or religion / OR spread ideas encouraging that.
(In French :• SOIT provoquent à la discrimination, à la haine ou à la violence envers une personne ou un groupe de personnes à raison de leur origine ou de leur appartenance ou de leur non-appartenance à une ethnie, une nation, une race ou une religion déterminée • SOIT propagent des idées ou théories tendant à justifier ou encourager cette discrimination, cette haine ou cette violence)
That law could be used to prevent the genocide of White people through race replacement on the ground that race replacement is a form of violence against White people. But it is actually used to ban the denunciation of the judeo-government’s race replacement policy.
The decree banning the organization Oeuvre Française gives a number of points that illustrate how the Oeuvre Française has been breaking the judeo-french law. This, according to the French government, is damning evidence :
• “l’association « L’Œuvre française » appelle au rassemblement ou à la révolution nationale en vue de rétablir la souveraineté de la France, décrite comme envahie par une population immigrée”
(The “Oeuvre française” organization calls people to rally or start a national revolution with a view to re-establishing the sovereignty of France, which is described as invaded by an immigrant population)
—
• “elle véhicule l’idée selon laquelle le judaïsme politique aurait pour but de détruire l’identité de la France et que le peuple français serait en danger”
(It conveys the idea according to which political judaism would have as its goal the destruction of France’s identity and that the French people would be in danger)
—
• “le président de « L’Œuvre française » s’est déclaré « anti-sioniste, antisémite et anti-juif » “
(The president of L’Oeuvre française called himself anti-zionist, antisemitic, and anti-Jewish)
—
• “des personnalités notoirement connues pour leur antisémitisme comme Vincent Reynouard et Hervé Lalin [=Hervé Ryssen] sont intervenues notamment lors des forums et des réunions de « L’Œuvre française » “
(Individuals unfavorably known for their antisemitism like Vincent Reynouard and Hervé Ryssen have appeared in the forums and meetings of the Oeuvre Française)
‘it is an entelechy without capacities or offices; it is the conscience of humanity’
Entelechy: a realization or actuality as opposed to a potentiality.
a vital agent or force directing growth and life. (not that I fully understand the philosophic meaning)
Ah, there is the rub.
Egregore (also egregor) is an occult concept representing a “thoughtform” or “collective group mind”, an autonomous psychic entity made up of, and influencing, the thoughts of a group of people. The symbiotic relationship between an egregore and its group has been compared to the more recent, non-occult concepts of the corporation (as a legal entity) and the meme.
(from wikipedia)
I do believe that by that definition on could say cultural marxism is an egregore, as is globalization, multiculturalism, equality, etc. The occult (evil, bad, bad, bad, don’t go there) only means that which is hidden. Perhaps in the subconscious.
Rhondda makes a much more substantive point than many realize.
One of the issues concerning the development of the Race, and its intellectual capture by the Judeo-Bolsheviks, is how we have been so easily captured, and “how” is as at least as important as “by whom.”
Yockey got it right; the Western soul is structured differently from other soul structures, and it is from this that we gain our ability to think abstractly, and work out the abstract solutions to temporal problems effectively. This is also the foundation of our weakness, as we give Words more credibility, more legitimacy, and more power over our Minds than they deserve. This leads to Wordism, to use Eric Hoffer’s term as it used by Whitaker’s people at BUGS.
Words are useful as tools, as means to an end. Under Wordism, they become an ideology – the suffix “ism” is used for ideologies, and all ideologies want to become religions.
The American mystic Edgar Cayce wrote at length of what he called “thought forms,” living astral entities (at a low level of life, but still moving toward higher energy structures), and it might be that Wordism is the term that describes what happens when the thought forms take control of Aspects of the Soul.
In short, our servants become our masters.
What to do about it? I was so shaken by Derren Brown’s show “The Heist” that I stayed away from electronic media as much a possible, trying to detach (detox?) from the most effective social control system in the history of the world. Wordism bothered me so much, it as so relentlessly and ruthlessly effective, that U blame it in large part for our national schizophrenia, where words do not have the meaning we ascribe to the,, but only what cultural expedience allows them to be defined as. Hence, “political correctness” drives people literally insane, as the mismatch between what words MEAN, and what they are TOLD they mean, leads to cognitive dissonance on a scale so vast we require the agricultural power of a subcontinent to provide us with enough tranquilizers to silence the “small, still, Voice” in or souls.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment