From Indo-European Kulturkreisi to Post-Globalist Realpolitik

14.04.2020
The Iran Question in Dutch Neo-Eurasianist and New Right Perspective

No people can live in the past, not even in its own past. But if it no longer has a link with its history, it must of necessity perish. Persian [history is] crowded with hardship and glory, ordeals and hopes. With the help of the Almighty, the lessons of the past constitute the best guide for [its] future. - His Imperial Majesty Moḥammad Reżā Pahlavī

(*) A shorter Dutch-language version of this article was first published as an interview by Editor-in-Chief Sjors Remmerswaal at the Flemish-Dutch digital news channel React Nieuwsi under the title Alexander Wolfheze: Iran is duidelijk deel van de Indo-Europese cultuurcirkel on 29 January 2020. This translation was made by Alexander Wolfheze - some notes on basic concepts relevant to the topic have here been added for the benefit of those readers, particularly those of the younger generation, that have been deprived of accurate instruction concerning Near Eastern culture.

SR: Major General Qāsem Soleymānī (b. 1957) of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corpsii, commander of Iran’s special branch Qods Forceiii, was assassinated on 3 January 2020,iv resulting in further destabilization of the Middle East, a region already plagued by wars and unrest. In the run-up to Iran’s subsequent military response to Soleymānī’s assassinationv, American President Donald Trump threatened strikes on 52 Iranian locations, including prime cultural sites.vi Later, he retracted this specific threat, without, however, dispelling the larger threat of all-out regional war. Dr Alexander Wolfheze has long studied the cultural history of the Near Eastern region, including Iran.vii His latest collection of traditionalist essays, Alba Rosa, was recently made available in English as well as Dutch by publishing house Arktos.viii React Nieuws has asked him some questions.

SR: It seems that the Iranian nation has the mental strength to stand up to the world’s strongest power. Is there a historical explanation for this phenomenon?

AW: Your readers might wish for a short answer, but this question requires some introductory remarks. Because of our corrupt education system, dedicated to the deliberate ‘dumbing down’ of our youngsters, and our malicious mass media, dedicated to the globalist ‘brainwashing’ of our citizen, most people are very badly informed about the world around them. At present, the Dutch education system and the mainstream media, and their equivalents throughout most of the Western world, are dedicated to the kind of cultural-relativist and materialist-nihilist indoctrination that best serves the narrow purposes of the globalist hostile elite.ix This elite fears all forms of authentic, above all cultural-historical, knowledge, because such knowledge threatens its rootless and unstable hold on power. Thus, it has come to pass that, throughout the West, Iran is viewed as an atavistic ‘barbaristan’: one of those so-called Middle Eastern ‘S**thole Countries’ that are supposed to be inhabited by semi-literate, torture-loving, inbred populations and to be ruled by rabidly irrational religious fanatics. This caricature image, which has unfortunately come to dominate the so-called ‘populist’ opposition of the West through opportunist islamophobic rhetoric, serves the globalist hostile elite very well because it creates a public climate that is favourable to its imperialist policies of ‘regime change’ and ‘humanitarian intervention’. Public education is, therefore, one of the key tasks of Eurasianist and New Right dissidents in their fight against the imperialist geopolitics of the globalist regimes that currently dominate most of the West.

Etymologically, ‘Iran’ refers to the ‘(Land of) the Aryans’ - this word is still part of the official name of the Islamic Republic that was installed after the fall of the Pahlavi Dynasty in the wake of the 1979 revolution. It is only since 1979 that ‘Iran’ is the sole official name of the state, and only since 1935 that it is the most common name for the state and nation that were traditionally known in the West as ‘Persia’.x It is also only since 1979 that this state is a republic - until that time the Persian state was ruled according to the traditionally highest form of command authority: Imperium. The last emperor, Moḥammad Reżā Pahlavī (reigned 1941-79), still retained old Persian imperial titles such as Shāhanshāh, ‘King of Kings’, and Āryāmehr, ‘Light of the Aryans’, both of which refer back to an imperial tradition and a state concept that date back two and half millennia. In the West, this state and this tradition, carriers of an illustrious and powerful high civilization, were commonly referred to as ‘Persian’. Originally, this word refers to the Fars region, located in the southwestern part of the contemporary Islamic Republic - the pars pro toto relation between ‘Persian’ and ‘Iranian’ may be compared to that between ‘Holland’ and ‘Netherlands’. The Dutch Republic of the Seven United Provinces (1579-1795) already maintained mutually beneficial and respectful relations with the Persian Empire through the trade delegations of the Vereenigde Oostindische Companie, the Dutch East India Company and the world’s first true ‘multinational’ firm (1602-1799). These relations were based on the conjoint principles of strict neutrality and free trade that dominated Dutch international policies until the Second World War. At that time, the Persian language and culture still dominated large parts of the Old World, from the Balkans and North Africa (the Ottoman Empire) to India (the Mogul Empire) - until deep into the 19th Century the native scholars and rulers of the Dutch East Indies wrote, spoke and thought in Persian. In the Netherlands, as in the whole of Europe, the monumental literature and high arts of Persia were widely studied and admired. In the perception of the common man, Persia was a fairy tale land of magical carpets, paradise gardens and mystical poets. It was only after the Iranian Revolution of 1979 that this high cultural reception and this popular cultural perception of all things Persian changed: as the old term ‘Persian’ faded, so did the knowledge of, empathy with and respect for a very ancient and high civilization.

This short introduction provides a convenient link to the historical explanation that you asked for: Persian - or Iranian - history explains the basic attitude of the contemporary rulers of Iran towards the outside world. Unlike the Western regimes of today, the Iranian government has refused to let itself be reduced to subservient obeisance to the whims of anti-ethical globalist high finance and anti-ethnic globalist enlightenment ideology. The Iranian government is well aware of its historical obligations: it views itself as the proud carrier of a very high historical vocation and a very old national tradition. This vocation and this tradition have now largely merged into a very special - and in part very Persian - interpretation of the larger Islamic Tradition: the Shī‘ah Tradition.xi The Shī‘ah Tradition emphasizes an eschatological vision and messianic vocation that provides a de facto cultural-historical continuity from the Zoroastrian Tradition of pre-Islamic (Sassanid) Persia. It embodies an existential conditioning equivalent to what the Western Tradition knew as the ‘crusading spirit’: an actively pursued faith and a consistently pursued life of self-discipline, combat-readiness and self-sacrifice geared to a higher calling under the aegis of transcendental principles. In our own Dutch history some of that ‘Aryan’ spirit is evident in key episodes, such as our state-founding Eight Years’ War (1568-1648) which was not only a war of independence but also a religious war and a clash of existentially lived idealisms. Within living memory, some of that spirit even resurfaced during the Second World War, which saw the passion of the Engelandvaarders, ‘England Voyagers’, i.e. those who sought to escape the Nazi-occupied Netherlands by crossing the North Sea to England to join the Dutch government in exile and continue the fight against the occupier from there, collide with the passion of the Waffen-SS volunteers, i.e. those who joined the Third Reich’s war on Western-style liberal decadence as well as Soviet-style communist collectivism.xii In contemporary Iranian culture and daily life, such passion is still palpably present; it is also reactivated and galvanized by the constant threat of foreign - Anglo-Saxon, Israeli, Gulf Arab - aggression. The memory of the million martyrs who gave their lives for their nation in the Iran-Iraq War (1981-88) is very much alive and their sacrifice is directly associated with the American machinations that brought Saddam Hussein to attack Iran, machinations aimed at suppressing the energy of the Iranian Revolution and at thwarting the reassertion of Iranian national sovereignty by the new Islamic Republic. There is also the constant American interference in Iranian domestic affairs through the encouragement of regional separatism (Baluchistan, Khuzestan, Kurdistan), support for terrorist organizations (People’s Mujāhidīn), economic sanctions and constant propaganda. Thus, a combination of a strongly passionate collective psyche and a strongly developed sense of national honour has come to dominate Iranian foreign policy - for the average Westerner, conditioned by multiple generations of radical secularism and hedonist nihilism, this reality may be difficult to grasp at an existential level, but it is an authentic and effective reality nonetheless.

In that sense, Iran’s confrontation with America’s globalist expansionism is effectively inevitable.

Iran’s insistence on maintaining its state sovereignty and on seeking its unique historical destiny, an insistence that has parallels in the independent geopolitical course of Russia, China and a small number of other countries, is simply incompatible with the Griff nach der Weltmachtxiii of the globalist hostile elite that has hijacked American foreign policy through ‘deep state’ machinations. Belgian publicist Robert Steuckers has aptly characterized the globalist hostile elite’s geopolitical program, spearheaded by American (neo-liberal) ‘hard power’ and (cultural-marxist) ‘soft power’ expansionism, as ‘pyro-politics’.xiv This is a program that focuses on ‘burning down’ and ‘burning away’ all alternative power centres, power structures and power concepts. To give some examples of various ‘pyro-political’ strategies: the (accelerated neo-liberal) ‘disaster capitalism’xv in the former Eastern Bloc during the ‘90s, the (‘soft power’, ‘black ops’) ‘colour revolutions’ in the former Soviet sphere during the ‘00s and the (interventionist, proxy war) ‘Arab Spring’ in the Middle East during the ‘10s. Even after these various ‘pyro-political’ waves, however, some alternative power poles have remained standing outside the ‘unipolar’ New World Order that the globalist hostile elite declared in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union, most importantly Russia and China. Iran also remains a truly sovereign state, but a medium-sized country such as Iran is much more vulnerable to globalist ‘pyro-politics’ than great powers such as Russia and China. In any serious confrontation with America’s globalist-directed superpower, there is only one true guarantee of state sovereignty, viz. a credible nuclear deterrent. Ben Gurion and De Gaulle grasped this basic principle of post-WWII geopolitics and they provided Israel and France with the option of a truly independent course in international politics. De Klerk and Khadafy deviated from this principle and robbed South Africa and Libya of any change of survival in the lion’s den of globalist Realpolitik. What is truly at stake in the ‘controversy’ over Iran’s nuclear program is this: Iran’s ability to ensure its survival as a sovereign state by obtaining an unequivocal ‘nuclear option’. The outcome of this equation will depend on a highly unstable combination of very variable factors. One of these factors is President Trump’s willingness and ability to neutralize and deflect ‘deep state’ provocations and manipulations designed to trigger a direct armed conflict between Iran, America and/or its regional ‘allies’ Israel and Saudi-Arabia. Another of these factors is Russia’s willingness and ability to intervene in the region if and when the stability and integrity of the Iranian state are at stake. The (still provisional) outcome of the ‘Soleymānī Crisis’ of early 2020 suggests that the de facto stalemate between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the globalist New World Order, which has prevailed since the failure of the Iraqi invasion of Iran in the fall of 1980, will continue.

SR: President Donald Trump openly spoke about the possible bombing of cultural heritage sites - what kind of strategy should we be thinking about in that regard?

AW: These kinds of threats can be understood in the framework of the ‘pyro-political’ strategy that we discussed earlier on. In that regard, it is important to be very clear: the aim of globalist ideology is world power - this means that the globalist hostile elite is potentially at war with the whole world, viz. with everything that rivals its powers, even if only in theory. The globalist hostile elite does not truly recognize any territorial boundaries and it feels threatened by ‘domestic’ as much as by ‘international’ rivals: to the globalist hostile elite, the independent policies of President Trump are as dangerous as the independent policies of the Iranian state. Nothing would suit the globalist hostile elite better than that these two enemies would destroy each other - this is the very transparent aim of the American ‘deep state’ that speaks through the globalist ‘mainstream media’. The war of global conquest fought by the globalist hostile elite is ‘conventionally military’ only to a very limited extent. ‘Pyro-political’ warfare does not only seek the ‘burning down’ of the enemy’s military and economic assets but also the ‘burning away’ of the enemy’s morale and identity. The identity of any people and any nation depends on a specific time-space configuration - it is always related to certain ‘sacred’ places and certain historical ‘key’ events. By attacking enemy peoples and nations in these places and events, it is possible to manipulate their identities. This explains why the globalist hostile elite consistently attacks specific symbolic targets - mostly, of course, by proxy. Thus, on 9 September 2001 it targeted the highest skyscrapers of ‘New Babylon’ New York and on 15 April 2019 it targeted Christianity’s prime place of worship of ‘to-be-de-Christianized’ France, the Notre Dame de Paris. Thus, the Afghan Ṭālebānxvi and the Syrian Dā‘ishxvii militant networks, both founded by Western intelligence services and sponsored by Gulf state pay-masters, targeted the great pre-Islamic monuments of Bamiyan and Palmyra. This strategy of ‘symbolic targeting’ would also explain a possible American military strike aimed at destroying those monuments that determine the collective identity of the Iranian nation.

SR: If it comes to war, or even an American invasion, what would be the consequences for Iran’s cultural heritage?

AW: The destruction of ‘fixed’ cultural real estate and the theft of ‘portable’ cultural heritage was a very important and therefore highly publicized aspect of the recent globalist wars against Iraq and Syria: monuments were blown up and museums were plundered. Thus, much of the Assyrian artwork at the site of Nimrod was lost forever through Dā‘ish demolition and many of the cuneiform tablets from the Baghdad Museum disappeared into private collections through the black market. It may be that a similar fate will befall the rich cultural heritage of Iran: the paradise gardens of Shiraz, the mosques of Isfahan and the treasure palaces of Tehran may be among the highest creations of humanity, but to the globalist hostile elite these things are no more than entirely disposable accessories. Do not forget that the envious maliciousness of the globalist hostile elite covers all things that are more beautiful, greater and higher than itself, i.e. virtually every else in the world. Above all, the globalist targeting of cultural heritage should be understood as a long-term strategy: it aims at manipulating national identity in the long term through the disruption and twisting of cultural transmission processes. The Allied terror bombing of the Axis powers during World War Two provides a reliable indicator of the effectiveness of this strategy: the systematic erasure of all major German cityscapes and the nuclear evaporation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in a collective and persistent Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder among the German and Japanese nations. After the Stunde Null (German: ‘Zero Hour’) experience of 1945, i.e. the experience of total physical destruction and a psychological ‘hostile take-over’, a ‘black hole’ was stamped into the collective historical memory of both nations. This ‘black hole’ in their historical consciousness, equivalent to a deliberately-engineered collective identity crisis, allowed for their very effective post-war ‘brainwashing’. The effectiveness of this strategy is proven by the fact that both defeated nations are still slavishly following the - presently globalist - dictates of their American conquerors, no matter how perverse and how self-destructive these dictates are for their objective national interests. In this regard, Japan is slightly better off because it managed to retain at least one authentic symbol of historical identity and national identity: the Kokutai, i.e. the national polity as embodied in the person of the Emperor. Germany came out of the war far worse - it may be argued that it never came out of the war at all.xviii Against this background of its fatally ‘twisted’ national identity, resulting in a collective atmosphere of self-hatred, German Chancellor Merkel’s open-door ‘migration policy’ starts to make sense: voluntary self-destruction is the only possible resolution to Germany’s identity crisis as long as the twisted post-war narrative remains in place. If the globalist hostile elite is serious about ‘neutralizing’ Iran, then a ‘treatment’ similar to that meted out to Germany and Japan may be the most effective way forward. The first step would be the physical degradation of Iran’s cultural habitat, but the true aim would be a long-term disruption of national identity. In the short term, the destruction of cultural heritage would infuriate the Iranian people, most likely hardening its resistance to the foreign aggressor to the point of extreme fanaticism - a similar thing happened in the Axis nations during the last phase of hostilities. But the high stakes resistance gamble of Iran would also ensure a more effective, i.e. more drastic outcome. For now, however, the outcome of a ‘total war’ scenario remains highly doubtful: it still depends on the willingness of the globalist strategist to escalate to the point of a very costly war, and - depending on the risk assessments made by their Russian counterparts - to engage in nuclear brinkmanship.

This brings us to an interesting question: to what extent should we take seriously the war rhetoric of the American ‘deep state’, as it is intermittently fed into the public sphere through the globalist ‘mainstream media’? The first factor to consider is America’s obvious state of ‘imperial overreach’: the limits of America’s financial and military reach were reached during the Obama presidency (financially in the Great Recession, militarily in the Syrian Civil War). A total globalist victory over Iran can only be ensured through a large-scale American military commitment: ground invasion followed by long-term occupation. A total globalist victory cannot be achieved by local and regional proxies only - the wars in Iraq and Syria have proven this point. But a ground invasion and a long-term occupation of Iran may very well stretch America’s resources beyond the breaking point when the body count increases and when financial costs spiral out of control. For now, the political will and the broad-based support that are needed for such a war are entirely missing: parties truly interested in such a war - most directly the military-industrial complex and foreign lobbyists - would need an ‘event’ at the level of ‘Pearl Harbour’ or ‘9/11’ to create a sufficiently broad domestic support base. Most likely, much of the recent ‘mainstream media’ war rhetoric should be read as bluff tactics: it may serve to raise the stakes in the run-up to future diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East. This does not mean, however, that the risk of ‘war by accident’ - perhaps provoked by a rogue ‘deep state’ faction - should be entirely discounted.

SR: What is our - our Indo-European - relation to Iran? Is it restricted to linguistic kinship?

AW: Historical kinship between nations can exist at various levels, ranging from very abstract cosmology (mythological symbols and religious concepts) to very concrete biology (haplogroups and phenotypes). Of course, in the West the concept of biological kinship at any level, but especially at the collective level of ethnic identity, has effectively become taboo in the politically-correct discourse of the culture-nihilist media and academia,xix but such ethnic kinship remains a powerful reality in the modern world. The culture-nihilist deconstruction of any kind of authentic group identity is an important aim of the globalist hostile elite. The taboo it has achieved on the topic of ethnic identity makes a realistic discussion of its genetic, epigenetic and phenotypic aspects in the Western public sphere virtually impossible. Of course, these study fields involve highly complex scientific data and theories that far from complete and conclusive, but that does not mean that ethnicity has ceased to be an important factor in the political arena. In fact, given the recent acceleration of the globalist hostile elite’s drive to dilute the ethnic cohesion of Western nation-states, it can very well be argued that ethnicity is rapidly becoming the single most important factor in domestic politics. In terms of Realpolitik, it is important that non-globalist movements, such as the Neo-Eurasianist and New Right movements, approach all historically transmitted forms of ethnic identity with due respect. It would be wise for them to adopt a conservationist approach to the indigenous ethnic identities of the West by viewing them as a precious heritage of human biological diversity and by protecting them against ‘deconstruction’ by the intrinsically atomizing and ecocidal ideologues of globalism. In this regard, it is important to note that the public perception of Indo-European root identity in the Iranian and Indian branches of the Indo-European family of nations is far more positive than in its European branch.

Of course, the term ‘Indo-European’ has a strong linguistic connotation, but there also exists a certain degree of cultural cohesion among the Indo-European family of nations, which already occupied a single continuous ‘living space’ from the Atlantic Ocean to the Gulf of Bengal in pre-historic times. The correct indicator for the common denominator in the ethnic and cultural roots of the various Indo-European nations is the now highly-unfashionable term ‘Aryan’.xx In this regard, it should be noted that among these Indo-European peoples religious structures have always tended to adapt themselves to social structures no less than vice-versa. The typical and particular ‘life-and-thought space’ of the Indo-European peoples - here holistically defined through the Haus des Seins concept of German philosopher Heidegger - always tended to imprint itself on the non-Indo-European religions that they took on throughout history. This is true for European Christianity as much as for Iranian Islam. The dominant form of Islam in Iran, i.e. Shī‘ah Islam, as well as the closely related Ṣūfī Tradition,xxi deviates significantly from the dominant form of Islam in the Arabic world, i.e. Sunnī Islamxxii - its teachings and practices are entirely incompatible with those of the kind of puritanical Wahhabismxxiii that dominates the Arabian Peninsula and that provides the backdrop to terrorist outfits such as al-Qā‘idah and Dā‘ish. Thus, Shī‘ah Islam emphasizes a strongly hierarchical view in its religious cosmology, a feature characteristic of all older Indo-European cultures. Thus, Shī‘ah Islam keeps to the Indo-European principle of institutional religious hierarchy, a principle virtually lacking in Sunnī Islam. Thus, Shī‘ah Islam retains the ancient Indo-European institute of hereditary sacred kingship in its principle of the Imāmah, i.e. the spiritual imamate on which the worldly power of the caliphate is founded and that was conferred by the Prophet Muḥammad on his descendants through the line of son-in-law, Imam ‘Alī. This line even includes a legitimate claim to the highest worldly power of the Persian Imperium, through the marriage of Imam Husayn, second son of Imam ‘Alī, with Shahr Bānū (‘Lady of the Land’), daughter of the last Sassanid Emperor, Yazdegerd III (reigned 632-651 AD). Other characteristics of Shī‘ah Islam conducive to Indo-European cultural practice are its judicial principle of Ijtihād (Arabic: ‘particular effort’, hence ‘Independent Reasoning’) and its strong tendency to monogamic practice (as in the main-marriage retaining possibility of ṣīgheh, or ‘temporary marriage’). Above all, however, there is the actual living survival of many older Indo-European cultural practices within Iranian daily life: calendar, holidays, rituals and ceremonies. Thus, Iran’s Zoroastrian heritage, which is as authentically Indo-European as European Classical Paganism and Indian Vedic Hinduism, has factually been absorbed into and retained by Iran’s Shī‘ah Islam. All this means that Iran, despite great divergences in the surface life of material circumstances, clearly remains part of the wider Indo-European Kulturkreis, still sharing important ‘root values’ with most nations of contemporary Europe, as well as Armenia and India. This and the fact that it also retains the status of a fully-sovereign nation-state make Iran a natural ally for the anti-globalist New Right movement that has recently sprung up in the West.

For the Dutch ‘patriotic-identitarian’ branch of the New Right movement has a vital interest in striving for an entirely new Dutch foreign policy, viz. a foreign policy that is based on the specific interests of the Dutch nation. As a demographically and economically medium-size power with substantial maritime and overseas trade interests, the Netherlands would be better served by a balanced and cautious foreign policy of strict neutrality - the Dutch political class only abandoned this stance of basic neutrality only after the Second World War. Then, a specific set of circumstance, including military and economic weakness, great infrastructure damage and the threat of communist subversion, forced the country into abandoning its traditional neutrality and allying itself with the victorious Anglo-Saxon powers. But the Netherlands paid a heavy price for its entirely pragmatic, but somewhat hasty, subservience to American overlord-ship and its derivative ‘European unity’ project.

Under American pressure, the Netherlands had to grant independence to Indonesia in 1949, although it had just re-conquered its East Indies territory in a hard-fought military campaign. There, Dutch colonial ‘hard power’ (which balanced some economic benefits against paternalist responsibility) was replaced by American neo-colonial ‘soft power’ (which granted nominal independence to a corrupt local elite in return for the protection of America’s big business and Cold War strategy interests). In 1962, American pressure caused the Netherlands to abandon its last East Indies toehold as it forced the hand-over of West New Guinea to Indonesia - this was American President Kennedy’s ‘gift’ to Indonesian President Sukarno in return for Indonesia Cold War allegiance. The rich natural resources of West New Guinea could, of course, be exploited by American corporate interests - its vulnerable indigenous population was left at the tender mercies of corrupt Indonesian imperialists (Indonesian ‘transmigration’ policy resulted in the de facto replacement of the indigenous Papua population by mainly Javanese colonistsxxiv). In more recent years, the Dutch elite’s continued abject subservience to American interests has plunged the Netherlands into several wars of aggression that did not serve any Dutch interest but that have degraded the country’s international standing: Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003). The pernicious double standards of selective globalist political correctness have also made it impossible for the Dutch nation to come to the rescue of its Afrikaner blood-brother nation, now beleaguered by the ‘inverse-apartheid’ of the South Africa regime, and its Surinam Dutch-empire fellow nation, now facing the ‘failed state’ consequences of artificial ‘independence’.

At the same time, the Netherlands post-neutral commitment to the entirely artificial ‘European unity’ project has led it to abandon its own currency (now ‘Euro’), its own borders (now ‘Schengen’), its own laws (now ‘EU law’) and its own military (now ‘NATO’), effectively sacrificing the most basic assets of any sovereign state. By now, the Netherlands’ subservience to American foreign policy, to Eurocratic superstate megalomania Eurocracy and the other power projects of the globalist ‘New World Order’ is entirely outdated. By now, Dutch adherence to globalism has proven itself fatally opposed to the most basic interests - even to the simple survival - of the Dutch nation. Neo-liberal de-industrialization, replacement-level mass-immigration, anti-traditional nihilist indoctrination, deliberately planned social implosion and consistent ecological mismanagement have not only severely impacted the Dutch nation’s ‘quality of life’, but now threaten the continued existence of the Dutch nation’s very existence as a historically recognizable entity. As the only true champion of Dutch indigenous rights, the Dutch New Right movement now faces the formidable challenge of restoring a semblance of national sovereignty - and of re-formulating an authentically autonomous foreign policy that truly and exclusively serves Dutch interests.

With regard to the ‘Iran Question’ such a re-formulation of foreign policy by the Dutch - or, for that matter, any part of the - New Right movement requires a careful re-consideration of the image of Iran as the ‘enemy’ that has been cultivated by the mainstream media and by left-liberal educators over the last decennia. As a maritime nation with a great stake in global - not globalist - free trade, the Netherlands stand much to gain by switching back to a foreign policy of strict neutrality. Dutch international relations ought to be based on real self-interest - free from insincere (because selective and hollow) criteria such as those promoted by globalist ‘human rights’ and ‘international law’ lobbies. If these criteria were to be applied consistently and honestly, they would require the Netherlands to impose sanctions on the United States and to break off diplomatic relations with Saudi-Arabia and the People’s Republic of China. None of these moves would be realistically possible - or desirable - and Dutch foreign policy should be guided by the principle of Realpolitik above all. The Netherlands is best served by a respectful policy of strict neutrality, non-intervention and honest brokerage. The cute-but-weak ‘Calimero’ (self-)image that dominates the post-Dutch and extreme-globalist politics of the present Dutch ruling clique, which presents the Netherlands as being ‘too small’ and ‘too vulnerable’ to conduct an independent foreign policy, is simply ridiculous. As the examples of countries such as Norway and Switzerland - not to mention the European microstates - show, there exists a whole world of possibilities outside of the allegedly ‘inevitable’ frameworks of the EU, the Euro, the Schengen Zone and the NATO. If used properly, the Netherlands have a formidably strong position to negotiate from: the Netherlands occupies a key strategic location in the heart of Western Europe, it has an excellent infrastructure for transit trade and communication, it has a highly innovative and productive technology sector, a fabulously rich financial sector, a partially autarchic agricultural sector and an enduring tourist industry potential. With a national currency, free from ‘European Bank’ usury and subsidy practices, with a national immigration policy, free from ‘Schengen Zone’ mass immigration and open border practices, with a national legal system, free from the stifling bureaucracy and hyper-humanist monstrosity of ‘European Law’ and with independently operating armed forces, free from the neo-imperialist brinkmanship of ‘NATO’, the Netherlands will be able to claim the fair share of economic prosperity, social well-being and national self-respect that it is currently being denied by the globalist ‘New World Order’.

The true enemy of the Dutch state and the Dutch people is not found thousands of miles away on the Persian Gulf, but it is found right here in the Netherlands itself. The true enemy of the Netherlands is not found in Iran, but in its own hostile elite - right here in the Netherlands, deep within our ex-national institutions and our ex-national body politic.

 

Ein volk, das keine Waffen tragen will, wird Ketten tragen

‘A nation that refuses to bear arms, will wear chains’

- Ernst Jünger

 

P.S. Here the word ‘Cultural Field’ translates the German term Kulturkreis, a cultural-anthropological concept developed by German ethnologists Leo Frobenius and Fritz Gräber to indicate the cultural-historical phenomenon of double ethnological-cultural continuity in its holistically widest sense - it is related to the geopolitical concept of Lebensraum, or ‘Life Space’, as developed by Frobenius’ teacher Friedrich Ratzel.

P.P.S.In the run-up to next year’s scheduled parliamentary elections, the Dutch New Right movement is currently engaged in building up a party-political wing through its Identiteit Nederland coordinating organization - the English-language website of Identiteit Nederland may be found at http://www.idnl.org/en/.

i The English-language home page of React Nieuws may be found at https://reactnieuws.net/english/ .

ii The Sepāh-e Pāsdārān-e Enqelāb-e Eslāmī, ‘Army of Guardians of the Islamic Revolution’ is an independent arm of the Iranian armed forces, entrusted with protecting Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary political order. With a troop strength of approximately 125.000, it has its own ground, air and naval branches as well as its own media outlets - it also controls the approximately 90.000 strong paramilitary volunteer militia of the Sāzmām-e Basīj-e Mostaż‘afīn, ‘Organization for the Mobilization of the Oppressed’.

iii The ‘special ops’ Qods Force, or ‘ Jerusalem Force’, perhaps 15.000 strong, as created at the early stages of the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88) to spearhead the foreign operations of the newly-founded and heavily embattled Islamic Republic of Iran. Directly resorting under Seyyid ‘Alī-Ḥosseynī Khāmeneh’ī, Iran’s Supreme Leader, since been involved in commando, sabotage, training and intelligence operations around the world. As one of world’s most effective military assets of any non-aligned anti-globalist state actor it has - predictably - been labelled a ‘foreign terrorist organization’ by the American State Department.

iv Qāsem Soleymānī was killed by a targeted American drone strike near Baghdad International Airport in apparent retaliation for the attacks on the United States embassy compound within Baghdad’s maximum-security Green Zone by Iranian-backed Shi’a militia groups, earlier on New Year’s Eve and Day. Despite stringent official Iranian denials of involvement, the American administration chose to hold the Iranian government ‘fully responsible’ for these attacks, which were, in fact, mob protests against the continued American military presence in Iraq and against recent American airstrikes in Iraq (specifically the 29 December 2019aistrikes on the Iran-backed Iraqi Shi’a paramilitary Katā‘ib Ḥizbu-ʾllāh, ‘Party of God Brigades’). The assassination of Qāsem Soleymānī, the second most powerful and charismatic Iranian leader after the Supreme Leader, was part of the broader American strategy of direct ‘leadership targeting’ (cf. Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin-Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi).

v On 8 January 2020, Iran launched ‘Operation Martyr Soleymānī’ to avenge Soleymānī’s death by rocket strikes at two American airbases in Iraq. This escalation brought Iran and America to the brink of open war.

vi For the ‘art world’ response to this threat, cf. Naomi Rea, ‘President Trump’s Threat to Bomb Iranian Cultural Sites Must be Condemned’. Artnet News, 6 January 2020.

vii For a cultural-historical assessment of the Persian Tradition concerning the oldest Indo-European archetypes of transcendentally referencing worldly power, cf. paragraph 6 ‘Ex Oriente Lux’ in Alexander Wolfheze, ‘Edelweiss’. Geopolitica, 7 March 2019 (https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/edelweiss). For a more specific assessment of the Persian concept of the ‘Aryan Empire’, cf. the author’s book review of Jason Jorjani’s World State of Emergency: Alexander Wolfheze, ‘The Great Year’. Geopolitica, 26 March 2019 (https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/great-year).

viii Details of the English-language version of Alexander Wolfheze, Alba Rosa. Ten Traditionalist Essays about the Crisis of the Modern West (London,: Arktos, 2018) may be found at https://arktos.com/product/alba-rosa/.

ix For the author’s definition of the term ‘globalist hostile elite’, cf. Wolfheze, Alba Rosa, 160-4.

x From Wolfheze, ‘The Great Year’: ‘Effective from Now Ruz (the Persian New Year) 1935, Reza Shah Pahlavi, Emperor of Persia from 1925 to 1941, requested foreign diplomats to henceforth refer to his empire by its ancient endonym ‘Iran’, enforcing a replacement of the historic exonym ‘Persia’. After the overthrow of the monarchy in 1979, this official designation was retained by the new republican government - it is still part of the official title of the Persian state till today: the Islamic Republic of Iran. It should be noted that throughout the Iranian Diaspora, which includes a large number of political dissidents, the self-designation ‘Persian’ has since - in an admittedly somewhat counter-intuitive manner - regained currency. In his 2017 work The World State of Emergency, Neo-Imperialist publicist Jason Jorjani has chosen the opposite strategy: he retains the use of the endonym ‘Iran’ but expands it by re-activating the ancient term Iran-Shahr, which has the etymological charge of ‘Aryan Empire’.

xi From Arabic Shī‘at-u ‘Ālī: ‘Party of ‘Alī’, i.e. those who recognize Imam ‘Alī and his heirs as rightful successors to the Prophet Muḥammad.

xii In this regard, it should be pointed out that only 1.700 Engelandvaarders reached their destination, whereas more than 25.000 Dutch volunteers served in the Waffen-SS - these numbers go some way to rectify the politically correct official post-war narrative that tended to emphasize Dutch resistance against the German occupation, rather than Dutch collaboration with it.

xiii German: ‘Bid for World Power’, a reference to the title of Fritz Fischer’s notorious book Griff nach der Weltmacht: Die Kriegszielpolitik des kaiserlichen Deutschland 1914/1918 ‘Bid for World Power: The War Aims of Imperial Germany 1914-1918’ (Droste: Duesseldorf, 1961).

xiv For the cultural-historical and political-philosophical context of the ‘pyro-politics’ phenomenon, cf. the author’s review of Robert Steuckers’ book Sur et autour de Carl Schmitt in Alexander Wolfheze, ‘From the Arsenal of Hephaestus’. Geopolitica, 10 January 2019 (https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/arsenal-hephaestus).

xv A reference to the title of Naomi Klein’s book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (Knopf Canada: Toronto, 1997).

xvi The Ṭālebān (Persian/Pashto: ‘Students’) is the Islamicist fundamentalist movement that came out of the American-Saudi-Pakistani-supported Mujāhidīn (Arabic: ‘warriors; crusaders’) anti-Soviet resistance movement, ruling Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 (the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan) and that has been the main insurgent group fighting the Western-sponsored Afghan government since the 2001 American invasion of Afghanistan.

xvii The Dā‘ish (Arabic acronym: ‘The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’), a..k.a. as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), is the Islamicist ‘neo-caliphate’ state-project that was founded by Jordan al-Qā‘idah (Arabic: ‘the Base’, said to refer to a computer file of Mujāhidīn militants employed by and that gained notoriety during the recent Iraqi Insurgency and the Syrian Civil War.

xviii Cf. Alexander Wolfheze, ‘Hellstorm: Ten Western Perspectives on the Eurasian Project’, Journal of Eurasian Affairs V 1 2018, 25-48 (https://issuu.com/altuhoff/docs/ea-5-web).

xix For the author’s definition of the term ‘culture nihilism’, cf. Alexander Wolfheze, The Sunset of Tradition and the Origin of the Great War (Cambridge Scholars: Newcastle upon Tyne, 2018) xvi-xviii (now also available in paperback, free preview available at https://www.cambridgescholars.com/the-sunset-of-tradition-and-the-origin-of-the-great-war through the button ‘View Extract’).

xx For an Archaeo-Futurist reappraisal of the concept ‘Aryan’, cf. the author’s book review of Jason Jorjani’s World State of Emergency: Alexander Wolfheze, ‘The Great Year’. Geopolitica, 26 March 2019 (https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/great-year).

xxi The term Ṣūfī (Arabic: ‘one who wears wool’, hence ‘wool-dressed ascetic’) refers to the semi-underground Tradition of Islamic mysticism that guards esoteric knowledge through initiation hierarchies and symbolic encoding.

xxii From Arabic Sunnah: ‘habit, custom’, i.e. those who follow the practical customs and habits that religious scholarship ascribes to the living example of the Prophet Muḥammad.

xxiii From Wolfheze, ‘Edelweiss’: Wahhabism, named after Sunni Islamic religious leader and reformer Mohammed al-Wahhad (1703-92), is a fundamentalist and iconoclastic doctrinal movement within the Hanbali School. The use of the term ‘Wahhabi’ as a reference to a follower of this movement is mostly restricted to its opponents: its supporters prefer to use terms such as muwahhīd (‘monotheist’) or Salafist (from Arabic salaf: ‘predecessors, forefathers’, referring to the fundamentalist tendency of the Hanbali School that now dominates most of the Arabic Peninsula). Wahhabism is characterized by a militant and even aggressive purism that is realized in regressive social practices within its community and institutional intolerance to the outside world. In contemporary geopolitics, the historically pragmatic alliance between the Wahhabite clergy and the Saudi Royal House results in phenomena such as al‘-Qā‘idah and Dā‘ish.

xxiv A pro-independence publicity campaign and a low-level guerrilla war are being conducted by the indigenous Organisasi Papua Merdeka ‘Free Papua Organization’ up to this day.