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.

samedi, 15 octobre 2011

Jacques Sapir: qu'est-ce que la mondialisation?

Jacques Sapir: qu'est-ce que la mondialisation?

Il progetto Eurasiatico, una minaccia al Nuovo Ordine Mondiale

 

photo_verybig_132658.jpg

Il progetto Eurasiatico, una minaccia al Nuovo Ordine Mondiale

di Elena Ponomareva - 11/10/2011

Fonte: aurorasito.wordpress

Si potrebbe essere tentati di considerare il documento del premier russo Vladimir Putin, “Un nuovo progetto per l’integrazione del Eurasia: Il futuro in divenire“, che è stato pubblicato sulle Izvestia del 3 ottobre 2011, come un programma tracciato sommariamente da un concorrente delle elezioni presidenziali; ma dopo un controllo, sembra essere solo una parte di un quadro più ampio. L’articolo di opinione, ha momentaneamente acceso ampie polemiche in Russia e all’estero, ed ha evidenziato lo scontro di posizioni in corso sullo sviluppo globale…

 


Indipendentemente dalla interpretazione dei dettagli, la reazione dei media occidentali al progetto di integrazione presentato dal premier russo, è uniformemente negativo e riflette con estrema chiarezza una ostilità aprioristica verso la Russia e le iniziative che avanza. Mao Zedong, però, era solito dire che affrontare la pressione dei propri nemici è meglio che essere in una condizione in cui non si preoccupano di tenerti sotto pressione.
Aiuta a capire perché, al momento, i titoli in stile Guerra Fredda spuntano costantemente sui media occidentali e perché la recente presentazione dell’integrazione eurasiatica di Putin, è percepita dall’Occidente come una minaccia. La spiegazione più ovvia è che, se attuato, il piano diverrebbe  una sfida geopolitica al nuovo ordine mondiale, al dominio della NATO, del FMI, dell’Unione europea e degli altri organismi sovranazionali, e al primato palese degli Stati Uniti. Oggi, una sempre più assertiva Russia suggerisce, ed è pronta ad iniziare a costruire, un’ampia alleanza basata su principi che forniscono una valida alternativa al neoliberismo e all’atlantismo. E’ un segreto di pulcinella, che in questi giorni l’Occidente sta mettendo in pratica una serie di progetti geopolitici di vasta portata, per riconfigurare l’Europa sulla scia dei conflitti balcanici e, sullo sfondo della crisi provocata in Grecia e a Cipro, assemblare il Grande Medio Oriente sulla base di cambiamenti di regime in serie, in tutto il mondo arabo e, come progetto relativamente nuovo, la realizzazione del progetto per l’Asia, il cui recente disastro in Giappone, è stata una fase attiva.
Nel 2011, l’intensità delle dinamiche geopolitiche è senza precedenti dal crollo dell’Unione Sovietica e del blocco orientale, con tutti i principali paesi e organismi internazionali che vi contribuiscono. Inoltre, l’impressione attuale è che la forza militare, in qualche modo, sia diventata uno strumento legittimo nella politica internazionale. Solo pochi giorni fa, Mosca ha attirato una  valanga di critiche dopo aver posto il veto alla risoluzione del Consiglio di Sicurezza dell’ONU che potrebbe autorizzare la replica dello scenario libico in Siria. Come risultato, l’inviata permanente degli USA all’ONU, S. Rice, ha rimproverato la Russia e la Cina per il veto, mentre il ministro degli esteri francese, Alain Juppé, ha dichiarato che “è un giorno triste per il popolo siriano. E’ un giorno triste per il Consiglio di Sicurezza“. Durante l’acceso dibattito al Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite il 5 settembre, il rappresentante siriano ha redarguito Germania e Francia, ed ha accusato gli USA del genocidio perpetrato in Medio Oriente. Dopo di che, S. Rice ha accusato la Russia e la Cina di sperare di vendere armi al regime siriano, invece di stare dalla parte del popolo siriano, e ha abbandonato precipitosamente la riunione, e l’inviato francese Gérard Araud ha rilevato che “Nessun veto può cancellare la  responsabilità delle autorità siriane, che hanno perso qualsiasi legittimità uccidendo il proprio popolo“, lasciando l’impressione che uccidere i popoli, come in Jugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq e Libia, dovrebbe essere un privilegio della NATO.

 


I “partner” occidentali di Mosca si indignano quando la Russia, di concerto con la Cina, pone ostacoli sulla strada del nuovo ordine mondiale. La Siria, anche se un paese di notevole valenza regionale, giunge ad emergere nell’ordine del giorno solo fugacemente, ma l’ambizioso piano di Putin per l’intera Eurasia – “per raggiungere un più alto livello di integrazione – una Unione Euroasiatica” – avrebbe dovuto aspettarsi di evocare le preoccupazioni profonde e durature dell’Occidente. Mosca sfida apertamente il dominio globale da parte dell’Occidente “suggerendo un modello di una potente unione sovranazionale che può diventare uno dei poli del mondo di oggi, pur essendo un efficace collegamento tra l’Europa e la dinamica regione Asia-Pacifico“. Senza dubbio, il messaggio di Putin che “la combinazione di risorse naturali, di capitale e di forte potenziale umano, renderà l’Unione Euroasiatica competitiva nella gara industriale e tecnologico e nella corsa al denaro degli investitori, in nuovi posti di lavoro e negli impianti di produzione all’avanguardia” e che “insieme con altri protagonisti e istituzioni regionali come l’Unione Europea, USA, Cina e l’APEC, garantirà la sostenibilità dello sviluppo globale“, sembra allarmante per i leader occidentali.

 


Né il crollo dell’URSS e del mondo bipolare, né la conseguente proliferazione di “democrazie” filo-occidentali, ha segnato un punto finale nella lotta per il primato mondiale. Ciò che seguì fu un periodo di interventi militari e rovesciamenti di regimi sfidanti, con l’ausilio della guerra dell’informazione e l’onnipresente soft power occidentale. In questo gioco, l’Eurasia rimane il primo premio in linea con l’imperativo geopolitico di John Mackinder, per cui “Chi governa l’Est Europa comanda l’Heartland, chi governa l’Heartland comanda l’Isola-Mondo, chi governa l’Isola-Mondo controlla il mondo“.
Alla fine del XX secolo gli USA sono diventati il primo paese non eurasiatico a combinare i ruoli di potenza più importante del mondo e di arbitro finale negli affari eurasiatici. Nel quadro della dottrina del nuovo ordine mondiale, gli Stati Uniti e l’Occidente nel suo complesso, vedono l’Eurasia come una zona di importanza fondamentale per il loro sviluppo economico e crescente potere politico. Il dominio globale è un obiettivo dichiarato apertamente e costantemente perseguito della comunità euro-atlantica e dalle sue istituzioni militari e finanziarie – la NATO, il FMI e la Banca Mondiale – insieme con i media occidentali e le innumerevoli ONG. Nel processo, l’establishment occidentale rimane pienamente consapevole del fatto che, nelle parole Z. Brzezinski, il “primato globale dell’America è direttamente dipendente da quanto tempo e quanto efficacemente la sua preponderanza sul continente eurasiatico è sostenuta“. Sostenere la “preponderanza“, a sua volta, significa assumere il controllo di Europa, Russia, Cina, Medio Oriente e Asia Centrale.
L’aperta egemonia occidentale in Europa, Asia centrale e, quindi, in Medio Oriente e anche in Russia, conta quale risultato indiscutibile degli ultimi due decenni, ma al momento la situazione appare fluida. Gli osservatori occidentali, cinesi e russi prevedono un fallimento imminente del modello di globalizzazione neoliberista integrata nel nuovo ordine mondiale, ed è in arrivo il tempo, per la classe politica, di adottare una visione.

 


Aprendo nuove opportunità per proteggere gli originali modelli di sviluppo nazionali dalla pressione atlantista, e per mantenere una reale sicurezza internazionale, il nuovo progetto di integrazione di Putin mantiene una promessa importante, per la Russia e i suoi alleati, e presenta quindi ai nemici della Russia un problema serio. Né la Russia, né alcun altra repubblica post-post-sovietica può sopravvivere nel mondo di oggi da sola, e la Russia come attore chiave geopolitico dell’Eurasia, con una potenzialità economica, politica e militare senza precedenti in tutto lo spazio post-sovietico, può e deve, giocare l’offerta di una architettura mondiale alternativa.


L’allergia dell’Occidente al piano di Putin è dunque spiegabile, ma, a prescindere dalla opposizione che il progetto può incontrare, la debolezza di alcuni dei suoi elementi, e la potenziale difficoltà nel metterlo in pratica, il progetto di integrazione eurasiatica nasce dalla vita nello spazio geopolitico e culturale post-sovietico ed è affine alle attuali tendenze globali. Sopravvivere, conservando le basi economiche e materiali dell’esistenza nazionale, mantenendo vive le tradizioni e costruendo un futuro sicuro per i figli, sono gli obiettivi che le nazioni eurasiatiche possono realizzare solo se rimangono allineate con la Russia. In caso contrario, l’isolamento, le sanzioni e gli interventi militari le attendono…
 
E’ gradita la ripubblicazione con riferimento alla rivista on-line della Fondazione per la Cultura Strategica.
 
Traduzione di Alessandro Lattanzio -  SitoAurora


Tante altre notizie su www.ariannaeditrice.it

Céline, un génie des lettres, un enfant et un fou

 
Céline, un génie des lettres, un enfant et un fou
 
 
 
Par Amaury Watremez. A propos de la sortie en Folio d’une partie de la correspondance de Céline, les Lettres à la NRF, passionnantes.

Les Lettres à la NRF de Céline sont au fond comme un journal littéraire de ce dernier, et dans les considérations de ces deux misanthropes on perçoit des remarques qui se rejoignent très souvent sur eux, sur leur entourage, leur œuvre, le reste de l’humanité.

Ce que dit Céline dans sa correspondance sur la littérature, il le mettra en forme plus clairement encore dans les Entretiens avec le professeur Y en particulier. Céline écrit tout du long de sa vie littéraire qui se confond avec sa vie tout court car la littérature, n’en déplaise aux petits marquis réalistes, est un enjeu existentiel. Il écrit des lettres pleines de verve, parfois grossières, à la limite du trivial. Il y explique, en développant sur plusieurs courriers sa conception de l’écriture, basée sur le style. Il se moque de l’importance de l’histoire par l’écrivain (« des histoires, y’en a plein les journaux »), se moque des modes littéraires, n’est pas tendre avec ses amis, dont Marcel Aymé, dont il suggère l’édition sur papier toilettes ainsi que l’œuvre de Jean Genet, comme un gosse jaloux du succès de ses pairs, qui entend conserver toute l’attention sur lui.

Car il cultive les paradoxes, il est misanthrope mais a soif de gloire et de la reconnaissance la plus large possible des lecteurs.

Ses correspondants ne sont pas sans talent, ainsi Gaston Gallimard, son éditeur : on s’étonne encore du flair remarquable de celui-ci en matière d’édition, on chercherait vainement son équivalent de nos jours où domine à des rares exceptions le clientélisme, l’obséquiosité, le copinage entre « beaux messieurs coquins et belles dames catins » pour reprendre le terme de Maupassant dans sa correspondance. Ce qui montre d’ailleurs que ce copinage ne date pas d’hier, ce qui n’est pas une excuse vu les sommets himalayens qu’il atteint en ce moment dans les milieux littéraires en particulier, culturels, ou plutôt « cultureux » en général.

Céline comme Léautaud est un misanthrope littéraire exemplaire, ce que sont finalement la plupart des littérateurs de toute manière, qui se libèrent des blessures subies par eux à cause de l’humanité en écrivant, en ouvrant un passage vers des univers mentaux et imaginaires inexplorées. Mais l’écriture n’est pas qu’une catharsis, contrairement à ce que les auteurs d’auto-fiction voudraient nous laisser croire, eux qui font une analyse en noircissant des pages qui ont pour thème central l’importance de leur nombril.

La misanthropie en littérature est un thème couru, maintes fois traité et repris, souvent lié à la pose de l’auteur se présentant en dandy, en inadapté, en poète maudit incompris de tous.

C’est un sujet d’écriture au demeurant très galvaudé.

Parfois, l’auteur qui prend cette posture a les moyens de ses prétentions, de ses ambitions, et d’ailleurs la postérité a retenu son nom à juste titre, pour d’autres, c’est souvent assez ridicule voire grotesque. Les artistes incompris de pacotille, les rebelles de ce type sont des fauves de salon comparés aux écrivains qui refusent les mondanités, les dorures, et l’ordure. Ces fauves de salon ne sont pas méchants, ils sont émouvants à force d’évoquer Rimbaud ou Baudelaire pour tout et n’importe quoi, de manière aussi désordonné que l’adolescent post-pubère clame sa détestation de la famille pour mieux y coconner, et continuer à se vautrer ensuite dans un mode de vie bourgeois. Et après tout, Claudel qui se réclamait de Rimbaud, et qui était un grand bourgeois conservateur, était aussi un grand écrivain, les fauves de salon peuvent donc avoir encore quelque espoir que leur démarche ne soit pas totalement vaine.

C’est encore mieux quand le prétendu inadapté rebelle, artiste et créateur, est jeune, et vendu comme génie précoce pour faire vendre (ne surtout pas oublier la coiffure de « rebelle » avec mèche ou frange « ad hoc »).

Cette rentrée littéraire, on nous refait le coup avec Marien Defalvard dont le livre s’avère certes plutôt bien écrit, et certainement réécrit, mais sans personnalité, sans saveur, sans couleur, sans odeur.

Les personnages misanthropes les plus connus sont le capitaine Némo et Alceste, les plus intéressants, les plus remarquables aussi. Louis-Ferdinand Destouches alias Céline, semble être eux aussi de véritable misanthrope, détester ses semblables.

Au final, on songe plutôt à son encontre au mot de Jean Paulhan répondant à une lettre d’injures de Céline, ces misanthropes, ce sont à la fois des enfants, des fous, mais aussi des hommes de talent, des génies avides de gloire. Ils ont des blessures diverses, surtout à cause du monde, dont ils ressentent la sottise et la cruauté plus fortement que les autres. Ce sont finalement des blessures d’amour, en particulier pour Léautaud, mais aussi pour Céline, qui feint de haïr ses semblables mais qui veut à tout prix ou presque leur reconnaissance.

Céline fût fidèle à Lucette, toujours discrète, toujours présente, consolatrice, fluette et solide, qui avait son atelier de danse au-dessus du cabinet de l’écrivain à Drancy, l’exception peut-être de quelques « professionnelles » de Bastoche, ce qu’évoque Claude Dubois dans son ouvrage sur La Bastoche : Une histoire du Paris populaire et criminel dont l’auteur de ses lignes a déjà parlé sur Agoravox.fr. Derrière les pétarades de l’auteur du Voyage on distingue aussi un grand pudique goûtant la présence discrète de sa femme attentionnée.

Ces deux auteurs comme beaucoup de natures très sensibles sont dans l’incapacité au compromis sentimental, amical, à l’amour mesuré, raisonnable, sage, et finalement un rien étriqué. Il est difficile de leur demander de rentrer dans un cadre ce dont ils sont incapables.

Sur ce point là, Céline est aussi un enfant comme Léautaud, on sent dans ses amitiés, à travers ses lettres à Roger Nimier, Denoèl ou Gaston Gallimard, cette recherche de la perfection et d’une amitié sans réelle réciprocité où c’est l’ami qui couve, qui prend les coups, les responsabilités à la place, et à qui l’on peut reprocher la brutalité et la sottise du monde extérieur, du monde des adultes où ils ne sont jamais au fond rentrés en demeurant des spectateurs dégoûtés par ce qu’ils y voient.

Sa misanthropie est aussi sa faiblesse, mais comme du charbon naissent parfois quelques diamants, de celle-ci naît le génie particulier de son œuvre littéraire. Cette hyper-émotivité du style que l’on trouve surtout chez Céline, ce chuchotement fébrile et passionné.

Amaury WATREMEZ
Agorafox.fr, 26/09/2011.

> Mes terres saintes, le blog d'Amaury Watremez.

The Identity Idea

Florasgr.jpg

The Identity Idea

A Report from Sweden

 
 

The third installment of Identitär Idé (Identitarian Idea) took place in Stockholm, Sweden on August 27, 2011. Although attendance was down slightly from our last event, the pleasant atmosphere more than made up for it. Visitors started gathering at noon, and when the doors swung open at one o'clock, everything got underway immediately. The walls of the venue were covered in Soviet-style “artwork” romanticizing labour and socialism, meaning that the venue must have been affiliated with the Swedish Social Democratic Party, which lent the afternoon a surreal backdrop. More than one visitor found this amusing, and a reminder of the strange character of Sweden—a country more or less ruled by a Leftist radicalism that most Americans would only encounter in an academic setting.

In addition to the lectures that had been announced in advance, several cultural activists were also in attendance. Arktos sold books (and, apparently, a lot of them), a recently established T-shirt company called Dixerwear showcased a number of their designs, and the well-known Swedish nationalist weekly Nationell Idag distributed free back issues and subscription information. The artist Marcus Andersson also exhibited some of his paintings—very impressive works of a kind virtually extinct in the contemporary “art” world.

After a short introductory speech, the first lecture began. Swedish dissident author and expat Lars Holger Holm discussed the history and present state of modernism and postmodernism, primarily in art. Holm contended that modernism had gone from a movement which, despite perhaps being destructive, was at least dynamic and creative, especially when compared to the sterile conformism and stagnant repetition of meaningless provocations and forms as we see in postmodernism. He goes on to describe the ongoing dumbing-down of art known as “modern” and the impossibility of any kind of democracy within the domain of art, illustrating his speech with examples known to the attentive crowd who, at the end, burst into applause.

Dr. Alexander Jacob was next, discussing the religious and political views of Richard Wagner. Wagner, he maintained, believed in a specifically Aryan form of Christianity, which emerged as a result of its spread to Europe, as opposed to the forms of religion which go by that name in the modern world, which he believes have returned it to its Judaic roots and resulted in a universalist creed which fosters usury and racial degeneration. He explains how Wagner saw the solution to this problem in the re-emergence of a specifically Germanic form of Christianity, which would reinvigorate the belief in love and union with Nature. At its conclusion, some controversy erupted when it was suggested that Wagner had been merely Nietzsche in cheap clothes. Dr. Jacob replied that Nietzsche was a "completely unoriginal philosopher" who had actually stolen ideas from Wagner, and whose basic notions were simple inversions of Wagner's developed to justify his own endeavours. Mr. Holm protested, and a contentious—though brief and entertaining—discussion ensued. After his presentation, it was certain that a good part of the crowd will delve deeper into the subject on their own.

Following a break, Dr. Tomislav Sunic took the podium. As Dr. Sunic himself said, he has become a sort of household name in the Scandinavian New Right scene, having visited Sweden on several occasions this year alone. As always, Dr. Sunic covered a wide range of topics. One of the most interesting aspects of his speech concerned the double-edged nature of nationalism, which is comprised of both love and hate. Being from Croatia, and having lived through the war, Dr. Sunic is more qualified than most to discuss such a topic. He also discussed not only the consequences but, more importantly, the causes of the immigration invasion into European countries as well as those countries with European roots. It was the occasion for the ex-diplomat to remind us of the role which is played by the globalised hyper-class, as well as by the charity leagues that, for economic reasons or clientélisme religieux, encourage immigration. Tom finished the discourse with a reminder that citizenship, as well as borders, can easily change, a matter of which he is well-versed as a Croatian. He went on to reason that a people’s identity is built upon a foundation that is indifferent to borders and regime changes—race. Being an ethno-differentalist rather than a racial supremacist, however, Tom concluded that race is not the alpha and omega of identity.

When Dr. Sunic had finished and taken a few questions from the audience, it was time for the dinner break. This gave us the opportunity to relax and socialize before the main portion of the event. This was, of course, the Australian Professor Andrew Fraser's first Scandinavian appearance, which began about a half-hour behind schedule (which, considering how events like this typically go, must be seen as a triumph!).

Professor Fraser's many years of working in an academic environment were very much apparent as he presented the main themes of his latest book, The WASP Question, which was recently published by Arktos. The historical, biological and juridical characteristics of the Anglo-Saxon peoples were recounted as Prof. Fraser discussed why and how the British Protestants, who once conquered the world and settled in many regions, have now lost any sense of identity and become unable to defend their own interests in the face of strengthening ethnic consciousness among minorities in their own lands. The “WASP,” according to the Australian author, is the invisible race within the lobbies and civic patriotism of the nations they inhabit.

Professor Fraser reminds us of what Guillaume Faye has tried on several occasions to explain to those who hold an anti-American bias: that the space now known as the United States wasn't born as a rainbow coalition, but was rather founded by a homogeneous ethnic community that has since absorbed newcomers and their descendants from every European nation. The topic might appear to fanatical opponents of everything “American” as irrelevant, but Fraser explained that the Europeans have also developed a general European identity, just as their cousins across the pond have done—an invisible race. He concluded his talk by insisting on the importance of the myth—a concept necessary for the survival of any people who wishes to preserve their identity.

The rest of the evening was less serious and more about socializing and entertainment, as neofolk act Winglord performed some of their songs onstage. While the music appears to have mainly consisted of playback, the massive video projection that accompanied the concert created an interesting and absorbing experience. Later in the evening, Dr. Jacob returned to the subject of Wagner, though now in a musical form as he alternated between brief, spoken explanations of the main story line of Der Ring des Niebelungen and performances of piano transcriptions of selected parts of the opera tetralogy.

Throughout the day, those in attendance had ample opportunity to meet each other and exchange ideas and observations. Everyone involved seems to have been very satisfied with the event, and this writer is no exception. Events were kept to the schedule, all the lectures were interesting, and the general atmosphere was quite pleasant, indeed. The fact that the last of the people to leave did not do so until midnight should speak for it self.

Tacitus’ Germania

Tacitus’ Germania

By Andrew Hamilton

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

Tacitus’ Germania, a short monograph on German ethnography written c. 98 AD, is of great historical significance. The transmission of the text to the present day, and certain adventures and tensions surrounding it, make for an interesting story.

Roman historian and aristocrat Cornelius Tacitus (c. 55–c. 117 AD) was the author of several works, more than half of which have been lost. What remains of his writings are divided into the so-called “major [long] works,” the Histories [2] and the Annals [2], jointly covering the period 14–96 AD, and the “minor [short] works”: The Dialogue on Orators, Agricola, [3]and [3] Germania [3]. Tacitus, a senator, is believed to have held the offices of quaestor in 79, praetor in 88, consul in 97, and proconsul or governor of the Roman provinces in “Asia” (western Turkey), from 112–13.

The Germania is a short work, not really a “book.” My copy, “Germany and Its Tribes,” is a mere 23 pages long—albeit in moderately small wartime print on thin paper containing no notes, annotations, maps, illustrations, or other editorial aids. It was translated from the Latin by Alfred Church and William Brodribb in 1876 and published in The Complete Work of Tacitus by Random House’s Modern Library in 1942.

The Agricola, about Roman Britain, is roughly the same length. Agricola, the general primarily responsible for the Roman conquest of Britain and governor of Britannia from 77–85 AD, was Tacitus’ father-in-law.

The Germania has been the most influential source for the early Germanic peoples since the Renaissance. Its reliable account of their ethnography, culture, institutions, and geography is the most thorough that has survived from ancient times, and to this day remains the preeminent classical text on the subject. The book signifies the emergence of the northern Europeans from the obscurity of archaeology, philology, and prehistory into the light of history half a millennium after the emergence of the southern Europeans in Homer and Herodotus.

Though Tacitus at times writes critically of the Germans, he also stresses their simplicity, bravery, honor, fidelity, and other virtues in contrast to corrupt Roman imperial society, fallen from the vigor of the Republic. (It has been said that no one in Tacitus is good except Agricola and the Germans.)

Tacitus’ book is based upon contemporaneous oral and written accounts. During the period knowledge of northern Europe increased rapidly. Roman commanders produced unpublished memoirs of their campaigns along the lines of Caesar’s Commentaries, which circulated in Roman literary circles. Diplomatic exchanges between Rome and Germanic tribes brought German leaders to Rome and Roman emissaries to barbarian courts. And Roman traders expanded traffic with the barbarians, generating, perhaps, more knowledge than the military men.

According to Jewish classicist Moses Hadas, Tacitus “never consciously sacrifices historical truth. He consulted good sources, memoirs, biographies, and official records, and he frequently implies that he had more than one source before him. He requested information of those in a position to know” and “exercises critical judgment.”

Other Ancient Accounts of the Germans

Prior to Tacitus’ narrative, a Syrian-born Hellenistic Greek polymath of the first century BC, Poseidonius, may have been the first to distinguish clearly between the Germans and the Celts, but only fragments of his writings survive.

Julius Caesar did not penetrate very far east of the Rhine, so his knowledge of the Germans, expressed in De Bello Gallico (On the Gallic War, c. 50 BC), was limited.

The Roman Pliny the Elder’s Bella Germaniae (German Wars, c. 60s–70s AD) probably contained the fullest account of the people up to Tacitus’ time, but it has been lost.

Pliny, the foremost authority on science in ancient Europe, had served in the army in Germany. When Mount Vesuvius destroyed Herculaneum and Pompeii, he was stationed near present-day Naples, in command of the western Roman fleet. Eager to study the volcano’s destructive effects firsthand, he sailed across the bay, where he was suffocated by vapors caused by the eruption.

Following the Germania, the most important ancient work discussing northern Europe was Ptolemy’s Geography, written in the 2nd century AD. Ptolemy is the Alexandrian astronomer best-known for positing the Ptolemaic System. The Geography named 69 tribes and 95 places, many mentioned by no other source, as well as major rivers and other natural features.

From late antiquity, no extensive study of the Germanic peoples has survived, if one was ever written, and no single writer treated the migrations in a coherent way.

Loss and Rediscovery

At some point during the collapse of classical civilization and the migrations of late antiquity the text of the Germania was lost for more than a thousand years. It resurfaced only briefly, in Fulda, Germany in the 860s, where it and the other short works were probably copied. A monk at Fulda quoted from it verbatim at the time. Subsequently it was lost again.

In 1425 rumors reached Italy that manuscripts of Tacitus survived in the library of Hersfeld Abbey near Fulda. One of these contained the shorter works. In 1451 or 1455 (sources differ) an emissary of Pope Nicholas V obtained the manuscript containing the lesser works and brought it to Rome. It is known as the Codex Hersfeldensis.

In Rome, Enea Silvio Piccolomini, later Pope Pius II, examined and analyzed the Germania, sparking interest in the work among German humanists, including Conrad Celtes, Johannes Aventinus, and Ulrich von Hutten.

Its first publication in central Europe occurred at Nuremberg in 1473–74; the first commentary on the text was written by Renaissance humanist Beatus Rhenanus in 1519.

[4]

The first page of Germania, the Codex Aesinas

The Codex Hersfeldensis was then lost again for half a millennium. (This time, of course, the content survived in published form.) Then, in 1902, a portion of the Codex Hersfeldensis was rediscovered by priest-philologist Cesare Annibaldi in the possession of Italian Count Aurelio Balleani of Iesi (Italian: Jesi), a town located in the Marches of central Italy. The manuscript had been in the family’s possession since 1457. This single text, the oldest extant version, became known as the Codex Aesinas. (I.e., the Aesinas is believed to consist of portions of the lost manuscript from Hersfeld.

One scholar has summarized the tremendous impact the text’s rediscovery in 1455 has had on European history:

The rediscovery of the Germania in the late fifteenth century was a decisive event in the study of the ancient Germanic peoples. Renaissance scholarship endowed Roman literary texts with outstanding authority, as well as making them more widely available. At the same time, a rise in German national feeling led to heightened interest in ancient texts which illuminated the Germanic past. . . . The Germania . . . was used to cement a link between the Germans of Tacitus and the Germans of the early modern period. From about 1500 onward the Germania was rarely far from serious discussion of German national identity, German history and even German religion. Fresh impetus was given to it in the nineteenth century and, of course, the racial purity, valour and integrity of the Germans as portrayed by Tacitus had immense appeal to the National Socialist hierarchy in the 1920s and 1930s. (Malcolm Todd, The Early Germans, 2d ed., Oxford: Blackwell, 2004, p. 7)

Among others, the Germania influenced Frederick the Great, Johann Fichte, Johann Gottfried von Herder [5], and Jakob Grimm.

Key to the rediscovery, preservation, transmission, and social and racial influence of the Germania over the past 500 years have been Renaissance humanism, modern (pre-21st century) scholarship, the invention of printing, liberalism, nationalism, and racial science.

A Dangerous Book

Since the Renaissance, the Germania has provided the most significant historical evidence of the early Germanic peoples.

The inevitable identification of the ancient Germans with their descendants commenced soon after the book’s discovery. Historians, philologists, and archaeologists all added pieces to the mosaic, so that by the time unification occurred in 1871 the early history of the Germans was firmly grounded.

The Germania influenced at least one 20th century leader decisively. Young Heinrich Himmler in September 1924 read Tacitus during a train ride and was captivated. At the time he was personal assistant to Gregor Strasser, leader of the National Socialist Freedom Movement (Nationalsozialistische Freiheitsbewegung).

In contemporaneous notes, Himmler wrote that Tacitus captured “the glorious image of the loftiness, purity, and nobleness of our ancestors,” adding, “Thus shall we be again, or at least some among us.”

In 1936, the year of the Berlin Olympics, Hitler personally requested of Mussolini that possession of the Codex Aesinas be transferred to Germany. Mussolini agreed, but changed his mind when the proposition turned out to be unpopular among his people.

A facsimile copy was made for the Germans and Rudolph Till, chairman of the Department of Classical Philology and Historical Studies at the University of Munich, and a member of the Ahnenerbe (a racial think tank co-founded by Heinrich Himmler in 1935), studied the manuscript in Rome in the months prior to the war. The Ahnenerbe published Till’s findings as Palaeographical Studies of Tacitus’s Agricola and Germania Along with a Photocopy of the Codex Aesinas in 1943.

German ideologist Alfred Rosenberg [6] and SS chief Heinrich Himmler both retained intense interest in the Codex. Mussolini’s government fell in 1943. In July 1944 Himmler dispatched an SS commando team to rescue the manuscript. The unit searched three Balleani family residences in Italy without success.

The Codex was in fact stored in a wooden trunk bound with tin in the kitchen cellar of one of the residences, the Palazzo on the Piazza in Jesi. (There is a 1998 online newspaper account in German [7] about this affair that relies upon Jewish writer Simon Schama’s 1996 Landscape and Memory for its authority.)

[8]

Palazzo Balleani in Jesi

The upshot was that possession of the manuscript remained in the hands of the Baldeschi-Balleani [9] family. After the war the family stored the Codex Aesinas in a safe deposit box in the basement of the Banco di Sicilia in Florence, Italy. In November 1966, the River Arno experienced its worst flooding [10] since the 1550s, causing damage to the Codex. Monks at a monastery near Rome skilled in preserving manuscripts succeeded in saving it, though permanent water damage could not be eliminated.

The Codex was sold by the family to the Biblioteca Nazionale in Rome in 1994, where it is currently cataloged as the Codex Vittorio Emanuele 1631.

Suppress That Classic!

Since WWII, as ideological imperatives took precedence over dispassionate scholarship, the Germania‘s capacity to instill self-awareness and collective identity has deeply disturbed proponents of anti-white policies and ideologies. The historical record is problematic, too, in not depicting the Germans as irredeemably evil, possibly scheming, say, to vaporize the extensive Jewish populations of Rome and Persia in clay kilns.

One feint such ideologues employ is to insinuate that ancient Germans and modern northern Europeans possess no biological or historical kinship. Though nonsensical, it is as easy to argue as is the assertion that biological race does not exist, or dozens of other counter-factual dogmas.

But many would no doubt prefer to ban the book Communist-style, removing all copies from circulation and restricting access to unpulped copies to a handful of approved “scholars” on a carefully monitored basis.

As long ago as 1954 Jewish historian Arnaldo Momigliano declared before “an important international classical conference” that the Germania was one of the most dangerous books ever written. (In 1938 Momigliano lost his job as professor of Roman history at the University of Turin after passage of the Fascist racial law. He moved to England, where he taught for the rest of his life.)

Today, Harvard University’s Christopher Krebs, author of A Most Dangerous Book: Tacitus’s Germania From the Roman Empire to the Third Reich (2011), trumpets Momigliano’s view [11] of the ancient text’s “insidious” nature to the applause of academic peers, literary critics, and journalists.

Krebs’ insincere declaration—gambit, really—that “Tacitus did not write a most dangerous book, his readers made it so,” doesn’t fool anyone. In societies committed to the proposition that speech and ideas constitute “hate,” there is unanimous, or at least undissenting, agreement on how to treat “dangerous” books and ideas.

In an interview, Krebs says that he is half German and half Swedish. But “Krebs” can be a Jewish name—e.g., biochemist Hans Krebs, formulator of the Krebs cycle. Scanning random passages from the book, it is hard to think that the author is not Jewish or part Jewish. If white, he has mastered their psychology to great profit.

Adam Kirsch, a Jewish book reviewer for Slate, the Washington Post-owned online magazine, quotes Krebs approvingly: “‘Ideas are viruses. They depend on minds as their hosts . . . The Germania virus . . . after 350 years of incubation . . . progressed to a systemic infection culminating in the major crisis of the twentieth century.’” (Yes, he means the “Holocaust.”) The title of Kirsch’s article is “Ideas Are Viruses [12].”

This is a characteristically Jewish, and totalitarian, way of thinking.

[13]

Adam Kirsch

Kirsch, a child of privilege, is the son of author, attorney, and newspaper columnist Jonathan Kirsch. A 1997 graduate of Harvard, Adam Kirsch writes regularly for Slate, The New Yorker, The Times Literary Supplement, and other magazines.

Wishing that the Germania had been lost during the Middle Ages, Kirsch concludes, “If the last surviving manuscript had been eaten by rats in a monk’s library a thousand years ago, the world might have been better off.”

Ah, liberal enlightenment! The world can never get enough of it.

 


Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/09/tacitus-germania/