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, 03 février 2018

La Russie, centre de contre-culture

Polienko_Ivan_Winter_In_Zagorsk_medium_254186.jpg

La Russie, centre de contre-culture

Ex: http://www.dedefensa.org

Des sites russes d’inspiration nettement proche de l’Église chrétienne orthodoxe diffusent les résultats d’une enquête sur l’évolution des opinions concernant des questions sociétales extrêmement présentes aujourd’hui. Les résultats sont évalués sur un temps assez long, sur les vingt années qui nous séparent de 1998, ce qui permet d’avoir une indication de tendance profonde. D’autres précisions, venues d’autres sources complètent le travail avec d’autres précisions dans les mêmes domines. Le chiffre le plus marquant est celui de l’évolution du nombre d’avortements, passant en 25 ans de 5 millions (en 1993) à 600 000 (en 2017), et cela accompagnant une évolution également remarquable dans le jugement des personnes qui ont été interrogées pour l’enquête : le pourcentage des personnes jugeant l’avortement “inacceptable” est passé de 12% en1998 à 35% en 2017, – alors que cette pratique était elle-même institutionnalisée durant la période communiste (sauf pendant la période 1936-1955). Tous les autres résultats sur les questions sociétales vont dans le même sens.

Le fait que cette enquête se fasse sur ce “temps assez long” est d’une réelle importance, surtout pour la Russie. Il permet une comparaison entre la Russie post-URSS “occidentalisée” type-Eltsine des années 1990 et celle d’aujourd’hui. Outre les conditions économiques, son évolution culturelle (et donc psychologique) se déplace exactement à l’inverse de la politique générale suivie dans le bloc-BAO, sous l’impulsion du Système.

C’est le site Orthochristian.com, version anglaise du site en russe Pravoslavie.ru, qui publie le texte (le 12 janvier 2018) sur cette enquête et les divers à-côtés.

« La proportion de citoyens russes qui considèrent l'avortement comme inacceptable a triplé au cours des 20 dernières années, passant de 12% à 35%. La condamnation de l’adultère et des relations homosexuelles a également augmenté de manière significative, selon les données d'un récent sondage sociologique du Levada Center. Selon les experts, le changement dans l'opinion publique atteste du renforcement des valeurs familiales traditionnelles, rapporte Pravoslavie.ru.

» L'enquête nationale réalisée fin décembre 2017 a montré que la majorité des Russes (68%) condamnent les relations sexuelles extra-conjugales, alors que seulement 50% les condamnaient en 1998. Ce pourcentage de 2017 comprend 77% de femmes et 57% d'hommes. Les personnes interrogées qui désapprouvant les relations homosexuelles sont passés de 68 à 83% au cours de la même période, avec seulement 1% de différence entre les hommes et les femmes.

» En ce qui concerne le sondage sur l’avortement (jugé inacceptable par 35% des sondés contre 12% en 1998), le pourcentage des réponses est équivalent selon les situations économiques, y compris st dans le cas des familles à faible revenu. Les femmes ont adopté une position plus stricte, avec 37% condamnant l'avortement dans tous les cas, contre 31% des hommes. Aucune différence n'a été observée en ce qui concerne l'âge de la femme qui répond.

» Karina Pipia, sociologue du Centre Levada, a noté que les chiffres démontrent une tendance générale conservatrice dans la nation, bien que les répondants des petites villes et des villages soient plus fidèles à l'avortement en raison du faible revenu. Le président de la Société russe des obstétriciens-gynécologues, Vladimir Serov, a déclaré au journal Izvestia que les avortements ont diminué de 800% en Russie au cours des 25 dernières années, passant d'environ 5 millions à 600 000 chaque année.

» Cette évolution a été facilitée par un certain nombre de mesures, notamment le soutien économique de l'État aux familles, la création de centres de soutien aux femmes enceintes en difficulté, le développement de la contraception et le développement de l'éducation sur les dangers de l'avortement. Le directeur scientifique de l'Institut indépendant de la famille et de la démographie Igor Beloborodov considère que le changement d’opinion publique sur l’avortement est le résultat de la politique gouvernementale et du travail éducatif de l'Église orthodoxe russe.

» Alors qu'il y a eu une tendance positive à la diminution du nombre d'avortements, cet acte terrible reste légal en Russie, avec environ 2 000 enfants tués chaque jour. L'Église et diverses sociétés orthodoxes organisent régulièrement des manifestations pro-vie à Moscou et dans tout le pays. Le mouvement “Pour La Vie !” a organisé hier (11 janvier 2018) une cérémonie symbolique avec 2 000 bougies allumées durant une moleben dans une église de Moscou, pour symboliser les enfants perdus tous les jours du fait des avortements. En outre, plus d'un million de signatures ont été recueillies dans toute la Russie l'année dernière, appelant à une interdiction législative de l'avortement. »

Le commentaire que nous allons faire écarte absolument tout débat de fond sur les diverses questions qui sont abordées (avortement, homosexualité, concubinage, etc.). Ce qui nous intéresse, c’est la question des tendances profondes qu’illustrent ce sondage et les autres événements cités. Le fait que le site rapportant la chose d’une manière favorable soit chrétien orthodoxe n’est pas indifférent : le poids de l’Église chrétienne orthodoxe russe, autant que la politique familiale et sociétale du gouvernement depuis les premières années-Poutine, jouent un rôle considérable dans l’évolution constatée. Il n’empêche que cette évolution n’apparaît pas forcée, mais bien facilitée par ces politiques institutionnelles. A côté des agitations souvent très médiatisées, – et pour cause, – des minorités pro-occidentalistes toutes suspectes d’“intelligence avec l’ennemi”, il existe aujourd’hui en Russie un accord profond entre la population, sa direction politique et sa hiérarchie religieuse. Cet accord est une affirmation de type néo-conservateur, dans le vrai sens de l’expression exactement contraire au “neoconisme” US qui est un parfait usurpateur du sens des mots et des choses, – rien pour nous étonner, dans cela.

Par conséquent, il nous paraît peu indiqué de monter tel ou tel procès indigné sur ce parti-pris ici ou là, ni d’éditos vengeurs sur “ces populations rétrogrades”, ces “fachos-réacs’” et toute cette saltimbanquerie, – ce néologisme pour exprimer l’épuisement de nos âmes poétiques devant ce traquenard où tombent tant d’esprits aiguisés. Ce qui nous intéresse c’est l’essentiel, savoir les positions et les forces s’exerçant par rapport au Système, pour ou contre. Il faut laisser notre emportement affectiviste courant de croire à la centralité du débat sociétal pour admettre cette évidence que ce débat sociétal fait partie de la stratégie considérablement puissante du Système, et que c’est par conséquent en fonction de ce fait central (la stratégie du Système) et rien d’autre qu’il faut déterminer, affirmer et assurer sa position.

Dès lors, le constat est le suivant : la Russie est devenue, en profondeur d’elle-même et en cela retrouvant sa tradition, un centre de contre-culture face à la postmodernité et le Système. Il est évident que les autorités politiques et religieuses l’y poussent ; avec une direction politique qui est aussi radicale dans les domaines culturel et social, avec effet sur le sociétal, qu’elle est modérée dans le domaine économique par rapport par rapport à l’“offre” pressante du bloc-BAO d’adopter ses références-Système ; avec une hiérarchie religieuse extrêmement pugnace dans la défense des intérêts culturels russes dans le sens de la tradition... Les accusations de corruption que colportent régulièrement les porte-voix de la communication-Système contre ces directions n’ont pas d’effets de rupture dans la mesure où cette corruption, qu’elle apparaisse ou pas du point de vue vénal, ne touche pas le niveau psychologique. (En aucun cas, on ne peut en dire autant des élites-Système du bloc-BAO.)

(De même, les accusations d’“autoritarisme” qui fondent la stratégie antirussistes du bloc-BAO n’ont d’autres effets que de mettre en lumière la position d’agonie accélérée dans le désordre et le nihilisme du “modèle démocratique” du bloc-BAO et du Système. C’est dans ce contexte qu’il faut poser un jugement.)

Cette situation implique effectivement que la Russie constitue non plus un obstacle, mais un véritable “barrage culturel” contre la tentative permanente d’invasion de la culture-Système dont le programme implique l’équation déstructuration-dissolution-entropisation (dd&e). Du fait même de cet antagonisme, et quoi qu’on pense selon la moraline courante de façon parcellaire et cloisonnée de toutes ces positions et options, la situation générale russe est perçue comme s’opposant à la poussée dissolvante du Système et devient de ce fait, par simple logique antagoniste, complètement structurante pour la Russie elle-même. Cette perception du Système ne peut aller qu’en s’amplifiant parce qu’elle se nourrit à l’antirussisme qui lui-même se renforce de la perception qu’il induit : logique fermée parfaite.

Pour autant, il ne faut pas conclure que les Russes offrent un “contre-modèle” : leur contre-culture est uniquement défensive et d’ailleurs ne prétend à rien d’autre, ni ne peut prétendre à rien d’autre car c’est effectivement dans le mode défensif qu’elle est réellement efficace en mettant en évidence les outrances et les vices de l’adversaire. La Russie n’est pas en position d’offrir un “contre-modèle” parce qu’elle n’a pas les instruments pour le faire, ni encore moins la capacité conceptuelle. (Personne n’a d’ailleurs cette capacité conceptuelle ni “les instruments” pour l’opérationnaliser, bien entendu : nous sommes en attente de la chute du Système.) La Russie servant donc de “barrage culturel” a comme véritable fonction opérationnelle de faire s’épuiser le Système dans son hostilité à son encontre, et par conséquent d’accélérer son propre effondrement en cours. Tout cela trace une certaine situation d’équilibre pour la Russie dans laquelle Poutine occupe la place qui convient, – ce qui explique aussi bien sa popularité que les intentions de vote pour l’élection présidentielle (actuellement, 81,1% en faveur de Poutine).

 

Mis en ligne le 24 janvier 2018 à 13H40

Fernando Pessoa

FP-porti2.jpg

Fernando Pessoa

Fernando Pessoa was the greatest Portuguese poet of the modern era and arguably one of the most interesting and protean literary figures of the twentieth century. His vast body of work, some of which remains unpublished, includes hundreds of poems as well as essays on philosophy, religion, literature, and politics. His verse combines avant-garde modernism with pagan mysticism and a vision of national rebirth.

Following the death of his father, his family moved to Durban, South Africa, where the young Pessoa spent most of his childhood. Coincidentally Durban was also the hometown of the South African poet Roy Campbell, who hailed Pessoa as a modern Camões.[1] [2] In Durban Pessoa learned to write fluently in English and received a thorough education in English literature. His first major success came at 15, when he won an award for an English-language essay. He returned to Lisbon two years later and enrolled in the University of Lisbon but dropped out two years later and became an autodidact. During this time he spent his days at the National Library of Portugal and read widely. He spent the rest of his life in Lisbon, making a living as a translator of commercial correspondence.

FP-por1.pngOne of his earliest influences was Thomas Carlyle, whose concept of the “hero as poet” as described in Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History made a particular impression on him; from a young age, Pessoa saw his vocation as a poet as an heroic, almost messianic calling.

Although Pessoa was active in Portuguese literary circles, he was mostly unknown outside of Portugal during his lifetime. He achieved posthumous literary fame when it was discovered upon his death that he had left behind a trunk full of several thousand pages of unpublished work. The ordeal of editing and cataloguing his works is still in progress.

Pessoa is best known for his use of numerous literary alter egos, which he termed heteronyms. Behind each heteronym was a meticulously crafted persona possessing a complex biography and a distinct temperament, worldview, and writing style. He used more than 70 heteronyms over the course of his life, beginning with adolescent experiments in creating elaborate fictional newspapers complete with news, poems, jokes, and essays authored under various heteronyms. The three main heteronyms he consistently used were Alberto Caeiro, a man of humble origins and lover of nature; Ricardo Reis, a classics scholar and Stoic; and Álvaro de Campos, a naval engineer, world traveler, and Futurist dandy. His heteronyms frequently engaged in dialogues with each other and criticized each other’s works. Pessoa’s work is rife with seeming contradictions, like the man himself: by turns nostalgic and futuristic, cerebral and impassioned, decadent and ascetic, etc.

Among his heteronyms was one “semi-heteronym,” the quasi-autobiographical Bernardo Soares. Pessoa wrote The Book of Disquiet, his greatest prose work, under Soares’s name. (He ascribed the first part to Vicente Guedes and the second to Soares.) The Book of Disquiet is at once a novel, poem, philosophical essay, character study, and “autobiography without events.”[2] [3] Guedes/Soares is an introspective loner with a melancholy temperament, not unlike Pessoa. An bookkeeping assistant by day, he feels imprisoned by the tedium of modern office life and becomes thoroughly disillusioned with the modern world. He finds refuge in cultivating within himself an attitude of aristocratic detachment and complete disinterest in the outside world and escaping into a dreamlike parallel reality. Much of the text reads like fragmentary recollections of dreams and is suffused with rich lyricism and mystical, surreal imagery.

The second phase of the book opens with a statement on religion in the modern world: “I was born at a time when most young people had lost their belief in God for much the same reason that their elders had kept theirs—without knowing why.”[3] [4] Soares then identifies “the worship of Humanity, with its rituals of Liberty and Equality” as a modern substitute for religion and scorns the hollow ideals of liberalism and egalitarianism.[4] [5] Pessoa in his own writings was likewise a fierce critic of the modern cult of “humanity” on the grounds that internationalism had the effect of erasing natural human differences and believed it did little to fill the spiritual vacuum of modernity. In his view this void could only be filled through the creation of art: instead of seeking to express reality, art must itself become reality.

Soares heaps especial scorn upon liberal reformers and their crudely optimistic faith in humanity. Indeed his political apathy and his detachment from the modern world lead him to condemn political revolutionaries of all stripes. Being self-aware, he recognizes that this stance is a symptom of modern decadence but ultimately remains perpetually suspended in a liminal realm between action and inaction (again much like Pessoa himself). This state of unease and ambiguity characterizes The Book of Disquiet both thematically and in a literal sense, as the work was never completed and consists of disjointed fragments, aphorisms, etc. The novel provides a fascinating mirror into the psychology of modern man and the quest to find meaning amid a decaying society.

Pessoa is best known for The Book of Disquiet among the general public, but in his homeland he is primarily known for his 1934 epic poem Message, one of the few works he published during his lifetime and the only one published in Portuguese. He did not write in standard Portuguese but instead in the orthography used before the First World War, which lends the poem an antiquated feel in the original. It consists of 44 short poems grouped into three parts, representing three stages of Portugal’s history. Message became a Portuguese national epic and soon after its publication won second prize in a contest organized by the propaganda branch of António Oliveira de Salazar’s corporatist regime.

FP-porti3.jpg

The first part, “Brasão” (“Coat of Arms”), has in turn five sections: The Fields, The Castles, The Escutcheons, The Crown, and The Crest, each representing a component of the coat of arms of the Kingdom of Portugal. The coat of arms remains a Portuguese national symbol and is thought to date back to the reign of Afonso I (known as “the Conqueror” and “the Founder”), the first king of Portugal. The shield of the coat of arms can be found on the modern Portuguese flag. The first poem, “The Fields of the Castles,” refers to the bordure of castles in Portugal’s coat of arms that represent Moorish castles conquered by the Kingdom of Portugal during the Reconquista. Pessoa begins by invoking Portugal’s role in the Age of Discovery, describing the European continent as a woman whose face—Portugal—stares westward. The second, “The Fields of the Escutcheons,” refers to the escutcheons in the center of the shield. Each escutcheon bears five white dots, thought to represent the five wounds of Christ, or alternatively the five wounds suffered by Afonso Henriques in the Battle of Ourique (in which he defeated the Moorish Almoravids). Here he defends the notion that glory is borne from misfortune and struggle.

The 17 remaining poems in the first part consist of poems in honor of Portuguese heroes. He begins with Ulysses. According to legend, Lisbon was founded by Ulysses on his journey home from Troy, and Roman authors referred to the city as “Ulyssippo”/”Olissippo.” Pessoa believed that the roots of Portuguese culture lay in ancient Greece and was fascinated with classical antiquity. (Indeed, Lusitanian mythology incorporated the influences of both Celtic and Greco-Roman mythology.) He deems Ulysses one of the founders of the Portuguese nation, despite that he exists only in legend:

Myth is the nothing that is everything.
The very sun that breaks through the skies
Is a bright and speechless myth—
God’s dead body,
Naked and alive.

This hero who cast anchor here,
Because he never was, slowly came to exist.
Without ever being, he sufficed us.
Having never come here,
He came to be our founder.

Thus the legend, little by little,
Seeps into reality
And constantly enriches it.
Life down below, half
Of nothing, perishes.[5] [6]

Next is a poem in honor of Viriathus, a military leader who led the revolts of the Lusitanians (an Indo-European tribe of Celtic origin concentrated in modern-day Portugal) against the Romans during the 2nd century B.C. The remaining titles include Afonso Henriques, who became the first king of Portugal; his parents, the Count and Countess of Portugal; King John I; Prince Henry the Navigator; King Sebastian I; Nuno Álvares Pereira; and others.

King Sebastian I was of particular significance for Pessoa. Toward the end of his life, Sebastian embarked upon a crusade against the Kingdom of Morocco. Ignoring the advice of his top advisors, he marched inland with his entire army. In the Battle of Alcácer Quibir in 1578 (dramatized in Donizetti’s Dom Sébastien), the Portuguese army was routed and it was thought that Sebastian perished, although his body was never found. The absence of an heir to the throne following Sebastian’s death ignited the Portuguese succession crisis of 1580, and Portugal was thrown into turmoil. Philip II of Spain gained control of the Portuguese throne in 1581, uniting Spain and Portugal under the Iberian Union. This marked the beginning of Portugal’s decline. Since Sebastian’s death was never confirmed, many Portuguese hoped that one day he would return to save the nation. A cult grew around this “king in the mountain” myth and Sebastian became Portugal’s equivalent of King Arthur. It was prophesied that one day Sebastian would return and lead Portugal into a new era of imperial glory.

FP-p4.png

The second part, “Mar Português” (“Portuguese Sea”), is a paean to Portuguese maritime exploration during the Age of Discovery. Here Pessoa eulogizes explorers such as Vasco da Gama, Bartholomeu Dias, and Ferdinand Magellan and describes their journeys at sea. The following short poem describes Vasco da Gama’s ascension following his death, invoking the Titans and the gods of Olympus and comparing da Gama to Jason, leader of the Argonauts:

The Gods of the storm and the giants of Earth
Halt the rage of their war and gape.
In the valley leading up to the skies
A silence falls; then there’s a stirring
And a specter rising in veils of mist.
Fears flank it while it lingers; its vestige
Rumbles in distant clouds and flashes.

On the earth below, the shepherd freezes
And his flute falls as in rapture he sees,
By the light of a thousand thunderbolts,
The sky’s vault open to the Argonaut’s soul.[6] [7]

The title of the third part, “O Encoberto” (“The Hidden One”), refers to a revelation attributed to St. Isidore of Seville, who envisioned that a Messiah would arrive known as “O Encoberto.” This prophecy was popularized during the sixteenth century by a cobbler by the name of Gonçalo Anes (“O Bandarra”); King Sebastian was thought to be “O Encoberto.” In the first two sections, Pessoa invokes the voice of Sebastian and prophesies that he will return, in spirit if not in body, and bring about the Fifth Empire. (He identifies the first four “empires” as Greece, Rome, Christendom, and Europe.) Followers of Sebastianism looked to Daniel 2 in the Bible, in which Daniel interprets the four metals of the statue in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream to signify four great kingdoms that will be followed by a fifth, as a prophecy of the Fifth Empire. In the third section, Pessoa describes the current state of Portugal and states that the hour has come for the prophecy to be fulfilled.

Imperialism deserves criticism from an ethnonationalist point of view. It negates the idea of self-sovereignty and represents the tyranny of commerce and financial greed. Portugal specifically also played a leading role in the Atlantic Slave Trade, which ultimately had disastrous consequences. Nonetheless it is necessary to distinguish the heroism and courage of European explorers during the Age of Discovery from the mercantile greed that was the driving force of colonialist expansion. “Who wants to pass beyond Bojador,” Pessoa writes in “Mar Português” (the Portuguese explorer Gil Eanes was the first to discover a route around Cape Bojador, known for its cold winds and violent storms), “must also pass beyond pain.” Carl Schmitt was highly critical of “thalassocratic” colonial empires but nonetheless admired “the intrepid performance of seamen in their sailing ships, the high art of navigation, the solid training and strict selection of a particular human type fit for it,” which he contrasted with “modern, hazard­-free, and technicized maritime traffic.”[7] [8]

Furthermore Pessoa’s vision of the Fifth Empire does not represent a revanchist imperative to conquer the world and reinstate colonialism and imperialism. Rather he envisioned that Portugal would stand at the forefront of a global literary and artistic renaissance and would regain national dignity through cultural renewal. The Sebastianism of Message represented a symbolic national myth that he believed would unite the Portuguese people.

Message has often been compared to Camões’s Os Lusíadas, an epic poem chronicling Vasco da Gama’s discovery of a sea route to India. Both invoke heroic and nationalistic themes. Both are also reminiscent of ancient epics, particularly Os Lusíadas. The opening lines of Os Lusíadas recalls Virgil’s Aeneid and are followed by an episode in which the Olympian gods and goddesses gather to deliberate over Vasco da Gama’s voyage and split into two parties, one favoring the Portuguese and the other in opposition to them. The gods accompany da Gama throughout his journey and Greco-Roman mythology in general figures prominently throughout the poem.

FP-porti5.jpg

Pessoa’s greatest inspiration was ancient Greece. He was an avid Hellenist and dreamed of a renaissance of the ancient gods. This point of view is shared among his heteronyms. He articulated his views on religion most thoroughly through Antonio Mora, a disciple of Caeiros, who wrote some treatises on the subject and argued that paganism was the religion most in harmony with nature. His most interesting argument here involves a discussion of how a Christian, pantheist, materialist, and pagan would perceive any given object. Regarding Christians, he remarks: “Whoever values something because it was created by ‘God’ values it not for what it is but for what it recalls. His eyes behold the object, but his thoughts lie elsewhere.”[8] [9] For the materialist, each object is simply “a screen through which he atomistically peers, just as for the pantheist it is a screen or window for perceiving the Whole, and for the creationist a screen through which to see God.”[9] [10] Only the pagan is capable of perceiving reality to the full. Pessoa under his own name laid out a similar view in his writings on what he termed “sensationism.”

Mora also cites the polytheism and plurality inherent in paganism and argues that this lends it greater objectivity: “Reality, when it first appears to us, is multiple. By referring all received sensations to our individual consciousness, we impose a false unity (false to our experience) on the original multiplicity of things.”[10] [11] Pessoa believed that metaphysical subjectivism lay at the root of modern decadence. His use of heteronyms thus represented an extension of his religious views and an attempt to reflect nature in all its plurality.

Mora’s remark on being a pagan in the modern world will resonate with dissidents:

What relationship can an age like this one have with a spiritual heir to the race of constructors, with a soul inspired by paganism’s glorious truths? None, except one of instinctive rejection and automatic scorn. We, the only dissenters from decadence, are thus forced to assume an attitude that, by its nature is likewise decadent. An attitude of indifference is a decadent attitude, and our inability to adapt to the current milieu forces us to just such an attitude. We don’t adapt, because healthy people cannot adapt to a sick milieu, and since we don’t adapt, it is we who are sick. This is the paradox in which those of us who are pagans live.[11] [12]

In 1924 Pessoa founded a short-lived literary journal called Athena in which he published essays, poems, and translations under his three main heteronyms as well as his own name. These included translations from the Greek Anthology, Ricardo Reis’s Horace-inspired classical odes, and selections from Alberto Caeiro’s The Keeper of Sheep. The journal both eulogized pagan antiquity and stood at the vanguard of literary modernism; it represented “a denial of the old querelle des Anciens et des Modernes, and an impressive attempt to find an ancient form of dramatic art in modern times.”[12] [13]

Athena was an attempt to revive the movement surrounding the similarly short-lived journal Orpheu, which dissolved after the publication of two issues in 1915. It was responsible for introducing modernism to Portugal and was named for Orpheus to symbolize its forward-looking orientation. Orpheu represented a wide variety of literary currents ranging from Symbolism to Futurism. The most notable poems in Orpheu were the poems of Pessoa’s Álvaro de Campos. In “Opiario,” written while sailing through the Suez Canal on an eastward voyage, he describes with despair his opium addiction and the tedium of life aboard his ship. Directly following was “Ode Triunfal,” which takes place later in his evolution (although in reality Pessoa wrote it earlier), a Futurist ode to modern technology that extols the “great human tropics of iron and fire and strength.” There was also “Ode Maritima,” in which a man on a deserted quay gazes at a faraway steamer; “a steering wheel begins to turn, slowly” in his imagination, launching a stream-of-consciousness ode to “shipwrecks, far-off voyages, dangerous crossings,” pirate adventures, and so forth.

FP-6.jpgPessoa was also fascinated with the occult and wrote extensively on the subject, largely under his own name. In 1915, he began translating theosophist texts and later claimed to have become a medium with the ability to produce automatic writing. He also claimed to have “sudden flashes of ‘etheric vision'” that enabled him to perceive certain symbols and “auras.”[13] [14] He later came to distance himself from Theosophy, however, objecting to what he saw as its egalitarian premise and the theosophical ideal of a universal brotherhood of humanity, which in his view rendered it scarcely different from Christianity and liberal humanism (which he referred to as Christianity’s secular equivalent).

Pessoa also maintained a correspondence with Aleister Crowley. An avid astrologer, he first made contact with Crowley in 1930 by pointing out an astrological error in his Confessions. Crowley visited Portugal later that year and Pessoa aided him in faking his death. He also translated Crowley’s “Hymn to Pan” into Portuguese.[14] [15]

The glorification of Sebastianism as national myth in Message had an occult component. Pessoa’s vision of the Fifth Empire was a spiritual one and the arc of Message represents a religious quest, both on an individual and national level. The final part of Message alludes to Arthurian legend throughout (the Holy Grail, Excalibur, Sir Galahad). In “O Desejado” (“The Yearned-for One”), the narrator exhorts Sebastian to lift up Excalibur, his “anointed sword.” In “O Encoberto” (the poem that gives the final part its name), Pessoa also links Sebastianism with Rosicrucianism.

Pessoa is frequently compared to W. B. Yeats: in addition to their shared interest in the occult (Yeats was a member of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn) and their use of alternate personae (Yeats’s “masks” and Pessoa’s heteronyms), both were “mystical nationalists” who wrote poetry of a pagan, heroic character through which they sought to bring about a renaissance in their respective nations. Pessoa admired Yeats’s poetry and was influenced by the Irish Literary Revival. The following lists some parallels between the two regarding their shared “underlying mythopoeic goal” and is worth quoting:

Pessoa’s concept of the ‘Portuguese soul’ is analogous to what Yeats calls ‘the permanent character of the race’ in ‘First Principles.’ Not only that, but he also attributes the same characteristics to it as those which Yeats attributed to the Celts in ‘The Celtic Element in Literature,’ namely an adventurous, tragic and mystical nature. The similarities extend to Pessoa’s characterization of the ‘Portuguese soul’ as originating from ancient dreams, which recalls Yeats’s depiction of his ideal of ‘Unity of Culture’ as ‘a nationwide multiform reverie.’ Yeats believed that by drawing on his country’s legends and folklore, a poet could reveal the Anima Mundi, or rather ‘a Great Memory passing on from generation to generation.’ Pessoa also believed that poets should derive their inspiration from ‘o que nas almas há de superindividual’ [that which is supra-individual in souls].[15] [16]

Also like Yeats, Pessoa was a man of the Right who opposed modern liberalism and egalitarianism. He described the ideal state as an “aristocratic republic” governed by an elite based on merit (rather than birth).[16] [17] Although he had reservations about fascism in his later years, he criticized it nonetheless from a right-wing perspective.

As a young man, Pessoa was a staunch opponent of monarchy and the Catholic Church, which he considered to be corrupt, moribund institutions and to which he attributed Portugal’s decline. (Other factors he associated with Portugal’s decline were “foreign influence, the oligarchy of political bosses, and the decline ofWestern civilization itself.”)[17] [18] He initially supported the First Portuguese Republic and was associated with the Portuguese Renaissance, a movement of intellectuals who sought to lend the republic cultural legitimacy, but turned against the new government when it became clear that it had not improved upon the flaws of the recently deposed monarchy. He supported the military coup d’état on May 28, 1926, which he believed would reinvigorate the nation following the failure of the republic. In a pamphlet written in 1928, he argued that military dictatorship was a useful temporary measure through which national consciousness could be strengthened.[18] [19] He also supported Salazar’s Estado Novo for this reason. However, he later began to grow disillusioned with Salazar and criticized the regime’s ban on Freemasonry and what he perceived as Salazar’s lack of interest in cultural affairs.

FP-7.jpgThe theme of decay and the need for national regeneration runs throughout his political writings, particularly his unfinished “History of a Dictatorship,” a survey of modern Portuguese history in which he attempts to outline the causes for Portugal’s decline.[19] [20] Pessoa viewed the state as akin to an organism that, on account of its inherent plurality, possesses a natural tendency toward disintegration. Like the ancients, he held that unity ought to be the principle aim of politics and that achieving national unity would enable the state to resist decline. He writes in “The Portuguese Regicide and the Political Situation in Portugal”:

Let us apply to the organism called the state the general law of life. Which are the elements (composing the cells) of this organism? Obviously the people, that is, the individuals composing the nation. Which is then, in the state, the force that integrates, which is the force that disintegrates? There is an exact analogy—how could there not be, since both are living “bodies”?—with the individual organism. Thus, in the state, obviously, the disintegrating force is that which makes the people many—their number—and the integrating force is that which makes them one, a people—the unification of sentiments, of character brought about by identity of race, of climate, of history, etc.[20] [21]

Pessoa also commented on certain political events outside of Portugal, particularly in his English-language poetry. At 16, he wrote a sonnet on the Second Boer War entitled “Joseph Chamberlain,” a scathing indictment of Chamberlain’s role in causing the war and the brutal treatment of the Boers in South Africa. He also drafted a sonnet in which he excoriated Lord Horatio Herbert Kitchener, the man responsible for the establishment of concentration camps during the war. He commended the Irish volunteers who had sided with the Boers and also lent support to Irish nationalism.[21] [22]

In his short story The Anarchist Banker, Pessoa takes aim at modern capitalism and classical liberalism. It takes the form of a conversation between a cigar-smoking senior banker and a younger interlocutor. The banker is a left-wing anarchist who sets out to argue that his being a banker does not contradict the ideals of liberty and equality that he espouses. Indeed he argues that financial acquisitiveness is the logical culmination of his ideals, and by extension of modern liberalism. In order to obtain true freedom and equality (the two main pillars of modernity), he argues that man must be freed from all existing social structures. But he is averse to any collective attempts to foment revolution due to the fact that social hierarchies will inevitably arise in any group (the banker is realistic about natural disparities in talent and willpower among humans, in spite of his hope that human inequality will eventually be eliminated). Thus he advocates the pursuit of pure self-interest, arguing that “we should all work for the same end, but separately.”[22] [23] Due to the fact that money/commerce is the prevailing “social fiction” in the modern age, the end goal of social liberation is, to his mind, best achieved by simply making as much money as possible; the erosion of this “social fiction” would then pave the way for complete societal upheaval. It is a compelling argument that sheds light on some of the contradictions behind the underlying axioms of modernity.

The best collections of Pessoa’s work in English translation are The Selected Prose of Fernando Pessoa (2001), Fernando Pessoa & Co: Selected Poems (1999), and A Little Larger Than the Entire Universe: Selected Poems (2006).

Notes

[1] [24] George Monteiro, “Fernando Pessoa: an Unfinished Manuscript by Roy Campbell,” Portuguese Studies, vol. 10 (1994): 126. Pessoa and Campbell attended the same high school, although not at the same time. Campbell translated some of Pessoa’s poems and had intended to write a book on him.
[2] [25] Fernando Pessoa, The Book of Disquiet, trans., Margaret Jull Costa (New York: New Directions Books, 2017), 191.
[3] [26] Ibid., 146. Pessoa wrote “opening passage” in the margins of this fragment and Richard Zenith’s translation places it at the beginning of the book.
[4] [27] Ibid., 147.
[5] [28] Zenith’s translation.
[6] [29] Zenith’s translation.
[7] [30] Carl Schmitt, Land and Sea, trans. Simona Draghici (Washington, D.C.: Plutarch Press, 1997), 54.
[8] [31] The Selected Prose of Fernando Pessoa, trans. Richard Zenith (New York: Grove Atlantic, 2001).
[9] [32] Ibid.
[10] [33] Ibid.
[11] [34] Ibid.
[12] [35] Steffen Dix, Portuguese Modernisms: Multiple Perspectives in Literature and the Visual Arts (New York: Routledge, 2011).
[13] [36] The Selected Prose of Fernando Pessoa.
[14] [37] For more information on their correspondence see Marco Pasi and Patricio Ferrari, “Fernando Pessoa and Aleister Crowley: New discoveries and a new analysis of the documents in the Gerald Yorke Collection,” Pessoa Plural, vol. 1 (Spring 2012).
[15] [38] Patricia Silva-McNeill, Yeats and Pessoa: Parallel Poetic Styles (New York: Routledge, 2010), 94.
[16] [39] José Barreto, “‘History of a Dictatorship’: An Unfinished Political Essay by the Young Fernando Pessoa,” trans., Mario Pereira. In Patricio Ferrari & Jerónimo Pizarro, eds., Fernando Pessoa as English Reader and Writer (Dartmouth, MA: Tagus Press, 2015): 132.
[17] [40] Barreto, 139.
[18] [41] The Selected Prose of Fernando Pessoa.
[19] [42] Barreto, 110.
[20] [43] Fernando Pessoa, The Transformation Book, eds., Nuno Ribeiro and Claudia Souza (New York: Contra Mundum Press, 2014), 12-13.
[21] [44] See Carlos Pittella, “Chamberlain, Kitchener, Kropotkine—and the political Pessoa,” Pessoa Plural, vol. 10 (Fall 2016).
[22] [45] The Selected Prose of Fernando Pessoa.

 

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

URL to article: https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/01/fernando-pessoa/

La trilogie EUROPA sur Radio Méridien Zéro !

Meridienne-330-500x340.jpg.pagespeed.ic.v63yd2wRSm.jpg

La trilogie EUROPA sur Radio Méridien Zéro !

Monsieur PGL vous propose un entretien avec notre ami Robert Steuckers, à l’occasion de la trilogie qu’il publie aux éditions Bios et qui est la somme de ses écrits et réflexions sur le destin de notre continent. Ce sera l’occasion également de revenir sur son parcours.

A la barre PGL, à la technique JLR.

Pour écouter:

https://radiomz.org/emission-n330-europa-eurasia-identite...

 

Le prophète de la grande Europe, Jean Thiriart

ob_d853ef_thiriart-ars-magna.jpg

Le prophète de la grande Europe, Jean Thiriart

par Yannick Sauveur

Ex: http://www.leblancetlenoir.com 

En Suède, en Europe de l'Est, en Italie, en Espagne, en Amérique latine, Jean Thiriart est traduit, cité, mentionné favorablement. Des travaux universitaires, des livres sont en cours. La revue d’études géopolitiques Eurasia, dirigée par Claudio Mutti, reproduit très régulièrement des écrits de (ou sur) Thiriart. En France, des chercheurs, bien que ne lui étant pas favorables, reconnaissent, avec une certaine objectivité, l'influence déterminante des idées de Thiriart, c’est le cas de l’historien Nicolas Lebourg. Dans l’ouvrage Europa (trois volumes) que vient de publier Robert Steuckers, deux chapitres sont consacrés à Jean Thiriart.  (https://editionsbios.fr/auteur/robert-steuckers).

Le livre que viennent de publier les éditions Ars Magna, Le prophète de la grande Europe, Jean Thiriart, participe de ce mouvement. Il rassemble un certain nombre de textes devenus introuvables et qui, même en leur temps, avaient eu une diffusion ultra confidentielle. Aussi, faut-il saluer l’heureuse initiative de Christian Bouchet qui, même s’il ne partage, loin de là, toutes les analyses de Thiriart, n’en est pas moins un proche.

Dans une telle entreprise, les erreurs sont inévitables. Il serait bon toutefois qu’une bonne fois pour toutes, les auteurs cessent de répéter tout et n’importe quoi sans opérer la moindre vérification. Il en est ainsi de la rencontre entre Thiriart et Chou-en-Laï, laquelle n’est que pure imagination ainsi que j’ai eu l’occasion de le signaler en citant un courrier de Thiriart adressé à José Cuadrado et à moi-même : « Un livre de dénonciation-chantage vient d’être mis en vente en Belgique [...] On m’y consacre 20 pages de ragots. Pas un mot de mes écrits ou de mes livres. J’y apprends que j’ai rencontré Chou-En-Laï à Bucarest. Pas moins… » (26/02/1983). Certes, à des fins de propagande, Thiriart a exploité le filon, l’a enjolivé, et ce, d’autant mieux que cela flattait son narcissisme exacerbé. Mais à quoi bon aujourd’hui persévérer dans l’entretien de telles légendes ? Il en est de même de sa prétendue rencontre avec Nasser.

Il n’est pas exact de dire (ou redire) que Thiriart a soutenu la création du Parti communautaire national-européen même si, effectivement, il a donné un certain nombre d’articles à la revueConscience Européenne éditée à Charleroi par Luc Michel. Là aussi, je rappelle ce que j’ai eu l’occasion d’écrire en citant une lettre de Thiriart à Manuel Abramowicz, journaliste à Regards, revue juive de Belgique : « Michel a créé tout seul son PCN (Parti Communautaire National-Européen). En utilisant 95 % de mes écrits. Je n'ai jamais mis les pieds à Charleroi. Je n'ai jamais été membre (sic) du PCN ».

Christian Bouchet a rassemblé les textes suivants :

  • L’entretien réalisé avec le général Péron et paru dans le n° 30 et dernier de La Nation européenne (février 1969). On comprend qu’il ne soit pas facile de faire des choix parmi l’ensemble des éditoriaux et divers écrits de Thiriart. Christian Bouchet, avec  l’interview de Péron, a retenu le côté emblématique. Il serait intéressant, par la suite, de rééditer l’ensemble des éditoriaux de La Nation européenne.
  • L’entretien accordé aux Cahiers du CDPU (1976) qui est la première manifestation publique de Thiriart depuis son arrêt de toute politique active en 1968,
  • Et surtout l’entretien avec Bernardo-Gil Mugarza qui a milité dans sa jeunesse à Joven Europa, le réseau espagnol de Jeune Europe. L’entretien avec Mugarza date de 1983 et c’est vraiment le moment fort du livre (300 pages d’un livre qui en compte près de 500 !). Thiriart se livre complètement sur tous les sujets, sans fioritures, sans tabou. L’évolution de la pensée politique est nette  par rapport à celle qu’il développait en 1964. Avec ce texte, les jeunes, ou tout simplement ceux qui ne connaissent pas Thiriart, découvriront tout à la fois un vrai penseur politique et une personnalité charismatique,
  • La Turquie, la Méditerranée et l’Europe, article paru dansConscience Européenne  (juillet 1987) dans lequel Thiriart écrit : « La Turquie, c’est l’Europe obligatoirement. Obligatoirement par la géopolitique et par la stratégie ». À la lecture de cet article, et compte tenu du contexte actuel, il n’est pas sûr que le lecteur partage l’analyse strictement rationnelle de Thiriart,
  • Enfin un article paru dans la revue Nationalisme et République (juin 1992), Europe : L’État-nation politiquecorrespondant aux idées que Thiriart développera à Moscou en août 1992. C’est un texte évidemment très important reflétant une pensée très aboutie mais c’est aussi l’un des derniers écrits de Thiriart qui meurt quelques mois plus tard.

Dans une seconde partie, on trouve des écrits sur Thiriart. C’est une partie plus modeste du volume et de notre point de vue d’une  moindre valeur exception faite de l’excellent article de  Carlo Terracciano paru dans la brochure d’hommage In Memoriam Jean Thiriart (1993), que nous avions réalisée, Luc Michel, Robert Steuckers et moi-même. Carlo Terracciano (1948-2005), qui n’a rencontré Thiriart qu’une fois (à Moscou en 1992), dresse un portrait d’une infinie justesse et il nous restitue l’homme tel qu’il était réellement pour ceux qui l’ont connu en privé.

Dans les témoignages figure un texte d’Ernesto Milá Rodriguez, Le nationalisme européen et ses limites. Quelles que soient les motivations des uns et des autres, il était inévitable de voir fleurir les interprétations les plus diverses. Ernesto Milá Rodriguez a bien le droit d’avoir sa propre vision, son appréciation personnelle de la pensée de Thiriart. Là n’est pas le problème. Nous pensons qu’il eût été pertinent d’accompagner ce texte de celui de José Cuadrado Costa, L’anarchisme mystique ou la paralysie de l’action révolutionnaire (Conscience Européenne, N° 12, mai 1985, p.16-40) qui répond point par point à l’article d’EMR. Le point de vue de JCC est important parce qu’en tant que collaborateur le plus proche de Thiriart, il traduit très précisément la pensée de Thiriart. L’article de Cuadrado est une longue critique argumentée s’insurgeant contre le fait que Jean Thiriart serait, selon EMR, avec Julius Évola, le principal « révisionniste » du fascisme. Cuadrado cite diverses erreurs d’appréciation, dont celle qui se rapporterait, pour Thiriart, à la nécessité de « réviser le nationalisme jacobin » alors qu’il est de notoriété que Thiriart était un grand admirateur de Sièyes et des Jacobins. Les têtes de paragraphes se passent de commentaires : « Une tentative néo-fasciste de récupération de l’œuvre de Thiriart », « une incompréhension totale de la pensée de Thiriart »,... On peut être d’accord ou non avec Thiriart et ne pas partager (ou ne pas comprendre) son évolution, encore convient-il de ne pas travestir voire déformer ses propos. Assurément, l’article de Cuadrado mériterait une réédition.

Que ces quelques réserves ne fassent pas oublier l’essentiel, à savoir l’importance de ce livre, la nécessité de le lire, de le faire circuler.

Yannick Sauveur

Pour mémoire, mon livre QSJ Thiriart, Éditions Pardès, 2016.

sarl.pardes@orange.fr 

ob_eb8d03_thiriart.jpg

Je signale également mon entretien avec la rédaction de Rivarol, N° 3315 du 31/1/2018.Jean Thiriart, de la Collaboration au mythe de la Grande Europe (le titre est de la rédaction).

 Le prophète de la grande Europe, Jean Thiriart vous est proposé au prix de 32 euros  (franco) à Ars Magna, BP 60426, 44004 Nantes cedex 1 ou commande en direct à www.editions-ars-magna.com