Ok

En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

Rechercher : Othmar Spann

Image incarnée du 20ème siècle: l'écrivain allemand Ernst von Salomon

bc62bf4177713a9e2257d9c9d816243b.jpg

Le Prussien mort

Image incarnée du 20ème siècle: l'écrivain allemand Ernst von Salomon

par Markus Klein

Trouvé sur : http://www.geocities.com/wbuecher/dertotepreusse.htm

"Trop humain pour Hitler" - c'est ainsi que Carl Zuckmayer caractérisait Ernst von Salomon dans son dossier sur les artistes et intellectuels allemands en exil pour les services secrets américains en 1943/44. "Trop humain" n'est certainement pas le terme approprié, mais comment Zuckmayer aurait-il pu illustrer autrement le nominalisme de Salomon aux universalistes américains ?

Selon la définition d'Armin Mohler, les universalistes et les nominalistes sont des types humains antagonistes. L'universaliste croit qu'il existe un ordre spirituel à la base de la réalité. Il peut non seulement le percevoir, mais aussi le définir et le formuler. Il peut donc également faire coïncider ses actions avec cet ordre universel, et donc les légitimer du point de vue de la philosophie de l'ordre et de l'histoire du salut. Le nominaliste, en revanche, se caractérise par le fait que pour lui, les concepts généraux n'ont été conférés au réel qu'après coup par l'homme. De plus, il ne considère pas le combat comme toujours évitable, ne le craint pas et n'hésite pas à détruire son adversaire - qu'il peut tout à fait apprécier - dans le cas décisif. Mais en aucun cas (contrairement à l'universaliste) il ne détruirait un adversaire simplement parce qu'il croit en un ordre spirituel différent.

8fbfab3b7c55e87dfb639b11b9ef0d9a.jpg

La guerre contre le "mal" dans le monde montre aujourd'hui plus clairement que jamais à quel point les Américains sont des universalistes. Mais ceux qui le souhaitaient pouvaient déjà s'en rendre compte après la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Ernst von Salomon était l'un de ceux qui le voyaient déjà à l'époque: "J'écris maintenant parce que je veux passer le temps jusqu'à ce qu'il soit à nouveau possible de faire des films décents, et parce que j'ai quelque chose contre les Américains, et cela doit sortir, sinon j'éclate".

La patrie ne signifiait rien pour lui, l'identité tout

Ce qui en est ressorti, c'est Le questionnaire de 1951, et c'était un fanal. Ernst von Salomon y écrivit l'histoire des cinquante premières années du 20ème siècle, le "comment ça s'est passé", un "tapis noué de fils de toutes sortes", au sens de Theodor Lessing. Avec un cynisme amer, il a mené par l'absurde, par son exhaustivité, le questionnaire de dénazification des Américains, tout en engageant la lutte pour la nation après la deuxième défaite allemande de ce siècle, lutte qu'il avait déjà entamée avec tant de véhémence après la première.

d9f535d485b3c2566f54058ccbeb3fd6.jpg

A cette époque, Ernst von Salomon s'était déjà fait remarquer, d'abord par des actes dans les rangs des "fantaisistes de l'action", comme les a appelés Herbert Cysarz, et depuis 1930 par une trilogie de l'après-guerre allemande. Rien d'autre ne l'avait déjà poussé à écrire ici que ce qui l'avait contraint au "questionnaire" : la recherche de sa propre identité et de celle des Allemands, qui ne pouvait être trouvée qu'à travers le récit - pour l'opposer ensuite aux prétentions universalistes des puissances victorieuses.

Même ceux qui, à l'époque du "nouveau nationalisme", avaient réussi à éviter ses coups d'éclat littéraires, personne ne pouvait éviter le "questionnaire". En tant que monument de la revendication allemande souveraine, il s'opposait à toute écriture de l'histoire basée sur l'idéologie et la philosophie de l'histoire. Il démasquait les légitimations fondées sur l'histoire du salut et l'historiographie globale et causale qui en découlait et qui était fonctionnalisée par un changement de terminologie. Ernst von Salomon a ainsi revendiqué avec succès jusqu'à la fin de sa vie le droit de donner une voix aux "Allemands" et de revendiquer ainsi une existence propre: "Aujourd'hui, je suis un représentant de la cinquième zone, la zone allemande, des Allemands qui vivent dans la dispersion comme les Juifs. Vous voulez en savoir plus? La partie - ne nous trompons pas - bien plus importante des Allemands qui est aujourd'hui muette, dans l'expectative, méfiante, attaquée sans pouvoir se défendre, là où elle avait vraiment des responsabilités, ne peut pas être simplement considérée comme inexistante. J'ai la chance de ne pas en faire partie, et d'être entendu par eux".

Les-reprouves.jpgIl y a maintenant cent ans, Ernst von Salomon naissait le 25 septembre 1902 à Kiel, alors en Prusse. Ce qui l'a marqué, c'est l'attitude prussienne, la rigueur envers soi-même, les vertus prussiennes, sans oublier le "socialisme prussien". Toute sa vie a tourné autour de cet esprit d'État de la Prusse ; c'était son père nourricier, son mythe, son but, et surtout son substitut à l'identité allemande détruite. La patrie ne signifiait rien pour lui, l'identité tout. Outre le foyer familial, c'est surtout son éducation dans le corps préparatoire des cadets royaux prussiens qui y a contribué. C'est là que les cadets ont appris les vertus de l'État, jusqu'à ce qu'ils soient jetés dans la guerre civile qui faisait rage fin 1918 par un décret des dirigeants alliés en Allemagne.

Aux côtés des sociaux-démocrates dans l'un des corps francs qu'ils avaient créés, il pensait protéger l'État contre les tentatives internationalistes sous leur mot d'ordre de "lutte contre le bolchevisme". Les tendances tout aussi dissolvantes de l'Etat libéral des partis n'ont tout d'abord pas été remarquées par les combattants des corps francs, et c'est ainsi qu'ils se sont laissés utiliser pour la première fois au cours de ce siècle à des fins qui n'étaient pas les leurs, et qui étaient carrément contraires à leur pensée étatique. Ils ont réprimé des insurrections communistes pour le compte du gouvernement autoproclamé, ont mené des actions de police et sont devenus, sans le savoir, les partisans d'un parti de guerre civile idéologiquement déterminé dans la lutte pour le pouvoir en Allemagne. Mais c'est à Weimar, dans le cadre de la protection de l'Assemblée nationale, que von Salomon se rendit compte pour la première fois qu'il n'était pas à sa place.

Storia_dei_Freikorps.jpgIl déserta et se rendit dans les pays baltes, où les troupes allemandes progressaient pour la première fois depuis la guerre. Il pensait trouver l'Allemagne sur le front, mais ce front n'était pas allemand: les troupes allemandes se battaient contre les bolcheviks pour le compte des Anglais afin d'assurer le statu quo d'après-guerre. Ils ne l'ont compris que lorsque les Anglais sont tombés dans leur piège et que le gouvernement allemand les a abandonnés et ostracisés. C'est alors que leur idéalisme s'est exacerbé jusqu'à l'excès. La reconnaissance de la paix de Versailles les a libérés intérieurement. Ils se crurent les derniers Allemands, devinrent irréguliers, se battirent et tuèrent sans idée et sans but, jusqu'à ce qu'ils soient obligés de se retirer dans le Reich, vaincus et amers, au tournant des années 1919 et 1920. Mais là, l'ingratitude, la méfiance, la haine idéologique et la dissolution les attendaient. C'est ainsi qu'ils se mirent à la disposition de Kapp, qui tenta un coup d'État sans préparation et totalement insuffisant. Lorsque, suite à l'échec inévitable de ce putsch, les syndicats tentèrent à nouveau de prendre le pouvoir en Allemagne sous le slogan communiste et internationaliste, le lieutenant von Salomon se laissa à nouveau abuser comme volontaire temporaire dans les rangs de la Reichswehr qui "nettoyait" la Ruhr.

Il pensait trouver l'Allemagne sur le front

Il a ensuite été poussé vers l'"Organisation Consul", qui n'a jamais existé dans le cadre qu'on lui avait attribué, croyant à tort que cette organisation secrète de résistance et de terreur contre l'occupant français et les collaborateurs allemands sapait la République. Interrompus seulement par les combats de l'été 1921 pour la Haute-Silésie, où les Français tentaient d'affaiblir l'Allemagne par l'Est en soutenant la Pologne du Congrès, ces résistants devinrent de plus en plus autonomes et échappèrent à la Reichswehr. Déçus et désabusés par l'insuffisance de l'État libéral, ils s'enferment dans l'idée de déstabiliser la République par des assassinats politiques et de jeter les bases d'une "révolution nationale".

oriasswr.jpgLeurs actions ont culminé le 24 juin 1922 avec l'assassinat de Walther Rathenau. Ils avaient cru reconnaître dans le juif Rathenau, qui se trouvait en fait "dès le départ du côté de ses adversaires" (Harry Graf Kessler), et ils étaient soutenus en cela par des politiciens de parti sans scrupules et pour la plupart germanophiles, le seul représentant doué du libéralisme qui pourrait apporter la stabilité à la République et en abuser au détriment des Allemands et au profit de l'impérialisme économique international. Mais en fait, ils ne faisaient que se convaincre de quelque chose : "C'était la démocratie, c'était la justification politique que nous cherchions. Nous en cherchions une - il y avait, par exemple, une politique d'accomplissement. Pour nous, la guerre n'était pas finie, pour nous, la révolution n'était pas terminée".

Au moment où Ernst von Salomon a compris qu'il ne s'agissait pas seulement d'une erreur fatale et criminelle, mais qu'en tuant, il avait également enfreint sa propre loi, le prussianisme, il était trop tard. Condamné à la prison et à la perte de l'honneur pour complicité, la cellule avait néanmoins été fructueuse pour lui. C'est là qu'il s'était détaché des illusions völkisch et idéologiques, qu'il avait commencé à se trouver lui-même. Libéré à Noël 1927 à la suite d'une amnistie, il s'est retrouvé immédiatement à Berlin dans les cercles du "Nouveau nationalisme" et, par l'intermédiaire de son frère Bruno, dans le mouvement révolutionnaire et romantique du Schleswig-Holstein, auquel Hans Fallada a rendu hommage dans son roman Bauern, Bonzen und Bomben.

816s7MubdIL._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg

Emprisonné à Moabit de septembre à décembre 1929 pour cette raison, Ernst von Salomon écrivit son premier livre: Die Geächtete (Les réprouvés), sous l'insistance d'Ernst Rowohlt, qui sentait en Salomon le futur auteur à succès. Cette autobiographie, "qui est en même temps quelque chose comme une auto-biographie de toute l'époque" (Paul Fechter), méritait d'être lue, comme l'écrivit Ernst Jünger dans un compte-rendu, ne serait-ce que "parce qu'elle saisissait le destin de la couche la plus précieuse de cette jeunesse qui grandissait en Allemagne pendant la guerre".

La-Ville.jpgLa deuxième partie de cette trilogie d'après-guerre, La Ville, presque illisible et pourtant d'un intérêt explosif, a été écrite en 1932 : "La Ville était une tentative, un inventaire, un exercice de type littéraire, dans lequel je me suis intéressé à certains problèmes d'écriture très particuliers. La matière est certes intéressante, mais sans engagement pour moi ; elle ne m'a servi qu'à aiguiser toutes les questions". Et la troisième partie, la conclusion de son "Nouveau nationalisme", qui devait être en même temps sa plus belle œuvre littéraire, Les Cadets, avait été écrite dans l'atmosphère si différente de Vienne. C'est là qu'au cours de l'hiver 1932-1933, invité par Othmar Spann, von Salomon découvrit l'austro-universalisme de ce dernier, et n'en devint que plus conscient de ses origines prussiennes et de son propre nominalisme: "Tous les grands mouvements du monde, le christianisme comme l'humanisme, comme le marxisme, sont atteints d'une sorte de maladie, une maladie divine, la peste sublime de la prétention à la totalité. C'est ce qui rend les choses si simples pour celui qui veut se confesser et si difficiles pour celui qui les regarde. Moi, je ne suis pas un confesseur, je suis un observateur passionné. C'est ainsi que je ne suis pas devenu national-socialiste, et c'est ainsi que j'ai dû me séparer d'Othmar Spann".

Von Salomon représente les troubles de son époque

IMG_2728.jpgDe retour à Berlin, où le NSDAP s'efforçait de trouver un terrain d'entente entre lui-même et les corps francs, la préoccupation première de von Salomon était à nouveau de contrer les falsifications dans l'historiographie de l'après-guerre. C'est ainsi que ses deux livres Nahe Geschichte (Histoire proche) et le monumental Buch vom deutschen Freikorpskämpfer (Livre du combattant allemand des Corps Francs) ont vu le jour en tant que correctifs de la déformation de l'histoire nationale-socialiste. Cependant, lorsque de sérieuses difficultés surgirent avec le NSDAP, il se retira de tous les cercles compromettants, y compris du cercle de Harro Schulze-Boysen, par égard pour sa compagne juive qu'il fit passer pour son épouse pendant le Troisième Reich, et "émigra" à la UFA en tant que scénariste.

Le national-socialisme était pour lui - et Hitler en tête - "le plus grand falsificateur de l'histoire allemande". Le dilemme de Salomon et des Allemands était que la guerre était aussi une lutte pour l'existence de l'Allemagne et qu'elle n'avait pas seulement des caractéristiques idéologiques raciales. Ils devaient donc inévitablement rejoindre la phalange de la communauté de destin allemande falsifiée par le national-socialisme. Ce n'est qu'en 1944 que cette alliance devait définitivement éclater.

Mais le fait que les vainqueurs de la guerre mondiale n'aient que trop volontiers repris cette falsification de la nation allemande et de sa revendication d'existence, et qu'ils aient ainsi cherché à détruire l'identité allemande, devait immédiatement pousser Ernst von Salomon, après son "arrestation automatique" de mai 1945 à septembre 1946, à lutter pour la conscience du sujet allemand. Déjà en captivité aux États-Unis, il s'était rendu compte que les mesures prises par les forces d'occupation et leurs hommes de main allemands "n'étaient pas dirigées contre un accusé, mais contre un peuple à qui l'on voulait prouver qu'il n'était pas capable de produire des hommes décents et que le servir était en tout cas indécent". Mais ce système, il le ressentait comme ayant "une ressemblance fatale avec celui que ces gens sont venus combattre dans ce pays dans l'uniforme vestimentaire des vainqueurs". En effet, les vainqueurs dépassaient plus que jamais les limites morales qu'ils imposaient aux Allemands. La réaction de Salomon était claire : "... personne ne peut être blâmé de se garder de s'associer à une puissance si grande qu'elle peut supporter de faire exploser les bombes atomiques d

Lire la suite

vendredi, 21 juillet 2023 | Lien permanent

Nationalisme, concert européen impérial, nouvelle droite et renouveau catholique

250px-Barbarossa.jpg

Archives de SYNERGIES EUROPEENNES - 1994

Nationalisme, concert européen impérial , nouvelle droite et renouveau catholique

Entretien avec Robeert STEUCKERS - Propos recueillis par Xavier Cheneseau

Animateur des revues «Vouloir» et «Orientations» (qui ont pris peu à peu la place d'«Eléments» dans le public de la «Nouvelle Droite», pouvez-vous nous dire comment vous percevez le retour des nationalismes en Europe?

Le terme «nationalisme» recouvre une quantité d’aspirations politiques, parfois divergentes. Alors, je commencerai par mettre les choses au point: pour moi, le «nationalisme», en tant qu’idéologie et pratique politiques, dérive tout naturellement du mot «nation»; au sens étymologique, c’est-à-dire au sens premier, le mot «nation» contient la même racine que «naître» (du latin «nascere»/«nasci», «natus»). La nation est donc la grande famille dans laquelle je nais, et aussi le sol où cette grande famille s’est épanouie. La nation est donc le peuple et le pays au sens charnel du terme. Toute autre définition de la nation est pour moi abusive, tronquée ou extrapolée. Donc fausse. Comme l’Europe est faite de multiples nations, voisines les unes des autres, le philosophe, l’historien ou le militant qui pensent en termes de nationalité déploient automatiquement une pensée qui accepte la variété, la diversité, la multiplicité, la pluralité et s’en réjouissent. Il veut un monde fait d’une infinité de coloris et non un monde de grisaille, comme nous en connaissons dans les banlieues de nos grandes villes. Cette définition de la nation postule que je dois admettre que l’autre veuille gérer son destin local à sa manière. Mais cette multiplicité est difficile à gérer à l’échelle de notre continent, surtout à l’heure où de vieux peuples réclament une structure étatique propre et une voix dans le concert européen. De cette revendication peut jaillir un nouveau désordre, si toutes ces entités politiques, les vieilles comme les nouvelles, se ferment sur elles-mêmes et se refont la guerre au nom de querelles anciennes. Mais si l’on se place directement au niveau européen, au niveau de notre civilisation, et que nous acceptons que cette civilisation s’exprime par une grande variété de modes et de façons, on s’efforcera automatiquement d’élaborer un droit des gens capable de gérer cette diversité sans heurts. Et ce droit des gens s’inspirera des techniques impériales (propres au Saint-Empire médiéval), des modalités fédéralistes de gestion de l’Etat (Suisse, RFA) et acceptera les clauses de la CSCE quant à la protection des minorités linguistiques. En effet, le retour des nationalismes n’est pas tant un retour à l’Etat fermé qu’une volonté de se débarrasser des centralismes trop contraignants et des modes de gestion propres au communisme marxiste-léniniste et au technocratisme libéral occidental. Aujourd’hui, grâce aux nouvelles technologies de communication, le centralisme rigide d’autrefois n’est plus de mise. L’homme du 21ième siècle devra faire face à cette triple nécessité: nécessité géopolitique de concevoir l’unité de l’Europe, nécessité éthique de respecter les diversités productrices de richesses et nécessité pratique de mettre les appareils politiques au diapason des nouvelles techniques de communications.

 

Ces nationalismes peuvent-ils déboucher sur l'émergence d'un Empire européen?

 

Il me semble qu’il est encore trop tôt pour parler d’«Empire européen». D’abord parce que la logique impériale, qui est fédérale, et fonctionne selon le principe de subsidiarité, n’est pas également répartie en Europe. Il subsiste des zones rétives à cette logique de pacification intérieure du continent. Je crois qu’il faut d’abord travailler au sein d’une structure qui existe et qui est la CSCE (qui regroupe tous les pays européens, Russie comprise, plus les Etats-Unis et le Canada). L’idéal, ce serait que la CSCE évolue vers un concert civilisationnel européen et euro-centré, que les Etats-Unis et le Canada s’en retirent pour concentrer leurs efforts sur l’ALENA (Association de Libre-Echange Nord-Américaine). Les Etats d’Amérique du Nord (USA, Canada et Mexique) auront une longueur d’avance: tous trois sont effectivement gérés par un système fédéral. Ce qui facilite les choses. La CEE, c’est-à-dire l’Europe de Maastricht est insuffisante. La fermer sur elle-même est une erreur géopolitique et une injustice sociale à l’égard des pays de l’Est. De plus, sur le plan stratégique et militaire, cette CEE n’est pas viable. La seule entité géostratégiquement viable à très long terme, c’est l’union stratégique des pays européens et asiatiques de la CSCE, reposant sur une interprétation du droit des gens qui accepte les différences culturelles, les gère et les cultive. L’erreur de la CEE a été de vouloir uniformiser l’économie avant d’arriver à un accord inter-européen sur les principes de droit (droit des gens et droit constitutionnel). Le travail de la CEE a été de déconstruire les barrières douanières en tous domaines. Il est évident que c’était peut-être nécessaire dans certaines grosses industries (le charbon et l’acier, d’où la CECA) mais nullement en agriculture. Résultat, nous avons partout en Europe des zones périphériques déshéritées, incapables de sortir de la mélasse puiqu’elles ne peuvent plus recourir à la technique des barrières douanières pour protéger l’emploi chez elles. De surcroît, globalement, l’Europe n’est pas indépendante sur le plan alimentaire, ce qui la met à la merci des puissances exportatrices de céréales (les Etats-Unis). La CSCE est intéressante parce qu’elle repose prioritairement sur le droit et non sur l’économie. Et ce droit règle notamment des problèmes de minorités, qui sont des entités collectives porteuses de culture. Si un «Empire européen» doit advenir —mais je préfère parler d’un concert européen intégré— il reposera sur la généralisation d’un droit constitutionnel de type fédéral, sur la défense de toutes les minorités linguistiques et culturelles et sur l’effort concret de parvenir à l’indépendance alimentaire.

 

Longtemps la «Nouvelle Droite» s'est présentée comme païenne, comment voyez-vous le renouveau du catholicisme en Europe et dans le monde?

 

Je tiens beaucoup à préciser que le paganisme, pour moi, dès le départ, n’a jamais été la volonté de forger un comportement religieux nouveau, mais essentiellement une défense des humanités gréco-latines et l’étude des racines culturelles de tous les autres grands goupes ethniques européens. Ces «humanités» nous dévoilaient une conception du droit et de l’Etat (des «res publicae», des choses publiques: notons le pluriel!) qui pourrait parfaitement nous inspirer encore aujourd’hui. Je rappelle aux zélotes d’une religion caricaturale et sulpicienne que les notions de droit, propres aux Romains, aux Grecs et aux Germains, sont plus anciennes que la religion chrétienne et que ce sont eux qui forment véritablement l’armature de la civilisation européenne. Bien sûr, j’ai toujours reproché aux cercles de la Nouvelle Droite de ne jamais avoir exploré cette veine-là et d’avoir voulu rétablir un culte païen, en ne tenant pas compte du fait que l’Europe pré-chrétienne était animée par une religion de la Cité, c’est-à-dire une religion éminemment politique et non prioritairement esthétique, morale ou éthique. En voulant théoriser une «éthique païenne» ou recréer ex nihilo une «esthétique païenne», avant de rétablir le droit romain ou germanique dans sa plénitude et dans son sens initial, les vedettes les plus bruyantes de la «Nouvelle Droite» ont fait du christianisme inversé, ont tout simplement joué, comme des adolescents irrévérencieux, à renverser les tabous de leur éducation catholique. C’était stupide et peu constructif. Quant au renouveau catholique, je suis sceptique. Evidemment, plusieurs revues italiennes, plus ou moins proche du Vatican (Il Sabato, 30 Giorni), publient des textes de grande valeur, qui renouent avec les grands principes généraux de la politique romaine et abandonnent les chimères de Vatican II ou de mai 68. Par ailleurs, la dépravation morale contemporaine, due aux excès de matérialisme socialiste ou capitaliste, rend attirantes la religion en général et l’idée de communauté fraternelle en particulier. Mais, je ne suis pas prêt à parier pour un catholicisme qui voudrait réduire à néant les acquis du protestantisme ou le caractère sublime de l’orthodoxie gréco-byzantine et russe ou reprendre une croisade contre l’Islam ou dénaturer le vieux fond gréco-celto-romano-germano-slave. Chez les catholiques, il faut retenir, à mon sens, mais en laïcisant ces intuitions et en les ramenant à leur matrice juridique romaine:

1) L’idée d’un œkumène européen, animé par une nouvelle synthèse spirituelle (ce qu’avait voulu réaliser le Tsar Alexandre Ier après la parenthèse napoléonienne).

2) La notion de forme politique basée sur la famille (mais non plus la famille nucléaire actuelle ou évangélique, mais la “gens” au sens romain ou la “Sippe” au sens germanique). Carl Schmitt est le penseur qui a théorisé la notion de «forme politique catholique (au sens d’universel)». Il faut le relire.

2) Reprendre, en les laïcisant, les linéaments du catholicisme social, tant dans sa variante corporatiste que dans sa variante sociologique (Othmar Spann).

3) En France, s’inspirer des études de Stéphane Rials et de Chantal Millon-Delsol, pour y généraliser un droit inspiré par la subsidiarité.

Le renouveau catholique ne saurait être, pour mes camarades et moi-même, le triste guignol intégriste avec ses monstrations esthétiques et ses vaines recherches d’une vérité éthique; ce qui fait urgence, c'est bien le retour à une forme romaine du politique, valable pour toute l’Europe. Un véritable renouveau catholique devrait abandonner la fibre religieuse évangélique, renoncer à toute forme de bigoterie, sphères où désormais les pires simagrées psycho-pathologiques sont possibles, où ont sévi les pires vecteurs de l’anti-politisme, pour redevenir purement et pleinement religiosité politique. Il ne faut retenir du message catholique que ce qui a amélioré et perfectionné le vieux fond politico-juridique romain (au sens pré-impérial, républicain, du terme). Méditons en ce sens Caton l’Ancien.

 

 

Lire la suite

jeudi, 18 décembre 2008 | Lien permanent

Revoluçao Conservadora & Ordo Romanus

b39888b35762d679be527404a4a2997e.jpg

Revoluçao Conservadora, forma catolica e "ordo aeternus" romano

A Revolução Conservadora não é somente uma continuação da «Deutsche Ideologie» romântica ou uma reactualização das tomadas de posição anti-cristãs e helenistas de Hegel (anos 1790-99) ou uma extensão do prussianismo laico e militar, mas tem também o seu lado católico romano. Nos círculos católicos, num Carl Schmitt por exemplo, como nos seus discípulos flamengos, liderados pela personalidade de Victor Leemans, uma variante da Revolução Conservadora incrusta-se no pensamento católico, como sublinha justamente um católico de esquerda, original e verdadeiramente inconformista, o Prof. Richard Faber de Berlim. Para Faber, as variantes católicas da RC renovam não com um Hegel helenista ou um prussianismo militar, mas com o ideal de Novalis, exprimido em Europa oder die Christenheit: este ideal é aquele do organon medieval, onde, pensam os católicos, se estabeleceu uma verdadeira ecúmena europeia, formando uma comunidade orgânica, solidificada pela religião.

Depois do retrocesso e da desaparição progressiva deste organon vivemos um apocalipse, que se vai acelerando, depois da Reforma, a Revolução francesa e a catástrofe europeia de 1914. Desde a revolução bolchevique de 1917, a Europa, dizem estes católicos conservadores alemães, austríacos e flamengos, vive uma Dauerkatastrophe. A vitória francesa é uma vitória da franco-maçonaria, repetem. 1917 significa a destruição do último reduto conservador eslavo, no qual haviam apostado todos os conservadores europeus desde Donoso Cortés( que era por vezes muito pessimista, sobretudo quando lia Bakunine). Os prussianos haviam sempre confiado na aliança russa. Os católicos alemães e austríacos também, mas com a esperança de converter os russos à fé romana. Enfim, o abatimento definitivo dos “estados” sociais, inspirados na época medieval e na idade barroca (instalados ou reinstalados pela Contra-Reforma) mergulha os conservadores católicos no desespero. Helena von Nostitz, amiga de Hugo von Hoffmannstahl, escreve «Wir sind am Ende, Österreich ist tot. Der Glanz, die Macht ist dahin» [« Estamos no fim, a Áustria está morta. O Esplendor e o Poder desapareceram»].

Num tal contexto, o fascismo italiano, contudo saído da extrema-esquerda intervencionista italiana, dos meios socialistas hostis à Áustria conservadora e católica, figura como uma reacção musculada da romanidade católica contra o desafio que lança o comunismo a leste. O fascismo de Mussolini, sobretudo depois dos acordos de Latran, recapitula, aos olhos destes católicos austríacos, os valores latinos, virgilianos, católicos e romanos, mas adaptando-os aos imperativos da modernidade.

É aqui que as referências católicas ao discurso de Donoso Cortés aparecem em toda a sua ambiguidade: para o polemista espanhol a Rússia arriscava converter-se ao socialismo para varrer pela violência o liberalismo decadente, como teria conseguido se tivesse mantido a sua opção conservadora. Esta evocação da socialização da Rússia por Donoso Cortés permite a certos conservadores prussianos, como Moeller van den Bruck, simpatizar com o exército vermelho, para parar a Oeste os exércitos ao serviço do liberalismo maçónico ou da finança anglo-saxónica, ainda mais porque depois do tratado de Rapallo(1922), a Reichswehr e o novo exército vermelho cooperam. O reduto russo permanece intacto, mesmo se mudou de etiqueta ideológica.

Hugo von Hoffmannstahl, em Das Schriftum als geistiger Raum der Nation [As cartas como espaço espiritual da Nação] utiliza pela primeira vez na Alemanha o termo “Revolução Conservadora”, tomando assim o legado dos russos que o haviam precedido, Dostoievski e Yuri Samarine. Para ele a RC é um contra-movimento que se opõe a todas as convulsões espirituais desde o século XVI. Para Othmar Spann, a RC é uma Contra-Renascença. Quanto a Eugen Rosenstock( que é protestante), escreve: «Um vorwärts zu leben, müssen wir hinter die Glaubensspaltung zurückgreifen» [Para continuar a viver, seguindo em frente, devemos recorrer ao que havia antes da ruptura religiosa]. Para Leopold Ziegler (igualmente protestante) e Edgard Julius Jung (protestante), era preciso uma restitutio in integrum, um regresso à integralidade ecuménica europeia, Julius Evola teria dito: à Tradição. Eles queriam dizer por aquilo que os Estados não deviam mais opor-se uns aos outros mas ser reconduzidos num “conjunto potencializador”.

Se Moeller van den Bruck e Eugen Rosenstock actuam em clubes, como o Juni-Klub, o Herren-Klub ou em círculos que gravitam em torno da revista de sociologia, economia e politologia Die Tat, os que desejam manter uma ética católica e cuja fé religiosa subjuga todo o comportamento, reagrupam-se em “círculos” mais meditativos ou em ordens de conotação monástica. Richard Feber calcula que estas criações católicas, neo-católicas ou para-católicas, de “ordens”, se efectuaram a 4 níveis:

1)No círculo literário e poético agrupado em torno da personalidade de Stefan George, aspirando a um “novo Reich”, isto é, um “novo reino” ou um “novo éon”, mais do que a uma estrutura política comparável ao império dos Habsbourg ou ao dos Hohenzollern.

2)No “Eranos-Kreis”( Círculo Eranos) do filósofo místico Derleth, cujo pensamento se inscreve na tradição de Virgílio ou Hölderlin, colocando-se sob a insígnia de uma “Ordem do Christus- Imperator”.

3)Nos círculos de reflexão instalados em Maria Laach, na Renânia-Palatinado, onde se elaborava uma espécie de neo-catolicismo alemão sob a direcção do teólogo Peter Wust, comparável, em muitos aspectos, ao “Renouveau Catholique” de Maritain na França (que foi próximo, a dado momento, da Acção Francesa) e onde a fé se transmitia aos aprendizes particularmente por uma poesia derivada dos cânones e das temáticas estabelecidas pelo “Circulo” de Stefan George em Munique-Schwabing desde os anos 20.

4)Nos movimentos de juventude, mais ou menos confessionais ou religiosos, particularmente nas suas variantes “Bündisch”, bom número de responsáveis desejavam introduzir, por via das suas ligas ou das suas tropas, uma “teologia dos mistérios”.

As variantes católicas ou catolizantes, ou pós-católicas, preconizaram então um regresso à metafísica política, no sentido em que queriam uma restauração do “Ordo romanus”, “Ordem romana”, definida por Virgílio como “Ordo aeternus”, “ordem eterna”. Este catolicismo apelava à renovação com esse “Ordo aeternus” romano que, na sua essência, não era cristão mas a expressão duma paganização do catolicismo, explica-nos o cristão católico de esquerda Richard Faber, no sentido em que, neste apelo à restauração do “Ordo romanus/aeternus”, a continuidade católica não é já fundamentalmente uma continuidade cristã mas uma continuidade arcaica. Assim, a “forma católica” veicula, cristianizando-a (na superfície?), a forma imperial antiga de Roma, como assinalou igualmente Carl Schmitt em Römischer Katholizismus und politische Form (1923). Nessa obra, o politólogo e jurista alemão lança de alguma maneira um duplo apelo: à forma (que é essencialmente, na Europa, romana e católica, ou seja, universal enquanto imperial e não imediatamente enquanto cristã) e à Terra (esteio incontornável de toda a acção política), contra o economicismo volúvel e hiper-móvel, contra a ideologia sem esteio que é o bolchevismo, aliado objectivo do economicismo anglo-saxónico.

Para os proponentes deste catolicismo mais romano que cristão, para um jurista e constitucionalista como Schmitt, o anti-catolicismo saído da filosofia das Luzes e do positivismo cienticista( referências do liberalismo) rejeita de facto esta matriz imperial e romana, este primitivismo antigo e fecundo, e não o eudemonismo implícito do cristianismo. O objectivo desta romanidade e desta “imperialidade” virgiliana consiste no fundo, queixa-se Faber, que é um anti-fascista por vezes demasiado militante, em meter o catolicismo cristão entre parênteses para mergulhar directamente, sem mais nenhum derivativo, sem mais nenhuma pseudo-morfose (para utilizar um vocábulo spengleriano), no “Ordo aeternus”.

Na nossa óptica este discurso acaba ambíguo, porque há confusão permanente entre Europa e Ocidente. Com efeito, depois de 1945, o Ocidente, vasto receptáculo territorial oceânico-centrado, onde é sensato recompor o “Ordo romanus” para estes pensadores conservadores e católicos, torna-se a Euroamérica, o Atlantis: paradoxo difícil de resolver, porque como ligar os princípios “térreos” (Schmitt) e os da fluidez liberal, hiper-moderna e economicista da civilização “estado-unidense”?

Para outros, entre o Oriente bolchevizado e pós-ortodoxo e o Hiper-Ocidente fluido e ultra-materialista, deve erguer-se uma potência “térrea”, justamente instalada sobre o território matricial da “imperialidade” virgiliana e carolíngia, e esta potência é a Europa em gestação. Mas com a Alemanha vencida, impedida de exercer as suas funções imperiais pós-romanas uma translatio imperii (translação do império) deve operar-se em beneficio da França de De Gaulle, uma translação imperii ad Gallos, temática em voga no momento da reaproximação entre De Gaulle e Adenauer e mais pertinente ainda no momento em que Charles De Gaulle tenta, no curso dos anos 60, posicionar a França “contra os impérios”, ou seja, contra os “imperialismos”, veículos da fluidez mórbida da modernidade anti-política e antídotos para toda a forma de fixação estabilizante (NdT. Daqui presume-se uma distinção entre imperialismo e imperialidade, daí o uso dos dois conceitos).

Se Eric Voegelin tinha teorizado um conservantismo em que a ideologia derivava da noção de “Ordo romanus”, ele colocava o seu discurso filosófico-político ao serviço da NATO, esperando deste modo uma fusão entre os princípios “fluidos” e “térreos” (NdT. naturalmente esta dicotomia que o autor usa recorrentemente no texto é uma referência à tradicional oposição entre ordenamentos marítimos e terrestres) , o que é uma impossibilidade metafísica e prática. Se o tandem De Gaulle-Adenauer se referia também, sem dúvida, no topo, a um projecto derivado da noção de “Ordo aeternus”, colocava o seu discurso e as suas práticas, num primeiro momento (antes da viagem de De gaulle a Moscovo, à América Latina e antes da venda dos Mirage à Índia e do famosos discursos de Pnom-Penh e do Quebeque), ao serviço de uma Europa mutilada, hemiplégica, reduzida a um “rimland” atlântico vagamente alargado e sem profundidade estratégica. Com os últimos escritos de Thomas Molnar e de Franco Cardini, com a reconstituição geopolítica da Europa, este discurso sobre o “Ordo romanus et aeternus” pode por fim ser posto ao serviço de um grande espaço europeu, viável, capaz de se impor sob a cena internacional. E com as proposições de um russo como Vladimir Wiedemann-Guzman, que percepciona a reorganização do conjunto euro-asiático numa “imperialidade” bicéfala, germânica e russa, a expansão grande-continental está em curso, pelo menos no plano teórico. E para terminar, parafraseando De Gaulle: A estrutura administrativa acompanhá-la-á?

Robert Steuckers

Lire la suite

lundi, 02 juillet 2007 | Lien permanent

Carl Schmitt: The Conservative Revolutionary Habitus and the Aesthetics of Horror

Carl Schmitt: The Conservative Revolutionary Habitus and the Aesthetics of Horror

Richard Wolin

Ex: http://freespeechproject.com/

 

"Carl Schmitt's polemical discussion of political Romanticism conceals the aestheticizing oscillations of his own political thought. In this respect, too, a kinship of spirit with the fascist intelligentsia reveals itself."
—Jürgen Habermas, "The Horrors of Autonomy: Carl Schmitt in English"

"The pinnacle of great politics is the moment in which the enemy comes into view in concrete clarity as the enemy."
—Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political (1927)

carl_schmitt.jpg

Only months after Hitler's accession to power, the eminently citable political philosopher and jurist Carl Schmitt, in the ominously titled work, Staat, Bewegung, Volk, delivered one of his better known dicta. On January 30, 1933, observes Schmitt, "one can say that 'Hegel died.'" In the vast literature on Schmitt's role in the National Socialist conquest of power, one can find many glosses on this one remark, which indeed speaks volumes. But let us at the outset be sure to catch Schmitt's meaning, for Schmitt quickly reminds us what he does not intend by this pronouncement: he does not mean to impugn the hallowed tradition of German étatistme, that is, of German "philosophies of state," among which Schmitt would like to number his own contributions to the annals of political thought. Instead, it is Hegel qua philosopher of the "bureaucratic class" or Beamtenstaat that has been definitely surpassed with Hitler's triumph. For "bureaucracy" (cf. Max Weber's characterization of "legal-bureaucratic domination") is, according to its essence, a bourgeois form of rule. As such, this class of civil servants—which Hegel in the Rechtsphilosophie deems the "universal class"—represents an impermissable drag on the sovereignty of executive authority. For Schmitt, its characteristic mode of functioning, which is based on rules and procedures that are fixed, preestablished, calculable, qualifies it as the very embodiment of bourgeois normalcy—a form of life that Schmitt strove to destroy and transcend in virtually everything he thought and wrote during the 1920s, for the very essence of the bureaucratic conduct of business is reverence for the norm, a standpoint that could not exist in great tension with the doctrines of Carl Schmitt himself, whom we know to be a philosopher of the state of emergency—of the Auhsnamhezustand (literally, the "state of exception"). Thus, in the eyes of Schmitt, Hegel had set an ignominious precedent by according this putative universal class a position of preeminence in his political thought, insofar as the primacy of the bureaucracy tends to diminish or supplant the perogative of sovereign authority.

But behind the critique of Hegel and the provocative claim that Hitler's rise coincides with Hegel's metaphorical death (a claim, that while true, should have offered, pace Schmitt, little cause for celebration) lies a further indictment, for in the remarks cited, Hegel is simultaneously perceived as an advocate of the Rechtsstaat, of "constitutionalism" and "rule of law." Therefore, in the history of German political thought, the doctrines of this very German philosopher prove to be something of a Trojan horse: they represent a primary avenue via which alien bourgeois forms of political life have infiltrated healthy and autochthonous German traditions, one of whose distinguishing features is an rejection of "constitutionalism" and all it implies. The political thought of Hegel thus represents a threat—and now we encounter another one of Schmitt's key terms from the 1920s—to German homogeneity.

Schmitt's poignant observations concerning the relationship between Hegel and Hitler expresses the idea that one tradition in German cultural life—the tradition of German idealism—has come to an end and a new set of principles—based in effect on the category of völkish homogeneity (and all it implies for Germany's political future)—has arisen to take its place. Or, to express the same thought in other terms: a tradition based on the concept of Vernuft or "reason" has given way to a political system whose new raison d'être was the principle of authoritarian decision—whose consummate embodiment was the Führerprinzep, one of the ideological cornerstones of the post-Hegelian state. To be sure, Schmitt's insight remains a source of fascination owing to its uncanny prescience: in a statement of a few words, he manages to express the quintessence of some 100 years of German historical development. At the same time, this remark also remains worthy insofar as it serves as a prism through which the vagaries of Schmitt's own intellectual biography come into unique focues: it represents an unambiguous declaration of his satiety of Germany's prior experiments with constitutional government and of his longing for a total- or Führerstaat in which the ambivalences of the parliamentary system would be abolished once and for all. Above all, however, it suggest how readily Schmitt personally made the transition from intellectual antagonist of Weimar democracy to whole-hearted supporter of National Socialist revolution. Herein lies what one may refer to as the paradox of Carl Schmitt: a man who, in the words of Hannah Arendt, was a "convinced Nazi," yet "whose very ingenious theories about the end of democracy and legal government still make arresting reading."

The focal point of our inquiry will be the distinctive intellectual "habitus" (Bourdieu) that facilitated Schmitt's alacritous transformation from respected Weimar jurist and academician to "crown jurist of the Third Reich." To understand the intellectual basis of Schmitt's political views, one must appreciate his elective affinities with that generation of so-called conservative revolutionary thinkers whose worldview was so decisive in turning the tide of public opinion against the fledgling Weimar republic. As the political theorist Kurt Sontheimer has noted: "It is hardly a matter of controversy today that certain ideological predispositions in German thought generally, but particularly in the intellectual climate of the Weimar Republic, induced a large number of German electors under the Weimar Republic to consider the National Socialist movement as less problematic than it turned out to be." And even though the nationalsocialists and the conservative revolutionaries failed to see eye to eye on many points, their respective plans for a new Germany were sufficiently close that a comparison between them is able to "throw light on the intellectual atmosphere in which, when National Socialism arose, it could seem to be a more or less presentable doctrine." Hence "National Socialism . . . derived considerable profit from thinkers like Oswald Spengler, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, and Ernst Jünger," despite their later parting of the ways. One could without much exaggeration label this intellectual movement protofascistic, insofar as its general ideological effect consisted in providing a type of ideological-spiritual preparation for the National Socialist triumph.

 

Schmitt himself was never an active member of the conservative revolutionary movement, whose best known representatives—Spengler, Jünger, and van den Bruck—have been named by Sontheimer (though one might add Hans Zehrer and Othmar Spann). It would be fair to say that the major differences between Schmitt and his like-minded, influential group of right-wing intellectuals concerned a matter of form rather than substance: unlike Schmitt, most of whose writings appeared in scholarly and professional journals, the conservative revolutionaries were, to a man, nonacademics who made names for themselves as Publizisten—that is, as political writers in that same kaleidoscope and febrile world of Weimar Offentlichkeit that was the object of so much scorn in their work. But Schmitt's status as a fellow traveler in relation to the movement's main journals (such as Zehrer's influential Die Tat, activities, and circles notwithstanding, his profound intellectual affinities with this group of convinced antirepublicans are impossible to deny. In fact, in the secondary literature, it has become more common than not simply to include him as a bona fide member of the group.

The intellectual habitus shared by Schmitt and the conservative revolutionaries is in no small measure of Nietzschean derivation. Both subscribed to the immoderate verdict registered by Nietzsche on the totality of inherited Western values: those values were essentially nihilistic. Liberalism, democracy, utlitarianism, individualism, and Enlightenment rationalism were the characteristic belief structures of the decadent capitalist West; they were manifestations of a superficial Zivilisation, which failed to measure up to the sublimity of German Kultur. In opposition to a bourgeois society viewed as being in an advanced state of decomposition, Schmitt and the conservative revolutionaries counterposed the Nietzschean rites of "active nihilism." In Nietzsche's view, whatever is falling should be given a final push. Thus one of the patented conceptual oppositions proper to the conservative revolutionary habitus was that between the "hero" (or "soldier") and the "bourgeois." Whereas the hero thrives on risk, danger, and uncertainity, the life of bourgeois is devoted to petty calculations of utility and security. This conceptual opposition would occupy center stage in what was perhaps the most influential conservative revolutionary publication of the entire Weimar period, Ernst Jünger's 1932 work, Der Arbeiter (the worker), where it assumes the form of a contrast between "the worker-soldier" and "the bourgeois." If one turns, for example, to what is arguably Schmitt's major work of the 1920s, The Concept of the Political (1927), where the famous "friend-enemy" distinction is codified as the raison d'être of politics, it is difficult to ignore the profound conservative revolutionary resonances of Schmitt's argument. Indeed, it would seem that such resonances permeate, Schmitt's attempt to justify politics primarily in martial terms; that is, in light of the ultimate instance of (or to use Schmitt's own terminology) Ernstfall of battle (Kampf) or war.

Once the conservative revolutionary dimension of Schmitt's thought is brought to light, it will become clear that the continuities in his pre- and post-1933 political philosophy and stronger than the discontinuities. Yet Schmitt's own path of development from arch foe of Weimar democracy to "convinced Nazi" (Arendt) is mediated by a successive series of intellectual transformations that attest to his growing political radicalisation during the 1920s and early 1930s. He follows a route that is both predictable and sui generis: predictable insomuch as it was a route traveled by an entire generation of like-minded German conservative and nationalist intellectuals during the interwar period; sui generis, insofar as there remains an irreducible originality and perspicacity to the various Zeitdiagnosen proffered by Schmitt during the 1920s, in comparison with the at times hackneyed and familar formulations of his conservative revolutionary contemporaries.

The oxymoronic designation "conservative revolutionary" is meant to distinguish the radical turn taken during the interwar period by right-of-center German intellectuals from the stance of their "traditional conservative" counterparts, who longed for a restoration of the imagined glories of earlier German Reichs and generally stressed the desirability of a return to premodern forms of social order (e.g., Tönnies Gemeinschaft) based on aristocratic considerations of rank and privilege. As opposed to the traditional conservatives, the conservative revolutionaries (and this is true of Jünger, van den Bruck, and Schmitt), in their reflections of the German defeat in the Great War, concluded that if Germany were to be successful in the next major European conflagaration, premodern or traditional solutions would not suffice. Instead, what was necessary was "modernization," yet a form of modernization that was at the same time compatible with the (albeit mythologized) traditional German values of heroism, "will" (as opposed to "reason"), Kultur, and hierarchy. In sum, what was desired was a modern community. As Jeffrey Herf has stressed in his informative book on the subject, when one searches for the ideological origins of National Socialism, it is not so much Germany's rejection of modernity that is at issue as its selective embrace of modernity. Thus
National Socialist's triumph, far from being characterized by a disdain of modernity simpliciter, was marked simultaneously by an assimilation of technical modernity and a repudiation of Western political modernity: of the values of political liberalism as they emerge from the democratic revolutions of the eighteenth century. This describes the essence of the German "third way" or Sonderweg: Germany's special path to modernity that is neither Western in the sense of England and France nor Eastern in the sense of Russia or pan-slavism.

Schmitt began his in the 1910s as a traditonal conservative, namely, as a Catholic philosopher of state. As such, his early writings revolved around a version of political authoritarianism in which the idea of a strong state was defended at all costs against the threat of liberal encroachments. In his most significant work of the decade, The Value of the State and the Significance of the Individual (1914), the balance between the two central concepts, state and individual, is struck one-sidely in favour of the former term. For Schmitt, the state, in executing its law-promulgating perogatives, cannot countenance any opposition. The uncompromising, antiliberal conclusion he draws from this observation is that "no individual can have full autonomy within the state." Or, as Schmitt unambiguously expresses a similar thought elsewhere in the same work: "the individual" is merely "a means to the essence, the state is what is important." Thus, although Schmitt displayed little inclination for the brand of jingoistic nationalism so prevalent among his German academic mandarin brethern during the war years, as Joseph Bendersky has observed, "it was precisely on the point of authoritarianism vs. liberal individualism that the views of many Catholics [such as Schmitt] and those of non-Catholic conservatives coincided."

But like other German conservatives, it was Schmitt's antipathy to liberal democratic forms of government, coupled with the political turmoil of the Weimar republic, that facilitated his transformation from a traditional conservative to a conservative revolutionary. To be sure, a full account of the intricacies of Schmitt's conservative revolutionary "conversion" would necessitate a year by year account of his political thought during the Weimar period, during which Schmitt's intellectual output was nothing if prolific, (he published virtually a book a year). Instead, for the sake of concision and the sake of fidelity to the leitmotif of the "conservative revolutionary habitus," I have elected to concentrate on three key aspects of Schmitt's intellectual transformation during this period: first, his sympathies with the vitalist (lebensphilosophisch) critique of modern rationalism; second, his philosophy of history during these years; and third, his protofascistic of the conservative revolutionary doctrine of the "total state." All three aspects, moreover, are integrally interrelated.

II.


The vitalist critique of Enlightenment rationalism is of Nietzschean provenance. In opposition to the traditional philosophical image of "man" qua animal rationalis, Nietzsche counterposes his vision of "life [as] will to power." In the course of this "transvaluation of all values," the heretofore marginalized forces of life, will, affect, and passion should reclaim the position of primacy they once enjoyed before the triumph of "Socratism." It is in precisely this spirit that Nietzsche recommends that in the future, we philosophize with our affects instead of with concepts, for in the culture of European nihilism that has triumphed with the Enlightenment, "the essence of life, its will to power, is ignored," argues Nietzsche; "one overlooks the essential priority of the spontaneous, aggressive, expansive, form-giving forces that give new interpretations and directions."

It would be difficult to overestimate the power and influence this Nietzschean critique exerted over an entire generation of antidemocratic German intellectuals during the 1920s. The anticivilizational ethos that pervades Spengler's Decline of the West—the defence of "blood and tradition" against the much lamented forces of societal rationalisation—would be unthinkable without that dimension of vitalistic Kulturkritik to which Nietzsche's work gave consummate expression. Nor would it seem that the doctrines of Klages, Geist als Widersacher der Seele (Intellect as the Antagonist of the Soul; 1929-31), would have captured the mood of the times as well as they did had it not been for the irrevocable precedent set by Nietzsche's work, for the central opposition between "life" and "intellect," as articulated by Klages and so many other German "anti-intellectual intellectuals" during the interwar period, represents an unmistakably Nietzschean inheritance.

While the conservative revolutionary components of Schmitt's worldview have been frequently noted, the paramount role played by the "philosophy of life"—above all, by the concept of cultural criticism proper to

Lire la suite

jeudi, 11 août 2011 | Lien permanent

Revoluçao Conservadora, forma catolica e ”ordo aeternus” romano

000.jpgRevolução Conservadora, forma católica e “ordo aeternus” romano

A Revolução Conservadora não é somente uma continuação da «Deutsche Ideologie» romântica ou uma reactualização das tomadas de posição anti-cristãs e helenistas de Hegel (anos 1790-99) ou uma extensão do prussianismo laico e militar, mas tem também o seu lado católico romano. Nos círculos católicos, num Carl Schmitt por exemplo, como nos seus discípulos flamengos, liderados pela personalidade de Victor Leemans, uma variante da Revolução Conservadora incrusta-se no pensamento católico, como sublinha justamente um católico de esquerda, original e verdadeiramente inconformista, o Prof. Richard Faber de Berlim. Para Faber, as variantes católicas da RC renovam não com um Hegel helenista ou um prussianismo militar, mas com o ideal de Novalis, exprimido em Europa oder die Christenheit: este ideal é aquele do organon medieval, onde, pensam os católicos, se estabeleceu uma verdadeira ecúmena europeia, formando uma comunidade orgânica, solidificada pela religião.Der Glanz, die Macht ist dahin» [«Estamos no fim, a Áustria está morta. O Esplendor e o Poder desapareceram»].


Depois do retrocesso e da desaparição progressiva deste organon vivemos um apocalipse, que se vai acelerando, depois da Reforma, a Revolução francesa e a catástrofe europeia de 1914. Desde a revolução bolchevique de 1917, a Europa, dizem estes católicos conservadores alemães, austríacos e flamengos, vive uma Dauerkatastrophe. A vitória francesa é uma vitória da franco-maçonaria, repetem. 1917 significa a destruição do último reduto conservador eslavo, no qual haviam apostado todos os conservadores europeus desde Donoso Cortés (que era por vezes muito pessimista, sobretudo quando lia Bakunine). Os prussianos haviam sempre confiado na aliança russa. Os católicos alemães e austríacos também, mas com a esperança de converter os russos à fé romana. Enfim, o abatimento definitivo dos “estados” sociais, inspirados na época medieval e na idade barroca (instalados ou reinstalados pela Contra-Reforma) mergulha os conservadores católicos no desespero. Helena von Nostitz, amiga de Hugo von Hoffmannstahl, escreve «Wir sind am Ende, Österreich ist tot.


Num tal contexto, o fascismo italiano, contudo saído da extrema-esquerda intervencionista italiana, dos meios socialistas hostis à Áustria conservadora e católica, figura como uma reacção musculada da romanidade católica contra o desafio que lança o comunismo a leste. O fascismo de Mussolini, sobretudo depois dos acordos de Latrão, recapitula, aos olhos destes católicos austríacos, os valores latinos, virgilianos, católicos e romanos, mas adaptando-os aos imperativos da modernidade.


É aqui que as referências católicas ao discurso de Donoso Cortés aparecem em toda a sua ambiguidade: para o polemista espanhol a Rússia arriscava converter-se ao socialismo para varrer pela violência o liberalismo decadente, como teria conseguido se tivesse mantido a sua opção conservadora. Esta evocação da socialização da Rússia por Donoso Cortés permite a certos conservadores prussianos, como Moeller van den Bruck, simpatizar com o exército vermelho, para parar a Oeste os exércitos ao serviço do liberalismo maçónico ou da finança anglo-saxónica, ainda mais porque depois do tratado de Rapallo (1922), a Reichswehr e o novo exército vermelho cooperam. O reduto russo permanece intacto, mesmo se mudou de etiqueta ideológica.
Hugo von Hoffmannstahl, em Das Schriftum als geistiger Raum der Nation [As cartas como espaço espiritual da Nação] utiliza pela primeira vez na Alemanha o termo “Revolução Conservadora”, tomando assim o legado dos russos que o haviam precedido, Dostoievski e Yuri Samarine.

Para ele a RC é um contra-movimento que se opõe a todas as convulsões espirituais desde o século XVI. Para Othmar Spann, a RC é uma Contra-Renascença. Quanto a Eugen Rosenstock( que é protestante), escreve: «Um vorwärts zu leben, müssen wir hinter die Glaubensspaltung zurückgreifen» [Para continuar a viver, seguindo em frente, devemos recorrer ao que havia antes da ruptura religiosa]. Para Leopold Ziegler (igualmente protestante) e Edgard Julius Jung (protestante), era preciso uma restitutio in integrum, um regresso à integralidade ecuménica europeia, Julius Evola teria dito: à Tradição. Eles queriam dizer por aquilo que os Estados não deviam mais opor-se uns aos outros mas ser reconduzidos num “conjunto potencializador”.
Se Moeller van den Bruck e Eugen Rosenstock actuam em clubes, como o Juni-Klub, o Herren-Klub ou em círculos que gravitam em torno da revista de sociologia, economia e politologia Die Tat, os que desejam manter uma ética católica e cuja fé religiosa subjuga todo o comportamento, reagrupam-se em “círculos” mais meditativos ou em ordens de conotação monástica. Richard Feber calcula que estas criações católicas, neo-católicas ou para-católicas, de “ordens”, se efectuaram a 4 níveis:


1) No círculo literário e poético agrupado em torno da personalidade de Stefan George, aspirando a um “novo Reich”, isto é, um “novo reino” ou um “novo éon”, mais do que a uma estrutura política comparável ao império dos Habsbourg ou ao dos Hohenzollern.


2) No “Eranos-Kreis” (Círculo Eranos) do filósofo místico Derleth, cujo pensamento se inscreve na tradição de Virgílio ou Hölderlin, colocando-se sob a insígnia de uma “Ordem do Christus- Imperator”.


3) Nos círculos de reflexão instalados em Maria Laach, na Renânia-Palatinado, onde se elaborava uma espécie de neo-catolicismo alemão sob a direcção do teólogo Peter Wust, comparável, em muitos aspectos, ao “Renouveau Catholique” de Maritain na França (que foi próximo, a dado momento, da Acção Francesa) e onde a fé se transmitia aos aprendizes particularmente por uma poesia derivada dos cânones e das temáticas estabelecidas pelo “Circulo” de Stefan George em Munique-Schwabing desde os anos 20.


4) Nos movimentos de juventude, mais ou menos confessionais ou religiosos, particularmente nas suas variantes “Bündisch”, bom número de responsáveis desejavam introduzir, por via das suas ligas ou das suas tropas, uma “teologia dos mistérios”.


As variantes católicas ou catolizantes, ou pós-católicas, preconizaram então um regresso à metafísica política, no sentido em que queriam uma restauração do “Ordo romanus”, “Ordem romana”, definida por Virgílio como “Ordo aeternus”, “ordem eterna”. Este catolicismo apelava à renovação com esse “Ordo aeternus” romano que, na sua essência, não era cristão mas a expressão duma paganização do catolicismo, explica-nos o cristão católico de esquerda Richard Faber, no sentido em que, neste apelo à restauração do “Ordo romanus/aeternus”, a continuidade católica não é já fundamentalmente uma continuidade cristã mas uma continuidade arcaica. Assim, a “forma católica” veicula, cristianizando-a (na superfície?), a forma imperial antiga de Roma, como assinalou igualmente Carl Schmitt em Römischer Katholizismus und politische Form (1923). Nessa obra, o politólogo e jurista alemão lança de alguma maneira um duplo apelo: à forma (que é essencialmente, na Europa, romana e católica, ou seja, universal enquanto imperial e não imediatamente enquanto cristã) e à Terra (esteio incontornável de toda a acção política), contra o economicismo volúvel e hiper-móvel, contra a ideologia sem esteio que é o bolchevismo, aliado objectivo do economicismo anglo-saxónico.


Para os proponentes deste catolicismo mais romano que cristão, para um jurista e constitucionalista como Schmitt, o anti-catolicismo saído da filosofia das Luzes e do positivismo cienticista( referências do liberalismo) rejeita de facto esta matriz imperial e romana, este primitivismo antigo e fecundo, e não o eudemonismo implícito do cristianismo. O objectivo desta romanidade e desta “imperialidade” virgiliana consiste no fundo, queixa-se Faber, que é um anti-fascista por vezes demasiado militante, em meter o catolicismo cristão entre parênteses para mergulhar directamente, sem mais nenhum derivativo, sem mais nenhuma pseudo-morfose (para utilizar um vocábulo spengleriano), no “Ordo aeternus”.


Na nossa óptica este discurso acaba ambíguo, porque há confusão permanente entre Europa e Ocidente. Com efeito, depois de 1945, o Ocidente, vasto receptáculo territorial oceânico-centrado, onde é sensato recompor o “Ordo romanus” para estes pensadores conservadores e católicos, torna-se a Euroamérica, o Atlantis: paradoxo difícil de resolver, porque como ligar os princípios “térreos” (Schmitt) e os da fluidez liberal, hiper-moderna e economicista da civilização “estado-unidense”?


Para outros, entre o Oriente bolchevizado e pós-ortodoxo e o Hiper-Ocidente fluido e ultra-materialista, deve erguer-se uma potência “térrea”, justamente instalada sobre o território matricial da “imperialidade” virgiliana e carolíngia, e esta potência é a Europa em gestação. Mas com a Alemanha vencida, impedida de exercer as suas funções imperiais pós-romanas uma translatio imperii (translação do império) deve operar-se em beneficio da França de De Gaulle, uma translação imperii ad Gallos, temática em voga no momento da reaproximação entre De Gaulle e Adenauer e mais pertinente ainda no momento em que Charles De Gaulle tenta, no curso dos anos 60, posicionar a França “contra os impérios”, ou seja, contra os “imperialismos”, veículos da fluidez mórbida da modernidade anti-política e antídotos para toda a forma de fixação estabilizante (NdT. Daqui presume-se uma distinção entre imperialismo e imperialidade, daí o uso dos dois conceitos).


Se Eric Voegelin tinha teorizado um conservantismo em que a ideologia derivava da noção de “Ordo romanus”, ele colocava o seu discurso filosófico-político ao serviço da NATO, esperando deste modo uma fusão entre os princípios “fluidos” e “térreos” (NdT. naturalmente esta dicotomia que o autor usa recorrentemente no texto é uma referência à tradicional oposição entre ordenamentos marítimos e terrestres), o que é uma impossibilidade metafísica e prática. Se o tandem De Gaulle-Adenauer se referia também, sem dúvida, no topo, a um projecto derivado da noção de “Ordo aeternus”, colocava o seu discurso e as suas práticas, num primeiro momento (antes da viagem de De Gaulle a Moscovo, à América Latina e antes da venda dos Mirage à Índia e do famosos discursos de Pnom-Penh e do Quebeque), ao serviço de uma Europa mutilada, hemiplégica, reduzida a um “rimland” atlântico vagamente alargado e sem profundidade estratégica. Com os últimos escritos de Thomas Molnar e de Franco Cardini, com a reconstituição geopolítica da Europa, este discurso sobre o “Ordo romanus et aeternus” pode por fim ser posto ao serviço de um grande espaço europeu, viável, capaz de se impor sob a cena internacional. E com as proposições de um russo como Vladimir Wiedemann-Guzman, que percepciona a reorganização do conjunto euro-asiático numa “imperialidade” bicéfala, germânica e russa, a expansão grande-continental está em curso, pelo menos no plano teórico. E para terminar, parafraseando De Gaulle: A estrutura administrativa acompanhá-la-á?

Robert Steuckers

 

Lire la suite

mercredi, 21 octobre 2009 | Lien permanent

Know Your Gnostics

Eric_Voegelin-banner-612x300.jpg

Know Your Gnostics

 

Eric Voegelin diagnosed the neoconservatives' disease

Eric Voegelin often is regarded as a major figure in 20th-century conservative thought—one of his concepts inspired what has been a popular catchphrase on the right for decades, “don’t immanentize the eschaton”—but he rejected ideological labels. In his youth, in Vienna, he attended the famous Mises Circle seminars, where he developed lasting friendships with figures who would be important in the revival of classical liberalism, such as F.A. Hayek, but he later rejected their libertarianism as yet another misguided offshoot of the Enlightenment project. Voegelin has sometimes been paired with the British political theorist Michael Oakeshott, who greatly admired his work, but he grounded his political theorizing in a spiritual vision in a way that was quite foreign to Oakeshott’s thought. Voegelin once wrote, “I have been called every conceivable name by partisans of this or that ideology… a Communist, a Fascist, a National Socialist, an old liberal, a new liberal, a Jew, a Catholic, a Protestant, a Platonist, a neo-Augustinian, a Thomist, and of course a Hegelian.”

But whatever paradoxes he embodied, Voegelin was, first and foremost, a passionate seeker for truth. He paid no attention to what party his findings might please or displease, and he was willing to abandon vast amounts of writing, material that might have enhanced his reputation as scholar, when the development of his thought led him to believe that he needed to pursue a different direction. As such, his ideas deserve the attention of anyone who sincerely seeks for the origins of political order. And they have a timely relevance given recent American ventures aimed at fixing the problems of the world through military interventions in far-flung regions.

Voegelin was born in Cologne, Germany in 1901. His family moved to Vienna when he was nine, and there he earned a Ph.D. in political science in 1922, under the dual supervision of Hans Kelsen, the author of the constitution of the new Austrian republic, and the economist Othmar Spann. He subsequently studied law in Berlin and Heidelberg and spent a summer at Oxford University mastering English. (He commented that his English was so poor when he arrived that he spent some minutes wondering why a street-corner speaker was so enthusiastic about the benefits of cheeses, before he realized the man was preaching about Jesus.) He then traveled to the United States, where he took courses at Columbia with John Dewey, Harvard with Alfred North Whitehead, and Wisconsin with John R. Commons, where he said he first discovered “the real, authentic America.”

Upon returning to Austria, he resumed attending the Mises Seminar, and he published two works critical of the then ascendant doctrine of racism. These made him a target of the Nazis and led to his dismissal from the University of Vienna after the Anschluss. As with many other Austrian intellectuals, the onslaught of Nazism made him leave Austria. (He and his wife managed to obtain their visas and flee to Switzerland on the very day the Gestapo came to seize his passport.) Voegelin eventually settled at Louisiana State University, where he taught for 16 years, before coming full circle and returning to Germany to promote American-style constitutional democracy in his native land. The hostility generated by his declaration that the blame for the rise of Nazism could not be pinned solely on the Nazi Party elite, but must be shared by the German people in general, led him to return to the United States, where he died in 1985.

During his lifelong search for the roots of social order, Voegelin came to understand politics not as an autonomous sphere of activity independent of a nation’s culture, but as the public articulation of how a society conceives the proper relationship of its members both to one another and to the rest of the cosmos. Only when a society’s political institutions are an organic product of a widely shared and existentially workable conception of mankind’s place in the universe will they successfully order social life. As a corollary of his understanding of political life, Voegelin rejected the contemporary, rationalist faith in the power of “well-designed,” written constitutions to ensure the continued existence of a healthy polity. He argued that “if a government is nothing but representative in the constitutional sense, a [truly] representational ruler will sooner or later make an end of it… When a representative does not fulfill his existential task, no constitutional legality of his position will save him.”

For Voegelin, a truly “representative” government entails, much more crucially than the relatively superficial fact that citizens have some voice in their government, first of all that a government addresses the basic needs of “securing domestic peace, the defense of the realm, the administration of justice, and taking care of the welfare of the people.” Secondly, a political order ought to represent its participants’ understanding of their place in the cosmos. It may help in grasping Voegelin’s meaning here to think of the Muslim world, where attempts to create liberal, constitutional democracies can result in Islamic theocracies instead: the first type of government is “representative” in the narrow, constitutional sense, while the second actually represents those societies’ own understanding of their place in the world.

Voegelin undertook extensive historical analysis to support his view of the representative character of healthy polities, analysis that appeared chiefly in his great, multi-volume works History of Political Ideas—which was largely unpublished during Voegelin’s life because his scholarship prompted him to change the focus of his research—and Order and History. This undertaking was more than merely illustrative of his ideas, since he understood political representation itself not as a timeless, static construct but as an ongoing historical process, so that an adequate political representation for one time and place will fail to be representative in a different time or for a different people.

The earliest type of representation Voegelin described is that characterizing the ancient “cosmological empires,” such as those of Egypt and the Near East. Their imperial governments succeeded in organizing those societies for millennia because they were grounded in cosmic mythologies that, while containing cyclical phenomena like day and night and the seasons, depicted the sequence of such cycles as eternal and unchanging. They “symbolized politically organized society as a cosmic analogue… by letting vegetative rhythms and celestial revolutions function as models for the structural and procedural order of society.”

The sensible course for members of a society with such a self-understanding was to reconcile themselves to their fixed roles in the functioning of this implacable, if awe-inspiring, universe. The emperor or pharaoh was a divine being, the representative for his society of the ruling god of the cosmic order, and as remote and unapproachable as was that god. The demise of the cosmological empires in the Mediterranean world came with Alexander the Great’s conquests. After his empire was divided among his generals following his death, the new monarchs could not plausibly claim the divine mandate that native rulers had asserted as the basis of their authority since their ascension was so clearly based on military conquest and not on some ancient act of a god seeking to provide the now-conquered peoples with a divine guide.

The basis of the Greek polis was the Hellenic pantheon. When the faith in that pantheon was undermined by the work of philosophers, the polis ceased to be a viable form of polity, as those resisting its passing recognized when they condemned Socrates to death for not believing in the civic gods. The Romans, a people not generally prone to theoretical speculation, managed to sustain their republican city-state model of politics far longer than had the Greeks but eventually the stresses produced by the spoils of possessing a vast empire and the demands of ruling it—as well as the increasing influence of Greek philosophical thought in Rome—proved fatal to that republic as well.

Mediterranean civilization then entered a period of crisis characterized by cynical, imperial rule by the Roman emperors and an urgent search for a new ordering principle for social existence among their subjects, which produced the multitude of cults and creeds that proliferated during the imperial centuries. The crisis was finally resolved when Christianity, institutionalized in the Catholic Church, triumphed as the new basis for organizing Western society, while the Orthodox Church, centered in Constantinople, played a similar role in the East.

Voegelin contends that this medieval Christian order began to fracture due to the de-spiritualization of the Church that resulted from its increasing focus on power over secular affairs. Having succeeded in restoring civil order to Western Europe during the several centuries following the fall of Rome, the Church would have done best, as Voegelin saw it, to have withdrawn voluntarily “from its material position as the greatest economic power, which could be justified earlier by the actual civilizing performance.” Furthermore, the new theories of natural philosophy produced by the emerging “independent, secular civilization… required a voluntary surrender on the part of the Church of those of its ancient civilizational elements which proved incompatible with the new Western civilization… [but] again the Church proved hesitant in adjusting adequately and in time.”

The crisis caused by the Church’s failure to adjust its situation to the new realities came to a head with the splintering of Western Christianity during the Protestant Reformation and the ascendancy of the authority the nation-state over that of the Church.

The newly dominant nation-states energetically and repeatedly attempted to create novel myths that could ground their rule over their subjects. But these were composed from what Voegelin called “hieroglyphs,” superficial invocations of a pre-existing concept that failed to embody its essence because those invoking it had not themselves experienced the reality behind the original concept. As hieroglyphs, the terms were adopted because of the perceived authority they embodied. But as they were being employed without the context from which their original validity arose, none of these efforts created a genuine basis for a stable and humane order.

The perception of the hollow core of the new social arrangements became the motivation for and the target of a series of modern utopian and revolutionary ideologies, culminating in fascism and communism. These movements evoked what had been living symbols for medieval Europe—such as “salvation,” “the end times,” and the “communion of the saints”—but as the revolutionaries had lost touch with the spiritual foundation of those symbols, they perverted them into political slogans, such as “emancipation of the proletariat,” “the communist utopia,” and “the revolutionary vanguard.”

This analysis is the source of the phrase “immanentize the eschaton”: as Voegelin understood it, these revolutionary movements had mistaken a spiritual symbol, that of the ultimate triumphant kingdom of heaven (the eschaton), for a possible goal of mundane politics, and they were attempting to create heaven on earth (the immanentizing) through revolutionary action. He sometimes described this urge to create heaven on earth by political means as “Gnostic,” especially in what remains his most popular work, The New Science of Politics. (Voegelin later came to question the historical accuracy of his choice of terminology.)

But communism and fascism were not the only options on the table when Voegelin was writing: the constitutional liberal democracies, especially those of the Anglosphere, resisted the revolutionary movements. While Voegelin was not a modern liberal, his attitude towards these regimes was considerably more sympathetic than it was towards communism or fascism. He saw certain tendencies in the Western democracies, such as the near worship of material well-being and the attempted cordoning off of religious convictions into a purely private sphere, as symptoms of the spiritual crisis unfolding in the West. On the other hand, he believed that in places like Britain and the United States there had been less destruction of the West’s classical and Christian cultural foundations, so that the liberal democracies had retained more cultural resources with which to combat the growing disorder than was present elsewhere in Europe.

As a result, he firmly supported the liberal democracies in their effort to resist communism and fascism, and his return to Germany after the war was prompted by the hope of promoting an American-inspired political system in his native land. We can best understand Voegelin’s attitude towards liberal democracy as being, “Well, this is the best we can do in the present situation.”

He saw the pendulum of order and decay as always in motion, and he was convinced that one day a new cosmology would arise that would be the basis for a new civilizational order. In the meantime, the Western democracies had at least worked out a way for people with profoundly divergent understandings of their place in the cosmos to live decently ordered lives in relative peace. Always a realist, Voegelin was not one to look down his nose at whatever order it is really possible to achieve in our actual circumstances.

But the liberal democracies are liable to fall victim to their own form of “immanentizing the eschaton” if they mistake the genuinely admirable, albeit limited, order they have been able to achieve for the universal goal of all history and all mankind. That error, I suggest, lies behind the utopian adventurism of America’s recent foreign policy, in both its neoconservative and liberal Wilsonian forms. Voegelin’s analysis of “Gnosticism” can help us to understand better the nature of that tendency in Western foreign policy. (We can still use his term “Gnostic” while acknowledging, as he did, its questionable historical connection to ancient Gnosticism.)

Voegelin was no pacifist—for instance, he was committed to the idea that the West had a responsibility to militarily resist the expansive barbarism of the Soviet Union. Yet it is unlikely that he would have had any patience for the utopian Western triumphalism often exhibited by neoconservatives and Wilsonians.

What Voegelin called “the Gnostic personality” has great difficulty accepting that the impermanence of temporal existence is inherent in its nature. Therefore, as he wrote, the Gnostic seeks to freeze “history into an everlasting final realm on this earth.” The common view that any nation not embracing some form of liberal, constitutional democracy is in need of Western re-education, by force if necessary, and the consequent fixation on installing such regimes wherever possible, displays a faith that we in the West have achieved the pinnacle of social arrangements and should “freeze history.”

One of the chief v

Lire la suite

mercredi, 20 février 2013 | Lien permanent

The Revolutionary Conservative Critique of Oswald Spengler

132838-1da7e2d1b439dc294f072f552f755889.jpg

The Revolutionary Conservative Critique of Oswald Spengler

Ex: http://www.motpol.nu

Oswald Spengler is by now well-known as one of the major thinkers of the German Conservative Revolution of the early 20th Century. In fact, he is frequently cited as having been one of the most determining intellectual influences on German Conservatism of the interwar period – along with Arthur Moeller van den Bruck and Ernst Jünger – to the point where his cultural pessimist philosophy is seen to be representative of Revolutionary Conservative views in general (although in reality most Revolutionary Conservatives held more optimistic views).[1]

To begin our discussion, we shall provide a brief overview of the major themes of Oswald Spengler’s philosophy.[2] According to Spengler, every High Culture has its own “soul” (this refers to the essential character of a Culture) and goes through predictable cycles of birth, growth, fulfillment, decline, and demise which resemble that of the life of a plant. To quote Spengler:

A Culture is born in the moment when a great soul awakens out of the proto-spirituality of ever-childish humanity, and detaches itself, a form from the formless, a bounded and mortal thing from the boundless and enduring. It blooms on the soil of an exactly-definable landscape, to which plant-wise it remains bound. It dies when the soul has actualized the full sum of its possibilities in the shape of peoples, languages, dogmas, arts, states, sciences, and reverts into the proto-soul.[3]

There is an important distinction in this theory between Kultur (“Culture”) and Zivilisation (“Civilization”). Kultur refers to the beginning phase of a High Culture which is marked by rural life, religiosity, vitality, will-to-power, and ascendant instincts, while Zivilisation refers to the later phase which is marked by urbanization, irreligion, purely rational intellect, mechanized life, and decadence. Although he acknowledged other High Cultures, Spengler focused particularly on three High Cultures which he distinguished and made comparisons between: the Magian, the Classical (Greco-Roman), and the present Western High Culture. He held the view that the West, which was in its later Zivilisation phase, would soon enter a final imperialistic and “Caesarist” stage – a stage which, according to Spengler, marks the final flash before the end of a High Culture.[4]

Perhaps Spengler’s most important contribution to the Conservative Revolution, however, was his theory of “Prussian Socialism,” which formed the basis of his view that conservatives and socialists should unite. In his work he argued that the Prussian character, which was the German character par excellence, was essentially socialist. For Spengler, true socialism was primarily a matter of ethics rather than economics. This ethical, Prussian socialism meant the development and practice of work ethic, discipline, obedience, a sense of duty to the greater good and the state, self-sacrifice, and the possibility of attaining any rank by talent. Prussian socialism was differentiated from Marxism and liberalism. Marxism was not true socialism because it was materialistic and based on class conflict, which stood in contrast with the Prussian ethics of the state. Also in contrast to Prussian socialism was liberalism and capitalism, which negated the idea of duty, practiced a “piracy principle,” and created the rule of money.[5]

Oswald Spengler’s theories of predictable culture cycles, of the separation between Kultur and Zivilisation, of the Western High Culture as being in a state of decline, and of a non-Marxist form of socialism, have all received a great deal of attention in early 20th Century Germany, and there is no doubt that they had influenced Right-wing thought at the time. However, it is often forgotten just how divergent the views of many Revolutionary Conservatives were from Spengler’s, even if they did study and draw from his theories, just as an overemphasis on Spenglerian theory in the Conservative Revolution has led many scholars to overlook the variety of other important influences on the German Right. Ironically, those who were influenced the most by Spengler – not only the German Revolutionary Conservatives, but also later the Traditionalists and the New Rightists – have mixed appreciation with critique. It is this reality which needs to be emphasized: the majority of Conservative intellectuals who have appreciated Spengler have simultaneously delivered the very significant message that Spengler’s philosophy needs to be viewed critically, and that as a whole it is not acceptable.

750480.jpgThe most important critique of Spengler among the Revolutionary Conservative intellectuals was that made by Arthur Moeller van den Bruck.[6] Moeller agreed with certain basic ideas in Spengler’s work, including the division between Kultur and Zivilisation, with the idea of the decline of the Western Culture, and with his concept of socialism, which Moeller had already expressed in an earlier and somewhat different form in Der Preussische Stil (“The Prussian Style,” 1916).[7] However, Moeller resolutely rejected Spengler’s deterministic and fatalistic view of history, as well as the notion of destined culture cycles. Moeller asserted that history was essentially unpredictable and unfixed: “There is always a beginning (…) History is the story of that which is not calculated.”[8] Furthermore, he argued that history should not be seen as a “circle” (in Spengler’s manner) but rather a “spiral,” and a nation in decline could actually reverse its decline if certain psychological changes and events could take place within it.[9]

The most radical contradiction with Spengler made by Moeller van den Bruck was the rejection of Spengler’s cultural morphology, since Moeller believed that Germany could not even be classified as part of the “West,” but rather that it represented a distinct culture in its own right, one which even had more in common in spirit with Russia than with the “West,” and which was destined to rise while France and England fell.[10] However, we must note here that the notion that Germany is non-Western was not unique to Moeller, for Werner Sombart, Edgar Julius Jung, and Othmar Spann have all argued that Germans belonged to a very different cultural type from that of the Western nations, especially from the culture of the Anglo-Saxon world. For these authors, Germany represented a culture which was more oriented towards community, spirituality, and heroism, while the modern “West” was more oriented towards individualism, materialism, and capitalistic ethics. They further argued that any presence of Western characteristics in modern Germany was due to a recent poisoning of German culture by the West which the German people had a duty to overcome through sociocultural revolution.[11]

Another key intellectual of the German Conservative Revolution, Hans Freyer, also presented a critical analysis of Spenglerian philosophy.[12] Due to his view that that there is no certain and determined progress in history, Freyer agreed with Spengler’s rejection of the linear view of progress. Freyer’s philosophy of culture also emphasized cultural particularism and the disparity between peoples and cultures, which was why he agreed with Spengler in terms of the basic conception of cultures possessing a vital center and with the idea of each culture marking a particular kind of human being. Being a proponent of a community-oriented state socialism, Freyer found Spengler’s anti-individualist “Prussian socialism” to be agreeable. Throughout his works, Freyer had also discussed many of the same themes as Spengler – including the integrative function of war, hierarchies in society, the challenges of technological developments, cultural form and unity – but in a distinct manner oriented towards social theory.[13]

However, Freyer argued that the idea of historical (cultural) types and that cultures were the product of an essence which grew over time were already expressed in different forms long before Spengler in the works of Karl Lamprecht, Wilhelm Dilthey, and Hegel. It is also noteworthy that Freyer’s own sociology of cultural categories differed from Spengler’s morphology. In his earlier works, Freyer focused primarily on the nature of the cultures of particular peoples (Völker) rather than the broad High Cultures, whereas in his later works he stressed the interrelatedness of all the various European cultures across the millennia. Rejecting Spengler’s notion of cultures as being incommensurable, Freyer’s “history regarded modern Europe as composed of ‘layers’ of culture from the past, and Freyer was at pains to show that major historical cultures had grown by drawing upon the legacy of past cultures.”[14] Finally, rejecting Spengler’s historical determinism, Freyer had “warned his readers not to be ensnared by the powerful organic metaphors of the book [Der Untergang des Abendlandes] … The demands of the present and of the future could not be ‘deduced’ from insights into the patterns of culture … but were ultimately based on ‘the wager of action’ (das Wagnis der Tat).”[15]

Yet another important Conservative critique of Spengler was made by the Italian Perennial Traditionalist philosopher Julius Evola, who was himself influenced by the Conservative Revolution but developed a very distinct line of thought. In his The Path of Cinnabar, Evola showed appreciation for Spengler’s philosophy, particularly in regards to the criticism of the modern rationalist and mechanized Zivilisation of the “West” and with the complete rejection of the idea of progress.[16] Some scholars, such as H.T. Hansen, stress the influence of Spengler’s thought on Evola’s thought, but it is important to remember that Evola’s cultural views differed significantly from Spengler’s due to Evola’s focus on what he viewed as the shifting role of a metaphysical Perennial Tradition across history as opposed to historically determined cultures.[17]

In his critique, Evola pointed out that one of the major flaws in Spengler’s thought was that he “lacked any understanding of metaphysics and transcendence, which embody the essence of each genuine Kultur.”[18] Spengler could analyze the nature of Zivilisation very well, but his irreligious views caused him to have little understanding of the higher spiritual forces which deeply affected human life and the nature of cultures, without which one cannot clearly grasp the defining characteristic of Kultur. As Robert Steuckers has pointed out, Evola also found Spengler’s analysis of Classical and Eastern cultures to be very flawed, particularly as a result of the “irrationalist” philosophical influences on Spengler: “Evola thinks this vitalism leads Spengler to say ‘things that make one blush’ about Buddhism, Taoism, Stoicism, and Greco-Roman civilization (which, for Spengler, is merely a civilization of ‘corporeity’).”[19] Also problematic for Evola was “Spengler’s valorization of ‘Faustian man,’ a figure born in the Age of Discovery, the Renaissance and humanism; by this temporal determination, Faustian man is carried towards horizontality rather than towards verticality.”[20]

Finally, we must make a note of the more recent reception of Spenglerian philosophy in the European New Right and Identitarianism: Oswald Spengler’s works have been studied and critiqued by nearly all major New Right and Identitarian intellectuals, including especially Alain de Benoist, Dominique Venner, Pierre Krebs, Guillaume Faye, Julien Freund, and Tomislav Sunic. The New Right view of Spenglerian theory is unique, but is also very much reminiscent of Revolutionary Conservative critiques of Moeller van den Bruck and Hans Freyer. Like Spengler and many other thinkers, New Right intellectuals also critique the “ideology of progress,” although it is significant that, unlike Spengler, they do not do this to accept a notion of rigid cycles in history nor to reject the existence of any progress. Rather, the New Right critique aims to repudiate the unbalanced notion of linear and inevitable progress which depreciates all past culture in favor of the present, while still recognizing that some positive progress does exist, which it advocates reconciling with traditional culture to achieve a more balanced cultural order.[21] Furthermore, addressing Spengler’s historical determinism, Alain de Benoist has written that “from Eduard Spranger to Theodor W. Adorno, the principal reproach directed at Spengler evidently refers to his ‘fatalism’ and to his ‘determinism.’ The question is to know up to what point man is prisoner of his own history. Up to what point can one no longer change his course?”[22]

Like their Revolutionary Conservative precursors, New Rightists reject any fatalist and determinist notion of history, and do not believe that any people is doomed to inevitable decline; “Decadence is therefore not an inescapable phenomenon, as Spengler wrongly thought,” wrote Pierre Krebs, echoing the thoughts of other authors.[23] While the New Rightists accept Spengler’s idea of Western decline, they have posed Europe and the West as two antagonistic entities. According to this new cultural philosophy, the genuine European culture is represented by numerous traditions rooted in the most ancient European cultures, and must be posed as incompatible with the modern “West,” which is the cultural emanation of early modern liberalism, egalitarianism, and individualism.

The New Right may agree with Spengler that the “West” is undergoing decline, “but this original pessimism does not overshadow the purpose of the New Right: The West has encountered the ultimate phase of decadence, consequently we must definitively break with the Western civilization and recover the memory of a Europe liberated from the egalitarianisms…”[24] Thus, from the Identitarian perspective, the “West” is identified as a globalist and universalist entity which had harmed the identities of European and non-European peoples alike. In the same way that Revolutionary Conservatives had called for Germans to assert the rights and identity of their people in their time period, New Rightists call for the overcoming of the liberal, cosmopolitan Western Civilization to reassert the more profound cultural and spiritual identity of Europeans, based on the “regeneration of history” and a reference to their multi-form and multi-millennial heritage.

Lucian Tudor 

 

Notes

[1] An example of such an assertion regarding cultural pessimism can be seen in “Part III. Three Major Expressions of Neo-Conservatism” in Klemens von Klemperer, Germany’s New Conservatism: Its History and Dilemma in the Twentieth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968).

[2] To supplement our short summary of Spenglerian philosophy, we would like to note that one the best overviews of Spengler’s philosophy in English is Stephen M. Borthwick, “Historian of the Future: An Introduction to Oswald Spengler’s Life and Works for the Curious Passer-by and the Interested Student,” Institute for Oswald Spengler Studies, 2011, <https://sites.google.com/site/spenglerinstitute/Biography>.

[3] Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West Vol. 1: Form and Actuality (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1926), p. 106.

Lire la suite

mercredi, 12 novembre 2014 | Lien permanent

The Alt Right Among Other Rights

altrightpoliti.jpg

The Alt Right Among Other Rights

By Keith Preston

Ex: http://www.hlmenckenclub.org

Speaking about the intricacies of different ideological tendencies can often be a bit tedious, and certainly a topic like the Alt-Right can get very complicated because there are so many currents that feed into the Alt-Right. I know that when I spoke here last year I was speaking on the right-wing anarchist tradition, which is a highly esoteric tradition, and one that is often very obscure with many undercurrents. The Alt-Right is similar in the sense of having many sub-tendencies that are fairly obscure in their own way, although some of these have become more familiar now that the Alt-Right has grown in fame, or infamy, in the eyes of its opponents. Some of the speakers we have heard at this conference so far have helped to clarify some of the potential definitions of what the Alt-Right actually is, but given the subject of my presentation I thought I might break it down a bit further, and clarify a few major distinctions.

What is the Alt-Right?

The Alt-Right can be broadly defined as a highly varied and loose collection of ideologies, movements, and tendencies that in some way dissent from the so-called “mainstream” conservative movement, or are in actual opposition to mainstream conservatism. Of course, this leaves us with the task of actually defining mainstream conservatism as well. I would define the conservative movement’s principal characteristics as being led by the neoconservatives, oriented towards the Republican Party, and as a movement for whom media outlets like Fox News, talk radio, and publications like National Review and the Weekly Standard are its leading voices. Outside of the framework of what some here appropriately call “Conservatism, Inc.,” we could say that there is an Alt-Right that can be broadly defined, and an Alt-Right that can be more narrowly defined.

miloy.jpgThe Alt-Right broadly defined would be anything on the Right that is in opposition to the neocon-led Republican alliance. This could include everything from many Donald Trump voters in the mainstream, to various tendencies that have been given such labels as the “alt-lite,” the new right, the radical right, the populist right, the dark enlightenment, the identitarians, the neo-reactionaries, the manosphere (or “men’s right advocates”), civic nationalists, economic nationalists, Southern nationalists, white nationalists, paleoconservatives, right-wing anarchists, right-leaning libertarians (or “paleolibertarians”), right-wing socialists, neo-monarchists, tendencies among Catholic or Eastern Orthodox traditionalists, neo-pagans, Satanists, adherents of the European New Right, Duginists, Eurasianists, National-Bolsheviks, conspiracy theorists, and, of course, actually self-identified Fascists and National Socialists. I have encountered all of these perspectives and others in Alt-Right circles.

Milo Yiannopoulos

Under this broad definition of the Alt-Right, anyone from Steve Bannon or Milo Yiannopoulos all the way over to The Daily Sturmer or the Traditionalist Workers Party could be considered Alt-Right. In fact, ideological tendencies as diverse as these have actually embraced the Alt-Right label to describe themselves. For example, Steve Bannon said at one point during the Trump campaign in 2016 that he wanted to make Breitbart into the voice of the Alt-Right, but then I have also encountered people who are actual neo-Nazis using the Alt-Right label to describe themselves as well.

altrightcucks.png

A narrower definition of the Alt-Right might be to characterize what is most distinctive about the Alt-Right. In this sense, the Alt-Right could be characterized as a collection of tendencies that is specifically oriented towards some of kind identification with European history and tradition, and regard Europe and, by extension, North America as part of a distinct Western civilization that was developed by European and, predominantly, Christian peoples. Consequently, the Alt-Right tends to be much more oriented towards criticizing ideas or policies like multiculturalism, mass immigration, and what is commonly called “political correctness,” than what is found among mainstream conservatism. This is in contrast to the Left’s views, which are increasingly the views of mainstream liberalism as well, and which regards the legacy of Western history and culture as nothing but an infinite string of oppressions such racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, xenophobia, patriarchy, hierarchy, nativism, cisgenderism, speciesism, and the usual laundry list of isms, archies, and phobias that the Left sees as permeating every aspect of Western civilization. Presumably, other civilizations have never featured any of these characteristics. 

In this way, the Alt-Right is obviously in contrast to mainstream conservatism given that the so-called “conservative movement” is normally oriented towards what amounts to three basic ideas. One idea is that of the foreign policy “hawks,” or advocates of military interventionism for the ostensible purpose of spreading the Western model of liberal democracy throughout the world, whose greatest fear is isolationism in foreign policy, and which is a perspective that I would argue is also very convenient for the armaments manufacturers and the Pentagon budget. A second idea is a fixation on economic policy, such as a persistent advocacy of “tax cuts and deregulation,” which in reality amounts to merely advancing the business interests of the corporate class. And the third idea is a type of social conservatism that is primarily religion-driven, and has opposition to abortion or gay marriage as central issues of concern, but typically gives no thought to cultural or civilizational issues in any broader or historical sense. For example, it is now common in much of the evangelical Protestant milieu, as well as the Catholic milieu, to welcome mass immigration, as a source of potential converts, or as replacement members for churches that are losing their congregations due to the ongoing secularization of the wider society. In fact, the practice of adopting Third World children has become increasingly common within the evangelical Protestant subculture in the same way it has among celebrities and entertainers like Madonna or Angelina Jolie.

Predictably, there has been a great deal of conflict that has emerged between the Alt-Right and the mainstream conservative movement, with many movement conservatives and their fellow travelers going out of their way to attack or denounce the Alt-Right. In this sense, the attacks on the Alt-Right that have originated from mainstream conservatism essentially mirror those of the Left, or of the liberal class. For example, the Associated Press issued a description of the Alt-Right that was intended for writers’ guideline policy purposes, and which reads as follows:

The 'alt-right' or 'alternative right' is a name currently embraced by some white supremacists and white nationalists to refer to themselves and their ideology, which emphasizes preserving and protecting the white race in the United States in addition to, or over, other traditional conservative positions such as limited government, low taxes and strict law-and-order. The movement has been described as a mix of racism, white nationalism and populism ... criticizes "multiculturalism" and more rights for non-whites, women, Jews, Muslims, gays, immigrants and other minorities. Its members reject the American democratic ideal that all should have equality under the law regardless of creed, gender, ethnic origin or race (John Daniszewski, Associated Press, November 26, 2016)

altrighlight.png

While the above quotation is from the Associated Press, I do not know that there is anything in it that could not have come from the pages of not only The New Yorker, The Atlantic, or the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Report, but also from the pages of the National Review, Weekly Standard, the Federalist, or a Prager University video.

As for some specific examples, writing in The Federalist, conservative political scientist Nathanael Blake stated that “Christianity and Greco-Roman philosophy, rather than race, are the foundations upon which Western Civilization was built,” and suggested that the Alt-Right is actually attacking the legacy of Western Civilization rather than defending the Western cultural heritage. These questions have become a major point of contention between cultural conservatives and the racialist right-wing. Writing in National Review, David French (Bill Kristol’s one-time proposed presidential candidate), called Alt-Right adherents "wanna-be fascists" and denounced “their entry into the national political conversation.” I suppose the difference between the views of David French and the views of the Left would be that the Left would say that the Alt-Right are actual fascists, and not merely “wanna-be” fascists.  Presumably, this is what separates the mainstream Right from the Left nowadays.

Writing for The Weekly Standard, Benjamin Welton has characterized the Alt-Right as a "highly heterogeneous force" that "turns the left's moralism on its head and makes it a badge of honor to be called 'racist,' 'homophobic,' and 'sexist'". Based on my own experiences with the Alt-Right, I would say this assessment by Welton is largely true. In the National Review issue of April, 2016, Ian Tuttle wrote:

The Alt-Right has evangelized over the last several months primarily via a racist and anti-Semitic online presence. But for Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos, the Alt-Right consists of fun-loving provocateurs, valiant defenders of Western civilization, daring intellectuals—and a handful of neo-Nazis keen on a Final Solution 2.0, but there are only a few of them, and nobody likes them anyways.

Jeffrey Tucker, a libertarian writer affiliated with the Foundation for Economic Education, describes the Alt-Right as follows:

The Alt-Right "inherits a long and dreary tradition of thought from Friedrich Hegel to Thomas Carlyle to Oswald Spengler to Madison Grant to Othmar Spann to Giovanni Gentile to Trump's speeches." Tucker further asserts that Alt-Right adherents "look back to what they imagine to be a golden age when elites ruled and peons obeyed" and consider that "identity is everything and the loss of identity is the greatest crime against self anyone can imagine."

Whatever one thinks of the Trump presidency, it is highly doubtful that Trump actually draws inspiration from Hegel.

Writing in The Federalist, a libertarian feminist named Cathy Young criticized a Radix Journal article on abortion that criticized the pro-life position as "'dysgenic,” because it supposedly “encourages breeding by 'the least intelligent and responsible' women." So apparently, it is not enough to simply favor abortion rights. Instead, one has to be “pro-choice” for what are apparently the “right reasons,” such as a “woman’s right to choose,” as opposed to “bad reasons,” such as eugenic practice. This line of thought is in keeping with the fairly standard leftist viewpoint which insists that motives and intentions rather than ideas and consequences are what matters, and the standard by which people ought to be morally judged.

richard-spencerwwwwaaa.png

Richard Spencer

Another interesting aspect of these criticisms is that the mainstream conservatives have attacked the Alt-Right by using leftist terminology, such as labeling the Alt-Right as racist, sexist, fascist, xenophobic, etc. But a parallel tactic that has been used by mainstream conservatism has been to denounce the Alt-Right as leftist.  For example, at this year’s gathering of CPAC, or the Conservative Political Action committee, Dan Schneider, who is currently the executive director of the American Conservative Union, an organization that hosts the annual CPAC conference, criticized the Alt-Right as “a sinister organization that is trying to worm its way into our ranks,” insisting that, quote, “We must not be duped. We must not be deceived,” and said of the Alt-Right:

“They are nothing but garden-variety left-wing fascists..They are anti-Semites; they are racists; they are sexists. They hate the Constitution. They hate free markets. They hate pluralism. They despise everything we believe in.”

This sounds very similar to the rhetoric that often comes from the far left where dire warnings are issued concerning the supposed threat of fascist entryism into leftist organizations. For example, there is term called the “the fascist creep” that is used by some very far Left antifa and Maoist tendencies to describe what are supposedly ongoing nefarious plots by “fascists” to infiltrate and co-opt leftist movements, and steer these towards fascism. Ironically, this conspiracy theory is very similar to traditional anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about how Jews supposedly infiltrate and take over everything, and manipulate institutions in order to advance all sorts of supposed nefarious plots. It would appear that the far Left, and apparently increasingly mainstream conservatism, has developed its own rhetoric about the “fascist conspiracy” as a counterpart to far Right fantasies about the “Jewish conspiracy.” Perhaps we could characterize the former as the “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Thule.”

Jeff Goldstein, writing in The Federalist on September 6, 2016, suggests that, quote, “the Alt-Right is the mirror image of the New Left,” and describes the Alt-Right “an identity movement on par with Black Lives Matter, La Raza, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and other products of cultural Marxism.” Goldstein further says of the Alt-Right:

The Alt-Right is a European-style right-wing movement that is at odds with the classical liberalism upon which our country was built, and which the Left has redefined as “Right.” That is to say, the European “Right” is mapped onto a political spectrum different than our own. Our “right” — conservatism or classical liberalism —is dead-center on our spectrum, no matter how persistently the Left tries to claim otherwise. It is

Lire la suite

dimanche, 31 décembre 2017 | Lien permanent

The Alt Right Among Other Rights

KP-fhfhhd.jpg

The Alt Right Among Other Rights

This is the text of a lecture I gave to the H.L. Mencken Club on November 4, 2017.

By Keith Preston

Ex: https://www.attackthesystem.com

Speaking about the intricacies of different ideological tendencies can often be a bit tedious, and certainly a topic like the Alt-Right can get very complicated because there are so many currents that feed into the Alt-Right. I know that when I spoke here last year I was speaking on the right-wing anarchist tradition, which is a highly esoteric tradition, and one that is often very obscure with many undercurrents. The Alt-Right is similar in the sense of having many sub-tendencies that are fairly obscure in their own way, although some of these have become more familiar now that the Alt-Right has grown in fame, or infamy, in the eyes of its opponents. Some of the speakers we have heard at this conference so far have helped to clarify some of the potential definitions of what the Alt-Right actually is, but given the subject of my presentation I thought I might break it down a bit further, and clarify a few major distinctions.

What is the Alt-Right?

The Alt-Right can be broadly defined as a highly varied and loose collection of ideologies, movements, and tendencies that in some way dissent from the so-called “mainstream” conservative movement, or are in actual opposition to mainstream conservatism. Of course, this leaves us with the task of actually defining mainstream conservatism as well. I would define the conservative movement’s principal characteristics as being led by the neoconservatives, oriented towards the Republican Party, and as a movement for whom media outlets like Fox News, talk radio, and publications like National Review and the Weekly Standard are its leading voices. Outside of the framework of what some here appropriately call “Conservatism, Inc.,” we could say that there is an Alt-Right that can be broadly defined, and an Alt-Right that can be more narrowly defined.

altrightelephant.jpg

The Alt-Right broadly defined would be anything on the Right that is in opposition to the neocon-led Republican alliance. This could include everything from many Donald Trump voters in the mainstream, to various tendencies that have been given such labels as the “alt-lite,” the new right, the radical right, the populist right, the dark enlightenment, the identitarians, the neo-reactionaries, the manosphere (or “men’s right advocates”), civic nationalists, economic nationalists, Southern nationalists, white nationalists, paleoconservatives, right-wing anarchists, right-leaning libertarians (or “paleolibertarians”), right-wing socialists, neo-monarchists, tendencies among Catholic or Eastern Orthodox traditionalists, neo-pagans, Satanists, adherents of the European New Right, Duginists, Eurasianists, National-Bolsheviks, conspiracy theorists, and, of course, actually self-identified Fascists and National Socialists. I have encountered all of these perspectives and others in Alt-Right circles.

Under this broad definition of the Alt-Right, anyone from Steve Bannon or Milo Yiannopolis all the way over to The Daily Sturmer or the Traditionalist Workers Party could be considered Alt-Right. In fact, ideological tendencies as diverse as these have actually embraced the Alt-Right label to describe themselves. For example, Steve Bannon said at one point during the Trump campaign in 2016 that he wanted to make Breitbart into the voice of the Alt-Right, but then I have also encountered people who are actual neo-Nazis using the Alt-Right label to describe themselves as well.

A narrower definition of the Alt-Right might be to characterize what is most distinctive about the Alt-Right. In this sense, the Alt-Right could be characterized as a collection of tendencies that is specifically oriented towards some of kind identification with European history and tradition, and regard Europe and, by extension, North America as part of a distinct Western civilization that was developed by European and, predominantly, Christian peoples. Consequently, the Alt-Right tends to be much more oriented towards criticizing ideas or policies like multiculturalism, mass immigration, and what is commonly called “political correctness,” than what is found among mainstream conservatism. This is in contrast to the Left’s views, which are increasingly the views of mainstream liberalism as well, and which regards the legacy of Western history and culture as nothing but an infinite string of oppressions such racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, xenophobia, patriarchy, hierarchy, nativism, cisgenderism, speciesism, and the usual laundry list of isms, archies, and phobias that the Left sees as permeating every aspect of Western civilization. Presumably, other civilizations have never featured any of these characteristics.

azltrightposter.jpg

In this way, the Alt-Right is obviously in contrast to mainstream conservatism given that the so-called “conservative movement” is normally oriented towards what amounts to three basic ideas. One idea is that of the foreign policy “hawks,” or advocates of military interventionism for the ostensible purpose of spreading the Western model of liberal democracy throughout the world, whose greatest fear is isolationism in foreign policy, and which is a perspective that I would argue is also very convenient for the armaments manufacturers and the Pentagon budget. A second idea is a fixation on economic policy, such as a persistent advocacy of “tax cuts and deregulation,” which in reality amounts to merely advancing the business interests of the corporate class. And the third idea is a type of social conservatism that is primarily religion-driven, and has opposition to abortion or gay marriage as central issues of concern, but typically gives no thought to cultural or civilizational issues in any broader or historical sense. For example, it is now common in much of the evangelical Protestant milieu, as well as the Catholic milieu, to welcome mass immigration, as a source of potential converts, or as replacement members for churches that are losing their congregations due to the ongoing secularization of the wider society. In fact, the practice of adopting Third World children has become increasingly common within the evangelical Protestant subculture in the same way it has among celebrities and entertainers like Madonna or Angelina Jolie.

Predictably, there has been a great deal of conflict that has emerged between the Alt-Right and the mainstream conservative movement, with many movement conservatives and their fellow travelers going out of their way to attack or denounce the Alt-Right. In this sense, the attacks on the Alt-Right that have originated from mainstream conservatism essentially mirror those of the Left, or of the liberal class. For example, the Associated Press issued a description of the Alt-Right that was intended for writers’ guideline policy purposes, and which reads as follows:

The ‘alt-right’ or ‘alternative right’ is a name currently embraced by some white supremacists and white nationalists to refer to themselves and their ideology, which emphasizes preserving and protecting the white race in the United States in addition to, or over, other traditional conservative positions such as limited government, low taxes and strict law-and-order. The movement has been described as a mix of racism, white nationalism and populism … criticizes “multiculturalism” and more rights for non-whites, women, Jews, Muslims, gays, immigrants and other minorities. Its members reject the American democratic ideal that all should have equality under the law regardless of creed, gender, ethnic origin or race (John Daniszewski, Associated Press, November 26, 2016)

alt-right-web.jpg

While the above quotation is from the Associated Press, I do not know that there is anything in it that could not have come from the pages of not only The New Yorker, The Atlantic, or the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Report, but also from the pages of the National Review, Weekly Standard, the Federalist, or a Prager University video.

As for some specific examples, writing in The Federalist, conservative political scientist Nathanael Blake stated that “Christianity and Greco-Roman philosophy, rather than race, are the foundations upon which Western Civilization was built,” and suggested that the Alt-Right is actually attacking the legacy of Western Civilization rather than defending the Western cultural heritage. These questions have become a major point of contention between cultural conservatives and the racialist right-wing. Writing in National Review, David French (Bill Kristol’s one-time proposed presidential candidate), called Alt-Right adherents “wanna-be fascists” and denounced “their entry into the national political conversation.” I suppose the difference between the views of David French and the views of the Left would be that the Left would say that the Alt-Right are actual fascists, and not merely “wanna-be” fascists. Presumably, this is what separates the mainstream Right from the Left nowadays.

Writing for The Weekly Standard, Benjamin Welton has characterized the Alt-Right as a “highly heterogeneous force” that “turns the left’s moralism on its head and makes it a badge of honor to be called ‘racist,’ ‘homophobic,’ and ‘sexist'”. Based on my own experiences with the Alt-Right, I would say this assessment by Welton is largely true. In the National Review issue of April, 2016, Ian Tuttle wrote:

The Alt-Right has evangelized over the last several months primarily via a racist and anti-Semitic online presence. But for Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos, the Alt-Right consists of fun-loving provocateurs, valiant defenders of Western civilization, daring intellectuals—and a handful of neo-Nazis keen on a Final Solution 2.0, but there are only a few of them, and nobody likes them anyways.

Jeffrey Tucker, a libertarian writer affiliated with the Foundation for Economic Education, describes the Alt-Right as follows:

The Alt-Right “inherits a long and dreary tradition of thought from Friedrich Hegel to Thomas Carlyle to Oswald Spengler to Madison Grant to Othmar Spann to Giovanni Gentile to Trump’s speeches.” Tucker further asserts that Alt-Right adherents “look back to what they imagine to be a golden age when elites ruled and peons obeyed” and consider that “identity is everything and the loss of identity is the greatest crime against self anyone can imagine.”

altrightpepefrog.jpg

Whatever one thinks of the Trump presidency, it is highly doubtful that Trump actually draws inspiration from Hegel.

Writing in The Federalist, a libertarian feminist named Cathy Young criticized a Radix Journal article on abortion that criticized the pro-life position as “‘dysgenic,” because it supposedly “encourages breeding by ‘the least intelligent and responsible’ women.” So apparently, it is not enough to simply favor abortion rights. Instead, one has to be “pro-choice” for what are apparently the “right reasons,” such as a “woman’s right to choose,” as opposed to “bad reasons,” such as eugenic practice. This line of thought is in keeping with the fairly standard leftist viewpoint which insists that motives and intentions rather than ideas and consequences are what matters, and the standard by which people ought to be morally judged.

Another interesting aspect of these criticisms is that the mainstream conservatives have attacked the Alt-Right by using leftist terminology, such as labeling the Alt-Right as racist, sexist, fascist, xenophobic, etc. But a parallel tactic that has been used by mainstream conservatism has been to denounce the Alt-Right as leftist. For example, at this year’s gathering of CPAC, or the Conservative Political Action committee, Dan Schneider, who is currently the executive director of the American Conservative Union, an organization that hosts the annual CPAC conference, criticized the Alt-Right as “a sinister organization that is trying to worm its way into our ranks,” insisting that, quote, “We must not be duped. We must not be deceived,” and said of the Alt-Right:

“They are nothing but garden-variety left-wing fascists..They are anti-Semites; they are racists; they are sexists. They hate the Constitution. They hate free markets. They hate pluralism. They despise everything we believe in.”

This sounds very similar to the rhetoric that often comes from the far left where dire warnings are issued concerning the supposed threat of fascist entryism into leftist organizations. For example, there is term called the “the fascist creep” that is used by some very far Left antifa and Maoist tendencies to describe what are supposedly ongoing nefarious plots by “fascists” to infiltrate and co-opt leftist movements, and steer these towards fascism. Ironically, this conspiracy theory is very similar to traditional anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about how Jews supposedly infiltrate and take over everything, and manipulate institutions in order to advance all sorts of supposed nefarious plots. It would appear that the far Left, and apparently increasingly mainstream conservatism, has developed its own rhetoric about the “fascist conspiracy” as a counterpart to far Right fantasies about the “Jewish conspiracy.” Perhaps we could characterize the former as the “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Thule.”

altrightunite.jpeg

Jeff Goldstein, writing in The Federalist on September 6, 2016, suggests that, quote, “the Alt-Right is the mirror image of the New Left,” and describes the Alt-Right “an identity movement on par with Black Lives Matter, La Raza, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and other products of cultural Marxism.” Goldstein further says of the Alt-Right:

The Alt-Right is a European-style right-wing movement that is at odds with the classical liberalism upon which our country was built, and which the Left has redefined as “Right.” That is to say, the European “Right” is mapped onto a political spectrum different than our own. Our “right” — conservatism or classical liberalism —is dead-center on our spectrum, no matter how persistently the Left tries to claim otherwise. It is constitutionalism, which incorporates federalism, republicanism, legal equity, and a separation of powers.

These comments are fairly representative of the rhetoric used by mainstream conservatives who attempt to either portray the Alt-Right as leftists, or label the Alt-Right as fascists and then claim fascism is really on the Left. The general argument that is made by mainstream conservatives in response to the Alt-Right is that “true” conservatism or the “true” Right is actually veneration for the Enlightenment-influenced ideas found in the Declaration of Independence, veneration of the Founding Fathers, and reverence fo

Lire la suite

samedi, 02 décembre 2017 | Lien permanent

Armin Mohler et la révolution conservatrice

die-konservative-revolution-196x300.jpgArchives de SYNERGIES EUROPEENNES - 1990

Armin Mohler et la «Révolution Conservatrice»

(2ième partie)

 

par Luc PAUWELS

 

 

Dans notre numéro 59/60 de novembre-décembre 1989, Robert Steuckers avait analysé la première partie de l'introduction théorique d'Armin Mohler. Au même moment, Luc Pauwels, directeur de la revue Teksten, Kommentaren en Studies (in nr. 55, 2de trimester 1989), se penchait sur le même maître-ouvrage de Mohler et mettait l'accent sur la seconde partie théorique, notamment sur la classification des différentes écoles de ce mouvement aux strates multiples. Nous ne reproduisons pas ci-dessous l'entrée en matière de Pauwels, car ce serait répéter en d'autres mots les propos de Steuckers. En revanche, le reste de sa démonstration constitue presque une sorte de suite logique à l'analyse parue dans notre n°59/60.

 

Débuts et contenu

 

Les premiers balbutiements de la Révolution Conservatrice, écrit Mohler, ont lieu lors de la Révolution française: «Toute révolution suscite en même temps qu'elle la contre-révolution qui tente de l'annihiler. Avec la Révolution française, advient victorieusement le monde qui, pour la Révolution Conservatrice représente l'adversaire par excellence. Définissons provisoirement ce monde comme celui qui refuse de mettre l'immuable de la nature humaine au centre de tout et croit que l'essence de l'homme peut être chan­gée. La Révolution française annonce ainsi la possibilité d'un progrès graduel et estime que toutes les choses, relations et événements sont explicables rationnellement; de ce fait, elle essaie d'isoler chaque chose de son contexte et de la comprendre ainsi pour soi».

 

Mohler nous rappelle ensuite un malentendu te­nace, que l'on rencontre très souvent lorsque l'on évoque la Révolution Conservatrice. Un malen­tendu qui, outre la confusion avec le fascisme et le national-socialisme, lui a infligé beaucoup de tort: c'est l'idée erronée qui veut que tout ce qui est (ou a été) fait et dit contre la Révolution fran­çaise, son idéologie et ses conséquences, relève de la Révolution Conservatrice.

 

La Révolution de 1789 a dû faire face, à ses dé­buts, à deux types d'ennemis qui ne sont en au­cune manière des précurseurs de la Révolution Conservatrice. D'abord, il y avait ses adversaires intérieurs, qui estimaient que les résultats de la Révolution française et/ou de son idéologie égali­taire étaient insuffisants. Cette opposition interne a commencé avec Gracchus Babeuf (1760-1797), adepte d'«Egalité parfaite» (la majuscule est de lui), qui voulait supprimer toutes les formes de propriété privée et espérait atteindre l'«Egalité des jouissances». Sa tentative de coup d'Etat, appelée la «Conjuration des Egaux», fut tué dans l'œuf et l'aventure se termina en parfaite égalité le 27 mai 1797... sous le couperet de la guillotine.

 

Toutes les tendances qui puisent leur inspiration dans l'égalitarisme de Babeuf et qui, sur base de ces idées, critiquent la Révolution française, n'ont rien à voir, bien entendu, avec la Révolution Conservatrice (RC). Elles appartien­nent, pour être plus précis, aux traditions du marxisme et de l'anarchisme de gauche.

 

Ensuite, la Révolution française, dès ses débuts, a eu affaire à des groupes qui la combattaient pour maintenir ou récupérer leurs positions so­ciales (matérielles ou non), que les Jacobins me­naçaient de leur ôter ou avaient détruites. Les adeptes de la RC ont toujours eu le souci de faire la différence entre leur propre attitude et cette position; ils ont qualifié l'action qui en découlait, écrit Mohler, de «restauratrice», de «réactionnaire», d'«altkonservativ» («vieille-con­servatrice»), etc. Mais, au cours du XIXième siècle, les tenants de la RC (qui ne porte pas en­core son nom, ndt) et les «Altkonservativen» font face à un ennemi commun, ce qui les force trop souvent à forger des alliances tactiques avec les réactionnaires, à se retrouver dans le même camp politique. Ainsi, la différence essentielle qui sé­pare les uns des autres devient moins perceptible pour les observateurs extérieurs. Dans les rangs mêmes de la RC, on s'aperçoit des ambiguïtés et le discours s'anémie. Pour les RC de pure eau, ces alliances et ces ambiguïtés auront trop sou­vent des conséquences fatales. Mohler nous l'explique: «Car, à la RC, n'appartiennent  —comme le couplage paradoxal des deux mots l'indique— que ceux qui s'attaquent aux fonde­ments du siècle du progrès sans simplement vouloir une restauration de l'Ancien Régime».

 

Sous sa forme pure, la RC est toujours restée au stade de la formulation théorique. Rauschning, lui aussi, décrit ce caractère composite dans son ouvrage intitulé précisément Die Konservative Revolution: «Le mouvement opposé, qui se dresse contre le développement des idées révolu­tionnaires, a amorcé sa croissance au départ de stades initiaux embrouillés et semi-conscients, pour atteindre ce que nous nommons, avec Hugo von Hoffmannstahl, la RC. Elle représente le renversement complet de la tendance politique actuelle. Mais ce contre-mouvement n'a pas en­core trouvé d'incarnation pure, adaptée à lui-même. Il participe aux tentatives d'instaurer des modèles d'ordre totalitaire et césariste ou à des essais plattement réactionnaires. C'est pour toutes ces raisons, précisément, qu'il reste confus et brouillon...».

 

Sur base de cette constatation, Mohler observe que toute description cohérente du processus de maturation de la RC se mue automatiquement en une véritable histoire des idées. Si on cherche à la décrire comme une partie intégrante de la réalité politique, elle déchoit en un événement subalterne ou marginal. De ce fait, il ne faut pas donner des limites trop exiguës à la RC: elle déborde en effet sur d'autres mouvements, d'autres courants de pensée. Et vu le flou de ces limites, flou dû à la très grande hétérogénéité des choses que la RC embrasse, des choses qui font irruption dans son champs, Mohler est obligé de tracer une démar­cation arbitraire afin de bien circonscrire son su­jet. Il s'explique: «Au sens large, le terme "Révolution Conservatrice" englobe un ensemble de transformations s'appuyant sur un fondement commun, des transformations qui se sont ac­complies ou qui s'annoncent, et qui concerne tous les domaines de l'existence, la théologie comme par exemple les sciences naturelles, la musique comme l'urbanisme, les relations inter­familiales comme les soins du coprs ou la façon de construire une machine. Dans notre étude, nous nous bornerons à donner une définition ex­clusivement politique au terme; notre étude se limitant à l'histoire des idées, nous désignons par "Révolution Conservatrice" une certaine pensée politique».

 

Les pères fondateurs, les précurseurs et les parrains

 

Une pensée politique, une Weltanschauung, im­plique qu'il y ait des penseurs. Mohler les appelle les Leitfiguren,  les figures de proue, que nous nommerions par commodité les «précurseurs». Mohler souligne, dans la seconde partie de son ouvrage, inédite dans les premières éditions, que l'intérêt pour les précurseurs s'est considérable­ment amplifié. Les figures qui ont donné à la RC sa plus haute intensité spirituelle et psychique, ses penseurs les plus convaincants et aussi ses incarnations humaines les plus irritantes ont dé­sormais trouvé leurs biographes et leurs ana­lystes».

 

Si l'on parle de «père fondateur», il faut évidem­ment citer Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), re­connu par les amis et les ennemis comme l'initiateur véritable du phénomène intellectuel et spirituel de la RC. A côté de lui, le penseur fran­çais, moins universellement connu, Georges Sorel (1847-1922)... Nous reviendrons tout à l'heure sur ces deux personnages centraux.

 

Au second rang, une génération plus tard, nous trouvons le «trio» (ainsi que le nomme Mohler): Carl Schmitt (1888-1985), Ernst Jünger (°1895) et Martin Heidegger (1889-1976). Mohler cite ensuite toute une série de penseurs dont l'influence sur la RC est sans doute moins directe mais non moins intense. Les parrains non-alle­mands sont essentiellement des sociologues et des historiens du début de notre siècle qui, très tôt, avaient annoncé le crise du libéralisme bour­geois: les Italiens Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) et Gaëtano Mosca (1858-1941), l'Allemand Robert(o) Michels (1876-1936), installé en Italie, l'Américain d'origine norvégienne Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929). L'Espagne nous a donné Miguel de Unamuno (1864-1936) puis, une gé­nération plus tard, José Ortega y Gasset (1883-1956). La France, elle, a donné le jour à Maurice Barrès (1862-1923).

 

Quelques-uns de ces penseurs revêtent une double signification pour notre propos: ils sont à la fois «parrains» de la RC en Allemagne et partie intégrante dans les initiatives conservatrices-révo­lutionnaires qui ont animé la scène politico-idéo­logiques dans nos propres provinces.

 

Parmi les «parrains» allemands de la RC, Mohler compte le compositeur Richard Wagner (1813-1883), les poètes Gerhart Hauptmann (1862-1946) et Stefan George (1868-1933), le psycho­logue Ludwig Klages (1872-1956) et, bien sûr, Thomas Mann (1875-1955), Gottfried Benn (1896-1956) et Freidrich-Georg Jünger (1898-1977), le frère d'Ernst.

 

D'autres parrains allemands sont à peine connus dans nos provinces; Mohler les cite: les poètes Konrad Weiss (1880-1940) et Alfred Schuler (1865-1923), les écrivains Rudolf Borchardt (1877-1945) et Léopold Ziegler (1881-1958), un ami d'Edgar J. Jung, connu surtout pour son livre Volk, Staat und Persönlichkeit («Peuple, Etat et personnalité»; 1917). Enfin, il y a Max Weber (1864-1920), le plus grand sociologue que l'Allemagne ait connu, célèbre dans le monde entier mais pas assez pratiqué dans nos cercles non-conformistes.

 

La RC dans

d'autres pays

 

Pour Mohler, la RC est «un phénomène politique qui embrasse toute l'Europe et qui n'est pas en­core arrivé au bout de sa course». Dans la préface à la première édition de son ouvrage, nous lisons que la RC est «ce mouvement de rénovation intel­lectuelle qui tente de remettre de l'ordre dans le champs de ruines laissé par le XIXième siècle et cherche à créer un nouvel ordre de la vie. Mais si nous ne sélectionnons que la période qui va de 1918 à 1932, nous pouvons quand même affir­mer que la RC commence déjà au temps de Goethe et qu'elle s'est déployée sans interruption depuis lors et qu'elle poursuit sa trajectoire au­jourd'hui sur des voies très diverses. Et si nous ne présentons ici que la partie allemande du phé­nomène, nous n'oublions pas que la RC a touché la plupart des autres pays européens, voire cer­tains pays extra-européens».

 

Mohler réfute la thèse qui prétend que la RC est un phénomène exclusivement allemand. Il suffit de nommer quelques auteurs pour ruiner cet opi­nion, explique Mohler. Quelques exemples: en Russie, Dostoievski (1821-1881), le grand écri­vain, chaleureux nationaliste et populiste russe; les frères Konstantin (1917-1860) et Ivan S. Axakov (1823-1886). En France, Georges Sorel (1847-1922), le social-révolutionnaire le plus original qui soit, et Maurice Barrès (1862-1923). Ensuite, le philosophe, homme politique et écri­vain espagnol Miguel de Unamuno (1864-1936), l'économiste et sociologue italien Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), célèbre pour sa théorie sur l'émergence et la dissolution des élites. En Angleterre, citons David Herbert Lawrence (1885-1930) et Thomas Edward Lawrence (1888-1935), qui fut non seulement le mystérieux «Lawrence d'Arabie» mais aussi l'auteur des Seven Pillars of Wisdom,  de The Mint,  etc.

 

Cette liste pourrait être complétée ad infinitum. Bornons-nous à nommer encore T.S. Eliot et le grand Chesterton pour la Grande-Bretagne et Jabotinski pour la diaspora juive. Tous ces noms ne sont choisis qu'au hasard, dit Mohler, parmi d'autres possibles.

 

Dans les Bas Pays de l'actuel Bénélux, on ob­serve un contre-mouvement contre les effets de la Révolution française dès le début du XIXième siècle. En Hollande, les conservateurs protestants se donnèrent le nom d'«antirévolutionnaires», ce qui est très significatif. Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer (1801-1876) et Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) donnèrent au mouvement antirévo­lutionnaire et au parti du même nom (ARP, de­puis 1879) une idéologie corporatiste et orga­nique de facture nettement populiste-conservatrice (volkskonservatief). Conrad Busken Huet (1826-1886), prédicateur, journaliste et romancier, in­fléchit son mouvement, Nationale Vertoogen, contre le libéralisme, héritier de la Révolution française. Son ami Evert-Jan Potgieter (1808-1875) qui, en tant qu'auteur et co-auteur de De Gids,  avait beaucoup de lecteurs, évolua, lui aussi, dans sa critique de la société, vers des positions conservatrices-révolutionnaires; il dé­crivait ses idées comme participant d'un «radicalisme conservateur» (konservatief radika­lisme).

 

Après la première guerre mondiale, aux Pays-Bas, les idéaux conservateurs-révolutionnaires avaient bel et bien pignon sur rue et se distin­guaient nettement du conservatisme confession­nel. Ainsi, le Dr. Emile Verviers, qui enseignait l'économie politique à l'Université de Leiden, adressa une lettre ouverte à la Reine, contenant un programme assez rudimentaire d'inspiration con­servatrice-révolutionnaire. Sur base de ce pro­gramme rudimentaire, une revue vit le jour, Opbouwende Staatkunde  (Politologie en marche). Le philosophe et professeur Gerard Bolland (1854-1922) prononça le 28 septembre 1921 un discours inaugural à l'Université de Leiden, tiré de son ouvrage De Tekenen des Tijds (Les signes du temps), qui lança véritablement le mouvement conservateur-révolutionnaire aux Pays-Bas et en Flandre.

 

Dans les lettres néerlandaises, dans la vie intellec­tuelle des années 20 et 30, les tonalités et in­fluences conservatrices-révolutionnaires étaient partout présentes: citons d'abord la figure très contestée d'Erich Wichman sans oublier Anton van Duinkerken, Gerard Knuvelder, Menno ter Braak, Hendrik Marsman et bien d'autres. En Flandre, la tendance conservatrice-révolutionnaire ne se distingue pas facilement du Mouvement Flamand, du nationalisme flamand et du courant Grand-Néerlandais: la composante national(ist)e de la RC domine et refoule facilement les autres. Hugo Verriest et Cyriel Verschaeve, deux prêtres, doivent être mentionnés ici (1), de même qu'Odiel Spruytte (1891-1940), un autre prêtre peu connu mais qui fut très influent, surtout parce qu'il était un brillant connaisseur de l'œuvre de Nietzsche (2). En dehors du mouvement fla­mand, il convient de mentionner le leader socia­liste Henri De Man (3), le Professeur Léon van der Essen (4) et Robert Poulet, récemment décédé et auteur, entre autres, de La Révolution est à droite (5). Sans oublier le Baron Pierre Nothomb (6), chef des Jeunesses Nationales et Charles Anciaux de l'Institut de l'Ordre Corporatif (7).

 

Les noms de Lothrop Stoddard et de Madison Grant, défenseurs soucieux de l'identité de la race blanche, de James Burnham, théoricien de The Managerial Revolution,  mais aussi auteur du The Suicide of the West  et de The War we are in, montrent que les Etats-Unis aussi ont contribué à la RC. Dans les grands bouleversements qui af­fectent depuis quelques dizaines d'années l'Afrique, l'Asie et l'Amérique Latine, on peut, explique Mohler, trouver des phénomènes appa­rentés: «Notamment le mélange, caractéristique de la RC, de lutte pour la libération nationale, de révolution sociale et de rédécouverte de sa propre identité».

 

Le mouvement ouvrier péroniste en Argentine, avec Juan et Evita Perón, constitue, sur ce cha­pitre, un exemple d'école. Plus nettement mar­quée encore est l'œuvre du révolutionnaire chi­nois, le Dr. Sun Ya-Tsen (1866-1925), fondateur du Kuo-Min-Tang, qui, dans son livre Les trois principes du peuple (8), prêche explicitement pour le nationalisme, la révolution sociale et la voie chinoise vers la démocratie.

 

Mohler pose un constat: le fait que la Révolution française a mis en branle un contre-mouvement conservateur dont le point focal a été l'Allemagne, indique clairement que nous avons affaire à un phénomène de dimensions au moins européennes; «L'accent mis sur l'élément alle­mand dans la RC mondiale se justifie sur certains plans. Mêmes les expressions non allemandes de cette révolution intellectuelle contre les idées de 1789 s'enracinent dans ce chapitre de l'histoire des idées en Allemagne, qui s'étend de Herder au Romantisme. En Allemagne même, cette révolte a connu sa plus forte intensité».

 

L'un des facteurs qui a le plus contribué à l'européanisation générale de la RC est sans con­teste la large diffusion des œuvres et des idées de Nietzsche. Armin Mohler tente de ne pas englo­ber Nietzsche dans la RC, mais démontre de fa­çon convaincante que sans Nietzsche, le mouve­ment n'aurait pas acquis ses Leitbilder («images directrices») typiques et communes. Son in­fluence s'est faite sentir dans les Bas Pays, no­tamment chez le jeune August Vermeylen (9) et, d'après H.J. Elias (10), sur toute une génération d'étudiants de l'Athenée d'Anvers, parmi les­quels nous découvrons Herman van den Reeck, Max Rooses, Lode Claes et d'autres figures cé­lèbres. La philosophie de Nietzsche a permis qu'éclosent dans toute l'Europe des courants d'inspiration conservatrice-révolutionnaire.

 

Le Normand Georges Sorel, le second «père fondateur» de la RC selon Mohler (11), est toute­fois resté inconnu dans nos régions. Cet ingé­nieur et philosophe n'a pratiquement jamais été évoqué dans notre entre-deux-guerres (12). A notre connaissance, la seule publication néerlan­daise qui parle de lui est l'étude de J. de Kadt sur le fascisme italien; elle date de 1937 (13). On dit qu'il aurait exercé une influence discrète sur Joris van Severen (14) mais son meilleur biographe, Arthur de Bruyne (15), dont le travail est pourtant très fouillé, ne mentionne rien.

 

Les groupes «völkisch»

 

Nous ne devons pas concevoir la RC comme un ensemble monolithique. Elle a toujours été plu­rielle, contradictoire, partagée en de nombreuses tendances, mouvements et mentalités souvent antagonistes. Mohler distingue cinq groupes au sein de la RC; leurs noms allemands sont: les Völkischen, les Jungkonservativen  et les Nationalrevolutionäre, dont les tendances idéo­logiques sont précises et distinctes. Ensuite, il y a les Bündischen  et la Landvolkbewegung, que Mohler décrit comme des dissidences historiques concrètes qui n'ont produit des idéologies spéci­fiques que par la suite. Cette classification en cinq groupes de la RC allemande n'est pas aisément transposable dans les autres pays. Partout, on trouve certes les mêmes ingrédients mais en doses et mixages chaque fois différents. Cette prolixité rend évidemment l'étude de la RC très passionnante.

 

Le premier groupe, celui des Völkischen, met l'idée de l'«origine» au centre de ses préoccupa­tions. Les mots-clefs sont alors, très souvent, le peuple (Volk), la race, la souche (Stamm)  ou la communauté linguistique. Et chacun de ces mots-clefs conduit à l'éclosion de tendances völkische  très différentes les unes des autres. Dans la foule des auteurs allemands de tendance völkische, si­gnalons-en quelques-uns qui ont été lus et appré­ciés à titres divers chez nous, de manière à ce que le lecteur puisse discerner plus aisément la nature du groupe que par l'intermédiaire d'une longue démonstration théorique: Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Adolf Bartels, Hans F.K. Günther, Ernst Bergmann, Erich et Mathilde Ludendorff, Herman Wirth et Erwin Guido Kolbenheyer.

 

Chez nous, quand la tendance völkische est évo­quée, l'on songe tout de suite à Cyriel Verschaeve qui y a indubitablement sa place. Les mots-clefs volk  (peuple) et taal  (langue) peuvent toutefois nous induire en erreur car l'ensemble du mouvement flamand a pris pour axes ces deux vocables. Une fraction seulement de ce mouve­ment peut être considérée comme appartenant à la tendance völkische, notamment une partie de l'orientation grande-néerlandaise qui, explicite­ment, plaçait le «principe organique de peuple» (organische volksbeginsel),  théorisé par Wies Moens (16), ou le «principe national-populaire», au-dessus de toutes autres considérations poli­tiques et/ou philosophiques. Nous songeons à Wies Moens lui-même et à la revue Dietbrand,  à Ferdinand Vercnocke, à Robrecht de Smet et sa Jong-Nederlandse Gemeenschap (Communauté Jeune-Néerlandaise), à l'aile dite Jong-Vlaanderen (Jeune-Flandre) de l'activisme (17), à l'anthropologue Dr. Gustaaf Schamelhout (18), etc.

 

Au sein de la tendance völkische  a toujours co­existé, chez nous, une tradition basse-allemande (nederduits),  à laquelle appartenaient Victor Delecourt et Lodewijk Vlesschouwer (qui partici­pait, e.a., à la revue De Broederhand),  le Aldietscher  (Pan-Thiois) Constant Jacob Hansen (1833-1910) (19) et le germanisant plus radical encore Pol de Mont (1857-1931), qui déjà avant la première guerre mondiale avait développé son propre corpus völkisch.

 

Le groupe des Jungkonservativen

 

A rebours de volks (völkisch), le terme de jung­konservativ (jongkonservatief)  n'a jamais, à ma connaissance, été utilisé dans nos provinces. En Allemagne, démontre Mohler, le terme jungkon­servativ  est le vocable classique qu'ont utilisé les fractions du mouvement conservateur qui, par l'adjonction de l'adjectif «jeune» (jung), vou­laient se démarquer du conservatisme antérieur, purement «conservant» et réactionnaire, l'Altkonservativismus. Les Jungkonservativen  s'opposent, en esprit et sur la scène politique, au monde légué par 1789 et tirent de cette opposition des conséquences résolument révolutionnaires. Les grandes figures du Jungkonservativismus,  également connue hors d'Allemagne, sont no­tamment Oswald Spengler (20), Arthur Moeller van den Bruck (21), Othmar Spann, Hans Grimm et Edgar J. Jung.

 

Le peuple et la langue, concepts-clefs des Völkischen, ne sont certes pas niés par les Jungkonservativen,  encore moins méprisés. Mais pour eux, ces concepts ne sont pas perti­nents si l'on veut construire un ordre: ils condui­sent à la constitution d'Etats nationaux fermés, monotone, comparables aux Etats d'inspiration jacobine. De plus, ces Etats précipitent l'Europe, continent qui n'a que peu de frontières linguis­tiques et ethniques précises, dans des conflits frontaliers incessants, dans des querelles d'irrédentisme, des guerres balkaniques. En per­vertissant le principe völkisch,  ils provoquent une extrême intolérance à l'encontre des minorités ethniques et linguistiques à l'intérieur de leurs propres frontières. De tels débordements, l'histoire en a déjà assez connus.

 

Le mot-clef pour les Jungkonservativen est dès lors le Reich. L'idée de Reich,  prisée également dans les Bas Pays, n'implique pas un Etat fermé à peuple unique ni un Etat créé par un peuple conquérant sachant manier l'épée. Le Reich est une forme de vivre-en-commun propre à l'Europe, né de son histoire, qui laisse aux souches ethniques et aux peuples, aux langues et aux régions, leurs propres identités et leurs propres rythmes de développement, mais les ras­semble dans une structure hiérarchiquement su­périeure. Dans ce sens, explique Mohler, l'Etat de Bismarck et celui de Hitler ne peuvent être considérés comme des avatars de l'idée de Reich. Ce sont des formes étatiques qui oscillent entre l'Etat-Nation de type jacobin et l'Etat-conquérant impérialiste à la Gengis Khan.

 

En langue néerlandaise, Reich  peut parfaitement se traduire par rijk. Dans d'autres langues, le mot allemand est souvent traduit à la hâte par des mots qui n'ont pas le même sens: «Empire» suggère trop la présence d'un empereur; «Imperium» fait trop «impérialiste»; «Commonwealth» suggère une association de peuples beaucoup plus lâche.

 

Mentionnons encore trois particularités qui nous donnerons une image plus complète du groupe jungkonservativ.  D'abord, l'influence chrétienne est la plus prononcée dans ce groupe. L'idée médiévale de Reich est perçue par quelques-uns de ces penseurs jungkonservativ comme essen­tiellement chrétienne, qualité qui demeurera telle, affirment-ils, même si l'idée doit connaître encore des avatars historiques. Les Jungkonservativen chrétiens perçoivent la catholitas comme une force fédératrice des peuples, comme une sorte de ciment historique. Pour eux, cette catholitas  ne semble donc pas un but en soi mais un instrument au service de l'idée de Reich.

 

Ensuite, ces Jungkonservativen cutlivent une nette tendance à peaufiner leur pensée juridique, à ébaucher des structures et des ordres juridiques idéaux. C'est en tenant compte de cet arrière-plan que le deuxième concept-clef de la sphère jung­konservative,  en l'occurrence l'idée d'ordre, prend tout son sens. En dehors de l'Allemagne, c'est incontestablement ce concept-là qui a été le plus typique. Mohler écrit, à ce propos: «L'unité, à laquelle songent les Jungkonservativen  (...) englobe une telle prolixité d'éléments, qu'elle exige une mise en ordre juridique».

 

rivolu10.jpgEnfin, troisièmement, les Jungkonservativen  sont les plus «civilisés» de la planète RC et, pour leurs adversaires, les plus «bourgeois». Après eux viennent les Völkischen,  qui passent pour des philologues mystiques ou des danseurs de danses populaires, et les Nationaux-Révolutionnaires, qui font figures de dinamiteros exaltés. Des cinq groupes, les Jungkonservativen sont les seuls, dit Mohler, qui ne s'opposent pas de manière irréconciliable à l'environnement poli­tique établi, soit à la République de Weimar. Ils sont restés de ce fait des interlocuteurs acceptés. Entre eux et les adversaires de la RC, les ponts n'ont pas été totalement coupés, malgré les cé­sures profondes qui séparaient à l'époque les familles intellectuelles.

 

Dans les Bas Pays, plusieurs figures de la vie in­tellectuelle étaient apparentées au courant jung­konservativ.  Songeons à Odiel Spruytte qui, malgré son ancrage profond dans le Mouvement Flamand, restait un défenseur typique de l'«universalisme» d'Othmar Spann (22). Aux Pays-Bas, citons Frederik Carel Gerretsen, his­torien, poète (sous le pseudonyme de Geerten Gossaert) et homme politique (actif, entre autres, dans la Nationale Unie).

 

Lorque l'on recherche les traces de l'idéologie jungkonservative  dans nos pays, il faut analyser et étudier les concepts de solidarisme et de per­sonnalisme: les tenants de cette orientation doctri­nale appartenaient très souvent à la démocratie chrétienne. Les «navetteurs» qui oscillaient entre la démocratie chrétienne et la RC, version jung­konservative,  étaient légion.

 

Le Jungkonservativ  le plus typé, le seul à peu près qui ait vraiment fait école chez nous, c'est Joris van Severen. Chez lui, les concepts-clefs d'«ordre» et d'«élite» sont omniprésents; sa pen­sée est juridico-structurante, ce qui le distingue nettement des nationalistes flamands aux dé­marches protestataires et friands de manifesta­tions populaires. Autre affinité avec les Jungkonservativen: sa tendance à chercher des interlocuteurs dans l'aile droite de l'établisse­ment... Mais ce qui est le plus éton­nant, c'est la similitude entre sa pensée de l'ordre et l'idée de Reich des Jungkonservativen de l'ère wei­marienne: Joris van Severen refuse la thèse «une langue, un peuple, un Etat» et part en quête d'un modèle historique plus qualitatif, reflet d'un ordre supérieur, mais très éloigné de l'Etat belge de type jacobin, qui, pour lui, était aussi inaccep­table. Dans cette optique, ce n'est pas un hasard qu'il se soit référé aux anciens Pays-Bas, dans leur forme la plus traditionnelle, celle du «Cercle de Bourgogne» du Reich

Lire la suite

vendredi, 08 janvier 2010 | Lien permanent

Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6