Horreur et endettement chez Lovecraft

Auteur : Cédric Monget 

Ex: http://www.philitt.fr

La littérature d’horreur dit-elle quelque chose du monde ? Un auteur qui ne s’intéresse ni à l’argent ni au sexe peut-il avoir un message radical sur ce qui lie l’économie à la reproduction ? En somme, Le Cauchemar d’Innsmouth de Howard Phillips Lovecraft a-t-il pour sujet la crise de 29 ?

Le Cauchemar d’Innsmouth est l’une des nouvelles les plus connues de Lovecraft. Elle figure parmi les titres réputés « canoniques » du « Mythe de Cthulhu » pour user d’un vocable qui appartient sans doute, désormais, à un état passé de la critique. En tout cas, nul, parmi les amateurs de Lovecraft, ne nie que ce texte soit l’un des plus importants d’une œuvre qui a marqué l’histoire de la littérature d’horreur. De même, la fécondité des images évoquées par ce récit est évidente aujourd’hui, que ce soit dans les romans, les bandes dessinées, les films.

Le schéma narratif est tout simple : un jeune homme est obligé de passer la nuit dans un village côtier de Nouvelle-Angleterre. L’activité halieutique, si prospère auparavant, semble désormais marginale. Les quais sont abandonnés, les maisons dans un état de décrépitude avancée, la population semble dégénérée. Après avoir rencontré un vieil homme qui lui dévoile les secrets d’Innsmouth, le narrateur réussit, non sans mal, à s’enfuir d’une ville dont la population lui est désormais hostile.

Ce récit a inspiré bien des réflexions et des analyses. La moins incontestable repose sur la plus choquante des révélations faites par Zadok Allen : Innsmouth a été le lieu de l’accouplement infâme de ses habitants avec des créatures venues des profondeurs des océans. Depuis, ces hybrides, déterminés par leur hérédité et leurs intérêts, conspirent à l’éradication de l’humanité. La logique de l’horreur dans ce récit tient donc au métissage. Or, comme la critique l’a justement fait remarquer, l’auteur lui-même, dans sa vision du monde et ses opinions politiques, était tout sauf indifférent à cette question. C’est parce que Lovecraft rejetait le métissage dans la vie réelle qu’il en a fait un objet d’horreur dans la fiction, voilà toute la thèse.

Lovecraft et l’argent

Il n’est nullement dans notre intention, ici, de nous écarter de cette interprétation dominante que nous croyons avoir par ailleurs renforcée, en faisant le parallèle avec les événements de Malaga Island que Lovecraft ne pouvait ignorer. Le métissage était pour Lovecraft un objet d’horreur sociale et littéraire. Il reste cependant à interroger les mécanismes qui rendent le métissage inéluctable et malheureux ; à révéler les ruses de l’abâtardissement et à démontrer en quoi le métissage est non seulement un ressort de l’horreur lovecraftienne mais ce qui en fait la spécificité et qui lui donne sa dimension cosmique.

En effet, s’arrêter à l’argument classique qui résume et explique tout par le racisme nous semble très insatisfaisant. Le racisme est une idée et les idées ne sont jamais premières dans l’ordre de la causalité. Le racisme est la conceptualisation, parfois pathologique, de la prise de conscience de la fragilité des liens biologiques et culturels qui lient l’homme à ses ancêtres, rien de plus. Rien de plus, mais rien de moins et la question de l’hérédité et de l’héritage, en somme, celle de Lovecraft comme héritier doit être posée.

Il est commun de noter que Lovecraft n’avait d’intérêt ni pour l’argent, ni pour le sexe. Or, son œuvre, de par la question de la filiation, partout présente, met le sexe en avant. Non pas le sexe comme idée théorisant le plaisir — sous les formes jumelles de l’amour ou de la perversion — mais le sexe comme réalité biologique dont le plaisir n’est qu’une ruse, c’est-à-dire le mécanisme de transmission des caractères héréditaires. Qu’en est-il, alors, de l’argent ? N’est-il pas, lui aussi, chose qui s’hérite ?

Le mépris notoire de Lovecraft pour tout ce qui est vénal ne fait pas de lui un homme qui méprise l’argent. C’est un luxe que la gêne lui refuse. Cet homme incapable (délibérément incapable) d’exiger ce qui lui est dû, n’est en rien un inconscient. L’éthique n’est pas chez lui l’alibi de la faiblesse. Ce gentleman généreux et magnanime sait vivre chichement, voilà tout. Il sait épargner aux autres ses propres fragilités, fussent-elles innocentes. Tout au long de sa vie, il s’est montré économe. Il mangeait peu et mal ; il n’achetait pas tous les livres qu’il désirait ; il ne voyageait que quand il le pouvait et toujours par les moyens les plus modestes.

Robert Olmstead, le héros du Cauchemar d’Innsmouth, parcourt la Nouvelle-Angleterre en « amateur d’antiquité et de généalogie » en « choisissant toujours le trajet le plus économique ». Le personnage et son auteur ont en commun de voyager pour les mêmes raisons et avec les mêmes contraintes. C’est l’obligation de ne pas trop dépenser qui amène le protagoniste de ce théâtre de l’horreur à prendre le misérable bus d’Innsmouth et c’est sa curiosité pour les antiquités et la généalogie qui le pousse à quitter son « île de placide ignorance. » En effet, les personnages de Lovecraft, comme Lovecraft lui-même, ne sont animés ni par la libido sentiendi (le sexe), ni par la libido dominandi (le pouvoir que seul donne l’argent dans les sociétés modernes), mais par la libido sciendi, (la volonté de savoir). Robert Olmstead ne déroge pas à la règle : il veut tout savoir sur le monde et il finira par tout savoir de lui-même, y compris le pire.

Le cauchemar de 1929

Cependant, l’argent et, plus largement, la question économique ne sont pas un simple ressort de l’intrigue. Ils en sont le cœur. Le tableau qui est fait d’Innsmouth est tout de contraste. Aux couleurs chatoyantes de l’opulence passée s’opposent celles, délavées, de la décrépitude présente. « Il reste plus de maisons vides que de gens », mais ce sont les belles et dignes maisons de l’aristocratie commerçante qui sont, aujourd’hui, délabrées. De même, les vastes entrepôts de briques rouges le long des quais sont à l’abandon. Quant à l’église et à la salle de réunion maçonnique, on y rend un autre culte désormais. Lovecraft, lecteur de Spengler, décrit là une parfaite pseudomorphose : les structures minérales sont toujours là, mais ceux qui les peuplent et, de ce fait, leur nature elle-même, sont radicalement altérés.

Jadis le commerce, la pêche et les conserveries de poisson avaient enrichi Innsmouth. Aujourd’hui, sans que rien ne le justifie, la ville n’est plus que l’ombre d’elle-même. L’angoisse première naît de cette ruine inexplicable. Cependant, l’affinerie Marsh, elle, semble encore en activité. N’est-ce point paradoxal alors qu’il n’y a plus ni commerce ni navires au long cours pour ramener des métaux précieux ? En tout cas, ce noyau d’activité au sein d’une ville rongée et ruinée ne paraît en rien freiner le déclin général. À croire que les bénéfices, s’il y en a, ne profitent à personne…

Quand Lovecraft écrit Le Cauchemar d’Innsmouth, l’Amérique est au début de la Grande Dépression. Pour beaucoup d’Américains, le Krach de 1929 a été une surprise totale et les événements qui ont suivi sont apparus comme dépourvus de toute logique. Les rares esprits assez lucides pour en comprendre la rationalité y ont vu la conséquence nécessaire de l’excès de crédit. Il y a eu un pacte trompeur entre l’espoir et le prêt. L’espoir a déçu, le prêt s’est réduit à la dette et les hommes ne furent plus rien qu’esclaves de la dette. Voilà ce que disaient certains contemporains. Mais, n’est-ce point de cela qu’il s’agit dans la nouvelle de Lovecraft ?

Que dit le vieux Zadok Allen à Robert Olmstead ? Que les plus riches et les plus aventureux des voyageurs et des commerçants d’Innsmouth ont conclu, dans les îles des mers du Sud, un marché avec une race amphibie très ancienne. La situation économique n’était pas bonne au lendemain de la guerre de 1812. Que demandaient-ils, au fond, ces hommes aux visages de poisson, en échange de leur or ? Qu’on expédie quelques Canaques à la mer pour qu’ils les offrent à leurs dieux ? La belle affaire ! Ce n’est pas cher payé ! Et pour le reliquat, il serait toujours temps de voir.

Per usura n’ont les hommes de lignées pures

Mais les créatures venues de la mer avaient bien plus à vendre que leur or. Elles voulaient autre chose et étaient prêtes à donner bien plus en contrepartie. Que vos fils et nos filles s’accouplent et leur progéniture sera immortelle, dirent-elles ! Passant leurs réticences premières, non sans déchirement, non sans violence, les habitants d’Innsmouth l’acceptèrent. C’est une façon trop tentante de régler ses dettes que de les reporter sur la génération suivante et puis doit-elle se plaindre ? Elle ne sera plus humaine, certes, elle sera, par ses épousailles, éternellement liée à Dagon et à jamais tributaire de forces par nature hostiles à l’Homme puisqu’en concurrence avec lui dans le struggle for life cosmique, mais elle sera, aussi, à tout jamais libérée de la finitude humaine.

Alors, « les gens ont commencé a pus rien faire », à quoi bon ? L’or venait de la mer et achetait les complaisances ; le poisson abondait et permettait de nourrir des hommes désormais à demi-poisson ; le temps n’était plus à craindre ; l’attente n’aboutissait plus à la mort ; la vie n’était qu’un lent glissement vers le fond des océans et vers une autre façon de vivre, de rire, de tuer. Tout au plus fallait-il prêter l’oreille à la musique des abysses dans l’impatience du retour de Celui qui n’est pas mort. Car, le païen Lovecraft fait d’Innsmouth le lieu d’une attente messianique, celle d’un grand nettoyage, suivi du remplacement de la race humaine par une autre à la fois plus ancienne et plus radicalement tournée vers ce futur qui verra le retour des Grands Anciens.

Cependant, le lecteur sait depuis le début que cette échéance eschatologique sera reculée. Le narrateur échappe à la ville et dénonce ce qui s’y passe à un gouvernement qui n’hésite pas à renoncer un instant à être un État de droit en recourant à l’état d’exception.

Ce que Lovecraft décrit dans sa nouvelle, il le voit sous ses yeux. L’Italie et l’Allemagne en Europe, les États-Unis du New Deal sous ses yeux lui montrent que la crise de 1929 et, au-delà du symptôme, que la modernité ne sont pas inéluctables. Comme chez beaucoup de conservateurs, l’espérance dans l’État (dans sa violence) se substitue au pessimisme politique. Le socialisme comme organisation de l’économie apparaît, aux yeux de ces hommes, comme un moyen de préservation de l’ordre ancien — non dans sa lettre, mais dans son esprit.

Le cauchemar d’Innsmouth est celui de la dette et de son corollaire, l’abâtardissement. Seul le réveil de l’État peut nous en sauver (provisoirement), y est-il suggéré. Comment ? Par l’état d’exception, par la déportation, par l’extermination. Le massacre final n’est rien d’autre que la vision fantasmagorique d’un New Deal musclé, d’un fascisme à l’américaine. L’horreur romanesque ou politique n’a d’autre issue, pour Lovecraft, que dans cette ultime violence retardatrice et seulement retardatrice. Car le gentleman de Providence sait aussi cette profonde vérité : tout passe.

 

L’Argentine desserre l’étreinte étasunienne

L’Argentine desserre l’étreinte étasunienne

Auteur : Comaguer

Ex: http://zejournal.mobi

La visite de la présidente argentine à Pékin marque une nouvelle étape dans le processus d’émancipation politique  du pays. L’intervention déterminée et vigoureuse de Cristina Kirchner contre les atteintes à la souveraineté de l’Argentine devant l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies en Octobre 2014 avait déjà marqué un tournant.

Cristina Kirchner avait en effet dénoncé l’intervention de la justice étasunienne qui bouleversait un plan de restructuration de la dette souveraine argentine longuement préparé qui avait reçu l’aval de toutes les banques concernées sauf une un fonds de placement new yorkais qui ne détenait que 1% de cette dette. La justice américaine (le juge GRIESA) avait décidé que ce fonds devait recevoir l’intégralité des sommes dues mais surtout, mesure évidemment attentatoire à la souveraineté de l’Argentine, que, si ce règlement n’était pas effectué, la totalité du plan de restructuration de la dette était bloqué.

Il  faut souligner :

1-que les dettes en question étaient toutes des remboursements d’emprunts contractés par l’Argentine avant l’arrivée au pouvoir de Nestor Kirchner et ensuite de son épouse Cristina,

2- que les autres créanciers avaient accepté de renoncer à 50% de leurs créances vieilles de 30 ans pour certaines.

Bel exemple d’impérialisme judiciaire et financier : le Capital étasunien est chez lui partout et la signature d’un gouvernement et de grandes banques internationales ne pèsent rien face à la décision d’un juge new yorkais actionné par le gérant d’un « FONDS VAUTOUR » selon l’expression aujourd’hui en vigueur.

La présidente argentine s’en était également pris à ceux qui reprochaient à son gouvernement d’avoir signé avec l’Iran un « mémorandum d’intention »  pour conjuguer les efforts des deux Etats dans la recherche de la vérité sur les deux attentats « anti israéliens » perpétrés en Argentine le premier contre l’ambassade d’Israël le 17 Mars 1992 (29 morts), le second le 18 Juillet 1994 contre les locaux de l’AMIA (association culturelle de la communauté juive d’Argentine – la plus nombreuse de toute l’Amérique latine – 85 morts) .

Ces attentats immédiatement attribués sans preuves à l’Iran et dont l’Iran a toujours nié la responsabilité n’ont toujours pas été élucidés et en signant le « mémorandum d’intention » l’Argentine ne faisait rien d’autre que d’accorder  à l’accusé un droit à la défense. La réaction impériale à cette décision fut, on l’imagine, très vive puisqu’elle remettait en cause,  vingt ans après les faits, la version officielle jamais démontrée mais entérinée par tout l’appareil de propagande « occidental ». Devant la même assemblée générale des Nations Unies Cristina Kirchner avait  défendu son choix et avait fait état de menaces de mort la concernant personnellement.

Elle avait continué à avancer dans sa recherche de la vérité et avait franchi une étape décisive en mettant un terme à la carrière du   patron des services de renseignement argentin M. Antonio Stiuso en poste depuis quarante ans.  Ce personnage, mis en place par le régime péroniste, avait réussi à traverser la période de la dictature militaire et à demeurer à son poste ensuite. Beaucoup d’argentins considéraient que cette « solidité au poste » ne pouvait s’expliquer  que par un soutien constant de Washington et ses méthodes étaient souvent qualifiées de « gestapistes ». Le procureur Nisman en charge du dossier « iranien »  retrouvé « suicidé » ces derniers jours et qui s’apprêtait à confirmer la « piste iranienne » sur les attentats anti israéliens était soutenu dans son enquête par M. Stiuso dont il était de longue date un proche.

Autant dire que l’étoile de Cristina Kirchner avait beaucoup pali aux Etats-Unis et dans le reste de l’Occident.  Elle en avait évidemment conscience et avait réorienté sa politique en conséquence. Cette réorientation vient de prendre un tour très concret dans sa visite officielle à Pékin où elle vient d’être reçue par le président chinois. Ce n’est pas à proprement parlé un retournement subit puisque les visites de dirigeants chinois à Buenos Aires s’étaient multipliées ces dernières années et avaient débouché sur des projets de coopération économiques en de nombreux domaines (transports, énergie, électronique…).

La  récente visite de Cristina Kirchner à Pékin donne à cette coopération une dimension militaire importante. L’Argentine va acheter à la République populaire  ou construire avec des accords de transfert technologique les matériels suivants :

- Corvettes: Ce modèle produit par les chantiers chinois CSIC P18 va porter le nom de corvettes de la  CLASS MALVINAS = CLASSE MALOUINE (déjà vendues au Nigéria)  de quoi mettre en rage le Foreign Office

- Véhicules blindés (modèle NORINCO VN1)

- Hélicoptères

Ces acquisitions prennent place dans un  programme d’ensemble signé par les deux pays le 29 Octobre 2014 couvrant brise-glaces, véhicules amphibies, remorqueurs de haute mer, et d’autres navires de guerre, mortiers de divers calibres, hôpitaux de campagne. Les observateurs militaires n’excluent pas l’achat de chasseurs chinois FC1.

Dans le monde multipolaire actuel, il est aujourd’hui possible de desserrer l’étreinte impérialiste étasunienne et de trouver dans d’autres pays : Chine Populaire, Russie… les moyens concrets de parer les coups revanchards que les Etats-Unis ont toujours porté contre les gouvernements manifestant de l’indépendance dans leur « arrière-cour » latino-américaine.

- Source : Comaguer

Celluloid Heroism and Manufactured Stupidity in the Age of Empire

From Citizenfour and Selma to American Sniper

Celluloid Heroism and Manufactured Stupidity in the Age of Empire

by HENRY A. GIROUX

Ex: http://www.counterpunch.org

America’s addiction to violence is partly evident in the heroes it chooses to glorify. Within the last month three films appeared that offer role models to young people while legitimating particular notions of civic courage, patriotism, and a broader understanding of injustice. Citizenfour is a deeply moving film about whistleblower Edward Snowden and his admirable willingness to sacrifice his life in order to reveal the dangerous workings of an authoritarian surveillance state. It also points to the role of journalists working in the alternative media who refuse to become embedded within the safe parameters of established powers and the death-dealing war-surveillance machine it legitimates.

Snowden comes across as a remarkable young man who shines like a bright meteor racing across the darkness. Truly, the best of what America has to offer given his selflessness, moral integrity, and fierce commitment not only to renounce injustice but to do something about it. Selma offers an acute and much needed exercise in pubic memory offering a piece of history into the civil rights movement that not only reveals the moral and civic courage of Martin Luther King Jr. in his fight against racism but the courage and deep ethical and political americas-ed-deficit-300x449commitments of a range of incredibly brave men and women unwilling to live in a racist society and willing to put their bodies against the death dealing machine of racism in order to bring it to a halt. Selma reveals a racist poison at the heart of American history and offers up not only a much needed form of moral witnessing, but also a politics that serves as a counterpoint to the weak and compromising model of racial politics offered by the Obama administration.

The third film to hit American theaters at about the same time as the other two is American Sniper, a war film about a young man who serves as a model for a kind of unthinking patriotism and defense of an indefensible war. Even worse, Chris Kyle himself, the hero of the film, is a Navy Seal who at the end of four tours of duty in Iraq held the “honor” of killing more than 160 people. Out of that experience, he authored an autobiographical book that bears a problematic relationship to the film. For some critics, Kyle is a decent guy caught up in a war he was not prepared for, a war that strained his marriage and later became representative of a narrative only too familiar for many vets who suffered a great deal of anguish and mental stress as a result of their war time experiences. This is a made for CNN narrative that is only partly true.

A more realistic narrative and certainly one that has turned the film into a Hollywood blockbuster is that Kyle is portrayed as an unstoppable and unapologetic killing machine, a sniper who was proud of his exploits. Kyle models the American Empire at its worse. This is an empire steeped in extreme violence, willing to trample over any country in the name of the war on terrorism, and leaves in its path massive amounts of misery, suffering, dislocation, and hardship. Of the three films, Citizenfour and Selma invoke the courage of men and women who oppose the violence of the state in the interest of two different forms of lawlessness, one marked by a brutalizing racism and the other marked by a suffocating practice of surveillance.

American Sniper is a film that erases history, spectacularizes violence, and reduces war and its aftermath to cheap entertainment, with an under explained referent to the mental problems many vets live with when they return home from the war. In this case the aftermath of war becomes the main narrative, a diversionary tacit and story that erases any attempt to understand the lies, violence, corruption, and misdeeds that caused the war in the first place. Moreover, the film evokes sympathy not for its millions of victims but exclusively for those largely poor youth who have to carry the burden of war for the dishonest politicians who send them often into war zones that should never have existed in the first place. Amy Nelson at Slate gets it right in stating that “American Sniper convinces viewers that Chris Kyle is what heroism looks like: a great guy who shoots a lot of people and doesn’t think twice about it.” Citizenfour and Selma made little money, were largely ignored by the public, and all but disappeared except for some paltry acknowledgements by the film industry. American Sniper is the most successful grossing war film of all time.

Selma will be mentioned in the history books but will not get the attention it really deserves for the relevance it should have for a new generation of youth. There will be no mention in the history books regarding the importance of Edward Snowden because his story not only instructs a larger public but indicts the myth of American democracy. Yet, American Sniper resembles a familiar narrative of false heroism and state violence for which thousands of pages will be written as part of history texts that will provide the pedagogical context for imposing on young people a mode of hyper-masculinity built on the false notion that violence is a sacred value and that war is an honorable ideal and the ultimate test of what it means to be a man. The stories a society tells about itself are a measure of how it values itself, the ideals of democracy, and its future.

The stories that Hollywood tells represent a particularly powerful form of public pedagogy that is integral to how people imagine life, themselves, relations to others, and what it might mean to think otherwise in order to act otherwise. In this case, stories and the communal bonds that support them in their differences become integral to how people value life, social relations, and visions of the future. American Sniper tells a disturbing story codified as a disturbing truth and normalized through an entertainment industry that thrives on the spectacle of violence, one that is deeply indebted to the militarization of everyday life.

Courage in the morally paralyzing lexicon of a stupefied appeal to patriotism has become an extension of a gun culture both at home and abroad. This is a culture of hyped-up masculinity and cruelty that is symptomatic of a kind of mad violence and unchecked misery that is both a by-product of and sustains the fog of historical amnesia, militarism, and the death of democracy itself. Maybe the spectacular success of American Sniper over the other two films should not be surprising in a country in which the new normal for giving out honorary degrees and anointing a new generation of heroes goes to billionaires such as Bill Gates, Jamie Dimon, Oprah Winfrey, and other leaders of the corrupt institutions and bankrupt celebrity culture that now are driving the world into political, economic, and moral bankruptcy, made visible in the most profound vocabularies of stupidity and cruelty.

War machines and the financial elite now construct the stories that America tells about itself and in this delusional denial of social and moral responsibility monsters are born, paving the way for the new authoritarianism.

Henry A. Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and a Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Ryerson University. His most recent books are America’s Education Deficit and the War on Youth (Monthly Review Press, 2013) and Neoliberalism’s War on Higher Education (Haymarket Press, 2014). His web site is www.henryagiroux.com.

Ernst Jünger e ‘La battaglia come esperienza interiore’

Jünger sconquassa l'anima del lettore, lo cattura con la sua scrittura; lo tiene inchiodato al libro pagina dopo pagina, in una stretta mortale dalla quale non potrà districarsi facilmente. Questo è un libro per anime in tempesta, per cuori d'acciaio, scritto con il sangue degli eroi.

 

di Valerio Alberto Menga

Ex: http://www.lintellettualedissidente.it

“Meglio morire come una meteora effervescente che spegnersi tremolando”.

E. Jünger

In occasione del centenario della Prima guerra mondiale tante sono state le pubblicazioni in memoria del grande e catastrofico evento. Si segnalano, di passata, per la saggistica Mondadori e Laterza, i saggi dello storico Emilio Gentile L’Apocalisse della Modernità e Due colpi di pistola, dieci milioni di morti, la fine di un mondo. Due titoli straordinari per l’efficacia che ha avuto l’autore nell’interpretare il primo confilitto mondale e la sproporzione delle conseguenze seguite all’attentato di Sarajevo del 1914. A distanza di 92 anni dalla sua originaria apparizione, e per la prima volta in italiano, è stato pubblicato per le edizioni Piano B (e magistralmente tradotto da Simone Butazzi, che si ringrazia) quella che era stata, a torto, considerata un’opera minore nella bibliografia di Enrst Jünger: La battaglia come esperienza interiore.

Fu un’innovazione quella che portò Jünger alla letteratura di guerra. Embelatici erano, e rimangono tutt’ora, Il fuoco di Barbusse e Niente di nuovo sul fronte occientale di Remarque. Questi due autori furono le due principali voci di un atteggiamento di sconforto, di orrore, di paura, di delusione, e di disfattismo davanti alla guerra.  Lo stesso atteggiamento che portò Louis-Ferdinand Céline, volontario nell’esercito francese, a riflessioni come quelle che compaiono nel suo Viaggio al termine della notte: “Per quanto lontano cercassi nella memoria, gli avevo fatto niente io, ai tedeschi. Ero sempre stato molto gentile ed educato con loro. Li conoscevo un po’ i tedeschi, ero persino stato a scuola da loro, quando ero piccolo, dalle parti di Hannover. Avevo parlato la loro lingua. Allora erano una massa di cretinetti caciaroni con occhi pallidi e furtivi come quelli dei lupi […] ma da lì adesso a tirarci nella colombarda, senza neanche venire a parlarci prima e nel bel mezzo della strada, ce ne correva parecchio, un abisso. Troppa differenza. La guerra insomma era tutto quello che non si capiva”. Jünger invece – come giustamente sottolinea Rodolfo Sideri nel suo Inquieto Novecento- è interprete di un atteggiamento “volto a lasciare che la guerra tempri l’uomo nella sua dimensione interiore”.

Ma che cosa è stato esattamente Ernst Jünger? Qual è la sua maggiore peculiarità? E’ stato uno scrittore? Un soldato? Un filosofo? Nacque in Germania, ad Heidelberg, nel 1895. E morì nel 1998 a Riedlingen, avendo sorpassato la soglia dei cento anni, dopo aver visto morire il fratello, i figli e la prima moglie. Per la lunga durata della sua vita fu indubbiamente il prezioso testimone di un’epoca. È stato anche un entomologo. Non deve certo stupire se un grande carattere del Novecento come lui si sia interessato allo studio e alla collezione di scarafaggi e scarabei. Ai suoi occhi guerrieri, essi apparivano un po’ come animali con una corazza naturale che, talvolta, riflettono i colori della guerra: il rosso e il grigio. Piccoli soldati di Madre Natura.

Il rosso e il grigio, quindi. Ecco i colori che attraverso lo sguardo del grande scrittore tedesco hanno determinato la Grande Guerra. E Le rouge et le gris –in onore a Stendhal- doveva essere il titolo originale del grande diario di guerra Nelle tempeste d’acciaio che gli valse, di diritto, un posto nel pantheon dei grandi scrittori europei del Novecento. Tuttavia optò per il secondo titolo, ispirato ad una poesia islandese, che meglio definiva “l’eternità tombale” della vita in trincea durante la guerra. Rosso come il sangue; grigio come le divise dei soldati, come l’acciaio delle armi e dei proiettili, come l’umore in trincea, come la terra devastata dai colpi, come il cielo oscurato dalla battaglia.

Incuriosisce il fatto che La battaglia come esperienza interiore era stato concepito dall’autore come un’opera che avrebbe dovuto fare da pendant al precedente Nelle tempeste d’acciaio, il cui punto di vista si riferiva agli avvenimenti puri e semplici. In quest’opera, invece, si può trovare tutto ciò che nelle “Tempeste” si era cercato invano.
Nelle tempeste d’acciaio ha il merito di descrivere nel titolo, e in due parole, la guerra di trincea.  Interpreta il primo conflitto mondiale in chiave nichilistica (come “lotta dei materiali”), osservando la realtà con sguardo oggettivo. Il difetto maggiore che però la caratterizza è la mancanza dello spazio concesso alle emozioni e al sentimento. La battaglia come esperienza interiore colma questo vuoto. E può annoverarsi senza dubbio tra le grandi opere di Jünger, grazie alla sua prosa alta e inarrivabile.Prima di aprire questo libro bisogna preparare il lettore ad entrare psicologicamente in trincea. Bisogna essere pronti a ricevere lo schizzo del sangue nemico dritto in faccia. Se invece siete tra coloro che non sopportano di guardare la realtà negli occhi, allora lasciate in pace questo libro.

“La battaglia rientra nelle grandi passioni. [...] E’ un canto antico e tremendo, che risale all’alba dell’uomo: nessuno avrebbe mai pensato che fosse ancora così vivo in noi”.  In questo scritto di guerra non manca nulla: il sangue, l’orrore, la trincea, l’eros, il coraggio, il fuoco, la paura… Questo per dare un’idea di ciò che aspetta il lettore che abbia il coraggio e la maturità di affrontare quest’opera rovente, che di certo non poteva non piacere ad un giovane nazional-socialista dei tempi. Perché Jünger è stato considerato, e forse è considerato ancora, un nazista. E’ vero che Hitler disse “Jünger non si tocca!” e lo protesse per ben due volte dalle grinfie di Göring che voleva la sua testa. Ma furono il rispetto per il soldato e lo scrittore di guerra che, con tutta probabilità, spinsero il Führer a perdonare a Jünger il suo comportamento. Ci si riferisce al suo antinazismo allegorico, aleggiante nel romanzo Sulle scogliere di marmo, e alla sua parte nella congiura capitanata da Stauffenberg che sfumò nel fallito attentato a Hitler, ben narrato nel film di Bryan Singer Operazione Valchiria. Scrisse un romanzo antinazista e partecipò all’attentato a Hitler, che mirava ad ucciderlo. Anche se in lui l’idea dell’uccisione del tiranno era indicice di mentalità rozza. Queste due cose stanno ben a sottolineare il fantomatico nazismo di cui fu accusato. Ma agli occhi stanchi e superficiali dei molti faciloni, è apparso così per molto tempo. È vero invece che i nazisti trassero, a piene mani, buona parte della loro cultura da alcuni scritti del grande soldato tedesco. Solo in seguito al premio Goethe, ottenuto nell’82, venne riabilitato ufficialmente come scrittore.

Davanti ad un uomo come lui è difficile dire se sia l’opera a superare la grandezza della vita dell’autore o viceversa. Jünger visse più di cento anni, giovanissimo si arruolò nella Legione Straniera per andare a combattere, per poi essere ripescato e rimpatriato dal padre. Fu un eroe decorato con la medaglia Pour le mérite dopo esser stato ferito quattordici volte nella Grande Guerra; vide due volte la cometa Halley (cha ha un ciclo di 76 anni); fu amico di Martin Heidegger e Carl Schmitt, e con essi scrisse alcune opere. Ha incontrato molti grandi del suo tempo, e in tutta la sua opera ha analizzato e affrontato il nichilismo, che è il tratto peculiare del suo e del nostro tempo. Da entomologo ha scoperto due nuove specie di coleotteri che oggi portano il suo nome: il Carabus saphyrinus juengeri e la Cicindera juengeri juengerorum. Da scrittore, invece, ha incantato il mondo e continua ad incantare, ad accendere le passioni e il pensiero.

La battaglia come esperienza interiore è un’opera scritta da un giovane inquieto che vuole conciliare il pensiero con l’azione. Qui vi si ritrova uno Jünger intriso di letture nietzscheane che, con la sua prosa alta e viscerale, scava nel profondo dei più indicibili sentimenti che hanno portato l’uomo moderno a scontrarsi, a riversare la propria Volontà di potenza nel campo di battaglia. Per il lettore che ama sottolineare i tratti più salienti, quest’opera, strage di carne e materia, sarà anche una strage di grafite. E si spera che, quindi, chi leggerà queste righe, perdonerà a chi scrive se si è fatto ampio uso di doverose citazioni. Lo stile dello scrittore-soldato porta lo spirito del lettore a vette così alte che il ritorno alla terra scavata dalle trincee è un vero e proprio schianto del cuore. Sconquassa l’anima del lettore, lo cattura con la sua scrittura; lo tiene inchiodato al libro pagina dopo pagina, in una stretta mortale dalla quale non potrà districarsi facilmente. Questo è un libro per anime in tempesta, per cuori d’acciaio, scritto con il sangue degli eroi.

Solitario tra i solitari, Jünger mostra il volto del gelido vento della morte, riscaldato dall’alito di fuoco di quella fornace che è la guerra. La figura romantica del soldato Jünger che legge l’Orlando furioso piegato sulle ginocchia, in trincea, rende bene l’idea del sentimento che lo portò ad arruolarsi volontario in guerra. L’odio per la comoda vita borghese è ben descritto in queste righe: “Ogni senso di reputazione borghese era rimasto indietro, a distanze siderali. Cos’era la buona salute? Utile, semmai, a persone che contano di vivere a lungo”. Nota è ormai la massima jungeriana per cui è meglio essere un delinquente che essere un borghese. Un giovane inquieto come lui, in Italia, in seguito dirà che “Borghese è colui che sta bene ed è vile” (Benito Mussolini).  Questo libro breve ma intenso potrebbe essere preso a ragione come il Manifesto degli interventisti o dei militaristi. Per l’autore è la guerra a fare gli uomini, essa è “madre di tutte le cose”, siamo noi a modellare il mondo, non il contrario. La guerra, aggiunge, non è solo nostra madre, ma anche nostra figlia. L’abbiamo cresciuta così come ha fatto con noi. “Noi siamo fabbri e acciaio sfavillante allo stesso tempo, martiri di noi stessi spinti da intime pulsioni[...] La guerra è umana quanto l’istinto sessuale: è legge di natura, perciò non ci sottrarremo mal al suo fascino. Non possiamo negarla, altrimenti finiremo divorati.”

Qui di seguito ecco alcuni passaggi che meglio sottolineano le ragioni e le passioni che portarono Jünger, come altri uomini, a provare loro stessi sul campo di battaglia, in quel particolare frangente della Storia. Molte erano le aspettative di coloro che si arruolarono volontari negli eserciti delle grandi nazioni europee: “La guerra è una grande scuola, e l’uomo nuovo apparterrà alla nostra schiatta”. E poi, scriverà: “Il punto di cristallizzazione pareva raggiunto, il superuomo in procinto di arrivare[...] Tutto questo sembrò chiaro quando la guerra lacerò la compagine europea”. Queste le parole dello Jünger soldato, filosofo e scrittore. Egli incarna le pulsioni e i turbamenti dell’uomo del Novecento che si affaccia con volto risoluto alla Modernità. E si scontra. Se il Novecento è stato il grande secolo delle ideologie e della politica, così come dei grandi conflitti, vale allora la formula di Clausewitz per cui la guerra è la semplice continuazione della politica con altri mezzi, che nasce in seguito alla “frizione”. Arriva, cioè, laddove la diplomazia non è riuscita. E per gli appassionati della polemologia questa è una lettura consigliata. Molte le passioni e i sentimenti che scaturiscono in queste pagine, ma vi è anche spazio per la riflessione. Un giusto equilibrio tra ragione e sentimento.

“Ognuno può rapportarsi alla guerra come vuole, ma non la può negare. Quindi io m’impegno, in questo libro nel quale mi voglio rassegnare alla guerra, a osservarla come qualcosa che è stato ed è ancora in noi, a privarla di ogni preconcetto e a descriverla per quello che è.” E poi ancora: “La guerra è il più potente incontro tra i popoli. Mentre nel commercio e per le trattative, nelle gare sportive e ai congressi si muovono solo le personalità di punta, in guerra l’intera squadra conosce un solo obiettivo: il nemico”. Non è possibile la guerra senza l’uomo. Né l’uomo senza la guerra. Questa assumerà di volta in volta il volto e il nome che l’occasione le suggerirà: battaglia, lotta, lo scontro, frizione, incidente diplomatico…

Il coraggio è un sentimento, fulcro della guerra per Jünger: “Un soldato senza coraggio è come un Cristo senza fede. Ecco perché in un esercito il coraggio deve essere quanto di più sacro”. Nelle “Tempeste d’acciaio” si leggono parole di riconoscimento del valore e del rispetto del nemico: “Durante la guerra mi sforzai sempre di considerare l’avversario senza odio, di apprezzarlo secondo la misura del suo coraggio. In battaglia cercai di individuarlo per ucciderlo, senza attendere da lui cosa diversa”. Nessun odio verso i nemici. I Francesi? “Sono dei gran viveurs, loro. Gente gradevole, davvero. Io non li odio mica.” E poi: “Chi saremmo noi senza questi vicini audaci e senza scrupoli che ogni cinquant’anni ci puliscono la ruggine dalle lame?”.

Al nemico viene riconosciuto il valore del suo coraggio. E ne La battaglia come esperienza interiore scrive: “I cuori coraggiosi riconoscono istintivamente la vera grandezza. Il coraggio riconosce il coraggio”. Ecco una delle sue massime maggiori: “Il mondo potrà anche ribaltarsi, ma un cuore coraggioso sarà sempre saldo”. L’uomo di Heidelberg è figlio della guerra, figlio ed interprete acuto del suo tempo. Lui è l’uomo nato dalla guerra, nella guerra e per la guerra. Lui, cuore coraggioso, anima in tempesta. Come egli stesso sottolinea, lo spirito di un’epoca si concentra sempre in pochi individui solitari. In questo libro si può carpire lo spirito guerriero che forgiò l’Uomo nuovo della Grande Guerra. E lui è uno di quegli individui solitari, voce di un’epoca in radicale mutamento. Importante è anche il rapporto con la Donna, nelle opere di guerra di Jünger. In un altro scritto dello stesso genere, intitolato Il tenente Sturm, la donna viene definita dall’autore come “ministra del grande mistero”. E la donna non ama la guerra, ma ama i guerrieri. Curzio Malaparte disse: “Amo la guerra perché sono un uomo”. E Jünger coerentemente afferma: ” Esiste un solo punto di vista per contemplare il fulcro della guerra, ed è quello mascolino”. In uno dei capitoli più belli della Battaglia viene affrontato il rapporto uomo/donna guerra, ed in merito a ciò sottolinea: “Bisognava che anche le donne fossero d’acciaio, per non finire schiacciate nel tumulto”. Il racconto che invece viene accennato, con infinita poesia, nel capitolo Eros, riporta alla memoria l’immagine di uno studente tedesco (in cui possiamo facilmente riconoscere il giovane Ernst) e una contadina piccarda che fanno l’amore nel bel mezzo della guerra, nell’imperversare della tempesta, essi, “centrifugati su una scogliera bellica”, sono “due cuori accesi in un mondo ghiacciato”. E con queste immagini e magnifiche parole conclude il capitolo: “Due labbra accarezzavano l’orecchio dell’uomo, impegnate più che mai a versarvi tutta la melodia di una lingua straniera[...] Poi finivi sotto la grandine dei proiettili con i baci ancora tra i capelli. La morte ti veniva incontro come un’amica. Tu, chicco di grano maturo che cadi sotto la falce”. Questo è Jünger.

Per il grande scrittore di Heidelberg sembra valere il precetto di Julius Evola per cui “la patria è là dove si combatte”. E la guerra è una donna da possedere, almeno finché infuria la battaglia. L’uomo, la guerra e la donna: fili intrecciati di un inestricabile destino, di un ciclo infinito: Vita Amore e Morte. Oggi gli animi dei molti pacifisti che popolano il mondo postmoderno irriderebbero il romanticismo di cui talvolta sono impregnati gli scritti di guerra. Non potrebbero però evitare di rimanere colpiti e affascinati dallo stile di uno scrittore immenso come quello che oggi si è voluto ricordare.

Si vuol concludere ora con due stralci tratti, rispettivamente, dalle opere Il tenente Sturm e con la conclusione de La battaglia come esperienza interiore che spiegano bene la complessità della guerra nel pensiero di Enrst Jünger: “Laggiù una stirpe nuova dava vita a una nuova interpretazione del mondo, passando attraverso un’esperienza antichissima. La guerra era una nebbia originaria di possibilità psichiche, carica di sviluppi; chi tra i suoi effetti riconosceva solo l’elemento rozzo, barbarico coglieva, di un complesso gigantesco, un solo attributo, con l’identico arbitrio ideologico di chi vedeva soltanto il carattere eroico e patriottico”.

“Ma chi in questa guerra vede solo negazione e sofferenza e non l’affermazione, il massimo dinamismo, allora avrà vissuto da schiavo. Costui avrà avuto solo un’esperienza esteriore, non un’esperienza interiore.”

 

“I urged him to bomb..."

The Warmongering Record of Hillary Clinton

by GARY LEUPP

Ex: http://www.counterpunch.org

If reason and justice prevailed in this country, you’d think that the recent series of articles in the Washington Times concerning the U.S.-NATO attack on Libya in 2011 would torpedo Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects.

Clinton as U.S. Secretary of State at that time knew that Libya was no threat to the U.S. She knew that Muammar Gadhafi had been closely cooperating with the U.S. in combating Islamist extremism. She probably realized that Gadhafi had a certain social base due in part to what by Middle Eastern standards was the relatively equitable distribution of oil income in Libya.

But she wanted to topple Gadhafi. Over the objections of Secretary of “Defense” Robert Gates but responding to the urgings of British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicholas Sarkozy, she advocated war. Why? Not for the reason advertised at the time. (Does this sound familiar?) Not because Gadhafy was preparing a massacre of the innocents in Benghazi, as had occurred in Rwanda in 1994. (That episode, and the charge that the “international community” had failed to intervene, was repeatedly referenced by Clinton and other top officials, as a shameful precedent that must not be repeated. It had also been deployed by Bill Clinton in 1999, when he waged war on Serbia, grossly exaggerating the extent of carnage in Kosovo and positing the immanent prospect of “genocide” to whip up public support. Such uses of the Rwandan case reflect gross cynicism.)

No, genocide was not the issue, in Libya any more than in Kosovo. According to the Washington Times, high-ranking U.S. officials indeed questioned whether there was evidence for such a scenario in Libya. The Defense Intelligence Agency estimated that a mere 2,000 Libyan troops armed with 12 tanks were heading to Benghazi, and had killed about 400 rebels by the time the U.S. and NATO attacked. It found evidence for troops firing on unarmed protestors but no evidence of mass killing. It did not have a good estimate on the number of civilians in Benghazi but had strong evidence that most had fled. It had intelligence that Gadhafy had ordered that troops not fire on civilians but only on armed rebels.

The Pentagon doubted that Gadhafi would risk world outrage by ordering a massacre. One intelligence officer told the Washington Times that the decision to bomb was made on the basis of “light intelligence.” Which is to say, lies, cherry-picked information such as a single statement by Gadhafi (relentlessly repeated in the corporate press echoing State Department proclamations) that he would “sanitize Libya one inch at a time” to “clear [the country] of these rats.” (Similar language, it was said, had been used by Hutu leaders in Rwanda.) Now that the rats in their innumerable rival militias control practically every square inch of Libya, preventing the emergence of an effective pro-western government, many at the Pentagon must be thinking how stupid Hillary was.

No, the attack was not about preventing a Rwanda-like genocide. Rather, it was launched because the Arab Spring, beginning with the overthrow of the two dictators, President Ben Ali of Tunisia and President Mubarak of Egypt, had taken the west by surprise and presented it with a dilemma: to retain longstanding friendships (including that with Gadhafi, who’d been a partner since 2003) in the face of mass protests, or throw in its lot with the opposition movements, who seemed to be riding an inevitable historical trend, hoping to co-opt them?

Recall how Obama had declined up to the last minute to order Mubarak to step down, and how Vice President Joe Biden had pointedly declined to describe Mubarak as a dictator. Only when millions rallied against the regime did Obama shift gears, praise the youth of Egypt for their inspiring mass movement, and withdraw support for the dictatorship. After that Obama pontificated that Ali Saleh in Yemen (a key ally of the U.S. since 2001) had to step down in deference to protesters. Saleh complied, turning power to another U.S. lackey (who has since resigned). Obama also declared that Assad in Syria had “lost legitimacy,” commanded him to step down, and began funding the “moderate” armed opposition in Syria. (The latter have at this point mostly disappeared or joined al-Qaeda and its spin-offs. Some have turned coat and created the “Loyalists’ Army” backing Assad versus the Islamist crazies.)

Hillary, that supposedly astute stateswoman, believed that the Arab Spring was going to topple all the current dictators of the Middle East and that, given that, the U.S. needed to position itself as the friend of the opposition movements. Gadhafy was a goner, she reasoned, so shouldn’t the U.S. help those working towards his overthrow?

Of course the U.S. (or the combination of the U.S. and NATO) couldn’t just attack a sovereign state to impose regime change. It would, at any rate, have been politically damaging after the regime change in Iraq that had been justified on the basis of now well discredited lies. So the U.S. arm-twisted UNSC members to approve a mission to protect civilians in Libya against state violence. China and Russia declined to use their veto power (although as western duplicity and real motives became apparent, they came to regret this). The Libya campaign soon shifted from “peace-keeping” actions such as the imposition of a “no-fly” zone to overt acts of war against the Gadhafy regime, which for its part consistently insisted that the opposition was aligned with al-Qaeda.

The results of “Operation Unified Protector” have of course been absolutely disastrous. Just as the U,S. and some of its allies wrecked Iraq, producing a situation far worse than that under Saddam Hussein, so they have inflicted horrors on Libya unknown during the Gadhafi years. These include the persecution of black Africans and Tuaregs, the collapse of any semblance of central government, the division of the country between hundreds of warring militias, the destabilization of neighboring Mali producing French imperialist intervention, the emergence of Benghazi as an al-Qaeda stronghold, and the proliferation of looted arms among rebel groups. The “humanitarian intervention” was in fact a grotesque farce and huge war crime.

But the political class and punditry in this country do not attack Hillary for war crimes, or for promoting lies to promote a war of aggression. Rather, they charge her and the State Department with failure to protect U.S. ambassador to Libya John Christopher Stevens and other U.S. nationals from the attack that occurred in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. And they fault her for promoting the State Department’s initial “talking point” that the attack had been a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim YouTube film rather than a calculated terrorist attack. They pan her for sniping at a senator during a hearing, “What difference does it make (whether the attack had been launched by protestors spontaneously, or was a terrorist action planned by forces unleashed by the fall of the Gadhafi regime)”?

In other words: Hillary’s mainstream critics are less concerned with the bombing of Libya in 2011 that killed over 1100 civilians, and produced the power vacuum exploited by murderous jihadis, than by Hillary’s alleged concealment of evidence that might show the State Department inadequately protected U.S. diplomats from the consequences of the U.S.-orchestrated regime change itself. In their view, the former First Lady might have blood on her hands—but not that, mind you, of Libyan civilians, or Libyan military forces going about their normal business, or of Gadhafi who was sodomized with a knife while being murdered as Washington applauded.

No, she’s held accountable for the blood of these glorified, decent upstanding Americans who’d been complicit in the ruin of Libya.

This version of events is easy to challenge. It’s easy to show that Clinton skillfully—in full neocon mode, spewing disinformation to a clueless public—steered an attack an attack on Libya that has produced enormous blowback and ongoing suffering for the Libyan people. If a right-wing paper like Washington Times can expose this, how much more the more “mainstream” press? Could they at least not raise for discussion whether what Rand Paul calls “Hillary’s war” was, like the Iraq War (and many others) based on lies? Shouldn’t Hillary be hammered with the facts of her history, and her vaunted “toughness” be exposed as callous indifference to human life?

* * *

While championing the rights of women and children, arguing that “it takes a village” to raise a child, Clinton has endorsed the bombing of villages throughout her public life. Here are some talking points for those appalled by the prospects of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

*She has always been a warmonger. As First Lady from January 1993, she encouraged her husband Bill and his secretary of state Madeleine Albright to attack Serbian forces in the disintegrating Yugoslavia—in Bosnia in 1994 and Serbia in 1999. She’s stated that in 1999 she phoned her husband from Africa. “I urged him to bomb,” she boasts. These Serbs were (as usual) forces that did not threaten the U.S. in any way. The complex conflicts and tussles over territory between ethnic groups in the Balkans, and the collapse of the Russian economy following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, gave Bill Clinton an excuse to posture as the world’s savior and to use NATO to impose order. Only the United States, he asserted, could restore order in Yugoslavia, which had been a proudly neutral country outside NATO and the Warsaw Pact throughout the Cold War. President Clinton and Albright also claimed that only NATO—designed in 1949 to counter a supposed Soviet threat to Western Europe, but never yet deployed in battle—should deal with the Balkan crises.

The Bosnian intervention resulted in the imposition of the “Dayton Accord” on the parties involved and the creation of the dysfunctional state of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Kosovo intervention five years later (justified by the scaremongering, subsequently disproven reports of a Serbian genocidal campaign against Kosovars) involved the NATO bombing of Belgrade and resulted in the dismemberment of Serbia. Kosovo, now recognized by the U.S. and many of its allies as an independent state, is the center of Europe’s heroin trafficking and the host of the U.S.’s largest army base abroad. The Kosovo war, lacking UN support and following Albright’s outrageous demand for Serbian acquiescence—designed, as she gleefully conceded, “to set the bar too high” for Belgrade and Moscow’s acceptance—of NATO occupation of all of Serbia, was an extraordinary provocation to Serbia’s traditional ally Russia. “They need some bombing, and that’s what they are going to get,” Albright said at the time, as NATO prepared to bomb a European capital for the first time since 1945.

*Clinton has been a keen advocate for the expansion of an antiquated Cold War military alliance that persists in provoking Russia. In the same year that NATO bombed Belgrade (1999), the alliance expanded to include Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. But Clinton’s predecessor George H. W. Bush had promised Russia in 1989 that NATO would not expand eastward. And since the Warsaw Pact had been dissolved in 1991, and since Russia under Boris Yeltsin hardly threatened any western countries, this expansion has understandably been viewed in Russia as a hostile move. George Kennan, a former U.S. ambassador to the USSR and a father of the “containment” doctrine, in 1998 pronounced the expansion a “tragic mistake” with “no reason whatsoever.” But the expansion continued under George W. Bush and has continued under Obama. Russia is now surrounded by an anti-Russian military alliance from its borders with the Baltic states to the north to Romania and Bulgaria. U.S.-backed “color revolutions” have been designed to draw more countries into the NATO camp. Hillary as secretary of state was a big proponent of such expansion, and under her watch, two more countries (Albania and Croatia) joined the U.S.-dominated alliance.

(To understand what this means to Russia, imagine how Washington would respond to a Russia-centered “defensive” military alliance requiring its members to spend 2% of their GDPs on military spending and coordinate military plans with Moscow incorporating Canada and all the Caribbean countries, surrounding the continental U.S., and now moving to include Mexico. Would this not be a big deal for U.S. leaders?)

*As New York senator Clinton endorsed the murderous ongoing sanctions against Iraq, imposed by the UN in 1990 and continued until 2003. Initially applied to force Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, the sanctions were sustained at U.S. insistence (and over the protests of other Security Council members) up to and even beyond the U.S. invasion in 2003. Bill Clinton demanded their continuance, insisting that Saddam Hussein’s (non-existent) secret WMD programs justified them. In 1996, three years into the Clinton presidency, Albright was asked whether the death of half a million Iraq children as a result of the sanctions was justified, and famously replied in a television interview, “We think it was worth it.” Surely Hillary agreed with her friend and predecessor as the first woman secretary of state. She also endorsed the 1998 “Operation Desert Fox” (based on lies, most notably the charge that Iraq had expelled UN inspectors) designed to further destroy Iraq’s military infrastructure and make future attacks even easier.

*She was a strident supporter of the Iraq War. As a New York senator from 2001 to 2009, Hillary aligned herself with the neoconservatives in the Bush administration, earning a reputation as a hawk. She was a fervent supportive of the attack on Iraq, based on lies, in 2003. On the floor of the Senate she echoed all the fictions about Saddam Hussein’s “chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.” She declared, “He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.” She suggested that her decision to support war was “influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation.” (Presumably by the latter she meant the threats posed by Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo.) Her loss to Obama in the Democratic primary in 2008 was due largely to Obama’s (supposed) antiwar position contrasting with her consistently pro-war position. She has only vaguely conceded that her support for the invasion was something of a mistake. But she blames her vote on others, echoing Dick Cheney’s bland suggestion that the problem was “intelligence failures.” “If we knew know then what we know now,” she stated as she began her presidential campaign in late 2006, “I certainly wouldn’t have voted” for the war.

*She actively pursued anti-democratic regime change in Ukraine. As secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, Clinton as noted above endorsed NATO’s relentless expansion. She selected to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs the neocon Victoria Nuland, who had been the principal deputy foreign advisor to Cheney when he was vice president. The wife of neocon pundit Robert Kagan, Nuland is a war hawk whose current mission in life is the full encirclement of Russia with the integration of Ukraine into the EU and then into NATO. The ultimate goal was the expulsion of the Russian Black Sea Fleet from the Crimean Peninsula (where it has been stationed since 1783). She has boasted of the fact that the U.S. has invested five billion dollars in supporting what she depicts as the Ukrainian people’s “European aspirations.” What this really means is that the U.S. exploited political divisions in Ukraine to topple an elected leader and replace him with Nuland’s handpicked prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyev, deploying neo-Nazi shock troops in the process and generating a civil war that has killed over 5000 people.

Clinton has increasingly vilified Vladimir Putin, the popular Russian president, absurdly comparing the Russian re-annexation of the Crimean Peninsula following a popular referendum with Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland. She is totally on board the program of producing a new Cold War, and forcing European allies to cooperate in isolating the former superpower.

*She wanted to provide military assistance to the “moderate” armed opposition in Syria, to effect regime change, and after leaving office criticized Obama for not supplying more than he did. In 2011 Clinton wanted the U.S. to arm rebels who quickly became aligned with the al-Nusra Front (an al-Qaeda affiliate) and other extreme Islamists, in order to bring down a secular regime that respects religious rights, rejects the implementation of Sharia law, and promotes the education of women. The U.S. indeed has supplied arms to anti-Assad forces from at least January 2014, But as it happens the bulk of U.S. aid to the “moderate rebels” has been appropriated by Islamists, and some of it is deployed against U.S. allies in Iraq. It is now widely understood that the bulk of “moderate” rebels are either in Turkish exile or directed by CIA agents, while the U.S. plans to train some 5000 new recruits in Jordan. Meanwhile Assad has won election (as fair as any held in a U.S. client state like Afghanistan or Iraq) and gained the upper hand in the civil war. U.S. meddling in Syria has empowered the Islamic State that now controls much of Syria and Iraq.

*She has been an unremitting supporter of Israeli aggression, whenever it occurs. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz described her last year as “Israel’s new lawyer” given her sympathetic view of Binyamin Netanyahu’s 2014 bombardment of Gaza and even his desire to maintain “security” throughout the occupied West Bank. She postured as an opponent of Israel’s unrelenting, illegal settlements of Palestinian territory in 2009, but backed down when Netanyahu simply refused to heed U.S. calls for a freeze. In her memoir she notes “our early, hard line on settlements didn’t work”—as though she’s apologizing for it.

In 1999 as First Lady, Hillary Clinton hugged and kissed Yassir Arafat’s wife Suha during a trip to the West Bank. She advocated the establishment of a Palestinian state. She changed her tune when she ran for the New York Senate seat. When it comes to the Middle East, she is a total, unprincipled opportunist.

*Hillary tacitly endorsed the military coup against elected Honduran president Manuel Zelaya in 2009, refusing to call it such (even though Obama did). She made common cause with those who feared his effort to poll the people about constitutional reform would weaken their positions, made nice with the ensuing regime and made sure Zelaya would not return to office.

*She provoked China by siding with Japan in the Senkaku/ Daioyutai dispute. Departing from the State Department’s traditional stance that “we take no position” on the Sino-Japanese dispute about sovereignty over the Senkaku/ Daioyutai islands in the East China Sea, seized by Japan in 1895, Clinton as secretary of state emphasized that the islands fall within the defense perimeters of the U.S.-Japanese alliance. The warmongering neocon National Review in a piece entitled “In Praise of Hillary Clinton” praised her for “driving the Chinese slightly up a wall.”

*She helped bring down a Japanese prime minister who heeded the feelings of the people of Okinawa, who opposed the Futenma Marine Corps Air Force Station on the island. The new president Yukio Hatoyama, whose Democratic Party of Japan defeated the slavishly pro-U.S. Liberal Democratic Party in the general election of 2009, had promised to move the hated U.S. base in the heart of Ginowan city for the noise, air pollution and public safety hazards it causes. Clinton met with him, listened sympathetically, and said “no.” Hatoyama was obliged to apologize to the people of Okinawa, essentially conceding that Japan remains an occupied nation that doesn’t enjoy sovereignty. Nationwide his public support ratings fell from 70 to 17% and he was obliged to resign in shame after eight months in office.

*She made countless trips to India, signing bilateral economic and nuclear cooperation agreements with a country her husband had placed under sanctions for its nuclear tests in 1998. While castigating North Korea for its nuclear weapons program, and taking what a CIA analyst called a “more hard line, more conditional, more neoconservative [approach] than Bush during the last four years of his term,” she signaled that India’s nukes were no longer an issue for the U.S. India is, after all, a counterweight to China.

What can those who revere her point to in this record that in any way betters the planet or this country? Clinton’s record of her tenure in the State Department is entitled Hard Choices, but it has never been hard for Hillary to choose brute force in the service of U.S. imperialism and its controlling 1%.

This is a country of 323 million people. 88% of those over 25 have graduated high school. The world respects U.S. culture, science, and technology. Why is it that out of our well-educated, creative masses the best that the those who decide these things—the secretive cliques within the two official, indistinguishable political parties who answer to the 1% and who decide how to market electoral products—can come up with is the likely plate of candidates for the presidential election next year? Why is it that, while we all find it ridiculous that North Korea’s ruled by its third Kim, Syria by its second Assad, and Cuba by its second Castro, the U.S. electorate may well be offered a choice between another Clinton and another Bush? As though their predecessors of those surnames were anything other than long-discredited warmongering thugs?

GARY LEUPP is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached at: [e-mail]