mardi, 10 février 2009
Colloque sur la géopolitique du Moyen Orient à Paris
Samedi dernier : un intéressant colloque sur la géopolitique au Moyen Orient à Paris...
Samedi dernier, se déroulait à Paris un colloque fort intéressant consacré à la géopolitique au Moyen Orient et au rôle de l’Iran dans celle-ci. Le thème exact était : « De la Perse royale à l’Iran révolutionnaire : le jeu d’échecs planétaire ».
Organisé par le Mémorial des Rois, fondation présidée par notre ami Chahpour Sadler qui regroupe de nombreux partisans de la dynastie impériale iranienne, ce colloque reçut les contributions de véritables spécialistes tels que les professeurs Jean Haudry et Charles-Henry de Fouchecour, de fins connaisseurs de l’Iran comme André Pertuzzio et Joseph-Antoine Santa Croce, et de géopoliticiens comme Robert Steuckers et Laurent Artur du Plessis.
Le Général Gallois fit une remarquable intervention, retransmise sur écran géant, rappelant le rôle néfaste, pour ne pas dire criminel, de Valéry Giscard d’Estaing dans la promotion de l’Ayatollah Khomeiny (exilé en France) et la chute du Shah d’Iran. Chute qui a engendré l’instauration du régime islamiste et la déstabilisation de l’ensemble du Proche et du Moyen Orient. Le monde paye encore, trente ans plus tard, l’inconséquence politique de ce valet de l’Amérique qu’était Giscard.
Il y a des vérités qui sont bonnes à rappeler. Ce colloque fut l’occasion d’en rappeler une, une vérité qui, à elle seule, résume la politique à courte vue des libéraux…
Nous reviendrons sur ce colloque dans le prochain numéro de la revue Synthèse nationale.
Trouve sur: http://synthesenationale.hautetfort.com/
08:05 Publié dans Actualité | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : géopolitique, iran, moyen orient | 
| 
del.icio.us | 
| 
Digg | 
Facebook
Déclaration d'Aymeric Chauprade
Aymeric Chauprade : ”Le petit clan qui, au coeur de la Défense, défend des intérêts étrangers, essentiellement américains, va devoir s’inquiéter”
Source : SECRET DEFENSE
Aymeric Chauprade, expert en géopolitique et enseignant au CID, qui a été congédié jeudi par le ministre de la Défense après la parution d’un texte contestant ce qu’il appelle “la version officielle” des attentats du 11 septembre, va attaquer en justice le ministre de la Défense, Hervé Morin. Son avocat devrait préciser cette semaine la nature de la plainte. “Une riposte juridique est engagée”, dit-il. Ce samedi, Chauprade assure n’avoir toujours eu aucun contact avec le cabinet du ministre, afin de pouvoir s’expliquer.
“J’ai désormais les mains libres pour m’exprimer. Le petit clan qui, au coeur de la Défense, défend des intérêts étrangers, essentiellement américains, va devoir s’inquiéter”, menace-t-il.
Aymeric Chauprade, 40 ans, a été reçu vendredi matin par le général Vincent Desportes, commandant du Collège interarmées de Défense. Au cours d’un entretien “très courtois” d’un quart d’heure, le général lui a signifié la fin immédiate de sa collaboration. Chauprade a demandé à ce que son renvoi lui soit notifié par écrit. Les autres interventions de Chauprade dans des organismes de la Défense, comme l’IHEDN, l’Emsom (troupes de marine) et le Cesa (armée de l’air), devraient également être annulées. Il devait par exemple embarquer le 20 février sur le navire-école Jeanne d’Arc pour une série d’interventions auprès des élèves-officiers de la Marine, entre Djakarta et la Réunion. La Marine l’a averti d’un “changement de programme brutal”.
Interrogé par Secret Défense sur le fond de l’affaire, c’est-à-dire les attentats du 11 septembre, Aymeric Chauprade maintient ses affirmations qui rejoignent celles des complotistes, visant à dédouaner l’islamisme radical pour en attribuer la responsabilité aux Américains ou aux Israéliens : “On a le droit de ne pas savoir (qui est à l’origine des attentats). Je ne suis pas convaincu par le version officielle. J’ai en effet présenté de manière crédible les thèses alternatives. Mais je donne la version officielle - que tout le monde d’ailleurs connait - dans une chronologie. J’ai des doutes importants, mais cela ne veut pas dire que je crois que les responsables sont des éléments des services américains ou israéliens. Je ne tire pas de conclusions, je m’interroge”.
Commentaire du Pacha : Complot et brutalité.
La thèse présentée par Aymeric Chauprade dans son livre “Chronique du choc des civilisations” alimente tous les fantasmes complotistes. Elle n’est, à mes yeux, absolument pas recevable et j’ai eu l’occasion de le lui exprimer. Les opinions politiques (proches de la droite dure) d’Aymeric Chauprade, qui n’a jamais mis son drapeau dans sa poche (dans ses livres, ses articles ou ses conférences), n’étaient pas secrètes. Il intervient depuis dix ans dans différentes institutions de la Défense, dont le Collège interarmées de Défense.
La méthode dont use le ministre de la Défense pour se séparer de lui est toutefois d’une grande brutalité, qui risque d’être très mal perçue chez de très nombreux officiers qui ont suivi ses cours. Des témoignages me remontent déjà. C’est exactement le contraire de l’effet recherché…
A LIRE :
Chronique du choc des civilisations
Aymeric Chauprade
Editions Chronique, collection Théma
239 pages, janvier 2009
08:02 Publié dans Actualité | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : défense, militaria, géopolitique, relations internationales, politique internationale, censure, dictature | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
Bankencrisis is ook crisis van de Belgische instellingen
Bankencrisis is ook crisis van de belgische instellingen
Historisch gezien wordt de Kredietbank en haar aanhangsels als zowat de financiële ruggengraat aanzien van de Vlaamse welvaart en industriële ontwikkeling in de 2de helft van de 20ste eeuw. Wat Fortis / Generale Bank was voor belgië, is KBC voor velen, zeker in de brede Vlaamse Beweging, voor Vlaanderen. Reeds voor de oorlog wist de Kredietbank, als voorloper van KBC en opvolger van de ‘Algemeene Bankvereeniging’, een Nederlandstalige burgerij en de voor Vlaanderen typische kleine en middelgrote ondernemingen aan te spreken die zich bij de grote Franstalige banken niet zo thuis voelden. De Kredietbank heeft zo een vorm van cultureel nationalisme weten te gebruiken om er economisch beter van te worden. Deze omkering, waarbij nationalisme instrument voor de kapitalistische economie wordt, sluit nochtans niet uit dat degene die het gebruikt er toch ook in gelooft zoals de Antwerpse voorzitter van de Kredietbank, Fernand Collin, dat destijds bewees. Maar, niet alleen behoorde die Vlaamsgezinde elite in de omgeving van de Kredietbank logischerwijs nooit tot het nationalistische kamp die financieel en economisch gewin zouden opofferen voor één of andere ‘Vlaamse idee’, vandaag de dag is die nationale binding compleet verwaterd of verdwenen. Vlaanderen als begrip en het nationalisme er rond was vooral welkom als het iets kon opleveren. KBC heeft vooral nog steeds het imago een echte Vlaamse bank te zijn. Een imago, maar ook niets meer dan dat…
De crisis toont nog maar eens aan dat we over een eigen sterke Vlaamse volksstaat moeten beschikken die het bankwezen naar zich toe trekt en het monopolie over de geldcreatie bezit. Binnen de belgische structuur zitten we opgescheept met ondermeer Waalse politici die niet enkel knecht zijn van het grootkapitaal maar ook geen verantwoording hoeven af te leggen tegenover het Vlaamse volk. Ondermeer PS-politica Onckelinckx verklaarde dan ook niet meteen geneigd te zijn de federale overheid als reddingsboei te laten optreden voor die “Vlaamse” KBC, een bank die zoals eerder gezegd een Vlaams imago heeft. Toen verzekeraar Ethias in de problemen raakte, betaalden de Vlamingen via de federale staatskas evenwel gul mee om deze oogappel van de Waalse PS te redden. Het spaargeld van de gewone Vlaming kan hen vierkant gestolen worden, zij dienen immers enkel hun Waalse bevolking rustig en goed gezind te houden. Enkele maanden na de Fortis-affaire blijkt duidelijk dat de belgische Staat ofwel in de onmogelijkheid, ofwel in de manifeste onwil verkeert om als Staat de Vlaamse burgers en bedrijven te beschermen tegen de kwalijke gevolgen van liberaliseringen op de financiële markten.
Uit een zeer recent rapport van het VN-Bureau voor Drugs en Misdaad blijkt dat interbancaire kredieten betaald werden met geld uit de drugshandel en ander misdaadgeld. Nog voor de overheden met geld over de brug kwamen, werd in de tweede helft van 2008 de vraag naar liquiditeit van het banksysteem in Europa al in belangrijke mate ingelost door drugsgeld dat als enige grootschalige kapitaal direct beschikbaar was. Georganiseerde misdaad en liberaal-kapitalisme zijn onlosmakelijk met elkaar verbonden. De vraag moet gesteld worden of er in het najaar van 2008 grote hoeveelheden misdaadgeld naar Fortis zijn gevloeid.
De bankencrisis legde bovendien de totale mislukking van de belgische staat, haar instellingen en haar politieke klasse bloot. De crisis was de spreekwoordelijke druppel voor de regering Leterme. Na maandenlang geklungel en pure onkunde volgde nu het ontslag. Partijpolitieke spelletjes, vooral tussen de Waalse PS en de MR, alsook diverse domme uitspraken en tussenkomsten van individuele politici zijn dagelijkse kost. Schoolvoorbeeld is de Waalse liberaal Reynders, die als gangmaker mag aanzien worden achter de uitverkoop van de grootste bank van dit land aan de Fransen van BNP Paribas. Met een domme uitspraak over nieuwe kapitaalinjecties kelderde hij bovendien nog eens de beurskoers van KBC. De man presteerde het ook nog eens te pleiten voor de oprichting van een openbare “bad bank”, een slechte bank die alle “slechte” kredieten van de private banken zou overnemen zodat de financiële instellingen niet continu onder de dreiging leven om het slachtoffer te zijn van speculatie op de financiële markten. De dreiging en risico’s zouden dan afgewenteld worden op de belastingbetaler terwijl de aandeelhouders op hun beide oren kunnen slapen. Zo’n “bad bank” is een permanent zwaard van Damocles boven de overheidsfinanciën.
Eind 2008 kwam de federale regering al KBC ter hulp maar pas nadat de typisch belgische wafelijzerpolitiek werd bovengehaald. KBC met haar Vlaams imago kon enkel geld krijgen van de overheid indien ook steun werd verleend aan Sonaca, telg uit de Waalse vliegtuigindustrie. De nieuwe eerste minister Van Rompuy blinkt samen zijn “nieuwe” regering al evenmin uit in veel daadkracht. De federale politiek zit in een complete impasse op het moment dat de Staat als enige instelling de facto orde op zaken zou moeten stellen. In de voorbije maanden is er niet één politicus in belgië opgestaan die krachtdadig het roer in handen neemt, integendeel. Men lijkt zich in de regeringen en parlementen niet bewust van de situatie, men doet de ene domme publieke uitspraak na het andere dwaze voorstel, men speelt naar hartelust partijpolitieke spelletjes. Op geen enkel moment is er werk gemaakt van een duidelijk en globaal plan ter bestrijding van de crisis, men loopt de feiten achterna en pleegt wat oplapwerk. Fortis werd korte tijd genationaliseerd en daarna verpatst aan de Fransen, bij Dexia verkreeg de overheid aandelen in ruil voor staatssteun, bij KBC gaat het over achtergestelde leningen van zeer lange duur. Men pakt bank per bank aan, telkens op andere wijze en zonder fundamentele oplossingen.
En dit alles is nog het minste! Het ergste van de ganse situatie is dat de regeringen in feite zijn overgegaan tot pure diefstal van belastinggeld op zeer grote schaal. Het zijn dus niet enkel politieke klungelaars, het zijn gewoon criminelen. Zo heeft bijvoorbeeld de Vlaamse overheid van bendeleider Peeters reeds 2 miljard euro in KBC gestopt en houdt het nog eens 1,5 miljard klaar. Vlaanderen was net schuldenvrij, en moet nu opnieuw gaan lenen. Maar de overheid –zowel de Vlaamse als de federale- krijgt niets van macht, controle of zelfs inspraak in ruil voor die inbreng van belastingsgeld! Er verandert dus niets aan de bestaande aandeelhoudersstructuur in KBC, kortom de staat redt een private onderneming van de ondergang en geeft dus een cadeaucheque aan de aandeelhouders die gespaard worden, zonder dat die laatsten zelf een financiële inbreng doen ter redding van hun bank. Voor wie nog enigszins geloofde dat het parlement als hoeksteen van de liberaal-democratie hier enige zeggingsschap in heeft of had is er aan voor de moeite: zonder enige discussie of parlementaire afspraken zijn de bendes van Leterme / Van Rompuy en van Peeters met belastingsgeld overgegaan tot depannage van private banken. In maart 2008 bedroeg de beurswaarde van de drie grote banken Fortis, KBC en Dexia gezamenlijk nog bijna 81 miljard euro. De overheid verkwanselde blindelings nog eens 22,4 miljard euro aan deze drie (naast 1,5 miljard voor Ethias). Uiteindelijk hebben Fortis, Dexia en KBC in januari 2009 nog een gezamenlijke beurswaarde van iets meer dan 9 miljard euro! In nauwelijks 4 maanden tijd hebben de politieke plutocraten een belangrijk deel van het sanerings- en besparingswerk in de overheidsfinanciën van de afgelopen 15 à 20 jaar ongedaan gemaakt!
Aan Vlaams-nationale zijde is het ondertussen armoede troef inzake antwoorden en voorstellen betreffende deze crisis. Buiten wat oppervlakkig geklaag over de –uiteraard schandalige- uitverkoop van Fortis aan de Fransen van BNP Parisbas is er weinig te beleven. Sommigen stelden samen met Luc Van der Kelen van Het Laatste Nieuws al tevreden vast dat Vlaanderen dankzij de KBC-crisis en het “snelle optreden” van de bende rond minister-president Peeters bewezen heeft belgië niet meer nodig te hebben! Dat het in werkelijkheid om het zuiverste bewijs gaat dat dit officiële Vlaanderen de facto een belgië in het klein is, daar ging men gemakshalve aan voorbij! Indien men aan Vlaams-nationale zijde écht “Vlaams geld in Vlaamse handen” wil, dan is het hoog tijd om de neoliberale dogma’s van vrije marktwerking voorgoed achterwege te laten! N-SA herhaalt dat de enige oplossing ligt in een verregaande vernieuwing van het banksysteem waarbij ook definitief gebroken wordt met de renteslavernij, woeker en speculatie. Wij wensen geen “bad bank”, wij willen geen zoveelste schijnnationalisering, om een Fortis Morgana door de storm te loodsen. De doorgevoerde schijnnationalisaties hier en elders in Europa laten de bankiers gewoon aan het roer, om het schip nadien weer cadeau te doen aan nieuwe speculanten. Het is niet meer dan logisch dat een Staat die kapitaal in de banken inbrengt, er ook zelf het beheer van overneemt. Ons pleidooi voor het nationaliseren van de banken wordt ten andere ondersteund door de pleidooien voor –weliswaar tijdelijke- nationalisaties vanwege diverse economen (de Leuvense prof Paul de Grauwe, Nobelprijswinnaar Paul Krugman in de NYTimes, Prof. Willem Buiter,…).
00:45 Publié dans Actualité | Lien permanent | Commentaires (1) | Tags : banques, crise, finances, usure, usurocratie, belgique, économie | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
Angriff der neuen Linke
00:30 Publié dans Actualité | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : allemagne, gauche, socialisme, extrême gauche, politique | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
Sovereignty : The History of the Concept
Sovereignty: The History of the Concept
Ex: http://faustianeurope.wordpress.com/
What is sovereignty? In general, it might be said that the sovereignty is always either ‘internal’ or ‘external’, or de facto and de jure [1]. My primary concern in this essay will be to shed some light on the first of these - internal sovereignty. Indeed, it is entirely correct to say that sovereignty cannot be so easily labelled into two separate categories and it should be acknowledged that the ‘external’ sovereignty, in the light of the Westphalian peace treaty, could be regarded as nothing else but placing a last piece of the puzzle of sovereignty into its place – granting the internally acknowledged sovereign entity also the external recognition of its legitimacy.
John Hoffman suggests that most often, the contemporary view considers sovereignty to be a ‘unitary, indivisible and absolute power concentrated in the state’ [2]. However was it always so? If not, when did the idea of sovereignty as supreme power, as Weberian ‘monopoly on the violence in a given territory’, first appear? My suggestion will be that the concept of sovereignty in its fullness is a very modern phenomenon, whose emergence can be traced back no deeper than into the early modern period [3], but which, nevertheless, remains with us almost intact even today – still being necessarily thought of as ‘absolute and indivisible’.
The Necessity of a Historical Perspective
It is important to acknowledge that sovereignty, although a common part of our contemporary political vocabulary, is fundamentally a historical concept. The concept of sovereignty as such was unknown before the sixteenth century [4]. It was completely unfamiliar to the Ancient Greeks, Romans, as well as to the scholars of the medieval period [5]. Although the Roman law provided the technical vocabulary to the theory of sovereignty, the Romans themselves spoke only about different layers of authority, not about ‘supreme power’ or about any conceptual notion of sovereignty as such. Potestas was thus used to signify the official legal power of the magistrates, auctoritas on the other hand implied the influence and prestige, and imperium the right to command in certain offices – all that in the interest of the whole political body [6].
Nevertheless, Vincent still argues that ‘it does not follow that the reality of state sovereignty did not exist in earlier periods, even though the concept itself had yet to be formulated’ [7].
I believe that the problem here is that Vincent does not sufficiently acknowledge what the questioning of the very concept of sovereignty entails. He conflates the sovereignty with merely being ’sovereign’ or having the authority of command in a certain sphere, which the Romans sophisticated into many different layers of political auctoritas as was mentioned before.
To understand what sovereignty is, one cannot stop by finding out who has the powers of a sovereign. The sovereignty is a political concept and is thus bound to the process of questioning of who should be sovereign, which tries to provide certain justifications for a political authority where such authorities were previously unquestioned. The point here is that the moment of questioning itself – the intellectual vacuum instead of previous unquestioned traditions, which the scholar tries to fill in, forms the integral part of every political concept. It is the contest – dispute – over its exact meaning, which can be present only if the consent and some self-evident social truth between the arguing parties already disappeared.
But when and how did that ‘moment of questioning and uncertainty’ arise?
Jean Bodin
Although Bodin (1520-1596) did not ‘invent’ sovereignty, he was certainly the first who gave it a serious consideration and conceptualized it in a systematic manner [8]. His magnum opus Six Books of the Commonwealth was written on the background of the waging Wars of Religion. Bodin’s chief concern was thus understandably to find a way to end the chaos and war, which he perceived to be the natural result of the labyrinthic feudal order, with its myriad of principalities, guilds, cities, and trading unions, formally united under the Church and Emperor, but with none of them having the power to subdue the others in the time of crisis [9]. Bodin argued that for a government to be strong, it must be perceived as legitimate, and to be legitimate it must follow certain rules of ‘justice and reason’ comprehensible through the divine law. Essentially however, the power of a sovereign is for him the ability to create laws and break them according to one’s will [10].
Since according to this definition, the sovereign must be able to simultaneously create laws ex nihilo (the ‘positive law’) [11], and to break it at his own discretion, the sovereign cannot be also his own subject, otherwise he would be bound to the laws he created and therefore would no longer be the sovereign. The sovereign’s power is thus for Bodin necessarily ‘absolute and indivisible,’ the sovereign standing above the law and above the society itself [12]. In fact, the sovereign is a ‘mortal God’[13]. Bodin elaborates:
‘The attributes of sovereignty are . . . peculiar to the sovereign prince, for if communicable to the subject, they cannot be called attributes of sovereignty . . . Just as Almighty God cannot create another God equal with Himself, since He is infinite and two infinities cannot co-exist, so the sovereign prince, who is the image of God, cannot make a subject equal with himself without self-destruction’[14].
With regard to the Wars of Religion, Bodin’s purpose is clear, Vincent suggests that, ‘to make civil law the will of the sovereign is to undermine some of the impact of customary and natural law. Effective law becomes the command of the sovereign’ [15]. Sovereignty in this light is ultimately absolutely independent of the subjects - sovereign becomes the source of his own legitimacy responsible only to God, the legislator as well as the executor.
For these purposes, the principles of princeps legibus solutus (the prince is the living law) and plenitudo potestantis (the fullness of legal power) were adopted by the medieval jurists from the Roman law for an attack on until-then predominant feudal ‘ascending thesis’, the argument that authority of a sovereign comes from below - from feudal lords and other intermediary bodies - not the other way around (’descending thesis’ – legitimacy comes from above – God and the sovereign) [16].
It is most often argued that this shift to centralization from the decentralized feudal order occurred because of the increasing conflicts - as mentioned the Wars of Religion brought on France unprecedented suffering – thus to bring order, monarchs required taxation, orderly collection of such revenues, which again dependent on the disciplined troops, and above all the justification for these extended sovereign’s interventions that would give him the upper hand over disloyal nobility [17].
Finally, what is important to stress, as Alain de Benoist rightly notes, is that such ‘new sovereign order’ henceforth recognizes only the state and atomized individuals (’society’) and ‘abolishes particular ties and loyalties, and bases itself on the ruins of concrete communities’.[18] From the multiplicity of feudal communities – build upon the natural ties, loyalties and mutual interest – Bodin creates an abstract community of atomized individuals bound together only by the common monarch – the state. This is for Bodin inevitable, although he recognizes the importance of human associations to a certain extent, he cannot make them nothing but communities of individuals with no claim on the political power or self-management, since that would threaten the absolute power of the sovereign. This was nevertheless taken even a step further by Thomas Hobbes.
Thomas Hobbes
Hobbes (1588-1679) similarly to Bodin wrote his magnum opus Leviathan during the period of a civil war, wishing to mitigate this ‘worst of all evils’. His concept of sovereignty knows however even less limits than that of Bodin. Whereas Bodin acknowledged that there are some actions which might be perceived as illegitimate [19], Hobbes accepted only the right of the individual for ‘self-preservation’ [20].
To avoid the constant civil war and anarchy, to which humans are according to Hobbes prone because of their ‘evil’ human nature [21], people by entering into society agree to give up their ‘natural’ sovereign rights in favour of the sovereign. The sovereign, not being a party to the original contract, does not recognize any limits to his authority. He exercises his powers unconditionally. While Bodin based the legitimacy of the sovereign on the divine sanction, Hobbes built his own on the social contract between ‘naturally free and equal’ individuals [22], thus relating his argument very much to our contemporary time.
The paradox of Hobbes is that although his sovereign bases his legitimacy on the relation between him and the people (i.e. because of the original social contract) the ruler is made autonomous, possibly even operating against the community from which he derives his legitimacy in the first place. The question thus arises whether the ruler can really think of himself as legitimate when the source of his legitimacy (the people) does not consider him anymore as being such. Bodin could not have this problem because his source of legitimacy was God. Hobbes wants to have it both ways however, the source of the legitimacy of the sovereign comes from the below, but at the same time he takes over from Bodin the sovereignty as ‘absolute and indivisible’ and hence cannot allow the sovereign any limits on his powers even if this means the fight against his own people.
The gap between the state sovereignty and ‘popular sovereignty’ (the source of legitimacy designating the ruler) is thus open, and as it will be shown, remains open even under our liberal representative democracies. One needs to take one further step to John Locke, who managed to synthesize Bodin and Hobbes to provide us with the foundations for liberalism and thus for our modern Western states.
John Locke
Whereas Hobbes’ thought contains both liberal (social contract) and illiberal (absolute ruler) elements, it is Locke (1632-1704) who is considered to be the true father of liberalism [23]. Nevertheless, contrary to what some liberal thinkers seem to suggest[24], there is no significant gap between him, Hobbes and Bodin. Similarly to Hobbes, he founds the society on the abstract social contract, which every individual ’signs’ by coming into it [25].
For Locke, certain ‘natural rights’ can never be taken away from the individual and his preservation is in fact the only reason why utility-maximizing individuals enter the society [26]. Although the life in the ’state of nature’ for Locke is not ‘nasty, brutish, poore, and short’ as for Hobbes, Locke’s individuals being relatively benign, living according to the divine law, and not interfering with each other’s ‘natural rights’ [27], there are still few who are dangerous.
Logically for Locke, for his people qua ‘rational individuals,’ it is therefore only in their best self-interest to enter the society, where in exchange for certain duties (for instance: the service in the national army) [28], they receive the state protection against these perpetrators.
What one immediately might notice is the fact that the state is again an all powerful entity, except for a certain limited sphere of ‘natural rights’ (similarly to Bodin), which he cannot interfere with if his actions are to be perceived as legitimate. In fact, as Hoffman notes, one might regard Locke as Bodin ‘refurbished’ with the social contract to the 17th century English conditions [29].
French Revolution, Soviet Revolution, National Socialists
The distance in legitimacy between the ruler and ruled did not disappear, although there were certainly some efforts to solve this duality in many different ways. The French Revolution, based on the concept of Rousseau’s ‘general will,’ argued that the will of the nation is embodied in the National Assembly - therefore, by this logic, the nation was the general assembly [30], being able to send thousands under the guillotine, for their ‘own good.’ Similarly the Russian Bolsheviks argued that it is the Communist Party acting as the vanguard of the proletariat, embodying its will, and ‘subsequently,’ that the party qua the proletariat embodies the true spirit of the whole people, ‘free’ of the class interests [31]. And indeed, the German National Socialists claimed that the will of the German volk is embodied in Führer, the German jurist Carl Schmitt claiming (in the vein not unlike Bodin) that Hitler embodies the ‘living law’ of the Aryan race, purifying the nation from its bad elements (Aktion T4) in the victims’ own name.
In all these instances, the sovereignty, as the ’supreme, absolute and indivisible’ is based on the Hobbesian idea that the state can operate against the wishes of those from whom it draws it legitimacy.
But this is untenable, as David Beetham argues, the legitimacy ‘must be conceived as a relationship between parties bound together by shared beliefs and by some kind of common interest’ [32]. This does not mean that the government cannot be oppressive, the argument only suggests that the legitimacy means the dual relationship, which cannot be broken from either side, otherwise the action of the state is not considered legitimate, but merely the manifestation of the force, not of the right. The individual’s peers thus might justifiably expect that he will try to develop certain civic virtues that help to preserve that very community in which he lives in and the individual rights he enjoys. He as well might be expected to fight (and potentially die) for that community in a battle, being considered a coward, effeminate or ostracized if he does not do so – but otherwise – no one can legitimately press him to act in such way – since the legitimacy – the ability to acknowledge a certain force as rightful and not just a mere force – belongs only to him.
Liberal democracy
It would be a mistake to assume that the paradox of sovereignty has been solved in contemporary Western liberal democracies. Quite the contrary, the modern liberal state is built on the principles outlined by Locke three hundred years ago. There exists a certain set of rights with which the state cannot meddle with. Similarly, it is also based on the ’social contract’ between the citizens and government, which is periodically ‘renewed’ in the general elections.
Nevertheless, the legitimacy of the liberal state sovereignty is in fact more questionable than ever before. The chief problem might be regarded in what is called ‘legal sovereignty’ or also Rechtsstaat. As Alain de Benoist suggests, today “politics… is considered to be inevitably dependent upon irrational and arbitrary ‘decisions,’ is disqualified, since the political sphere denies the autonomy and, thus, the essence of law” [33]. The titular wielder of the power can thus be ignored, since his decision might be considered to clash with the ‘ethical’, legal sovereignty.
Politics is thus not only alienated from the hands of its titular wielders – people, but also constantly moved from the realm of deliberation to the realm of administration. The people are not only distrusted enough that they have to be ruled through representatives (acting according to their ‘best’ judgement), not by delegates who would have to represent their will and could not act without having the people’s consent, but the realm of the possible political action is constantly circumscribed in the name of the revelation of the superior historical reason manifested in certain political taboos which today are ‘evil’ or ‘immoral’ to questioned. The liberal democratic state thus appears to be a messianic entity, moving towards a paradise where no longer any political activity, action, and deliberation will be necessarily – since all our ‘human reason’ will be imbued in the rational Hegelian machinery of our legal state.
As Chantal Mouffe notes – liberal democracy wants to completely annihilate the political in the name of the ‘rational’ management of the divergent interests within the political community, because it supposedly transcends their ‘particularities’ and is applicable to them all [34]. Indeed, as in all universalistic regimes, unquestionably.
Thus all pluralism of divergent life styles within the liberal state is destroyed, as Mouffe concludes, ‘. . . conflicts, antagonisms, relations of power, forms of subordination and repression simply disappear and we are faced with a typically liberal vision of a plurality of interests that can be regulated, . . . where the question of sovereignty is evacuated’ [35].
The liberal thus does not understand that people are inherently social and political beings – that for them it is not enough to have their divergent political ideas, cultures, traditions, religions somewhere in the private, dark recesses of their minds – but that they want to live according to them, have the right to behave in a certain way in public, celebrate traditions in a certain way, consider some things to be moral and some not without any ‘political correctness.’ To allow the diversity of the public – of the political – and not merely of the private and atomized is something which the liberal democracy will never be able to solve.
A pluralist alternative?
As might be seen, the central flaw of the theories of ‘supreme and indivisible’ sovereignty is that they conceive of the individual and society in highly individualistic, rational, and pre-social terms. In case of Hobbes and Bodin, individuals are anti-social power-maximizers, who can be subdued only by the all-powerful entity. In case of Bodin and liberals, individuals are utility maximizers coming together only for their own greater benefit, in order to better protect their ‘natural rights’ and property, and content to fetishize their identities somewhere in private.
Nevertheless, there exists a certain group of scholars, inspired by the contemporary of Bodin, Johannes Althusius, and the German thinker Otto von Gierke, who argue that humans are social beings who do not come to society just for the profit or protection, but because of their social nature [36]. Althusius calls humans ‘symbiots’ [37], since they form multiplicity of public associations according to their sense of belonging (families, tribes, cultural groups, ethnics), mutual interest (guilds, manufactures, trading unions, today political movements etc.) and never can be reduced to the simple dichotomy “individual-state” as according to the modern theorists of sovereignty since Hobbes.
These pluralist thinkers are for instance J. N. Figgis, H. J. Laski, or G. D. Cole. They argue that sovereignty is inalienable to the individuals, who are not some ‘unencumbered selves’ of the liberals [38], but their ‘individuality’ only truly exists because they are members of various intertwined social groups. But at the same time, the sovereignty is for them divisible, with each such group having the authority over its own internal affairs, to the extent it can manage for itself, and its social activities do not clash with those of the others’ [39]. The state is for them only the highest of such groups uniting not individuals qua individuals, but only as the members of multiplicity of various other groups, as social beings with already determined, divergent interests [40].
This idea is present also in Mouffe, who suggests that these divergent social groupings do not have to be united by their thick public moralities, as communitarians suggest, but by ‘thin’ set of goods, or ‘thin morality’ if you like only – by the common adherence to the ideal of the polity (res publica) which allows them to live their divergent public lifestyles, and which therefore requires them certain civic virtues. As Mouffe notes, ‘this modern form of political community is held together not by a substantive idea of the common good, but by a common bond, public concern.’
Similarly, Quentin Skinner agrees with this proposition when he writes:
‘All prudent citizens recognise that, whatever degree of negative liberty they may enjoy, it can only be the outcome of - and if you like the reward of - a steady recognition and pursuit of the public good at the expense of all purely individual and private ends’ [41].
What is required of the citizen is thus the adherence to the virtues of political activity and participation, public concern for the common affairs, courage in defending the public interest, prudence in dealing with the others – that is, the respect for the plurality of divergent cultures and lifestyles and their right to organize their public affairs according to themselves (for instance, Muslims having every right to wear headscarves or whatever their want according to their cultural traditions). In short – a civic morality is necessary for all members of the res publica if they want to preserve their plural lifestyles, the principle of ‘unity in diversity.’
Ultimately, the individuals thus delegate but do not forfeit their sovereignty. The sovereign of the state as the higher unit is thus only the highest intermediate between the constantly fluid diversity of the political unit, having as his goal to promote their public good [42]. In the words of Friedrich II, although superior to them all individually, he is only a subject to them as to the whole community, being nothing but the ‘first servant of the state.’
This is the expanded version of the essay submitted by the author as a part of his undergraduate degree at the University of Sheffield.
References:
[1] A. Heywood, Key Concepts in Politics (Basingstoke, 2000), pp. 37-39.
[2] J. Hoffman, Sovereignty (Buckingham, 1998), p. 32. See also D. Strang, ‘Anomaly and Commonplace in European Political Expansion: Realist and Institutional Accounts,’ International Organization 45 (1991), p. 148..
[3] R. Cooper, The Postmodern state and the New World Order (London, 2000), p. 45: defines the early modern period as dominated by centralised states, gradual shift from agrarian to commercial economy, rationalism and foreign relations dominated by the inter-state interaction.
[4] J. A. Camilleri, and J. Falk, The End of Sovereignty? The Politics of a Shrinking and Fragmenting World (Aldershot, 1992), p. 239. Also D. Held, ‘Introduction: Central Perspectives on the Modern State,’ in States & Societies, ed. D. Held et al (Oxford, 1985), pp. 1-2.
[5] A. Vincent, Theories of the State (Oxford, 1987), p. 32.
[6] Ibid., p. 32.
[7] A. Vincent, Theories of the State (Oxford, 1987), p. 35.
[8] J. Hoffman, Sovereignty (Buckingham, 1998), p. 35.
[9] J. Bodin, Six Books of the Commonwealth (Oxford, 1955). Also D. Held, ‘Introduction: Central Perspectives on the Modern State,’ in States & Societies, ed. D. Held et al (Oxford, 1985), p. 2.
[10] J. Bodin, Six Books of the Commonwealth (Oxford, 1955), II.
[11] L. L. Fuller, The Law in Quest of Itself (Boston, 1966), p. 19, thus calls Bodin the ‘father of legal positivism’.
[12] J. Bodin, The Six Books of the Commonwealth (Oxford, 1955), pp. 40-50.
[13] Ibid., pp. 49-50.
[14] Ibid., p. 42.
[15] A. Vincent, Theories of the State (Oxford, 1987), p. 54.
[16] Ibid., p. 47.
[17] F. Kratochwil, ‘Of Systems, Boundaries, and Territoriality: An Inquiry into the Formation of the State System,’ World Politics 39 (1986), pp. 27-52.
[18] A. de Benoist, ‘What is Sovereignty?’, Telos 116 (1999), p. 102.
[19] A. Vincent, Theories of the State (Oxford, 1987), pp. 58-59.
[20] T. Hobbes, Leviathan (London, 1914). For the ‘right of self-preservation’ which Hobbes grudgingly in De Cive acknowledged as ‘inalienable right’ see D. Baumgold, ‘Hobbes’, in Political Thinkers From Socrates to the Present, ed. D. Boucher and P. Kelly (Oxford, 2003), pp. 174-176.
[21] T. Hobbes, Leviathan (London, 1914), Chapter XIII.
[22] Ibid., Chapter XIV and XV.
[23] D. Held, ‘Introduction: Central Perspectives on the Modern State,’ in States & Societies, ed. D. Held et al (Oxford, 1985), pp. 9-14.
[24] J. Waldron, ‘John Locke’, in Political Thinkers From Socrates to the Present, ed. D. Boucher and P. Kelly (Oxford, 2003), pp. 181-197.
[25] J. Locke, Treatises of Government (Cambridge, 1988).
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] J. Hoffman, Sovereignty (Buckingham, 1998), p. 46.
[29] Ibid., pp. 45-47.
[30] A. de Benoist, ‘What is Sovereignty?’, Telos 116 (1999), p. 106.
[31] V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution: The Marxist Theory of the State and the Tasks of the Proletariat in the Revolution (Moscow, 1965).
[32] D. Beetham, The Legitimation of Power (Basingstoke, 1991), p. 31.
[33] A. de Benoist, ‘What is Sovereignty?’, Telos 116 (1999), p. 110.
[34] C. Mouffe, The Return of the Political (London, 1993).
[35] C. Mouffe, The Return of the Political (London, 1993), p. 49.
[36] J. Althusius, The Politics of Johannes Althusius (Boston, 1964), and O. von Gierke, Political Theories of the Middle Age (Oxford, 1900). For the overview of the pluralist theory of the state see A. Vincent, Theories of the State (Oxford, 1987), pp. 181-217.
[37] J. Althusius, The Politics of Johannes Althusius (Boston, 1964).
[38] The definition is Michael Sandel’s, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge, 1982).
[39] A. Vincent, Theories of the State (Oxford, 1987), pp. 181-217.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Q. Skinner, Visions of Politics - Volume 2: Renaissance Virtues (Cambridge, 2002), p. 212.
[42] Ibid.
*********************************************
Bibliography:
Althusius, J., The Politics of Johannes Althusius (Boston, 1964).
Baumgold, D., ‘Hobbes’, in Political Thinkers From Socrates to the Present, ed. D. Boucher and P. Kelly (Oxford, 2003), pp. 174-176.
Benoist, A. de, ‘What is sovereignty?’, Telos 116 (1999), pp. 99-118.
Bodin, J., Six Books of the Commonwealth (Oxford, 1955).
Camilleri , J. A., and Falk, J., The End of Sovereignty? The Politics of a Shrinking and Fragmenting World (Aldershot, 1992).
Fuller, L. L., The Law in Quest of Itself (Boston, 1966).
Gierke, O. von, Political Theories of the Middle Age (Oxford, 1900).
Held, D., ‘Introduction: Central Perspectives on the Modern State,’ in States & Societies, ed. D. Held et al (Oxford, 1985).
Heywood, A., Key Concepts in Politics (Basingstoke, 2000).
Hoffman, J., Sovereignty (Buckingham, 1998).
Hobbes, T., Leviathan (London, 1914).
Kratochwil, F., ‘Of Systems, Boundaries, and Territoriality: An Inquiry into the Formation of the State System,’ World Politics 39 (1986), pp. 27-52.
Lenin, V. I., The State and Revolution: The Marxist Theory of the State and the Tasks of the Proletariat in the Revolution (Moscow, 1965).
Locke, J., Two Treatises of Government (Cambridge, 1988).
Mouffe, C., The Return of the Political (London, 1993).
Sandel, M. J., Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge, 1982).
Skinner, Visions of Politics - Volume 2: Renaissance Virtues (Cambridge, 2002).
Strang, D., ‘Anomaly and Commonplace in European Political Expansion: Realist and Institutional Accounts,’ International Organization 45 (1991), pp. 143-162.
00:13 Publié dans Théorie politique | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : philosophie, sciences politiques, politologie, philosophie politique | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
Les guerres bâtardes
Les guerres bâtardes
Comment l'Occident
perd les batailles du XXIe siècle
Insurgés, sous-traitants des puissances mondiales ou régionales, tous ont choisi de se battre contre l'Occident "un cran au-dessous" ou "un cran ailleurs", là où la force et la technologie deviennent presque inopérantes. De l'Afghanistan à l'Afrique, via le bourbier irakien ou les zones grises d'Asie, Arnaud de La Grange et Jean-Marc Balencie analysent ces stratégies de contournement qui mettent l'Occident sur le reculoir, perturbent ses certitudes tactiques et morales et le conduisent à envisager un retrait qui, au lendemain du 11 septembre 2001, paraissait impensable.
Les Guerres bâtardes dévoilent les mécaniques de confrontation des décennies à venir.
Jean-Marc Balencie est docteur en sciences politiques. Analyste pendant dix ans au Secrétariat général de la défense nationale (SGDN), il travaille aujourd'hui dans un cabinet de gestion des risques internationaux.
00:10 Publié dans Militaria | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : guerre, stratégie, militaria, livre | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
A propos de Céline et Karl Epting
À propos de Céline et Karl Epting
On conviendra qu’en étant l’éditeur, il m’est difficile de commenter le livre sur Céline et Epting ¹. Aussi je me bornerai à évoquer quelques réactions vues dans la presse et surtout sur la toile. Le tirage limité imposa un service de presse réduit et, ipso facto, la réception critique.
P.-L. Moudenc note que « Céline épistolier s'y montre tel qu'avec la plupart de ses autres interlocuteurs : surtout préoccupé de réalités matérielles, obtention de papier pour la publication de ses livres, visas pour se rendre au Danemark en passant par Berlin, paiement de droits d'auteur par son éditeur allemand. À l'occasion, il présente une requête pour un ami victime de la censure. S'il se risque à des considérations plus générales, c'est pour déplorer, en juillet 1943, que la collaboration ait été ratée “ par erreur et sottise dès le début, et entêtement et prétention par la suite ”. Nul propos antisémite ou vraiment raciste — sinon une interrogation sur l'hypothétique ascendance de Racine “ dont le théâtre n'est qu'une fougueuse apologie de la Juiverie ”, antienne reprise depuis Bagatelles. En ce domaine, pas grand-chose à se mettre sous la dent. Tant pis pour les ennemis forcenés d'un Ferdinand prétendu doctrinaire. Voire, comme le prétendait l'Agité du bocal (Sartre), stipendié par les nazis. Les textes d'Epting, écrits entre 1944 et 1963, sont ceux d'un témoin qui a saisi l'importance quasi universelle de l'écrivain dans la littérature de son siècle : “La critique culturelle de Céline, écrit-il à juste titre, représente l'un des grands contrepoints au développement de la civilisation rationaliste, technique et industrielle des années 1930 et 40, au témoignage plus profond et humain que des centaines d'analyses sociologiques, dont nous avons pu prendre connaissance depuis.” » ².
Ce que Moudenc trouve négligeable est, au contraire, mis en évidence par Pierre Assouline sur son blog. Son commentaire est, en effet, intitulé : « Quand Louis-Ferdinand Céline dénonçait Racine aux Allemands ». À propos de la publication de cette correspondance, il estime qu’elle vaut le détour pour deux raisons : « D’abord parce que l’auteur Frank-Rutger Hausmann, professeur de langue et littérature française à l’université de Fribourg-en-Brisgau, y apporte l’éclairage qui manquait sur la personnalité et les idées de Karl Epting, personnage clé de la collaboration intellectuelle franco-allemande sous l’Occupation, directeur de l’Institut allemand qui ouvrit ses portes dès le 1er septembre 1940 en l’hôtel Sagan, rue de Talleyrand (VIIème) afin d’y organiser des expositions, des conférences, des concerts et y recevoir le gratin littéraire parisien qui le bouda d’autant moins que la propagande pour la Nouvelle Europe avait le bon goût de n’y être pas ostentatoire. Epting, parfait francophone (difficile de parler de francophilie quand celle-ci arrive juchée sur des chars) fut un célinien inconditionnel dès la parution du Voyage au bout de la nuit en 1932 et le resta jusqu’à sa mort. Manifestement “ensorcelé” par l’écrivain, il admirait en lui l’héritier de Rabelais. Il ne cessera de le défendre contre ses compatriotes (Abetz, Payr…) qui lui reprochait son style hystérique, vulgaire, populaire et ordurier, pour ne rien dire de l’immoralité du fond. Quelques articles de ce célinien absolu sont reproduits à la fin. » À propos des soupçons de Céline à l’égard de Racine, il précise que « naturellement, la généalogie de Jean Racine a été maintes fois étudiée, par Raymond Picard notamment, et cette spéculation y est évoquée comme peu probable, ainsi que l’indique Arina Istratova dans ses précieuses notes en bas de page. Elle y rappelle également, en puisant aux meilleures sources, que si la Comédie-Française a bien monté entre 1940 et 1944 huit pièces de Molière et six de Corneille, il n’y en eut que deux de Racine (Andromaque et Phèdre) ³ ». L’intérêt du blog d’Assouline, l’un des plus fréquentés de la blogosphère, c’est qu’il reproduit les commentaires des internautes. Cette note de lecture en a suscité d’abondants, le pire côtoyant le meilleur. Comme on s’en doute les anticéliniens primaires n’ont pas manqué de se déchaîner. Bref florilège : « Je suis toujours étonné, pour ne pas dire scandalisé, que l’on puisse encore apprécier un tel type !!! » ; « Comment un esprit aussi épais dans sa vie ne le serait-il pas dans ses écrits et, de fait, il l’est, épais, son style est époustouflant mais sa voix d’auteur est obsessionnelle, paranoïaque, elle le révèle. » ; « Ce type relevait de la psychiatrie et d’un traitement carabiné. » ; « Ce vieux couillon blême de Céline, s’il avait pu lire, de Shlomo Sand, Comment le peuple juif fut inventé (Fayard), il l’aurait sans doute moins ramené sur le sujet… » ; « Encore Céline ! Cet espèce de con monstrueux, avare et grossier personnage ! Les propos de Céline sont toujours du même niveau, et dans tous les domaines. Il faut vraiment en avoir une sacré dose pour croire que cet idiot ait été un écrivain. Lâchez nous un peu les baskets avec ce monstre de foire ! ». Fermez le ban !
Assurément plus nuancé, et tout aussi révélateur, le commentaire suivant : « Je me souviens, ayant lu Les Idées de Céline d’Alméras et sa biographie, n’avoir pu rouvrir aucun des livres de Céline pendant des années, rejet que n’avaient produit ni le Vitoux ni le Gibault. C’est l’enthousiasme d’un de mes amis, relisant Mort à crédit, qui m’a incité à le reprendre. Je l’ai relu en deux jours, estomaqué par son génie. En fait, le problème de Céline est insoluble. Il est sans excuses et il est immense. Il est aussi souvent délirant, c’est très frappant dans les Lettres de prison, comme s’il était allé trop loin dans l’exploration de la réalité, si loin qu’il ne s’agit plus du tout de réalité mais d’un magma puant d’où s’exhalent de préférence les pires saloperies. La question de Racine semble au premier abord à part, bouffonne, sans grande portée. Est-ce qu’il ne se fout pas un peu du monde en dénonçant un écrivain mort depuis près de 250 ans ? Sinon, je serais tenté d’y voir un acte de soumission absolue au vainqueur, un reniement total de sa propre culture et de ses fondements, à peu près sans exemple, bien moins drôle qu’il n’y paraît d’abord et finalement très grave. Imagine-t-on un Allemand, au cas où la France aurait occupé l’Allemagne, allant dénoncer Goethe ? ».
Sur un autre blog 4, un célinien, lui aussi anonyme mais reconnaissable entre tous comme nous l’avons déjà écrit, s’interroge : « Epting, francophile ? C'est passer sous silence les livres qu'il écrivit contre les Français entre 1934 et 1940 sous divers pseudonymes. Epting, “conservateur chrétien” parce qu'il écrit après guerre dans un journal qui a pour titre Christ und Welt – mais qui était dirigé par l'ancien rédacteur en chef de Signal 5 ? Hum… C'est blanchir Epting pour noircir Céline ? Ce n'est pas de sang dont parle Céline à propos de Racine, mais de nom, d'ancêtres, et d'inspiration poétique, d'un théâtre reposant sur le thème de l'amour, en opposition aux pièces de Corneille ou de Molière. » Quant à Philippe Alméras, cité par Assouline dans son commentaire, notre internaute ne décolère pas et en profite pour cibler, mais sans les nommer ceux-là, de prétendus céliniens : « Alméras, spécialiste de Céline ?... Pas moins qu'un autre… mais pas plus qu'un autre… et on en compte un nouveau tous les ans, tous les six mois, de spécialiste de Céline… à chaque nouveau livre... Il suffit de ressortir des lettres déjà publiées il y a vingt ans, d'y ajouter trois photos jusque là éparpillées dans diverses publications, d'appeler le tout “dossier inédit”, d'envoyer le tout à divers journalistes qui n'ont pas le temps de vérifier la qualité de la marchandise, et vous voilà consacré “spécialiste de Céline” auprès des néophytes. Ce n'est pas très nouveau. C'est la loi du commerce et de la publicité. C'est ce qu'on appelle aussi de la compilation et de la divulgation. Rien à voir avec la recherche. De la divulgation, il en faut, bien sûr... C'est même essentiel... Mais faudrait tout de même pas confondre. Le Dictionnaire Céline d'Alméras, sous son beau ramage et son beau plumage, est inutilisable par les étudiants ou les chercheurs céliniens tant il recèle d'erreurs, de contrevérités, de partis pris, d'approximations, de citations tronquées, d'interprétations fallacieuses et spécieuses. Un livre entièrement à refaire. Pas à corriger ! à refaire ! Les gens sérieux pourront faire la comparaison avec le Dictionnaire de Gaël Richard. Les jésuites diront : “C'est pas pareil...” En effet, ce n'est pas pareil ! Il y a le travail de première main et celui de seconde main. La recherche et la compilation. »
Revenons à Epting à propos duquel Frédéric Saenen se demande si « les premiers germes d’un célinisme digne de ce nom » ne seraient pas apparus sous sa plume : « On serait en droit de se poser la question, au vu de la pertinence des analyses qu’il développe, notamment dans ses articles au quotidien Christ und Welt. Sa vision de l’homme-Céline est elle aussi empreinte d’une lucidité confondante. Epting, en intitulant sa contribution aux Cahiers de L’Herne de 1963 « Il ne nous aimait pas », allait lancer une formule qui tranchait définitivement avec l’image d’un Céline thuriféraire du Grand Reich et de la Germanité. Il en profite aussi pour souligner la dynamique de cette si étonnante « contradiction intérieure » qui rendait le personnage à la fois attachant et infréquentable : « le contraste profond entre sa prise de position à l’égard des collectivités impersonnelles […], dans laquelle il pouvait être d’une cruauté qui, dans ses propos, allait jusqu’au paroxysme et son comportement à l’égard de l’individu concret, homme ou bête, dans lequel il n’a jamais cessé de rester le médecin et le protecteur. » Et Saenen de conclure : « Céline ? Un Docteur Jekyll et un Écrivain Hyde ! Cela fait soixante ans qu’on vous le dit… 6 »
Marc LAUDELOUT
Notes
1. Frank-Rutger Hausmann, L.-F. Céline et Karl Epting, Le Bulletin célinien, 2008, 146 p. Édition établie par Arina Istratova. Tirage limité à 410 exemplaires. 35 €, franco.
2. P.-L. Moudenc, « La bibliothèque célinienne s’enrichit encore », Rivarol, 19 décembre 2008.
3. Pierre Assouline, « Quand Louis-Ferdinand Céline dénonçait Racine aux Allemands », La République des livres, 12 décembre 2008 [http://passouline.blog.lemonde.fr]
4. Commentaire anonyme, 15 décembre 2008, à propos de « “ Quand Céline dénonçait Racine aux Allemands ” par Pierre Assouline », Entre guillemets…,13 décembre 2008 [http://ettuttiquanti.blogspot.com].
5. Ce sont naturellement les divers arrticles de Karl Epting publiés après la guerre qui ont permis de le qualifier de la sorte. Voir notamment sa contribution au colloque consacré, six ans avant sa mort, à Simone Weil.
6. Frédéric Saenen (article à paraître dans Le Magazine des livres).
00:10 Publié dans Littérature | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : littérature, lettres, lettres françaises, littérature française, france, allemagne, lettres allemandes | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
An European Pagan and Non Western Perspective
An European Pagan and Non Western Perspective
Christopher Gerard
Dear Hindu Brothers and Sisters,
To begin with, I would like to pay tribute to Ram Swarup, a man of great importance to our Indian brothers as a sage of the Vedic renaissance, but also to me personally as a young European whom he welcomed so kindly.
To our Indian brethren I have nothing to teach about this remarkable man who played such an essential part in defending and explaining the Tradition. His friends have paid tribute to him with reverence: Sita Ram Goel (the courageous publisher of Voice of India, who ensured that the sage, who was ostracised for a time, could express his thought despite the censorship, hostility and indifference he faced), and David Frawley in his superb preface to the posthumously published work of Ram Swarup On Hinduism.(1) Your Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee rightly said that he was "a representative of India¹s rishi tradition in the modern age".
As for me, I can never adequately express my debt to Ram Swarup whom I first met three years ago. We had corresponded before I came to India, and I had published a long interview with him (and Sita Ram Goel and K.R. Malkani) on Hindutva, which was undoubtedly the first special issue published in French with the participation of intellectuals of the Vedic renaissance (2). Ram Swarup approved of the approach of my journal Antaios, which deals with the awakening of the native Pagan - religions of Europe, and with freedom from the dogma of the Semitic religions and materialism. The first thing he did when he saw me was to put his hand on my shoulder as a father would and say, his eyes sparkling with kindness: "Ah, you are young, so you will be able to fight for a long time". This remark, coming from the old combattant that he was, who had actively fought the major deceptions of the century (colonialism, Marxism, anti-Hindu secularism, Christian missions, islamophilia, etc.), was a compliment. He seemed to trust the young foreigner who had come to meet him. It was above all a call to lucidity, a call to battle. Not a battle to be waged exclusively with the outside world, but also a battle against the enemy within, for the old sage knew that our worst enemy is within us and that our internal enemy is the most difficult to conquer. In the course of our long subsequent discussions, I came to appreciate the immense breadth of his culture, his generosity, and also his sense of humour. To have met a man of such human value is a privilege for which I cannot thank the Gods enough. It was Ram Swarup who gave me my first lessons in Sanatana Dharma. He encouraged me on the difficult path of rediscovering my identity which had been repressed first by the imprint of centuries of Christianity then with the stamp of materialism. It was he who, on the last occasion we met and when the time came to say goodbye, was able to find the right words to encourage and advise me to practice mental yoga so as to face up to a hostile or at the least an indifferent world. His friendship was both deep and dispassionate, and for this his influence was all the more striking. I have dwelt on these very personal considerations to show you how important this man was and remains for all those who strive for the restoration of the Dharma. Ram Swarup is an example to be followed, a true spiritual guide.
As a result of the contacts we had with Ram Swarup, Sita Ram Goel and so many other Hindu friends, our European group came to understand that we were not alone, and that our work found its echo at the other end of the continent. Let us now make a brief overview of the work of the Polytheistic journal Antaios that I have been directing since 1993. Mircea Eliade, a specialist on India, founded the review in 1959. In the 1920s, he had been a disciple of Surendranath Dasgupta, the well-known historian of Indian philosophy, and the German writer Ernst Jünger (a disciple of Nietzsche among others) who said in 1959: "a free world can only be a spiritual world". The periodical was published in German until 1971. Its objective was to combat Western nihilism by a return to classical sources. In 1993, a small group of us revived Antaios with the blessing of the venerable German writer Jünger, who remained interested in our work until his death in 1998 at the age of 103. He was our oldest reader. We are also followers of another great example : Alain Daniélou, the French indologist, initiated to traditional Shaivism in Kashi where he lived more than 15 years. Danielou devoted his entire life to the defense of Hindu Dharma. He was himself a follower of Swami Karpatriji. He worked with Karpatriji, translated some of his texts in several languages (and also translated in Hindi texts of René Guénon, for instance in Karpatriji¹s journal Siddhanta). In his passionate autobiography The way of the Labyrinth, Daniélou wrote these lines : " I tried to offer an insight into the profound values of this extraordinary civilisation, the only one of all the great civilisations of the ancient world that has survived, whose contribution, were it better known, could revolutionize modern thinking and bring a new Renaissance. This was probably why people are so afraid of it " (3). When I red these lines fifteen years ago, it was a sort of revelation. Since then , I have never forgotten Daniélou¹s fundamental message.
From its beginnings, the orientation of Antaios has been clearly pagan: to restore in Europe and on other continents the polytheist and non-dualist wisdom of the eternal tradition, which you refer to as Sanatana Dharma. This is not a new philosophical direction in Europe. Since Antiquity, and despite the censorship of Christianity, there have always been more or less hidden dissidents. Today, the Church has lost the total power it previously possessed, and thus it has become possible to challenge secular cultural and spiritual self alienation and to reaffirm, finally, after centuries of being in hiding, Paganism - that is to say the restoration of non conversion-based beliefs, non dogmatic approach, self- and God-realization, and wisdom such as Vidya, the way of knowledge. All this, which still exists in India despite Muslim, Christian and materialistic aggressions, also existed in Europe. But in Europe, the work of the missionaries has been successfully achieved: temples have been burnt or converted to other uses; holy books have been consigned to the flames; priests (our ³Brahmins²) have been killed, and our beliefs have been ridiculed. In summary, a veritable spiritual genocide, like all the initiatives in favour of conversion on the five continents by the protagonists of the one and only deity, i.e. the jealous God of the Monotheists.
How was pagan thought able to survive the catastrophe caused by the christianisation of Europe? To reinforce its hold over the minds of the people, the Church needed the help of the stalwarts of pagan thought and rituals. Thus, it appropriated for its own use often superficially - the philosophy of Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus, the old festivals, rituals and symbols. Despite this, scholarly Christian priests were fascinated by the very pagan wisdom that they had persecuted, but which lived on in their memories (and their libraries) as a living reproach.
For serious students of Greek philosophy, particularly of the Pre-Socratic philosophers (Pythagorus, Empedocles), the link with Brahmanic thought is obvious: transmigration of the soul, concept of eternal return, importance of harmonics and primordial sounds, ascetic way of life, vegetarianism, etc. As our beloved Ram Swarup reminds us so well in his spiritual legacy "the Greece of Pythagoras, Plato and Plotinus has more in common with Hindu India than with Christian Europe" (On Hinduism, p. 98). Books have been written about the links between Greece and India : for instance R.Baine Harris ed., Neoplatonism and Indian thought (Delhi 1992). Greece and India, and also the Celtic world (the Celtic Druids are the cousins of the Brahmins) may be distant in space but they are close in spirit. Their origins are identical, since the brilliant Vedic and Hellenic civilisations go back to a common pre-Vedic and pre-Hellenic source. This was probably a polar source, as Lokamanya Bal Gangâdhar Tilak has capably demonstrated in his book which should be essential reading (and was partly written in prison because of his involvement in the Indian liberation movement) The Arctic Home of the Vedas (1903). The polar source explains the common structure of the Indo-European languages, from Lithuanian to Sanskrit, as well as obvious relationships between the indo-european mythologies, and between the archaic roman religion and the Vedic religion. For example, the sacrifice of the horse, which took place in Rome each October in honour of the god Mars, corresponds to the Vedic asvamedha in honour of Indra. A similar ritual of the sacrifice of a horse can be found in pagan Ireland. Let us be clear; this does not represent an Indian influence over Rome or Ireland, or a Roman or Irish influence over India, but a relationship due to a common origin, and one which dates back in time to when our common Indo-European (the term ³Aryan² is awkward to use in Europe because of its nazi connotations) ancestors still formed a single tribe (4).
In his famous book Shiva and Dionysus, Daniélou demonstrates that between Lord Shiva and the Greek Dionysus, the pre-aryan gods of ecstasy and ways to harmony with nature and cosmos, there is a common link, a 6000 years old way to unity with the divine (5).
Among the ordinary folk, the old traditions survived with a very thin veneer of Christianity. Christianity (mainly Catholicism, more than Protestantism) has retained many pre-Christian traditions (6). Good examples are the feasts of the Nativity and that of St John, which correspond to the winter and summer solstices respectively. The title of "pope" comes from the liturgy of the mysteries of Mithra, an indo-iranian God honoured by the armies of Rome. There are many similar examples, which demonstrate that Europe is not fundamentally Christian any more than India is fundamentally Muslim or China fundamentally Marxist. All these alien ideologies have been imposed from the outside, and as such their trace will be washed away with time, like a bad painting on the hull of a ship.
If ancient India and ancient Europe both have common roots, so modern India and modern Europe are both faced with common threats. Threats to the ecosystem, climate changes, and other threats that mankind must face up to. But there is another threat, which springs from the Judeo-Christian way of thinking and is thus alien to our not-dogmatic, non-proselytising and tolerant tradition: the phenomenon of conversions. Conversion to the single model, be it the one God, the single party system or the single market, or the supremacy of any socio-political institution over the entire society.
Conversion to the one God, in the tradition of the religions of Abraham. Conversions that Christian missionaries want to impose on Indians crudely or by more subtle means. To some, the advantages of egalitarianism, more preached than practiced by Christians, are extolled. For others the civilizing character of conversion and the possibility to forget their ancestral inheritance (thus betraying their ancestors) is put forward. Manipulation by suspect persons such as Mother Theresa, all the devices of systematic anti-Hindu propaganda, have managed to make a considerable number of Hindus, who for long have but weakly defended their traditions against these deceptions, feel guilty. Fortunately, this period of alienation seems to have ended with the coming to power of people prepared to defend Hinduism (7). Let us hope that the harmful role of the Christian missionaries will soon be neutralised, both in India and elsewhere. Besides, our group is following with interest the work of the Hindu Vivek Kendra to defend Hindu traditions against missionary aggression and hate-propaganda (8).
Today in Europe, the danger no longer comes from the Catholic Church, for it has run out of steam.
Since the Council of Vatican II in the sixties, the Church has openly proved its decline : the sacred language Latin (our " perfect " language)- has been neglected and all the old mantras disappeared from the Catholic pujas. The Catholic priests now turn their back to their God, i.e. to the East, looking to the assistance (i.e. to the West), which is complete inversion. Christianity is an historical religion with a beginning and thus an end. For us, followers of Sanatana Dharma, Eternal Tradition, this is absurdŠ but their conception of time is linear, not cyclic. So it is logic to say that the Christain reign will finish one day, as it started 2000 years ago. This cycle is slowly but firmly closing. This does not mean that the Church is not a danger anymore : it is still (politically, financially) powerfull. The declarations of the Pope about the so-called conversion (i.e. spiritual agression) of India can be interpreted as a political error (he was invited by " uggly " Hindu fundamentalists and insulted the whole Indian people. Can we imagine an Indian President urging the Italians to become followers of Shiva or Vishnu ?) but also as a sort of escape, out of reality for in the West, churches are getting unoccupied, day after day. The Church is now unable to find priests and must import African priests, often ignorant. Contemporary Christians are really ignorant : most of them believe in reincarnation, astrology, ignore hell and paradise, in a word they ignore everything about theology but are fascinated by Pagan heritage. Rather the main danger comes from the colonisation of our countries by immigrant Muslim North-African populations. One of our friends, the writer and sociologist G. Faye published a controversial book on this phenomenon. It has already caused considerable scandal in France, although this has been kept from te readers by the ³right-thinking² press. The phenomenon is that of massive immigration into the country by populations from Africa and the Maghreb (coming from the lower levels of the social hierarchy) and through births in the immigrant population. This is combined with an assault on Europe by an aggressive form of Islam, supported by foreign powers such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (9). Our proximity to North Africa, where there is a rapid population increase, whilst in Europe the population is in decline, and the serious imbalance between the two sides of the Mediterranean, constitute serious threats and undermine Europe¹s cultural and ethnic homogeneity. Islamisation, particularly in France but also in Great Britain and Germany, goes hand in hand with this invasive immigration and criticism of it is forbidden for fear of being accused of "racism" (a good example of cultural and political auto-alienation). Faye., who is also a Pagan, reminds us in his "shocking" book that Islam is "absolute and proselytising universalism with an imperative vocation to conquer the entire world". He is right. Islam, a religion born of the desert, is above all a religion that creates new mental, psychic and spiritual deserts; it is ethnically and politically imperialistic; and one which believes in universal conquest through violence, assisted by its ethics of exclusion and intolerance. We have seen this in IndiaŠ. But Europeans are not interested in the history of real India, Hindu India. Dazzled by Christian or Marxist ways of thinking, they prefer the fascination of Muslim India. A revealing example: the most popular French tourist guide to Delhi provides full information on the mosques in the capital, but practically nothing on the temples! Faye also reminds us that the Koran is above all a manual of subversive warfare, which nobody reads. Those who have read it know that the book justifies conquest in three stages:
1) Dar al Sulh: in this stage the Muslim community is a minority community and momentarily adopts a peaceful attitude all the better to dupe the infidel, who thus naively allows his soil to be proselytised. (According to Le Monde of 9.12.99, 50,000 French people have converted to Islam up till now). This is the position in Europe today.
2) Dar al Harb: the territory of the infidel becomes a war zone. Perhaps there is resistance to Islam, or perhaps the Muslim population has reached a critical mass. In Europe, we now see the first signs of a low-intensity civil war: ethnic disturbances (which are not reported in the press), and widespread rioting by the younger generations of North Africans (who foray out from their no-go areas).
3) Dar al Islam: Muslims dominate the population and infidels are at best tolerated (as dhimmis: " protected" and required to pay a special tax) and at worst expelled or massacred. This was visible in Algeria and Morocco following independence. And I will not insult you with an explanation on the situation in Pakistan and Bangladesh after partition and also the forcefull mass-conversion of defeated Hindus during 10th to 16th centuries in India.
Some imams have quite plainly stated that the objective, according to God¹s will, was to transform Europe into Dar al Islam. In all evidence, the coming century will see a second wave of Muslim expansion in the West. The first was successfully repulsed from the 8th century onwards. But to make such a statement in Europe today makes one liable to prosecution (and Faye has just been indicted). Politically correct dogma requires peaceful coexistence between cultures; this is an utopic view that a basic study of history (for example that of India) will destroy. A few months ago I had the pleasure of meeting a very brave man, Ibn Warraq, in Paris, on the occasion of the publication of the French version of his book: Why I am not a Muslim. The book is the first criticism of substance of Islam. The author confirmed the facts to me. Another author, Pierre Gallois, a French Air Force General, instigator of the French nuclear deterrent and a specialist of military strategy, has just published a book with an evocating title: Le soleil d¹Allah aveugle l¹Occident (The West is blinded by the sun of Allah) (10). These authors warn us against the utopia of pacifism, and of the danger of remaining totally blind to Islam as a deadly threat to secular traditions.
Another friend of ours, a political scientist and a specialist in geopolitics, and a follower of General Gallois, has published a book which also created a furor among ³right-minded thinkers² (11). His name is A. del Valle and his book demonstrates in a highly credible fashion that, in Islam, faith is indissociable from political theocracy. He further states that agressive Islamism is not "heretical" for it represents an application of the dogma of jihad, a traditional and perfectly legitimate dogma for Muslims. Moreover, del Valle proves that Islam, aggressive and expanding from Europe to India, has found an ally as formidable as it is surprising: the United States. For, ever since the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the Americans have armed and trained often with the help of their Saudi ally the toughest Islamic movements. Our friend also shows that Muslim fundamentalism cohabits perfectly with the most ferocious capitalism. In the scenario of a confrontation between civilisations predicted by a Pentagon analyst, S. Huntington, the USA would arm Islam against Europe, Russia and India. As a result of the Gulf War, the USA has total control over the oilwells of this strategic region. To justify their support to the state of Israel, they support for example the Muslims against the orthodox Slav block (Serbian war) in the Balkans. They approve the indiscriminate immigration of Muslims to Europe. They support the Turkish (neo-Ottoman) designs in Central Asia (against Moscow) and support Turkey in its bid to join the European Union. I will not lecture you on the role played by the Americans against Delhi in Pakistan, which America considers as one of its colonies: the aim, as in the case of Europe and Russia, is to weaken an emerging power, in this case India.
Conversion to the single party system, for example Marxism. The collapse of the USSR in recent history has clearly shown the limits of Marxism as a totalitarian doctrine, which cannot understand any other civilisation than its own. And yet, despite the human failures, the spiritual disasters, and the economic catastrophe it brought about, there are still many firm believers in Marxism whose theories continue to influence many people even in Europe. For instance, too many journalist or scholars are still infected with marxist dogmatism and intolerance. Marxism is clearly linked to Christianity : same premises (linear conception of time, refuge in outer worlds : celestial Jerusalem or communist paradise, totalitarian egalitarianism which condemns differences, inquisition and physicall elimination of any opposition, etc). Christian and marxist propaganda agree to demonize the old cast system, which preserved during centuries the identity of India against all exterior agressions. Due to this intellectual terrorism, it is now difficult to tell the truth about casts, which are an important part of India¹s genius. Authors like Daniélou or Dumont (in his book Homo hierarchicus) dare to say the truth : casts are inherent in human nature.
In today¹s context, the third form of conversion is, in my opinion, the most dangerous. It is the conversion to the single market which the media, as the agents of consumer propaganda, refer to as globalisation. Globalisation is not unavoidable, a sort of inevitable progress, which will bring peace and prosperity throughout the world as liberal propaganda maintains. Behind the concept of globalisation lies the United States of America¹s ambition to dominate the world economically, militarily and culturally. This is not "globalisation", but imperialism to colonise the world by any means. So-called "globalisation" means making the planet American. There is no such thing as "globalisation", which some represent as progress, others as fate, but an all-out offensive campaign run from Washington to impose North American models, which are but are universally-formatted specific characteristics, on the whole planet.
The mask of capitalism, today in full expansion, is what I would call humanitarian materialism. It dominates people¹s minds thanks to a gigantic mass violation of them. The media has become a propaganda machine using a clever mixture of stick and carrot to ³jam² the mind, and its purpose is to gain the acceptance in the mentally confused masses of the official credo: market democracy. As the American linguist Noam Chomsky describes it so well: "propaganda is to democracy what force is to a dictatorship, in effect its essence". And yet, there really is confrontation between different imaginary worlds; the North American realm of fancy against the other imaginary realms. This confrontation creates other tensions of a political and economic nature.
In this war of colonisation, Europe in the midst of political and economic unification, India in full expansion, and Russia in full decline, all constitute obstacles to America¹s hegemonistic strategy. In its overall strategy to weaken its opponents and gain overall control, Washington uses all available means: financial weapons (competition in the banking sector, rigged neotiations in the framework of the WTO), food resources (OGM), military pressure (Balkan War), espionage (Echelon network), cultural weapons (television, CNN, destabilising advertising: Coca Cola is more dangerous than the 6th Fleet). Humanitarian materialism postulates a necessary but fatal "freedom" of the individual from all his affiliations (race, class, profession, religion, and even sex with the exaltation of homosexuality) and turn him into a conditioned consumer, slave to the worst of masters, a faceless master: the market (12).
These three main threats, conquest by Islam, Christian missions and humanitarian materialism are all occurring simultaneously, and they are self-reinforcing. Protestant missions, whether in India or in South America or in Russia, prepare the coming of the American traders. Islamic networks are supported by Washington indirectly through its Sunni Saudi or Pakistani allies. The example of the oil kingdoms shows clearlyl that Muslim or Protestant fundamentalism is compatible with consumerism, as these ideologies postulate the tabula rasa or clean slate and consider all ancestral traditions as obstacles to be pushed aside.
What to do?
It would be silly to give up in despair, for the very fragile system described above - one based on illusion Maya - (typical of the great dissolution of Kali Yuga), will only last for a short time. One of our masters, René Guénon, a traditionalist thinker, already said in 1927, in his famous The Crisis of the modern world : " confusion, error and darkness can win the day only apparently and in purely ephemeral wayŠ and nothing can ultimately prevail against the power of truth ". (13) Oscar Wilde once said that the United States had passed directly from a state of savagery to a state of decadence. For the successors of the great civilisations such as India and classical Europe, it is clear that our potential destiny of becoming an annex of the American market (Bible and Business) is unacceptable. Our work, and it is a noble task, is to restore the Dharma, each according to his own traditions.
In Belgium, Antaios is modestly working towards this end, as does Voice of India in Delhi and so many others (Hindu Vivek Kendra in Mumbai for instance). We have founded the Society of Polytheistic Studies to raise funds, support our journal Antaios and organise meetings. Our last meeting was in Paris with a lecture given by prof. Maffesoli, one of the most influent French sociologistŠ who is a Polytheist ! For the moment, we are just a minority, slowly growing, sometimes demonised or ignored by the press and the University (but in England there are some Pagan scholars). I myself plan to publish a Pagan manifesto in october : Parcours païen (Pagan Itinerary) (Ed. L¹Age d¹Homme, Lausanne) in the same publishing house than Ibn Warraq¹s book Why I am not a Muslim.
In Lithuania, the World Congree of Ethnic Religions has been created : it would be nice that Hindus become members of this association devoted to the defense of Paganism. WCER organises an annual meeting with people coming from Poland, Iceland, Russia, Belgium, France, etc. (www.wcer.org)
In France, a more radical movement (closer to RSS style) has started to be spoken about: Terre et Peuple. Its president, a professor of medieval history and a well-known indophile, has recently published a manifesto in which he calls upon Europeans to rid themselves of consumerism and nihilism, to rediscover their pagan origin (14), and to combat the development of Islam on the continent. These constitute the modest signs of a reaction to the deep crisis. There are others, much more important. The Seattle demonstrations; the coming to power, in the world¹s biggest democracy, of a party which openly dares to defend the Dharma; the still embryonic renaissance of native religions; and the interest in the environment worldwide: all these are signs of a reply to the disorder engendered by liberalism.
In the battle we find the same ennemy, our worse ennemy : our own weakness, our own ignorance and divisions.
We Resistance fighters all over the eurasiatic continent, from Ireland to India, need a large alliance against chaos and destruction, for the defense of Dharma, the noblest task for our generation.
Europeans can warn you against dangers of modernity and we can find in India an ally able to assist us in a return to our native culture ³out of the ruins of the West². Europe has to free itself from the West and re-discover its true identity, true to the Dharma. In this endeavour, the rediscovery of India and the ancient relatonship between the Vedic civilisation and the ancient Greek and Celtic civilisations will, for example, be of great assistance. As the philosopher Nietzsche said: "the man of the future will be the man with the longest memory". Ram Swarup, sage of the Vedic renaissance, says the same thing in his spiritual legacy. I shall quote it as my concluding remark: "The Ramayana and the Mahabharata can help in restoring this lost dimension". Let us follow in his footsteps and re-read the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers and the Upanishads of India to obtain our self-rediscovery.
We know that as we say in Latin " Vincit omnia veritas ". In your sacred language, you would say " Satyam eva jayate ". (15)
Thank you for your attention.
New Delhi, 22nd July 2000
The lecture was organised by Vishwa Adhyayan Kendra, held in Constitution Club, New Delhi, with prof L. Chandra and K.R. Malkani.
References:
(1) Ram Swarup, On Hinduism. Reviews and Reflections, Voice of India, Delhi 2000.
(2) Antaios X, Hindutva, Interviews with Ram Swarup and Sita Ram Goel (in French), Brussels 1996.
(3) A. Daniélou, The way of the Labyrint. Memories of East and West, New Directions Paperbook, New York 1987. First edition in 1981, in French.
(4) J. Haudry, The Indo-Europeans, Institut d¹Etudes Indo-Européennes, Lyon 1994. See also B. Oguibenine, Essays on Vedic and Indo-European Culture, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi 1998.
(5) A. Daniélou, Shiva and Dionysus, Inner Traditions Intern., New York 1984
(6) R. Fletcher, The Conversion of Europe. From Paganism to Christianity 371-1386 AD, Harper Collins, London 1997. And the remarkable work of two Pagan scholars: P. Jones & N. Pennick, A History of Pagan Europe, Routledge, London 1995.
(7) K. Elst, Psychology of Prophetism. A Secular Look at the Bible, Voice of India, Delhi 1993. See also Sita Ram Goel, Jesus Christ. An Artifice for Aggression, Voice of India, Delhi 1994 and, Defense of Hindu Society, Voice of India, Delhi 1994.
(8) A.V. Chowgule, Christianity in India. The Hindutva Perspective, Hindu Vivek Kendra, Mumbai 1999.
(9) G. Faye, La Colonisation de l¹Europe. Discours vrai sur l¹immigration et l¹islam, Aencre, Paris 2000.
(10) Ibn Warraq, Pourquoi je ne suis pas Musulman, L¹Age d¹Homme, Lausanne 1999. See also P.M. Gallois, Le soleil d¹Allah aveugle l¹Occident, Age d¹Homme, Lausanne 1998.
(11) A. del Valle, Islamisme et Etats-Unis. Une alliance contre l¹Europe, Age d¹Homme, Lausanne 1997.
(12) See Le Monde diplomatique, mai 2000: " L¹Amérique dans les têtes ".
(13) R. Guénon, The Crisis of the Modern World, Indica Books, Benares 1999.
(14) P. Vial, Une Terre, un peuple, Ed. Terre et Peuple, Lyon 2000 email: terrepeuple@hotmail.com ).
(15) R. Guénon, The Crisis of the Modern World, op. cit., p. 142.
[Public speech held in July 2000 in India, taken from SYNERGON, 10th September 2000]
00:05 Publié dans Traditions | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : tradition, inde, hindouisme, paganisme, paganisme européen, philosophie, religion | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook