Pierre Rehov is a Franco-Israeli novelist, reporter and video maker. He has just published
88 (Cosmopolis Éditions)
To discover
Michel Houellebecq: "A civilization which legalizes euthanasia loses all rights to respect"
FIGAROVOX.-In your novel, “88”, you evoke the relations between Nazism and occult societies.
Is this a little-known part of history?
Pierre REHOV.-
I am not a historian, but as a novelist I like to place my stories in a historical context.
Before writing "
88
" which falls into the category of what I call "
philosophical thrillers
" I undertook extensive research into the esoteric origins of Nazism.
The works on the subject abound.
The fashion for associating Nazism with secret societies arose from the publication in the 1970s of Pauwells and Bergier's bestseller “
Le matin des magiciens
”.
This book having sold by millions across the planet, it gave birth to a depoliticized approach to Nazism and many historians and authors, including René Alleau, Gilles Van Grasdorff or even Jean Prieur rushed into the breach of success. that Pauwells and Bergier had carried away.
Add to these hundreds of books devoted to the relations between Hitler, Himmler and the world of the occult, the thousands of documents available on the internet which reveal in depth an alliance without which Nazism might not have seen the light of day, and you will understand that the rantings of Hitler and the Gauleiters were born from several esoteric currents.
Hitler also believed in reincarnation and thought to have been in another life the Emperor Tiberius, great slaughterer of Jews, Napoleon, but also Jesus, whom he called "little carpenter".
There is in particular the theosophical movement of Elena Blavastki which defined the origin of races in an esoteric context, but especially the Thule Society of Rudolf Von Sebottendorf, whose symbols were already a dagger and a swastika and whose rituals included the hello outstretched arm accompanied by the exclamation "
Heil und Sieg
" which has become the infamous Sieg Heil.
In my account, a Soviet agent discovers in the KGB archives a secret will of Hitler which gives the keys to the resurrection of the Third Reich.
This testament would be the consequence of discoveries made by the Ahnenerbe during expeditions to Tibet launched by Himmler, in search of the origins of the Aryan race but also of the mythical city Shambhala.
It is at this moment that, in “88”, reality and fiction intersect.
What does the title of your book
,
"88"
mean
?
It has a double meaning.
It is first of all the rallying sign of the neo-Nazis, the H being the 8th letter of the alphabet, 88 simply means Heil Hitler.
It is, obviously, for me, to denounce, not to associate myself.
The other meaning is more esoteric.
The 8 is infinity.
A double eight would therefore be the infinite which begins again.
Somehow I see it as a symbol of reincarnation.
Your novel is described as fiction, based on real events.
What is the part of truth and that resulting from the imaginary in "88"?
First of all, the number of absurdities in which the Nazis believed, often under the rule of Himmler who was passionate about the occult and witchcraft, is staggering.
To name just two, Hitler believed in the hollow earth theory, that we would live inside a planet and not on its surface, and other civilizations would coexist at various depths, and also that of the “
eternal ice
” which made of the moon a block of ice approaching the earth by periods and giving birth to races of giants, from which, obviously, the Aryans would be descended.
Hitler also believed in reincarnation and thought to have been in another life the Emperor Tiberius, great slaughterer of Jews, Napoleon, but also Jesus, whom he called "
the little carpenter
".
It is on these factual bases that my novel was built.
Hitler's will, on the other hand, is pure fiction.
If it is common to associate extreme right and totalitarianism, I note that almost all the dictatorships raging on the planet would rather come from the other extreme.
Over the course of history, reconciliations have existed between the Nazi and Islamist ideologies in the 1930s and 1940s and then in the 1970s between Marxist movements and Islamist movements.
Are the apparently opposed “extremist” or “totalitarian” movements ultimately close enough to each other?
I will start by answering you bluntly that nothing looks more like totalitarianism than another totalitarianism.
In the light of history, it appears that dictatorships are almost all born from the frustrations of a people generated by an existing system, often during a crisis, then instrumentalised by means of fear.
The capitalist system being the most widespread, it is the one which puts the individual face to face with his own value and, if it generates excesses and excesses, it is also the one which preserves the individual freedom on which it feeds.
This summary analysis leads me to note that, during great societal crises - and we are in the process of going through a major one - the concept of freedom is easily opposed to that of equality, one being anxiety-provoking by the responsibility that it assumes, while the other reassures while smoothing out mediocrities.
The utopia of a better world, as defended by the left, engenders participation in a mass project, be it Marxist, third-globalist, globalist, environmentalist or simply socialist.
To read also:
"Faced with Islamism, some reproduce the errors of their elders in the face of Nazism"
However, this chimera supposes the partial or total abandonment of the material freedoms generated by capitalism, and once the individual accepts this sacrifice he is no longer able to control its limits.
I often insist on the fact that "
Nazism
" was the acronym of "
National Socialism
" and not of "
National-capitalism
", and while it is common to associate extreme right and totalitarianism, I note that the quasi- all the dictatorships raging on the planet would rather come from the other extreme.
In Islamist dictatorships, God is the dominant abstract figure generating the laws that only rulers of divine origin are entitled to interpret and impose.
Under the totalitarianisms engendered by leftist ideas, this figure is replaced by that of a deified man (Stalin was called the “
little father of the peoples
”, Mao the “
great helmsman
”, Hitler the “
führer
”).
The result, in all cases, is that of an anthill society, with its workers and soldiers, all ready to sacrifice themselves for the "
queen
", whether of an abstract nature or, on the contrary, very human.
The left, which sees itself caricaturally as the defender of the poor and the oppressed, therefore needs to reframe its societal landscape and change its cleavage.
Today, Western societies seem to be confronted in certain media, political and academic circles with what is commonly called “
Islamo-leftism
” and this movement tends to portray
any opponent
as “
fascist
”.
How to explain this phenomenon?
Wherever it has been called upon to prove itself, the left has failed.
I am obviously talking about the radical left, not French socialism, although this does not shine more with its successes.
Whether it is the Soviet Union, the Khmer Rouge, Castro, Mao, the gradual abandonment of individual freedom and therefore of the capacity to undertake only leads at best only to the foundation of bastard systems. and dysfunctional, or at worst totalitarianism.
However, the left wants to be the camp of good, of generosity.
How to get the message
across
when we have always supported the workers, considered as the only “
workers
”, in a society where they only dream of gentrification and have mass access to the middle classes?
The left, which sees itself caricaturally as the defender of the poor and the oppressed, therefore needs to reframe its societal landscape and change its cleavage.
Henceforth, its schema stemming from Marxism must overhaul the class struggle which is its engine.
In France, as in many European countries, it is therefore agreed to oppose no longer workers and employers, since they have so many common aspirations, but from the place and immigrants.
The immigrant has become the sacred figure of the left, the untouchable, the one who carries all the virtues, and since he comes mainly from Muslim countries, rather than exposing the oppressive and corrupt culture that has prevented its economic development, better it is worth taking refuge behind the idea that its adversity is the result of the long-term misdeeds of colonization, itself the natural daughter of capitalism.
While political Islam has demonstrated its proselytizing and hegemonic will, it is for those called the Islamogauchists to mitigate its dangerousness.
The reflex of the individual lost in the face of the multitude of choices, particularly in terms of information, generated by Western societies - which, it must be noted, are losing value and sliding down the gentle slope of decadence - is to take refuge behind the concept of a united and less materialistic world.
This laudable tendency is unfortunately exploited for the needs of a political caste which hopes to develop its electorate in immigration and goes so far as to caress in the direction of the hair the bearers of the most deadly ideas.
To read also:
Michel De Jaeghere: "The strange impunity of Chinese communism"
While political Islam has demonstrated its proselytizing and hegemonic will, it is for those called the slamogauchists to mitigate its dangerousness.
This is how the concept of "
no amalgamation
" was born after each terrorist attack, and that of "
religion of peace and love
" - qualified by moderate Muslims who have read the Koran - and, within the justice system, this desire to exonerate more readily the crimes of “
young people
” resulting from immigration than those committed in white collar.
Obviously, the Islamogauchist's reflex when one tries to emphasize the excesses and the dangers, not of Islam as a religion but as a political, social and cultural system, is to brandish the label of Islamophobia, racism, even Nazism.
No one is more intolerant than one who tolerates intolerance in the name of facade tolerance.
Daesh or Islamic extremist terrorist groups do they not represent a kind of ideological synthesis with elements borrowed from Nazism and Communism, a kind of “Red, Brown, Green” totalitarianism to use Alexandre Del Valle's expression?
I know Daesh less well, despite having met some of its members during a report in Iraq, than other terrorist organizations, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, but nothing looks more like a fighter. Islamist than another follower of the same fight.
Their structures are relatively similar and the core of their common ideology.
When you observe these terrorist organizations, you find in the background a form of nihilism associated with the cult of the superman.
In the case of the Nazis, the will was to give birth to a new man, rid of all the defects peddled by the "
inferior races
".
All means were good to achieve this total domination and this transformation.
In the same way, the jihadists consider themselves as the only carriers of the true divine word and, as such, belonging to a higher group, chosen this time by God.
The use of violence and terror is common for the mastery of these societal structures.
In communism as in Nazism the worship of the divine is replaced by the worship of the personality.
But fundamentally, you are right to use Alexandre Del Valle's expression, there is a multitude of commonalities between red, brown and green totalitarianisms.
In any case, it is a question of establishing a fascist structure defined by a fighting minority and imposed on a silent majority.
This phenomenon, which tends to consider social, sexual and racial minorities as permanent victims, has the opposite effect of what they would like to achieve.
Are current decolonialist, racialist, neo-feminist and other ideologies, in your opinion, a new form of
21st century
“
totalitarianism
”?
I would happily say that "
political correctness
" is one of the most obvious forms of totalitarianism in our democratic societies.
The cancel culture and woke movements which, in the USA, are in line with the Black Lives Matter and the Antifas are one-off aberrations which I fear will spread in the West and elsewhere in the same way as the counter-culture. in the sixties.
As soon as freedom of expression is called into question, the danger of totalitarianism is not far off.
All the more so since this phenomenon which tends to consider social, sexual and racial minorities as permanent victims, causes the opposite effect of what they would like to achieve.
While it is true that the United States is accustomed to all kinds of excess, this tendency which consists in wanting to make the white man the absolute torturer, the slaver, the exploiter and the Christian the heir of the inquisition more than the white man. of the Enlightenment can only give a reactionary result which will consolidate the supporters of political correctness in their positions.
The world is changing at a speed that today exceeds everyone's ability to adapt to change.
We suffer while being saturated with information.
The temptation among some could be great to abandon their individual identity in favor of a merger in minorities, even if it means sacrificing their freedom to find, finally, a kind of peace of mind.
It's dangerous.
Pierre Rehov, “88, Cosmopolis Éditions, 448 pages, 19.95 euros Cosmopolis Editions