The Rivkin Project: How Globalism Uses Multiculturalism to Subvert Sovereign Nations

The Rivkin Project:
How Globalism Uses Multiculturalism to Subvert Sovereign Nations, Part 1

Kerry BOLTON

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

During October 19–22, 2010, Charles Rivkin, US Ambassador to France, invited a 29-member delegation from the Pacific Council on International Policy (PCIP) to a conference in France, the main purpose of which was to discuss Arab and Islamic relations in the country.[1] The meeting was part of a far-reaching subversive agenda to transform that entire character of France and in particular the consciousness of French youth, which includes the use of France’s Muslim youth in a typically manipulative globalist strategy behind the usual façade of “human rights” and “equality.”

Globalist Delegation at US Embassy

The PCIP report states of the conference:

. . . The delegation further focused on three key themes. First, the group examined Franco-Muslim issues in France through exchanges with Dr. Bassma Kodmani, Director of the Arab Reform Institute, and Ms. Rachida Dati, the first female French cabinet member of North African origin and current Mayor of the 7th Arrondissement in Paris. A trip to the Grand Mosque of Paris and a meeting with the Director of Theology and the Rector there provided additional insight. Second, meetings with Mr. Jean-Noel Poirier, the Vice President of External Affairs at AREVA (a highly innovative French energy company), and with Mr. Brice Lalonde, climate negotiator and former Minister of the Environment, highlighted energy and nuclear policy issues and the differences between U.S. and French policies in these arenas. And finally, the delegation explored the connections between media and culture in California (Hollywood) and France in meetings at the Louvre, the Musee D’Orsay, and at FRANCE 24 — the Paris-based international news and current affairs channel.[2]

The over-riding concern seems to have been on matters of a multicultural dimension, including not only Arab and Islamic relations in France, but perhaps more importantly in the long term, a discussion on the impact of Hollywood “culture” on the French.

The USA has long played a duplicitous game of “fighting terrorism” of an “Islamic” nature as one of the primary elements of its post-Cold War stratagem of manufactured permanent crises, while using “radical Islam” for it own purposes, the well-known examples being: (1) Supporting Bin Ladin in the war against Russia in Afghanistan, (2) backing Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran, (3) supporting the Kosovo Liberation Army in ousting Serbian sovereignty over mineral rich Kosovo, the KLA having been miraculously transformed from being listed by the US State Department as a “terrorist organization,” to becoming “freedom fighters.”

When US globalists pose as friends of Muslims, the latter should sup with the Great Shaitan with an exceedingly long spoon.

What is the Pacific Council on International Policy?

The PCIP of which Rivkin is a member was founded in 1995 as a regional appendage of the omnipresent globalist think tank, the Council on Foreign Reactions (CFR),[3] is headquartered in Los Angeles, but “with members and activities throughout the West Coast of the United States and internationally.” Corporate funding comes from, among others:

Carnegie Corporation of New York
Chicago Council on Foreign Relations
City National Bank
The Ford Foundation
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
The Rockefeller Foundation
United States Institute of Peace[4]

The PCIP is therefore yet another big player in the globalist network comprising hundreds of usually interconnected organizations, lobbies, “civil society” groups, NGOs, and think tanks, associated with banks and other corporations. As usual, there is a conspicuous presence by Rockefeller interests.

Why France?

France has long been a thorn in the side of US globalism because of its stubborn adherence to French interests around the world, rather than those of the manufactured “world community,” although the Sarkozy regime is an exception. However, France is one of the few states left in Western Europe with a strong national consciousness. The best way of destroying any such feeling — which translates too often into policy — is to weaken the concepts of nationhood and nationality by means of promoting “multiculturalism.”

Was it only coincidence that the 1968 student revolt, sparked by the most puerile of reasons, occurred at a time both when the CIA was very active in funding student groups around the world, and when President De Gaulle was giving the USA maximum trouble in terms of foreign policy? De Gaulle did little to play along with American’s post-war plans. He withdrew France form NATO command, during in World War II was distrusted by the USA.[5]

Of particular concern would have been De Gaulle’s advocacy of a united Europe to counteract US hegemony.[6] In 1959 he stated at Strasbourg: “Yes, it is Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, it is the whole of Europe, that will decide the destiny of the world.” The expression implied co-operation between a future Europe and the USSR. In 1967 he declared an arms embargo on Israel and cultivated the Arab world. This is the type of legacy that globalists fear.

With the buffoonery of Sarkozy, and mounting tension with disaffected Muslim youth, a backlash could see an intransigently anti-globalist, “xenophobic” regime come to power. In today’s context, what better way now to subvert French nationalism and any potential to revive as an anti-globalist force, than to use its large, unassimilated Islamic component, just as the Bolshevik revolution was undertaken to a significant extent by the disaffected minorities of the Russian Empire?

Of interest also is the concern this delegation had for the influence of Hollywood on French culture. This might seem at first glance to be an odd concern. However, Hollywood, as the economic symbol of globalist cultural excrescence, is an important factor in globalization, in what amounts to a world culture-war. Ultimately the goal of globalism is not to promote the survival of ethnic cultures and identities, but rather to submerge them into one big melting pot of global consumerism, to uproot every individual from an identity and heritage and replace that with the global shopping mall, and the “global village.” Therefore multiculturalism should be viewed as the antithesis of what it is understood as being.

So far from the global corporates wanting to promote so-called multiculturalism in terms of assuring the existence of a multiplicity of cultures, as the term implies; it is to the contrary part of a dialectical process whereby a under the facade of ideals, peoples of vastly different heritage are moved across the world like pawns on a chess board, the aim being to break down culturally specific nations. It is an example of Orwellian “doublethink.”[7]

It is notable that the instigators of the “velvet revolutions” now sweeping North Africa and reaching into Iran are largely “secularized” youths without strong traditionalist roots. Similarly, the best way to solve France’s ethnic conflicts and to assure that France does not re-emerge again to confront US/globalist interests, is to dialectically create a new cultural synthesis where there is neither a French culture nor an Islamic culture, but under the banner of “human rights” and “equality,” a globalist youth-based culture nurtured by Hollywood, MTV, cyberspace, MacDonald’s and Pepsi.

That this is more than hypothesis is indicated by the manner by which the secular youth revolts now taking place in North Africa have been spawned by an alliance of corporate interests, sponsored by the US State department and sundry NGOs such as Freedom House.[8] The North African “revolutionaries” toppling regimes are just the type of “Muslim” that the globalists prefer; imbued with the cyber-consumer mentality.

So what are Rivkin and the US State Department up to in France, that they should be so interested in the place of Hollywood and of Muslims in the country?

Notes

1. “2010 France Country Dialogue,” PCIP,  http://www.pacificcouncil.org/page.aspx?pid=583

2. “2010 France Country Dialogue,” ibid.

3. “Founded in 1995 in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations,” PCIP, Governance, http://www.pacificcouncil.org/page.aspx?pid=373

4. Corporate and Foundation funding: http://www.pacificcouncil.org/page.aspx?pid=513

5. S. Berthon, Allies At War (London: Collins, 2001), p. 21.

6. A. Crawley, De Gaulle (London: The Literary Guild, 1969), p. 439.

7. “The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them . . .” George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (London: Martin Secker and Warburg, 1949), Part 1, Ch. 3, p. 32.

8. K. R. Bolton, “Twitters of the World Unite! The Digital New-New Left as Controlled Opposition,” Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4. Tony Cartalucci, “Google’s Revolution Factory – Alliance of Youth Movements: Color Revolution 2.0,” Global Research, February 23, 2011, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23283

The Rivkin Project:
How Globalism Uses Multiculturalism to Subvert Sovereign Nations, Part 2

The Rivkin Project for Subverting French Youth

In 2010 when US ambassador Charles Rivkin invited a delegation of fellow Pacific Council on International Policy members to France, he had outlined a program for the Americanization of France that primarily involved the use of the Muslim minorities and the indoctrination of French youth with corporate globalist ideals. The slogan invoked was the common commitment of France and America historically to “equality.”

Wikileaks released the “confidential” program. It is entitled “Minority Engagement Strategy.”[1] Here Rivkin outlines a program that is a flagrant interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation and, more profoundly, seeks to change the attitudes of generations of Muslim and French youth so that they merge into a new globalist synthesis; or what might be called a new humanity: Homo economicus, or what the financial analyst G. Pascal Zachary calls “The Global Me,”[2] to achieve what Rivkin describes as the USA’s “national interest.”

Rivkin begins by stating that his embassy has created a “Minority Engagement Strategy” that is directed primarily at Muslims in France. Rivikin states as part of the program: “We will also integrate the efforts of various Embassy sections, target influential leaders among our primary audiences, and evaluate both tangible and intangible indicators of the success of our strategy.”[3]

Rivkin is confident that France’s history of ideological liberalism “will serve us well as we implement the strategy outlined here . . . in which we press France . . .” Note the phrase: “press France.” America’s global agenda is linked by Rivkin to his blueprint for transforming France into “a  thriving, inclusive French polity [which] will help advance our interests in expanding democracy and increasing stability worldwide.” The program will focus on the “elites” of the French and the Muslim communities, but will also involve a massive propaganda campaign directed at the “general population,” with a focus on youth.

At high levels US officials will place French officials on the defensive. The program also includes redefining French history in the school curricula to give attention to the role of non-French minorities in French history. It means that the Pepsi/MTV generation of Americans will be formulating new definitions of French culture and writing new pages of French history to accord with globalist agendas. Towards this end: “. . . we will continue and intensify our work with French museums and educators to reform the history curriculum taught in French schools.”

“Tactic Number Three” is entitled: “Launch Aggressive Youth Outreach.” As in other states targeted by the US State Department and their allies at the Soros network, Freedom House, Movement.org, National Endowment for Democracy, Solidarity Center,[4] and so forth; disaffected youth are the focus for change. Leading the charge on this effort, the Ambassador’s inter-agency Youth Outreach Initiative aims to “engender a positive dynamic among French youth that leads to greater support for US objectives and values.” Can the intentions be stated any plainer? It is Americanization culturally and politically.

It is here that we can most easily get past the cant and clearly see what is behind the strategy: to form a generation “that leads to greater support for US objectives and values.” These “US objectives and values” will be sold to the French as French values on the basis of the bourgeois ideals of 1789 which continue to encumber French ideology on both Left and Right. They will be taught to think that they are upholding French traditions, rather than acting as agents of change according to “American values”: the values of the global village and the global shopping mall. A far-reaching program incorporating a variety of indoctrination methods is outlined:

To achieve these aims, we will build on the expansive Public Diplomacy programs already in place at post, and develop creative, additional means to influence the youth of France, employing new media, corporate partnerships, nationwide competitions, targeted outreach events, especially invited US guests.[5]

The program directed at youth in France is similar to that directed at the youth that formed the vanguard of the “velvet revolutions” from Eastern Europe to North Africa. Potential leaders are going to be taken up by the US State Department in France and cultivated to play a part in the future France of American design:

We will also develop new tools to identify, learn from, and influence future French leaders.

As we expand training and exchange opportunities for the youth of France, we will continue to make absolutely certain that the exchanges we support are inclusive.

We will build on existing youth networks in France, and create new ones in cyberspace, connecting France’s future leaders to each other in a forum whose values we help to shape — values of inclusion, mutual respect, and open dialogue.[6]

Here Rivkin is advocated something beyond influencing Muslims in France. He is stating that a significant part of the program will be directed towards cultivating French youth, the potential leaders, in American ideals, under the façade of French ideals. The US State Department and their corporate allies and allied NGOs intend to “shape their values.” The globalist program for France is stated clearly enough to be the re-education of French youth. One would think that this is the most important role of the French Government, the Catholic Church and the family; the latter two in particular. American bureaucrats and their inane sidekicks recruited from professions are to formulate new “French values.”

As in the states that are chosen for “velvet revolutions” part of the strategy includes demarcating the political confines. As Hillary Clinton recently stated in regard to the type of state the US Establishment expects to emerge after Qadaffi, the new Libya should be an inclusive democracy, open to all opinions, as long as those opinions include a commitment to “equality” and “democracy”; in other words, there must be a new dispensation of freedom in Libya, so long as that freedom does not extend beyond America’s definition of it. And if someone oversteps the lines of acceptable democracy, American bombers are on standby. In the context of France, however, it is clear that the demarcation of French politics according to globalist dictates cannot include any elements of so-ccalled “xenophobia” (sic), which in today’s context would include a return to the grand politics of the De Gaulle era. Hence, “Tactic 5” states:

Fifth, we will continue our project of sharing best practices with young leaders in all fields, including young political leaders of all moderate parties so that they have the toolkits and mentoring to move ahead. We will create or support training and exchange programs that teach the enduring value of broad inclusion to schools, civil society groups, bloggers, political advisors, and local politicians.[7]

Rivkin is outlining a program to train France’s future political and civic leaders. While the programs of US Government-backed NGOs, such as the National Endowment for Democracy — ostensibly designed to develop entire programs and strategies for political parties in “emerging democracies,” such as the states of the ex-Soviet bloc — can be rationalized by way of a lack of a heritage of liberal-democratic party politics, the same rationale can hardly be used to justify America’s interference in France’s party politics.

Towards this end Rivkin states that the 1,000 American English language teachers employed at French schools will be provided with the propaganda materials necessary to inculcate the desired ideals into their French pupils: “We will also provide tools for teaching tolerance to the network of over 1,000 American university students who teach English in French schools every year.”

The wide-ranging program will be co-ordinated by the “Minority Working Group” in “tandem” with the “Youth Outreach Initiative.” One of the problems monitored by the Group will be the “decrease in popular support for xenophobic political parties and platforms.” This is to ensure that the program is working as it should to block the success of any “extreme” or “xenophobic” party that might challenge globalization.

Rivkin clarifies the subversive nature of the program when stating: “While we could never claim credit for these positive developments, we will focus our efforts in carrying out activities, described above, that prod, urge, and stimulate movement in the right direction.”

What would the reaction be if the French Government through its Embassy in Washington undertook a program to radically change the USA in accordance with “French national interests,” inculcating through an “aggressive outreach program” focusing on youth, “French ideals” under the guise of “American ideals on human rights.” What would be the response of the US Administration if it was found that the French Government were trying to influence the attitudes also of Afro-Americans, American-Indians, and Latinos? What would be the official US reaction if it was found that French language educators in American schools and colleges were trying to inculcate American pupils with ideas in the service of French interests?

The hypothetical reaction can be deduced from the US response to the “Soviet conspiracy” when Senate and Congressional committees were set up to investigate anyone even vaguely associated with the USSR. So what’s different? The USA perpetrates a subversive strategy in the interests of it globalist cooperate elite, instead of in the interests of the USSR or communism. It is not as though the USA has had much of a cultural heritage that it can present itself to any European nation, let alone France, as the paragon of good taste and artistic refinement upon which a national identity can be constructed. It this matter, it is a case of deconstruction.

Notes

1. C. Rivkin, “Minority Engagement Report,” US Embassy, Paris, http://www.wikileaks.fi/cable/2010/01/10PARIS58.html

2. G. Pascal Zachary, The Global Me: Why Nations will succeed or Fail in the Next Generation (New South Wales, Australia: Allen and Unwin, 2000).

3. Rivkin.

4. K. R. Bolton, “The Globalist Web of Subversion,” Foreign Policy Journal, February 7, 2011, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/07/the-globalist-web-of-subversion/

5. Rivkin.

6. Rivkin.

7. Rivkin.

The Rivkin Project:
How Globalism Uses Multiculturalism to Subvert Sovereign Nations, Part 3

The Role of Multiculturalism in the Globalist Agenda

Many nefarious aims have been imposed under the banner of multiculturalism and slogans such as “equality” and “human rights.” As “democracy” has been used to justify the bombing states throughout recent history, these slogans often serve as rhetoric to beguile the well-intentioned while hiding the aims of those motivated by little if anything other than power and greed.

One might think of the manner by which the issue of the Uitlanders was agitated to justify the Anglo-Boer wars for the purpose of procuring the mineral wealth of South Africa for the benefit of Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Beit, et al.

A similar issue was revived in our own time, under the name of “fighting apartheid,” and while the world was jubilant at the assumption to power of the ANC, the reality has been that the Africans have not benefited materially one iota, but the parastatals or state owned enterprises are being privatized so that they can be sold off to global capitalism. When the patriarch of South African capitalism, Harry Oppenheimer, whose family was a traditional foe of the Afrikaners, died in 2000,Nelson Mandela eulogized him thus:  “His contribution to building partnership between big business and the new democratic government in that first period of democratic rule can never be appreciated too much.”[1]

The “democracy” Oppenheimer and other plutocrats in tandem with the ANC created in South Africa is the freedom for global capital to exploit the country. Mandela stated the result of this “long march to freedom” in 1996: “Privatization is the fundamental policy of the ANC and will remain so.”[2] In commenting on the privatization of the Johannesburg municipal water supply, which is now under the French corporation Suez Lyonnaise Eaux, the ANC issued a statements declaring that: “Eskom is one of a host of government owned ‘parastatals’ created during the apartheid era which the democratically elected government has set out to privatise in a bid to raise money.”[3] It is the same outcome for South Africa that was achieved by the “liberation” of Kosovan minerals in the name of “democracy” and in the name of the rights of Muslims under Serb rule, while other Muslims under their own rule are bombed into submission by the USA and its allies.

The Aims of Global Capitalism

The nature of the globalist dialectic has been explained particularly cogently by Noam Chomsky:

See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist — it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn’t built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist — just because it’s anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic — there’s no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all the junk that’s produced — that’s their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance.[4]

The Chomsky statement cogently expresses the situation in its entirety.

France as a Social Laboratory for Globalization

The Rivkin offensive is the latest in a long line of programs for undermining French identity. France is a paradox, combining the cosmopolitan values of the bourgeois Revolution of 1789 with a stubborn traditionalism and nationalism, which the globalists term “xenophobia.” It is manifested even in small ways such as the legal obligation of French public servants and politicians to speak only French to the foreign media, regardless of their knowledge of any other language; or the widespread resistance in France to McDonalds and Disney World.

France, like much of the rest of the world, however, is fighting a losing cultural battle against globalization. Jeff Steiner’s column “Americans in France,” refers to the manner by which the French at one time resisted the opening of the American fast food franchise as “part of an American cultural invasion.” Steiner writes:

. . . That seems to be past as McDonalds has so become a part of French culture that it’s not seen as an American import any longer, but wholly French. In short, McDonalds has grown on the French just like in so many other countries.

I’ve been to a few McDonalds in France and, except for one in Strasbourg that looks from the outside to be built in the traditional Alsatian style, all McDonalds in France that I have seen look no different than their American counterparts.

Yes, there are those that still curse McDo (They are now a very small group and mostly ignored) as the symbol of the Americanization of France and who also see it as France losing its uniqueness in terms of cuisine. The menu in a French McDonalds is almost an exact copy of what you would find in any McDonalds in the United States. It struck me as a bit odd that I could order as I would in the United States, that is in English, with the odd French preposition thrown in.

If truth were told, the French who eat at McDonalds are just as much at home there as any American could be.[5]

This seemingly trivial example is actually of immense importance in showing just how a culture as strong as that of France — until recently an immensely proud nation — can succumb, especially under the impress of marketing towards youngsters. It is a case study par excellence of the standardization that American corporate culture entails. It is what the globalist elite desires on a world scale, right down to what one eats.

It is notable that the vanguard of resistance to McDonalds came from farmers, a traditionalist segment of Europe’s population that is becoming increasingly anomalous and under the globalist regime will become an extinct species as agriculture gives way to agribusiness.

Given France’s status in Europe and its historical tendency to maintain its sovereignty in the face of US interests — even quite recently with its opposition to the war against Iraq — France remains one globalism’s few stumbling blocks in Europe. An added concern is that the French will take their stubborn “xenophobia” to the polls and elect a stridently anti-globalist party, as reflected in the electoral ups and downs of the Front National, which opposes both globalization and privatization.

This is a major reason for Rivkin’s far-reaching subversive and interventionist program to assimilate Muslims into French society, which would fundamentally transform French consciousness to be more thoroughly cosmopolitan. The intention is clear enough in the Rivkin embassy documents where it is stated that the Embassy will monitor the effects of the “outreach” program on the “decrease in popular support for xenophobic political parties and platforms.”

Contra the “xenophobia” of France, R. J. Barnet and R. E. Müller’s study of the global corporation, Global Reach,[6] based on interviews with corporate executives, shows that the French business elite has long been seeking to undermine the foundations of French tradition. Jacques Maisonrouge, president of the IBM World Trade Corporation “likes to point out that ‘Down with borders,’ a revolutionary student slogan of the 1968 Paris university uprising – in which some of his children were involved – is also a welcome slogan at IBM.”[7] Maisonrouge stated that the “World Managers” (as Barnett and Muller call the corporate executives) believe they are making the world “smaller and more homogeneous.”[8] Maisonrouge approvingly described the global corporate executive as “the detribalized, international career men.”[9] It is this “detribalization” that is the basis of a “world consumer culture” required to more efficiently create a world economy.

Paris is already a cosmopolitan center and therefore ideal as a prototype for the “global city” of the future. In the 1970s Howard Perlmutter and Hasan Ozekhan of the Wharton School of Finance Worldwide Institutions Program prepared a plan for a “global city.” Paris was chosen for the purpose. Prof. Perlmutter was a consultant to global corporations. His plan was commissioned by the French Government planning agency. Perlmutter predicted that cities would become “global cities” during the 1980s.

For Paris, this required “becoming less French” and undergoing “denationalization.” This, he said, requires a “psycho-cultural change of image with respect to the traditional impression of ‘xenophobia’ that the French seem to exude.” The parallels with the current Rivkin program are apparent. Perlmutter suggested that the best way of ridding France of its nationalism was to introduce multiculturalism. He advocated “the globalization of cultural events” such as international rock festivals, as an antidote to “overly national and sometimes nationalistic culture.”[10]

Undermining France’s “overly national and sometimes nationalistic culture” is the reason Rivkin sought to foster stronger connections between Hollywood and the French culture industry.[11] Rivkin knows the value of entertainment in transforming attitudes, especially among the young. After working as a corporate finance analyst at Salomon Brothers, Rivkin joined The Jim Henson Company in 1988 as director of strategic planning. Two years later, he was made vice president of the company.

The Jim Henson Company produces Sesame Street, whose cute little muppets push a well-calculated globalist agenda to toddlers. Lawrence Balter, professor of applied psychology at New York University, wrote that Sesame Street “introduced children to a broad range of ideas, information, and experiences about diverse topics such as death, cultural pride, race relations, people with disabilities, marriage, pregnancy, and even space exploration.” The series was the first to employ educational researchers, with the formation of a Research Department.[12] Sesame Street has received funding from the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, and the US Office of Education. Of passing interest is that the Carnegie Corporation and the Ford Foundation are also patrons of the Pacific Council on International Policy.

Creating the World Consumer

As Chomsky has pointed out, global capitalism sees humanity in terms of interchangeable cogs in the production and consumption cycle. The summit of corporate human evolution is transformation into “detribalized, international career men.” According to financial journalist G. Pascal Zachary, these rootless cosmopolitans constitute an “informal global aristocracy” recruited all over the world by corporations, depending totally on their companies and “little upon the larger public,” a new class unhindered by national, cultural, or ethnic bonds.[13]

Barnett and Muller quoted Pfizer’s John J. Powers as stating that global corporations are “agents for change, socially, economically and culturally.”[14] They stated that global executives see “irrational nationalism” as inhibiting “the free flow of finance capital, technology, and goods on a global scale.” A crucial aspect of nationalism is “differences in psychological and cultural attitudes, that complicate the task of homogenizing the earth into an integrated unit. . . . Cultural nationalism is also a serious problem because it threatens the concept of the Global Shopping Center.”[15]

This “cultural nationalism” is described by Rivkin and all other partisans of globalism as “xenophobia,” unless that “xenophobia” can be marshaled in the service of a military adventure when bribes, embargoes and threats don’t bring a reticent state into line, as in the cases of Serbia, Iraq, and perhaps soon, Libya. Then the American globalist elite and their allies become “patriots.”

Barnet and Muller cite A. W. Clausen when he headed the Bank of America, as stating that national, cultural, and racial differences create “marketing problems,” lamenting that there is “no such thing as a uniform, global market.”[16] Harry Heltzer, Chief Executive Officer of 3M stated that global corporations are a “powerful voice for world peace because their allegiance is not to any nation, tongue, race, or creed but to one of the finer aspirations of mankind, that the people of the world may be united in common economic purpose.”[17]

These “finer aspirations of mankind,” known in other quarters as greed, avarice, and Mammon-worship, have despoiled the earth, caused global economic imbalance, and operate on usury that was in better times regarded as a sin. These “finer aspirations,” by corporate reckoning, have caused more wars than any “xenophobic” dictator, usually in the name of “world peace,” and “democracy.”

The Rivkin doctrine for France — which according to the leaked document, must be carried out in a subtle manner — is a far-reaching subversive program to transform especially the young into global clones devoid of cultural identity, while proceeding, in the manner of Orwellian “doublethink,” under the name of “multiculturalism.”

Notes

1. “Mandela honours ‘monumental’ Oppenheimer”, The Star, South Africa, August 21, 2000, http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=ct20000821001004683O150279 (accessed September 27, 2009).

2. Lynda Loxton, “Mandela: We are going to privatise,” The Saturday Star, May 25, 1996, p.1.

3. ANC daily news briefing, June 27, 2001. See also “Eskom,” ANC Daily News Briefing, June 20, 2001, 70.84.171.10/~etools/newsbrief/2001/news0621.txt

4. Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky (New York: The New York Press, 2002), pp. 88–89.

5. J. Steiner, “American in France: Culture: McDonalds in France, http://www.americansinfrance.net/culture/mcdonalds_in_france.cfm

6. R. J. Barnet and R. E. Müller, Global Reach: The Power of the Multinational Corporations (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974).

7. Global Reach, p. 19. For an update on Maisonrouge see: IBM, http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/builders/builders_maisonrouge.html

8. Global Reach, , p. 62.

9. Global Reach, ibid.

10. Global Reach, pp. 113–14.

11. “2010 France Country Dialogue,” PCIP, op. cit.

12. L. Balter, Parenthood in America: An Encyclopaedia, Vol. 1 (ABC-CLIO, 2000), p. 556.

13. G. Pascal Zachary, The Global Me (New South Wales: Allen & Unwin, 2000).

14. Global Reach, p. 31.

15. Global Reach, p. 58.

16. Global Reach, ibid.

17. Global Reach, p. 106.

Jean Mabire, de schrijver-soldaat...

Jean Mabire, de schrijver-soldaat…

Ex: http://sjorsremmerswaal.nl

 

Voor zijn succes als militair schrijver, was er eerst Mabire de Alpenverkenner (De chasseurs alpins waren een verkennerseenheid van de toenmalige franse infanterie) , die al op dertigjarige leeftijd als reserve-luitenant werd opgeroepen om onder de nationale vlag zijn diensttijd uit te dienen in het Algerijnse bergland (Djebel). Een wapenonderdeel als geen ander, dat Mabire zijn hele leven trouw zou blijven. Echter niets bestemde de Normandische schrijver voor, zich te tooien met de bekende koningsblauwe ‘taart’ het hoofddeksel der verkenners.

 

De aantrekkingskracht, die hij uitoefent op de elitetroepen en andere ‘wapenbroeders’ (twee titels van tijdschriften die hij uitgaf in de jaren 80) laat zich dan ook niet verklaren zonder deze kennis van zaken , die hij heeft opgedaan door nageldicht op de oorlog te zitten en de oorlogsvoerders van zo nabij te hebben meegemaakt in Algerije. Phililipe Héduy en Dominque Venner hebben ieder op hun eigen wijze het inwijdende karakter van deze oorlog bezongen, die niet zo mocht heten. Na twee nummers « Omzwervingen» en « Vaderlanden van vlees en bloed » , heeft het ‘Tijdschrift van de Vrienden van Jean Mabire’ in zijn laatste aflevering er dus voor gekozen hulde te brengen aan de schrijver en de soldaat.
—

De altijd levendige Bernard Leveaux bijt de spits af met het terugkeren naar de serie boeken die J. Mabire wijdde aan de parachute-eenheden, zijn andere heldenverhaal (niet minder dan elf boekdelen) met de geschiedenis van de Waffen-SS, van het Waalse Legioen, van de Pantsers van de zwarte Garde, Sterven in Berlin… Éric Lefèvre, zijn archivaris, thans zeker een van de beste kenners van het onderwerp in Frankrijk, komt in « De Internationale SS » terug op dit deel van het werk van Mabire, waar je niet omheen kan en waaraan je toch geen recht doet door het kort samen te vatten. De biografie van de meester – zijn overgang naar het 12e BCA (Batallion Alpenverkenners) – wordt niet vergeten en men begrijpt, als je zijn artikel « Een dag verkenner zijn», leest, waarom kapitein Louis Christan Gautier zichzelf geweld aan moest doen om de bergtroepen niet belasteren.

Het dossier wordt vervolmaakt door het herlezen, toevertrouwd aan uw dienaar, van het boek De Samoerai « De pen en de Sabel » et de levendige herinneringen aan de dienstjaren in Rhodesië van Yves Debay, hoofdredacteur van het tijdschrift Aanval (onder de goedgetroffen titel « Huurling ! »). Een publicatie, die bij elke verschijning verbetert zowel qua diepgang als qua vorm.

L. Schang
De vrienden van Jean Mabire

Overgenomen van Synthese Nationale.
Ontdek ook haar webstek op http://amis.mabire.free.fr (enkel franstalig)

Céline épuré, les néogestapistes à la manoeuvre

Céline épuré, les néogestapistes à la manoeuvre

 

Flash - 10/02/2011

 

Ex: http://lepetitcelinien.blogspot.com/

 

En cet hiver 2008, c'est le journaliste-écrivain Kleber Haedens qui était sur la sellette : on voulait baptiser du nom de ce Hussard un collège de la Garenne-Colombes. Or l'affreux Haedens a commis comme critique littéraire, voilà presque quatre-vingts ans, deux articles dans Je suis partout; il collaborait aussi à l'Action française. Scandaleux. Épuré, donc. Comme Jacques Chardonne, autre écrivain en Charentaises cher à feu Mitterrand (François) qui participa avant-guerre à un voyage d'agrément outre-Rhin... Et comme Florent Schmitt dont un enseignant découvrit parait-il au détour d'un article qu'il aurait lors du récital de Kurt Weill, en 1933, lancé un retentissant "Vive Hitler !" Alors, au trou, tout ce petit monde ! Au vide-ordures, les écrivains, les musiciens et leurs oeuvres, direction les poubelles de l'histoire !

C'est ce que l'on voudrait faire avec Céline, dont le cinquantenaire de la mort avait été inscrit cette année sur la liste des commémorations nationales. Une liste et un nom qui n'avaient jusqu'ici soulevé aucune objection jusqu'au jour où Serge Klarsfeld, le "chasseur de nazis", a sommé le ministre de la Culture de la nettoyer. Au nom des Fils et Filles de déportés juifs de France, il a menacé d'en appeler à Sarkozy si le Mitterrand du jour n'obtempérait pas. Bien joué, car s'il en a les initiales, Frédéric n'a pas les c... de son oncle François. Le tonton avait un penchant pour les jeux d'alcôve le neveu, lui, se couche. Car personne ne résiste plus à ceux qui voudraient que l'on eût été résistant dès 1930.

Et pendant ce temps, saint Genet...
Céline, vu d'aujourd'hui et d'ici, a certes écrit des horreurs. C'était un temps, c'était un ton. Qu'on relise la presse d'alors, les discours, les échanges fleuris dans les travées de l'Assemblée. On ne peut pas juger d'hier avec la morale ou l'amoralité d'aujourd'hui. Et Céline a payé : emprisonné au Danemark au lendemain de la guerre, rapatrié en France et condamné, pour collaboration, à un an d'emprisonnement, 50 000 francs d'amende, la confiscation de la moitié de ses biens et l'indignité nationale. Il a vécu le reste de sa vie à Meudon, écrivain et médecin.
Personne, aujourd'hui, ne peut lire —et n'a sans doute lu— les écrits "indignes" pour la bonne raison qu'ils sont depuis longtemps introuvables. Pour en juger, et pour instruire puisqu'il paraît que c'est le but, encore faudrait-il savoir de quoi l'on parle. Mais au train plombé où vont les choses, on peut même imaginer que le seul fait de les avoir dans sa bibliothèque pourrait conduire demain devant un tribunal.

La morale et la vertu se sont déplacées. Quand on lisait encore les introuvables de Céline, on cachait la prose d'un Jean Genet dans l'Enfer des bibliothèques. Autres temps, autres moeurs : le chantre de la dépravation, l'amoureux transi des assassins, le génial poète de la perversion a été fêté en grande pompe l'an passé, à l'occasion du centenaire de sa naissance. Pas de censure mais de grands coups d'encensoir pour l'écrivain qui chante avec lyrisme son bonheur pédophile et sa fascination pour les biscotos des ptits gars de la Milice et les SS bien costumés. Pas de problème pour Monsieur Klarsfeld et ses troupes de néogestapistes : Jean Genet n'aimait pas les nazis pour leurs idées, il rêvait juste de les sodomiser.

Dans cette nouvelle affaire Céline, on retiendra pour finir les propos de bon sens d'un Frédéric Vitoux, biographe du Dr Destouches et auteur de nombreux livres sur son oeuvre. De la polémique du jour, il dit : "Cent le mot "célébra6ons"qui est ambigu. Il ne s'agit pas de tresser des lauriers à l'écrivain. Le cinquantenaire de sa mort est une occasion de s'intéresser à son oeuvre, d'examiner à nouveau ses zones d'ombre. On ne peut tout de même pas nier que c'est l'un des plus grands écrivains français." Non, on ne peut pas, mais la littérature n'a rien à voir là-dedans.


Marie-Claire ROY
Flash, 10/02/2011

 

Portrait: Gabriele d'Annunzio

Portrait: Gabriel d'Annunzio

 

Il avait le teint brouillé des grands nerveux, les yeux bleuâ­tres, d'un azur profond et embrumé, voilé de quelque lointain rêve, la cornée et l'iris légèrement en saillie entre les paupières glabres, comme les yeux des bustes antiques – déjà. Les lèvres d'un gris mauve, comme des lèvres de marbre – déjà – d'un marbre jadis teinté, dont la nuance purpurine se serait effacée. Les dents mauvaises. Mais qu'importaient ces couleurs de la face et de l'émail dentaire ! La couleur est la chose éphémère, comme l'était cette nuance roussâtre du poil sur l'arcade sour­cilière, sous le nez, à la pointe du menton. Et qu'importait, de même, ce corps petit et musclé, avec son torse long, ses jam­bes courtes ! De ces proportions sans grâce le poète s'accommo­dait, sachant bien que sa gloire future concentrait tout l'inté­rêt de son humaine apparence dans le buste, promis – déjà – à l'éternité. Or, la tête était admirable par la forme et par les volumes, par tout ce qui ressortit à la statuaire. Il n'est pas jus­qu'à cette complète calvitie qui ne parût par avance un dépouil­lement volontaire de toute simulation et de tout accident. « Ma clarté frontale », comme l'appelait le maître, avec ce mélange d'orgueil et de sarcasme qui, dans sa bouche, pre­nait le ton d'un défi, d'une raillerie adressée aux circonstances, aux bizarreries de la nature, aux défaillances d'un dieu distrait. Et la main aussi – la main qui caresse et qui tient la plume (et l'épée) – la main qui est volupté et qui est esprit (et fierté), la main était belle : petite, féminine, ciselée, impérieuse, ayant cette force de dédain que le plus hautain visage ne peut exprimer et que, seule, une belle main reflète avec tranquillité. Au petit doigt, deux bagues d'or, chacune ornée d'une émeraude cabochon. J'ai lu que, sur le lit funèbre, le doigt ne portait plus que deux minces anneaux nus, sans aucune pierre pré­cieuse. Il y a tout un symbole de grandeur et de renoncement dans cette disparition des émeraudes.

 

 Sur le ciel noir de l'époque, la mort de Gabriele d'Annun­zio a jeté, durant quelques jours, les suprêmes clartés de la fusée qui s'éteint ou du météore qui rentre dans la nuit. Astre ou bouquet d'artifice ? Là est la question. Certes, la fin d'un tel homme ne pouvait passer inaperçue. Elle devait éblouir encore, les puissances du feu étant les caractéristiques mêmes de l'âme qui prenait congé de nous. Mais je ne puis m'empê­cher de noter combien fut bref ce dernier éblouissement, com­bien la nécrologie (en maints articles où il faut voir un signe des temps et le reflet des modes changées) fut prompte à di­minuer, à « minimiser », comme on dit dans un affreux jargon, l'importance de ce brusque départ,

 

 Me trompé-je ? Mais il me semble que, en Italie même, c'est avec quelque précipitation que furent rendus à la haute renom­mée du défunt les honneurs qu'on lui devait, ou qu'on ne pou­vait lui refuser. Dans quelques semaines, la «Voie triomphale » ouvrira sa vaste perspective devant le char de M. Hitler. Ses dalles toutes neuves retentiront sous les martèlements sourds de ce « pas romain » qui fait sa rentrée dans Rome après un bien long détour. Mais le char funèbre du poète n'aura pas suivi la nouvelle avenue. Sans doute parce qu'il y aurait eu antimonie à ce que les gloires du passé empruntassent les routes de l'ave­nir. Dans une petite église de campagne, un simple cercueil de noyer ciré a reçu l'absoute rituelle. Et la dépouille du héros fut inhumée dans la terre de cette même colline où il avait vécu retiré durant les seize ou dix-sept dernières années de sa vie.

 

 Ainsi va le siècle, ainsi vont les destins des hommes et des États, et les cieux, un instant déchirés par le suprême éclair de la flamme que le vent a soufflée, les cieux sont redevenus ce qu'ils étaient : un amoncellement de nuages sombres.

 

 Quel grand vide, pourtant, ce mort laisse après soi ! Ce vide, on ne le mesure pas encore. Ou bien disons, pour ceux qui pensent que la vie est un renouvellement incessant où nul vide ne se creuse qui ne soit aussitôt comblé, où ce qui s'en va est aussitôt remplacé (fût-ce par son contraire, ce qui est le cas le plus fréquent), disons pour ceux-là que la mort de Gabriele d'Annunzio constitue un grand événement, et point seulement dans l'Histoire de la Littérature universelle, mais dans l'His­toire universelle tout court, l'Histoire de l'Humanité.

 

 C'est toute une conception du monde qui s'efface avec cette éclatante figure. Et j'entends bien que cette conception était depuis longtemps déjà dépassée, démodée, périmée (comme disent les générations nouvelles, avec ce luxe d'expressions méprisantes qu'elles ont toujours à l'égard des gens et des choses qui les ont précédées). Mais Gabriele d'Annunzio, jus­qu'à ce soir du 1er mars où la mort l'a frappé à sa table de travail, était le plus illustre « survivant » d'une époque éva­nouie, le représentant le plus magnifique et le plus accompli d'un certain ordre de grandeur. Lui disparu, c'est tout un pan de la civilisation qui s'effondre ou, si l'on veut, c'est tout un décor qui disparaît comme dans une trappe.

 

 Il a commencé par le culte de l'Amour et de la Beauté. Il ne s'agissait pas, dans son esprit, comprenez bien, de deux reli­gions séparées, ayant chacune leur objet distinct, mais d'une religion unique ayant un double objet sur un seul autel. Les exigences des sens le tourmentaient, et ses aventures furent nombreuses, mais il n'eût point donné satisfaction à ses instincts s'il ne les eût associés – du moins en pensée, car l'imagination du poète supplée parfois aux réalités – à la poursuite d'une forme belle. D'autre part, la définition selon laquelle la beauté serait « une promesse de bonheur » correspond exactement à la manière de sentir qu'il eut dans sa jeunesse, et sa jeunesse se prolongea longtemps, comme on sait, jusque dans son vieil âge. Il ne distinguait point alors la Beauté de la Volupté. Certes, il ne ravalait pas son idole à n'être qu'un instrument du plaisir, mais il considérait l'extase amoureuse, les paradis physiques, comme un accroissement de la Beauté, laquelle ne pouvait, selon lui, atteindre son point de perfection et, si je puis dire, culminer que dans le délire sensuel.

 

 Mais ici encore, gardez-vous d'une équivoque ! N'allez pas confondre cette chasse ardente avec la morne dépravation. Dès l'instant que l'amour est requis, ou que l'âme aspire à lui, le voluptueux cesse d'être enfermé dans le cercle de la débauche. Ce qu'il cherche dans les voies de la sensualité, c'est une éva­sion, un moyen de se surpasser soi-même, c'est une issue vers le sublime. La Beauté, aux yeux de Gabriele d'Annunzio, fut donc toujours une sorte de prêtresse qui a pour sacerdoce l'ini­tiation aux mystères, et le plus grand mystère de la vie, peut­-être son unique but, pense le poète à cette époque, c'est l'Amour.

 

 De plus, comme cet artiste du verbe était en même temps très érudit en matière d'art, toutes les tentatives que les peintres, les sculpteurs, les orfèvres, les émailleurs, les tailleurs d'ivoire et autres servants de la Beauté avaient faites en tous les siècles et tous les pays pour saisir et fixer quelque aspect particulier, éphémère de l'éternelle idole, il les connaissait. Aux figures évoquées par sa propre imagination, laquelle ne cessait d'inventer des formes et des symboles, s'ajoutait un peuple de souvenirs. Il était environné d'images rêvées, mais aussi d'une multitude d'images rencontrées par lui dans tous les musées d'Europe. Entre les créatures de son esprit et les visages des portraits, des statues, des médailles, s'établissaient de perpé­tuels échanges. Il se créait, entre les deux plans, tout un jeu de références et d'allusions. Le danger eût été qu'une mémoire si fidèle n'étouffât, sous ses apports constants, le jaillissement spontané de l'imagination créatrice. Mais la Poésie, chez Ga­briele d'Annunzio, n'avait rien à craindre de Mnémosyne. Combien de fois la Muse annunziesque n'a-t-elle pas prouvé, en souriant, à sa redoutable compagne, qu'elle aurait pu se passer d'elle ! Une flamme extraordinaire maintenait à la tem­pérature voulue le creuset où s'opérait la fusion magique.

 

 Dans le domaine du vers notamment, où il excella tout jeune, (son premier recueil, Primo vere, contient les poèmes écrits en 1879 et 1880, entre seize et dix-sept ans), Annunzio possède le double don sans lequel il n'est pas de grand poète : l'alliance de l'image neuve et de la sonorité ; il est plastique et musical. Romancier, il a, par les illustrations qu'il a données du culte « Amour et Beauté », imposé à toute une époque sa vue per­sonnelle du monde, la mystique sensualiste d'un paganisme nouveau. Il est à l'origine d'un certain romanesque lyrique, tout à l'opposé de l'école naturaliste, qui, elle, a bien souvent caché, cultivé comme un vice, sous le couvert de la recherche du Vrai, un amour monstrueux, assidu, acharné de la Laideur. Il a créé une atmosphère d'enchantement qui n'appartient qu'à lui, détourné le XIXe siècle finissant des spectacles amers, des étalages complaisants de la bassesse humaine et de la platitude. Il nous a induits en des rêveries fastueuses ; il nous a rendu les clés des jardins ornés, des palais au fond des parcs ; il a peuplé nos songes de fascinantes figures de femmes, restauré les loisirs heureux ou ravagés par des passions aristocratiques.

 

 Et sans doute, il a pu entrer quelque naïveté dans ces évo­cations, de même qu'il y eut quelque bric-à-brac dans l'exis­tence de l'auteur lorsqu'il voulut, pour son propre compte, mettre sa vie en accord avec ce luxe imaginaire.

 

 Mais on aurait tort de limiter au goût du pittoresque et du bibelot ce vœu profond d'un cœur fervent. N'oublions pas que, dans les romans de Gabriele d'Annunzio, la Mort est toujours présente, accoudée aux terrasses avec les amoureux ou, solitaire, jouant de la harpe, en attendant son heure, dans le boudoir voisin de la chambre à coucher. Le culte « Amour et Beauté » ne peut être sincère, pratiqué avec foi, et ne peut mener loin sans que s'y glissent l'odeur attristante des roses effeuillées, la saveur de la lie au fond du verre, tout ce qui présage, an­nonce, révèle les approches de la visiteuse voilée.

 

 Ensuite il y a entre l'esthétique et l'éthique de secrets pas­sages. Le culte du Beau ne suffirait point à faire accéder une âme à la sainteté. Le Beau ne se confond pas avec le Bon. Que de fois n'est-il pas son contraire ! Mais il est rare que quelqu'un de bien déterminé à faire du culte de la Beauté sa raison de vivre, ne soit pas porté vers ce qui est noble et vers ce qui est grand. Cette ascension est patente dans l'œuvre et le caractère de Gabriele d'Annunzio.

 

 Comparée à son œuvre romanesque, son œuvre dramatique frappe déjà par un certain caractère d'austérité. Les passions y règnent encore en maîtresses, mais il ne s'agit plus unique­ment ici de la passion amoureuse et de l'exaltation de la Beauté. Ce sont tous les tragiques de la vie qui se donnent rendez-vous en ces drames étranges. La volonté de transposer le réel dans le lyrisme, de l'intégrer à la poésie, voilà ce qui crée l'unité entre ces drames divers, ainsi que le lien entre ce théâtre et les romans qui l'ont précédé.

 

 Les Lettres françaises garderont une reconnaissance parti­culière à ce grand poète italien, ce merveilleux génie bilingue, qui sut couler ses sentiments, ses rêves légendaires, la vibration de sa lyre épique et sacrée dans notre « doux parler ». Lui-même s'est dépeint tel qu'il fut en sa première jeunesse, attentif aux leçons de ceux qu'il nomme ses deux maîtres en matière de langage : l'Italien Ernesto Monaci et le Français Gaston Paris. Il a conté comment, à la veille de la Grande Guerre, exilé sur notre sol, entre le cap de Grave et l'Adour, il se plaisait à reconnaître, au cours de ses promenades à cheval, le long des grèves, dans le large déferlement de la houle atlantique, la grande chevelure glauque de la fée Morgane, divinité bienfai­sante des Gaules. Or, « en cet automne lointain des Landes », le poète écrivait le Martyre de saint Sébastien, ce poème fran­çais, unique dans notre littérature, où les sources communes de notre langue et de la langue italienne retrouvent parfois leur surgeon primitif, comme deux sœurs jumelles, à certaines heu­res, et quoique depuis longtemps séparées, sentent palpiter en­core au fond de leur subconscient le souvenir du tendre emmêle­ment qu'elles avaient dans le sein maternel.

 

 Ce français poétique de Gabriele d'Annunzio est « en dehors de tout » peut-être, hors du courant, hors du temps écoulé. Mais quelle étonnante merveille ! Nourri aux allégories et symboles du Roman de la Rose, aux truculences et trivialités magnifiques de nos vieux fabliaux, il est, avec cela, aussi éloigné que pos­sible de l'archaïsme pédantesque, aussi embaumé, aussi frais qu'un parterre de fleurs à l'aurore.

 

 Vint la guerre. On sait ce que la France doit à Gabriele d'Annunzio. Dans la lettre fameuse que le poète écrivit à Mau­rice Barrès, le jour où l'Italie se rangea aux côtés des Alliés, il est une phrase superbe que je n’ai jamais pu relire sans être parcouru de ce frisson qui se transmet de l'âme au corps lorsque retentit dans l'air la voix de l'héroïsme : « ... le vert et le bleu de nos drapeaux confondent leurs couleurs dans le soir qui tombe ».

 

 Une vie nouvelle commençait alors pour le grand écrivain. Elle devait être courte et flamboyante. Six années à peine, avant la retraite au bord du lac, sur la colline ! Mais, à partir de ce mois de mai 1915, où il quitta son appartement parisien pour regagner son pays, qu'il allait entraîner dans la guerre, quel changement chez cet homme qui, moins d'un an aupara­vant, souriait, au milieu d'un cercle de femmes, dans les théâ­tres et les salons de Paris.

 

Pourtant, du premier jour où son destin le requiert d'agir, il est prêt, armé chevalier en lui-même, et par lui-même, et sur l'heure ! De la religion « Amour et Beauté », sans transition apparente (mais les transitions, il les avait sans doute vécues dans son cœur, durant ses méditations solitaires sous les pins brûlants d'Arcachon), il passe, non seulement au culte des Héros, mais à la pratique de l'héroïsme, non seulement à la « chanson de geste », mais à la « geste » elle-même. Il n'est plus le troubadour qui s'exalte à célébrer les exploits des Ro­land, des Olivier, des Renaud. Il est l'égal des preux. Et un jour, il les surpasse. Il s'est élancé dans le ciel, suivi de ses compagnons montés sur des monstres ailés. Il libère Fiume, comme Persée délivra Andromède, et il la rend à sa patrie.

 

François PORCHE.

 

Extrait de La Revue Belge, 1920-1930.

Bomben im Namen der Humanität

Michael Wiesberg

Aus: http://www.jungefreiheit.de/

Seit dem Wochenende bombt nun eine neuerliche „Koalition der Willigen“; vorgeblich um in Libyen im Namen der Menschlichkeit eine Flugverbotszone durchzusetzen („Operation Odyssey Dawn“). Das geschieht just in dem Moment, in dem sich die Waagschale zugunsten Gaddafis zu neigen begann, der mit seinen Truppen bereits vor der Rebellenhochburg Bengasi stand, dem Ausgangspunkt der Revolte.

Damit steht die konkrete Gefahr im Raum, daß der zum „Menschheitsfeind“ hochgeschriebene Gaddafi an der Macht bleiben könnte. Die Prognose in meinem letzten Blog, nämlich daß sich der Westen in eine Lage manövriert hat, die nur noch eine militärische Intervention zuläßt, wenn Gaddafis politisches Überleben droht, hat sich damit bereits einige Tage später als zutreffend erwiesen.

Umfassende militärische Intervention

Den Luftschlägen vorausgegangen war in der Nacht vom Donnerstag zum Freitag eine Resolution im UN-Sicherheitsrat, die vornehmlich von Frankreich, den USA und Großbritannien – Staaten also, die noch vor ein paar Monaten um die Gunst des Gaddafi-Clans gebuhlt haben – betrieben wurde.

Diese Resolution, die mit zehn Ja-Stimmen bei fünf Enthaltungen, darunter auch Deutschland, angenommen wurde, sieht indes nicht nur die Durchsetzung einer Flugverbotszone vor; sie eröffnet überdies die Möglichkeit einer umfassenden militärischen Intervention, wenn in ihr die Rede davon ist, daß „alle notwendige militärische Gewalt“ einzusetzen sei, „um Zivilisten und von Zivilisten bewohnte Gebiete vor Angriffen zu schützen“. Wann das der Fall ist, darüber entscheiden die Gutmenschen der „Koalition der Willigen“.

Die deutsche Stimmenthaltung

Daß sich Deutschland vor diesem Hintergrund der Stimme erhalten hat, ist aufgrund der weitgehenden Implikationen dieser Intervention nachvollziehbar. Entsprechend erklärte der deutsche UN-Botschafter Peter Witte, daß die Anwendung militärischer Gewalt „die Wahrscheinlichkeit von hohen Verlusten an Menschenleben“ erhöhe. Nicht ausgeschlossen werden kann weiter, daß es irgendwann doch zum Einsatz von Bodentruppen kommen wird, um das apostrophierte Ziel zu erreichen, nämlich Gaddafi aus dem Amt zu treiben.

Dessenungeachtet nahm unter anderem der sattsam bekannte Transatlantiker Richard Herzinger, der hier pars pro toto aus der Schar humanitärer Bellizisten herausgehoben sei, die deutsche Stimmenthaltung zum Anlaß für einen Angriff auf Bundesaußenminister Westerwelle, der angeblich „unser Land blamiert“ habe.

Keinerlei „belastbare Informationen“

Deutschland habe sich, so Herzinger, in eine Reihe „mit Rußland und China gestellt“, die er als „notorische Blockierer“  abqualifiziert. Es zeigten sich unter Westerwelle „Symptome einer Regression in die nationalpazifistische Borniertheit“. Herzinger ist indes nicht präzise genug: Deutschland hat sich, um es genau zu sagen, in eine Reihe mit den BRIC-Staaten gestellt, die gemeinhin als Herausforderer der westlichen Führungsmacht USA angesehen werden.

Hier liegen die Frontlinien im Sicherheitsrat und hier liegt der eigentliche Skandal für Richard Herzinger, der als Obergutmensch gerne den publizistischen Herold der „westlichen Wertegemeinschaft“ mimt. Wenn er schon die Argumente Rußlands und Chinas nicht gelten lassen will, sollte er zumindest die indische Begründung für die Stimmenthaltung im Sicherheitsrat studieren. Der indische UN-Botschafter Hardeep Singh Puri erklärte nämlich, der Sicherheitsrat handle, obwohl er über keinerlei „belastbare Informationen“ über die „Lage vor Ort“ verfüge. Überdies gebe es keine Klarheit in Hinsicht auf eine Reihe anderer relevanter Parameter der Intervention. All das sind beste Voraussetzungen für eine neuerliche „Schlacht der Lügen“ mit ihren bekannten propagandistischen Nebelwänden.

Chinas Interessenpolitik

Bleibt die Frage, warum sich China der Stimme enthalten hat, das bei einem politischen Überleben Gaddafis mit Sicherheit zu den Profiteuren gehören würde, weil es einen privilegierten Zugriff auf die Erdölressourcen des Landes in Aussicht gestellt bekommen hat. Der chinesische Botschafter verwies in diesem Zusammenhang auf die Entscheidung der Arabischen Liga, vom UN-Sicherheitsrat die Einrichtung einer Flugverbotszone zu verlangen.

Mit anderen Worten: China vertritt nach Abwägung aller Argumente offenbar die Auffassung, eine Blockade der Resolution könnte womöglich eine Schädigung chinesischer Geschäftsinteressen im arabischen (und westlichen) Raum zur Folge haben und entschied sich deshalb für eine Stimmenthaltung. So hat jede Seite ihre Gründe. Nur eines ist bei diesen Gründen mit Sicherheit nicht ausschlaggebend, nämlich die Durchsetzung von „Frieden und Demokratie“ für die „Menschen in Libyen“. Genau das aber versuchen, um in der Diktion zu bleiben, bornierte Wertegemeinschafts-Bellizisten wie Herzinger e tutti quanti glauben zu machen.

Michael Wiesberg, 1959 in Kiel geboren, Studium der Evangelischen Theologie und Geschichte, arbeitet als Lektor und als freier Journalist. Letzte Buchveröffentlichung: Botho Strauß. Dichter der Gegenaufklärung, Dresden 2002.

 

Libya: Kosovo Redux

By Richard Spencer

 

Ex: http://www.alternativeright.com/

I must confess that I have a half-written blog entry on how the Obama administration has, in essence, given up on the American Empire. Due to fiscal constraints, its own incompetence, and its lack of self-assurance in the wake of Iraq and rising anti-Americanism, the Democratic power elite (along with allies like Robert Gibbs) simply doesn’t have the will to act. It was thus unwilling to save Israel’s ally Hosni Mubarek and has been dragging its feet instituting a no-fly zone over Libya. Actively toppling the Gaddafi regime would be out of the question.

I further argued that this inaction will be opposed and demeaned by the mainstream Republican presidential contenders (with the possible exception of Haley Barbour), who will shriek about how Obama is “appeasing dictators.” (On this front, see the Politico’s recent piece “The Return of the Neocons.”)

I was to conclude that for those of us who think the American Empire is a liability for both the American people and the West in general, the Democrats‘ dilly-dallying is actually preferable to the Republicans’ lunatic war-mongering.

Well, needless to say, my half-written blog has been overtaken by events, and my sense that the Democrats are giving up on empire now seems like wishful thinking.

Instead, what we are experiencing today in Libya is a situation that, in many ways, resembles the last time a Democratic president engaged in major military action overseas.  It’s Kosovo all over again:

• The UN offers its imprimatur;
• NATO provides the muscle;
• The U.S. declares war on a small national regime with no clear objectives or exit-strategy;
• A statesman (Milošević/Gadaffi), whom Washington had dealt with civilly only months before, is depicted as a Hitlerian menace (and the dutiful media eats it up);
• The U.S. takes sides in a civil war and uses its air and missile power on behalf of a group (the KLA/Libyan rebels) that is -- at best -- highly dubious.

Libya might actually turn out far worse than Kosovo in that it will eventuate in a failed state and a mass Muslim refugee flow into Europe.

Daniel Larison is quite good on these matters:

The similarities with Kosovo are eerie, and that is a very bad sign for the people living in eastern Libya. Perhaps the only thing worse than intervening in a civil war in which the U.S. and our allies have nothing at stake is to intervene and then opt for those tactics that will do just enough to commit us to the fight without protecting the people our forces are supposed to be protecting. Quite apart from the outrageous harm done to both Albanian and Serb civilians in the prosecution of the air campaign, the war in Kosovo facilitated and caused the mass refugee exodus from Kosovo that it was officially trying to avert. The U.S. and our allies weren’t going to be responsible for what happened to the people in eastern Libya, but our governments have now assumed responsibility for them.

Whatever you want to say about them, the ’99 House Republicans were steadfastly against Clinton’s Kosovo adventure; Gov. George W. Bush (in another life) actually scolded Al Gore for engaging in “nation-building.” After the entire mainstream GOP went “all in” for Iraq, they now have nothing to run on.

Totalitarian Humanism Versus Qaddafi

By Keith PRESTON

 

Ex: http://www.alternative.right.com/

In past blog postings for AltRight, I have discussed the phenomenon of what I call “totalitarian humanism,” a particular worldview that I regard as being at the heart of the most serious political and cultural problems currently facing the modern West. Specifically, I consider totalitarian humanism to be an intellectual and ideological movement among contemporary Western elites that serves as a replacement for older worldviews such as Christianity, nationalism, cultural traditionalism, Eurocentrism, or even Marxism. Such features of modern life as political correctness and victimology serve as a representation of the totalitarian humanist approach to domestic policy. The present war against the Libyan state provides an illustration of what the totalitarian humanist approach to foreign policy and international relations involves.

The regime of Colonel Qaddafi poses no conceivable threat to Western nations. Allegations of Qaddafi’s insanity not withstanding, his substantive efforts over the past two decades to ease tensions between Libya and the West have shown his capabilities for behaving as a rational actor and practicing realpolitik. As recently as August of 2009, Qaddafi was described by David Blair of the Daily Telegraph as having “gone from being the epitome of revolutionary chic to an eccentric statesman with entirely benign relations with the West.” These benign relations ended with the outbreak of the present civil war between Qaddafi and opponents of his regime. Richard Spencer has pointed out the nearly identical parallels between Western intervention in Kosovo in 1999 and the current intervention in Libya. Both interventions serve as prototypes for the vision for the world that our contemporary elites possess. An interesting discussion that aired earlier today on ABC’s This Week cuts to the chase of the matter. Former Congresswoman Jane Harman, now of the aptly named Woodrow Wilson Center, monster neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz, and Wilson Center scholar Robin Wright provided rationales for the intervention that involved no consideration whatsoever of national interests, geopolitical questions, or legitimate defensive concerns. Essentially, their rationales amount to little more than “Qadaffi runs an illiberal regime.”

Libya under Qadaffi represents everything Western elites despise: a conservative, religious, nationalistic, traditional, patriarchal, tribal society that has resisted the penetration of its own culture by the norms of Western, secular, liberal, humanism and globalism. According to the religion of Western elites, Qaddafi is an infidel and must be punished or destroyed. The intervention in Libya is essentially about spreading the Jacobin revolution to the Middle East (a plausible argument of a comparable nature could be made concerning the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq). The role of the United Nations and the participation of certain usually rather pacific European nations in the assault on Libya is rather telling. The vision of the elites is one where a global super-state maintains an international army whose purpose is the eradication of political institutions and cultural values that fail to conform to the standards of totalitarian humanism. Kosovo and Libya are essentially pilot programs for this future vision.

Die "Libysche Revolution" und die gigantischen libyschen Wasserreserven

Die "Libysche Revolution" und die gigantischen libyschen Wasserreserven

Die Dämonisierung Gaddafi in der westlichen Pressehurerei nach dem Motto: “Ein bißchen Wahrheit vermischt mit einer Menge Lügen” lässt nur zu deutlich darauf schließen, wer hinter der “Libyschen Revolution” steckt. Nachdem die Russen die westliche Presse wieder einmal wegen der angeblichen Bombardierung der Bevölkerung durch Gaddafis Luftwaffe der Lügen strafen konnten, ist es keineswegs mehr von der Hand zu weisen, dass die “Libysche Revolution” in Gänze auf Befehl der einschlägigen Weltbrandstifter in London angezettelt wurde.

Die “eingefrorenen” Milliarden im Ausland, die angeblich im Privatbesitz Gaddafis waren, dürften eher Gelder sein, die dem libyschen Staat gehören. Und an die wollen die Globalisten heran. Wo werden wohl Mubaraks abgebliche 70 Milliarden Auslandsguthaben landen? Und in Zukunft die saudischen , bahrainischen und kuwaitischen Auslandsvermögen? Gewiss nicht bei der Bevölkerung dieser Staaten. Noch lukrativer sind natürlich die Erdölbestände dieser Länder, die bald unter direkter Kontrolle der Londoner City stehen werden.

Gaddafi ist ( oder war) die vielleicht wichtigste Figur in Nordafrika, denn es hat sein Land an die Spitze des afrikanischen Kontinent gebracht und die Erdöleinnahmen Libyens nicht in Paläste, Yachten und Fuhrparks gesteckt, sondern in sein Land investiert. Darauf wurde in diesem Artikel schon eingegangen. Aber das ist noch nicht alles:

Der “wahnsinnige” Gaddafi hat 1980 ein riesiges Projekt zur Wasserversorgung für Libyen, Ägypten, Sudan und den Tschad begonnen und beinahe fertiggestellt. Es ist gefährlich, ohne einen Cent der Weltbank und des IWF ein Projekte durchzuziehen, welches das Potential hat, ganz Nordafrika in einen blühenden Garten zu verwandeln. Das steht dem Ziel der Destabilisierung der Region entgegen, welche die Londoner City anstrebt, um die Weltdikatur der Konzerne durchzusetzen. Am 01. September 2010 konnte der erste Großabschnitt des Projektes nach dreißigjähriger Planung und Bauzeit in Betrieb genommen werden. Das sind 5 Monate vor Beginn der Unruhen, also bevor das Projekt im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes Früchte tragen konnte.

Im Süden Libyens gibt es vier große Wasserreservoirs (Kufra basin, Sirt basin, Morzuk basin und Hamada basin), in denen 35.000 Kubikkilometer(!) Wasser lagern. Um sich von der Größe der Reservoirs ein Bild zu machen: Nehmen Sie die Fläche der Kolonie Deutschland und stellen sie sich einen ebenso großen See mit 100 Metern Wassertiefe vor! Diese quasi unerschöpflichen Wasserreserven sind für die Globalisten, die das Weltwassergeschäft monopolisieren wollen, viel wichtiger, das das libysche Öl! Ein Kubikmeter unbelastetes, extrem reines Wasser kann mit einem Kostenaufwand von unschlagbaren 35 Cent gefördert werden.

Unterstellt man einen Abgabepreis von nur 2 Euro/Kubikmeter (den Globalisten werden sicherlich lukrativere Geschäftsmodelle einfallen), so beziffert sich der Wert dieser Wasserreservoirs höchster Güte auf 58 Billionen (58.000.000.000.000.-) Euro!

Mit diesem Projekt hätte Libyen eine wahrlich “grüne Revolution” in Gang gesetzt und die Versorgung Afrikas mit Lebensmitteln übernehmen können. Vor allem hätte es Libyen und Nordafrika aus den Klauen des IWF befreit und unabhängig gemacht. Selbstversorgung? Ein Reizwort für das Bankster- und Konzernkartell, das auch schon den Jonglei-Kanal vom weißen Nil in den Süden Sudans blockierte, in dem die CIA die Sezessionskriege im Südsudan anheizte.  Die Globalisten setzten lieber auf teure Entsalzungsanlagen, selbstverständlich über die Weltbank finanziert und von ihren Konzernen erbaut.

Am 20.03.2009 konnte man in den Maghreb-Nachrichten lesen:

Libysche Offiziere präsentierten zum ersten Mal auf dem 5. Weltwasserforum in Istambul ein Projekt zur Wasserförderung, das auf 33 Milliarden Dollars geschätzt wurde. Das Projekt wurde als die  8. Weltwunder bezeichnet und  sieht die Errichtung eines künstlichen Flusses vor, damit die Bevölkerung im Norden Libyens mit trinkbarem Wasser versorgt werden können.   Die Projektarbeiten wurden seit 1980 auf Aufrag des libyschen Führers, Muammar Gaddafi, eingeführt. 2/3 des Projekts wurde bereits fertig gestellt. Es handelt sich um eine 4 000 Km lang Wasserleitung, die im Grunde liegendes gepumptes Wüstenwasser durch die libysche Sahara in den Norden fliessen lässt.  „Die Studien zeigten, dass das Projekt kostensparender als die anderen Altrnativen war.“ meldete der für das Grundwassermanagement zuständige  Fawzi al Sharief Saeid.

Lake Gabron, one of the Germa Lakes, Fezzan, Libya. Photo: Martin Spencer Greening the desert projects Like at Jardinah and Sulug near the coast south of Benghazi, there are a few highly irrigated and extremely larger farms in the desert which are irrigated using water from the “Great Man Made River project”. This project taps into huge underground aquifers under the desert. The two largest farms are near Kufra in the central eastern desert and at Makunsah which is 50 kilometres south of the middle of the Germa lake complex. These farms have a micro-climate greatly different from the surrounding desert.

Der Wasservorrat reicht nach Berechnungen bis zu 4.860 Jahren, wenn die davon profitierenden Staaten Libyen, Sudan, Tschad und Ägypten ihn wie es vorgesehen verwenden.

Haben Sie davon schon gehört, oder lesen Sie etwa  die Maghreb-Nachrichten nicht? Warum erfährt man davon im Westen so wenig? Bei der Einweihungsfeier sagte Gaddafi , dass dieses Projekt “die größte Antwort auf Amerika ist, das uns anklagt, den Terrorismus zu befördern.”  Auch Mubarak war ein großer Anhänger des Projekts.

Quelle:

http://www.water-technology.net/projects/gmr/

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonglei-Kanal

http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/03/virtually-u...

http://american_almanac.tripod.com/libya.htm

http://www.africanbirdclub.org/countries/Libya/geography....

http://www.goumbook.com/tag/libya/

http://www.politaia.org/kriege/die-libysche-revolution-un...

Der Artikel hier als PDF-Dokument zum herunterladen: Die libysche Revolution

.

Ocampo e Drieu la Rochelle, quando l'amore è troppo intelligente

Ocampo e Drieu La Rochelle, quando l’amore è troppo intelligente

 Articolo di Stenio Solinas

Da il Giornale del 10 marzo 2011

 

Dalla corrispondenza, durata quindici anni, fra la Ocampo e Drieu La Rochelle emergono due mondi, due culture, due caratteri. Così il sentimento che li legò fu qualcosa di più e di meno di una vera passione 

 

L’anno in cui si incontrarono, il 1928, Victoria Ocampo era una bella e ricca argentina non ancora quarantenne, sposata, ma di fatto separata e con un unico grande amore alle spalle, e Pierre Drieu La Rochelle un brillante trentacinquenne senza lavoro fisso, al secondo e già fallito matrimonio, con molte avventure sentimentali dietro di lui. Che cosa spingesse l’una nelle braccia dell’altro e viceversa non è facile dire: negli scrittori Victoria cercava gli uomini, anche se pur sempre come intesa di anime, più che di corpi; quanto a Drieu, la sua attrazione era figlia della prevenzione, il fascino esercitato da una donna intelligente, ovvero ai suoi occhi un controsenso, se non un elemento contro natura.

 

Come che sia, furono amanti, restarono amici, si scrissero, viaggiarono insieme, polemizzarono anche duramente, ma senza che questo incidesse sulla stima e l’affetto reciproci. La Ocampo fu l’unica donna alla quale La Rochelle lasciò scritte, in busta chiusa, le ragioni del suo suicidio, e nel lungo tempo che lei gli sopravvisse quel ricordo sentimentale e intellettuale non venne mai meno, il restare comunque fedele a chi era stato sconfitto dalla politica e dalla storia. Adesso la casa editrice Archinto pubblica, a cura di Julien Hervier, Amarti non è stato un errore (pagg. 218, euro 17, traduzione di Enrico Badellino), la corrispondenza fra loro intercorsa dal ’29 al ’44, e da essa viene una luce particolare a illuminare le due figure e un’epoca, quella fra le due guerre, così drammatica.

 

Ma chi era veramente Victoria Ocampo, al di là dell’eco di un nome che oggi, escluso qualche specialista, evoca pallide frequentazioni letterarie fra le due sponde dell’Oceano Atlantico, il nome di una rivista, Sur, e di un collaboratore d’eccezione, Borges?

 

La più grande di sei figli, Victoria apparteneva a una delle famiglie più facoltose e antiche dell’aristocrazia bairense. Fra i suoi antenati c’erano un paggio di Isabella di Castiglia, un governatore del Perù, un candidato alla presidenza della repubblica argentina. Fra i suoi parenti lo scrittore José Fernandez, l’autore del Martin Fierro, il poema epico di una nazione. La sua casa modernista sul Mar del Plata era stata costruita sul modello di Gropius, quella di Buenos Aires secondo i dettami dell’architetto Alberto Presbich, allievo di Le Corbusier. Ricchezze immense, dunque, al servizio di un’educazione squisitamente europea, l’idea di un’Argentina appendice e insieme avamposto del Vecchio Continente che Drieu, ossessionato dalla decadenza di quest’ultimo, non tarderà a rimproverargli: «Mi avevi detto che l’Argentina era piena di vita, di forza, eccetera. No, io non vi ho trovato che la tua vita di donna e un certo fermento in profondità che c’è anche a Parigi nei suo rigagnoli. C’è forza nel popolo argentino, come in ogni popolo, ma questa forza è imprigionata dallo schema formato da La Nación, dalla “Società”, dai circoli intellettuali e da Sur e che non serve una causa organica, ma quella della letteratura in generale».

 

Per una giovane bene di quell’Argentina primo ’900, dove la donna sposata ha ancora lo status giuridico di una minorenne e deve sottostare all’autorità del marito, la strada è apparentemente obbligata: un matrimonio all’altezza del patrimonio, una vita di agi, lussi, viaggi, la cura e l’educazione dei figli. Ma se la Ocampo si sposa a ventidue anni, nel 1912, con Luis Bernardo de Estrada che conosce da quando è adolescente, già un anno dopo l’unione non funziona più, lui troppo geloso e brutale, «il mostro triste» che considera le donne puledre da domare e da cavalcare, lei che ha seguito alla Sorbona corsi su Dante e Nietzsche, che è andata al Collège de France ad ascoltare le lezioni di Bergson... Vivranno sotto lo stesso tetto, ma non nello stesso letto per circa un decennio, poi, nel ’26, la legislazione argentina consente alle donne sposate l’esercizio di una professione e il poter disporre del proprio denaro, e Victoria, che da quattro anni è comunque andata a vivere da sola, ha intanto cominciato a farsi un nome letterario e non si è negata lo scandalo, più o meno soffocato, di una relazione con Julián Martínez, un diplomatico ricco e playboy che vanta fra le sue conquiste Coco Chanel. È ancora legata a lui, anche se l’amore si è ormai spento ed è rimasta della tenerezza, quando nell’estate del ’28 incontra Drieu a Parigi.

 

Va detto che Victoria ha una passione per gli uomini d’ingegno e di fama, il che può prestarsi all’equivoco di una sorta di ricca collezionista di celebrità. È un errore che farà il filosofo tedesco Hermann von Keyserling, è un errore che farà il filosofo spagnolo Orytega y Gasset: entrambi ne scambiano l’entusiasmo, la passionalità, l’amore verso ciò che dicono, scrivono e pensano, per qualcosa di fisico che lei invece non prova. È un’epoca ancora in gran parte misogina, in cui l’uomo è abituato a essere ammirato e si aspetta che la donna si conceda senza troppe storie. Di qui incomprensioni, scambi di accuse, rotture di rapporti.

 

Con Drieu, però, scatta qualcosa di diverso. Certo, è misogino anche lui, e lo è al massimo grado, ma in modo diverso dalla brutalità e in fondo dalla volgarità di quei due illustri pensatori: lo è con tenerezza e con rispetto, quasi scusandosi. È un animo delicato che capisce subito come dietro la maschera della donna indipendente e a proprio agio in ogni situazione ci sia l’insicurezza e l’infelicità di chi è costretta a recitare un ruolo, vorrebbe lasciarsi andare, ma l’educazione, la società glielo impediscono. Victoria ha tutto ciò che a Drieu piace, ma anche tutto ciò che Drieu detesta. Una casa nell’VIII arrondissement, abiti di Chanel, quadri di Picasso, Léger, Mirò alle pareti, soggiorni al Savoy di Londra o al Normandy di Deauville, e insomma quell’idea del lusso, delle cose belle, della pigrizia e dell’ozio che egli coltiva in modo quasi maniacale proprio perché non è alla portata dei suoi mezzi. L’idea di essere mantenuto da «mecenati femminili» da un lato ne solletica l’orgoglio maschile, e dall’altro gli ripugna perché proietta su di sé l’ombra di un padre vanesio, fallito e seduttore, incapace di amare e fonte di sofferenza per sua madre.

Anche come tipo femminile Victoria è per Drieu il concentrato di sentimenti contrastanti. Fisicamente è alta, ben fatta, matura, e questo si accorda con chi non si è mai innamorato di fanciulle in fiore e non si è mai visto nel ruolo del pigmalione-corruttore di anime giovani e caste. E però stride con la sua preferenza verso le donne anti-intellettuali, dirette, le uniche che egli possa sopportare perché non lo obbligano a pensare, perché non invadono la sua intimità. Victoria è «tutto quello che nell’altro sesso lui vuole ignorare», quell’elemento di cultura che può scuotere il suo senso di superiorità, che può costringerlo a discutere, a rivedere una posizione, a interrogarsi sulla bontà di una scelta. È insomma il fascino che nasce da un pericolo, laddove la passione per le donne semplici, se non per le prostitute che nemmeno fanno domande, è sotto il segno della sicurezza. Il primo è alla lunga stressante, la seconda alla lunga è noiosa.

 

E Victoria? Che cosa trova in Drieu Victoria? È un intellettuale, ma non di quelli libreschi. Ha una modernità che ne fa il termometro culturale di quella Francia fra le due guerre, in grado di cogliere la novità delle avanguardie, ma anche spesso la loro sterilità. È aitante, e il suo narcisismo masochista non riesce a nascondere il coraggio fisico e una tensione morale incapace di compromessi. Rispetto alla media dei suoi confratelli, ha più buon gusto, pulizia, charme, e ciò colpisce chi, come lei, sotto questo aspetto ha poco da imparare e molto da insegnare... Infine, nel gioco psicologico Drieu è uno che non si nega e questo rende lo scambio più interessante per una mente femminile... Come molte donne, Victoria vorrebbe salvarlo dal suo lato nero, pessimista, malinconico, come molte donne pensa e spera di dargli quella fiducia nei propri mezzi in grado di condurlo a grandi cose.

 

La distanza, le differenze di opinioni politiche, la stanchezza che si insinua in ogni legame sentimentale, allenteranno nel tempo i rapporti, senza mai però reciderli. Negli anni ’30, un ciclo di conferenze in Argentina organizzato dalla Ocampo sarà per Drieu l’occasione per mettere a fuoco ideologie e scelte di campo: «È stato lì che ho capito che la vita del mondo occidentale stava uscendo dal suo torpore e che si apprestava ad essere lacerata dal dilemma fascismo-comunismo. Da quel momento, ho camminato rapidamente verso la caduta in un destino politico». La summa di tutto questo sarà, nel 1943, L’uomo a cavallo, storia di un dittatore boliviano che sogna l’unità del continente latino-americano e la riconciliazione delle classi sociali. Camilla, l’eroina del romanzo, è in realtà Victoria Ocampo, e naturalmente il loro è un amore destinato al fallimento. «Sarebbe ora che tu capissi che le donne sono anche esseri umani» gli aveva rimproverato un giorno... Perché Ocampo sapeva che «nella sua maniera di amare la Francia riconosco il suo modo di amare le donne che gli ho spesso rimproverato e che era poi così irritante, ma non meschino. Se Drieu è per una politica che non ci piace, non lo è per ragioni inconfessabili, basse o interessate. Un giorno gli dissi: Tu sei Pietro, e su questa pietra non costruirò la mia chiesa. Ma la mia tenerezza gli resta fedele, incurabilmente fedele».

 

Stenio Solinas

Traditionalism and Dugin, in Russian

Traditionalism and Dugin, in Russian

There is a new article in Russian on Dugin by Andreas Umland and Anton Shekhovtsov, "Philosophia Perennis и «неоевразийство»: роль интегрального традиционализма в утопических построениях Александра Дугина" (Philosophia Perennis and 'Neo-Eurasianism:' The Role of Integral Traditionalism in the Utopian Constructions of Aleksandr Dugin), in Форум новейшей восточноевропейской истории и культуры - Русское издание 2 (2010), available at http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/ZIMOS/forum/inhaltruss14.html. This is a translation of Anton Shekhovtsov and Andreas Umland, "Is Aleksandr Dugin a Traditionalist? 'Neo-Eurasianism' and Perennial Philosophy" The Russian Review 68 (October 2009), pp. 662–78, discussed in a previous post.

Soral sur Céline et les petites gens

Soral sur Céline et les petites gens

Manning Up

Amanda Bradley

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

Kay S. Hymowitz
Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men into Boys
New York: Basic Books, 2011

I expected this book to be a diatribe against the often-discussed “loser” men—those who, not having any marketable skill, are still living off their parents into mid-life. Manning Up actually is about a new demographic, the SYM (single young male), its female counterpart, and what factors led to the decline in marriage and number of children in the Western world. Simply having a job is not enough to be a man in the author’s view; true adulthood means being married and having children. Most young men and women are what she calls “preadults.”

 Kay S. Hymowitz, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, has written extensively on issues of marriage, the sexes, class, and race, and she appears to be genuinely concerned about the declining rates in marriage childbirth. Her stance is slanted in favor of women, but she is sympathetic to the plight of men today. She mentions that boys are often discriminated against and ignored in favor of women. While funds pour in to increase girls’ math and science scores, boys are not given special treatment to improve their reading scores. She cites a BusinessWeek story that explains today’s young men as a “payback generation” intended to “compensate for the advantages given to males in the past.”

The Shift to the Feminine, Knowledge Economy

Scholars attribute women’s entry into the workforce largely to innovations in science and technology in the twentieth century. With no need to can food, make bread, weave, or sew, women were not “needed” at home the way they were in every generation past. They were having fewer children, too, due to birth control: In the early 1800s, white women had an average of seven children. By 1900, it was 3.56. When the birth control pill was introduced in the 1960s, state laws “kept the drug away from unmarried women.” Economist Martha Baily showed that when a state changed its law, there was a decline in the percentage of young women who gave birth by age 22, and an increase in the number of young women in the labor force and the hours they worked.

The number of working women (ages 33 to 45) went from 25 percent in 1950, to 46 percent in 1970, to about 60 percent since 1995. But in the 1950s to ’70s, women tended to work to help pay the bills, often as secretaries, waitresses, nurses, teachers, and librarians. Today’s young women set out in the world to find their “passion” not in a husband, but in a career.

The shift from secretary to major player in corporate America, Hymowitz explains, was largely due to a shift from an industrial economy to a knowledge economy. By the 1980s, the economy was booming as manufacturing jobs decreased and millions of positions opened in fields like public relations, health, and law. Women, too weak physically to participate much in the industrial economy, could do almost any job in the knowledge economy.

One example given is design. As technology advanced, designers transitioned from working with their hands (and making lasting work as is found in Bauhaus and Art Nouveau) to being hands-off fashion designers, who no longer needed to learn drafting, typesetting, drawing, or how to use heavy equipment. Using cheap labor overseas meant many more products, and thus a greater need for marketing and advertising. Women now make up 60 percent of design students, once a male-dominated field.

New industries sprouted up, too, as increased wealth and leisure time demanded workers at yoga centers, spas, travel companies, and more marketing and ad agencies for these specialty industries—all areas in which women participate as easily as men. Working women had new needs and money to spend, so more industries sprouted up to create feminine business suits, trendy lunch spots, meal “helpers,” stylish computer bags, $400 work pumps, $5 lattes, spa treatments and scented candles to help women unwind, houses with bathrooms the size of our grandparents’ bedrooms, a variety of products in the color pink, and right-hand rings for women who want to buy themselves a diamond. Other women entered the design arena through boutique companies: making jewelry, crafts, or custom stationary.

Nation-building and culture-building thus fell out of the workforce, replaced by sales, marketing, and fashion.

Today, men outnumber women in fields like construction (88 percent), while women make up 51 percent of management and professionals, particularly in fields like Human Resources, Public Relations, and finance. Women make up 77 percent of workers in education and health services. Women are more likely to work at the numerous new nonprofits, and make up 78 percent of psychology majors, 61 percent of humanities majors, and 60 percent of social and behavioral science doctorates. Publishing has long had high numbers of women workers, but now women have moved from what Hymowitz calls the “ladies’ magazines ghettos” to political commentary.

While women moved into the knowledge economy, men remained in behind-the-scenes fields that required more technical skill: jobs like writing code and IT. Some men flocked to jobs at ESPN, Cartoon Network, microbreweries, and video game design firms. Other men knew that even in the midst of feminism, their wives would still want the option to stay home and raise children (so long as men didn’t tell them they had to), and concentrated on high-paying jobs rather than following their bliss.

In the early nineteenth century, most men worked for themselves, as farmers, small merchants, or tradesmen. But by the end of the nineteenth century, two-thirds were working for “the man.” Some experts believe that it’s women who will soon be “running the place,” since the knowledge economy workplace “requires a more feminine style of leadership.” Employers will increasingly placate women, who are not solely concerned with the bottom line as a measure of their career success, but also want a job where they “help others,” enjoy relationships with colleagues, get recognition, have flexibility, and are in an environment of “collaboration and teamwork.” More women in the workplace means that it is more genteel and less of a man’s club: Swearing and spitting are forbidden, and men are now in a domesticated atmosphere both at home and at work. The popularity of psychoanalysis means that men and women alike are trained to listen sympathetically, be sensitive to emotions, and control their anger.

To explain the dynamics of the knowledge economy, Hymowitz references a 2002 paper by Harvard economist Brian Jacob called “Where the Boys Aren’t.” He found that girls are better at noncognitive tasks, such as keeping track of homework, working well with others, and organization, and suggests that such skills may explain the gender gap in high school grades and college admissions (women have higher GPAs and are 58 percent of college graduates, but they lag behind men in math SAT scores). These cognitive skills also are important for success in today’s feminized workplace.

Though not mentioned in Manning Up, these skills are also ones for which men have traditionally relied on women: organizing the home, keeping track of appointments, and being the family PR rep and social coordinator. Today’s women benefit in the career-world, as more jobs require good communication skills and “EQ” (emotional intelligence), while men are left with lower paying jobs and the added disadvantage of no wife at home.

SYMs: The New Demographic

In 1970, 80 percent of men aged 25–29 were married, compared to 40 percent in 2007. In 1970, 85 percent of men aged 30–34 were married, compared to 60 percent in 2007.

This new single-young-male demographic used to be called “elusive,” since it was a difficult advertising target. Then Maxim arrived in America in 1997, and seemed to have the answers to what SYMs wanted. Its readership reached 2.5 million in 2009, more than the combined circulation of GQ, Men’s Journal, and Esquire. Hymowitz says other magazines, like Playboy and Esquire, tried to project the “image of an intelligent, cultured, and au courant sort of man.” Even though Playboy promoted the image of the eternal bachelor, he was at least an intelligent and sophisticated bachelor. (Hugh Hefner wrote that his readers enjoyed “inviting a female acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Picasso, Nietzsche, jazz, sex.”) Maxim, however, catered to the man who didn’t want to grow up.

Hymowitz doesn’t buy into the idea that the masses of men are moved by the media (or an inner party seeking to destroy them, let alone any subversive forces dominant in the Kali Yuga). She instead posits that products like Maxim were developed for an existing market.

Regardless of the reason, a number of TV shows were created with the SYM in mind, starting with The Simpsons. Comedy Central brought out South Park and The Man Show, while the Cartoon Network promoted cartoons for grown men. More films featured SYM stars like Will Ferrell, Ben Stiller, Jim Carrey, and Jack Black, and movies like 2003’s Old School (30-somethings who start a fraternity) were popular. American men ages 18–34 are now the biggest users of video games, with 48.2 percent owning a console and playing an average of 2 hours and 43 minutes per day. That doesn’t include online games like World of Warcraft.

Hymowitz recounts the numerous silly Adam Sandler movies, in which he plays a stereotypical young adult, male loser. Meanwhile, the media’s counter-image for women is the well-heeled, single young female:

If she is ambitious, he is a slacker. If she is hyper-organized and self-directed, he tends toward passivity and vagueness. If she is preternaturally mature, he is happily not. Their opposition is stylistic as well: she drinks sophisticated cocktails in mirrored bars, he burps up beer on ratty sofas. She spends her hard-earned money on mani-pedi outings, his goes toward World of Warcraft and gadgets.

It’s in this chapter that Hymowitz’s double-standard for men and women is most apparent, and annoying. She seems to think that when single women spend money for clothes and pedicures, it’s women’s empowerment, but single men who spend money on guy-flicks and video games are childish. Both cases seem to me examples of adults who, instead of having children, make themselves into the child: men by continuing all the games and comic books of their youth, and women by playing Barbie doll with themselves.

So if simply cutting the financial apron strings doesn’t make one a man, what does? Hymowitz answers by looking to masculine virtues throughout all cultures: “strength, courage, resolve, and sexual potency,” but that one line is about the extent of the analysis. She is careful to distinguish between having sex (which single men do a lot these days) and “manning up” by being married and becoming the head of a family.

But even when men do settle down, the roles they play as fathers have changed. Rather than being a strong father figure, today’s father often relates to his children by “accentuating his own immaturity,” according to Gary Cross, author of Men to Boys: The Making of Modern Immaturity. Whether they want to or not, middle-class men are often “expected to bring home a spirit of playfulness that would have scandalized their own patriarchal fathers.” The middle-class home has became more child-centric, even with fewer children in it, and both sexes are expected to project “warmth, nurturing, and gentleness.”

With high divorce rates, many young men today were raised in matriarchal family environments, which may be one contributing factor to the “unmanliness” of some of today’s men. Instead of having their own families, some men instead play the role of the “fun uncle,” like men in matriarchal, non-white societies.

A Different Dating World

After college, all of these single young people embark on a journey more confusing than if they started a family: modern dating, now with websites that describe the etiquette for one-night stands (it’s “leave quickly”).

Men and women are both confused by the new rituals, and the lack thereof. A man who inadvertently insults a girl by not opening her car door may have been chastised by his last girlfriend for doing just that. Women sometimes “pick up” guys (whether at bars, or actually driving to pick them up for dates), and there is ambiguity about who pays for dates when SYFs outearn SYMs in the majority of large cities. Men experience the nice-guy conundrum when they see girls dating jerks. Meanwhile, women practice a Zen-like nonattachment when dating, since bringing up marriage before a year of sex seems to turn men off.

Hymowitz recounts a number of events from the childhood of young women that play into their behavior as adults: Today’s SYFs were often told by their mothers that they shouldn’t need a man to be happy. They were likely raised in the 1990s, in the midst of a tween-based advertising frenzy that marketed make-up, thong underwear, and high-heeled clogs to preteens, while at the same time trying to “save the self-esteem” of young girls. Popular TV shows for girls were based on the female warrior type: The Powerpuff Girls, Xena: Warrior Princess, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. These women try to convince themselves for years that they shouldn’t “need” a child or husband, then end up debating whether to become a “choice mother” (the new term for a woman who uses sperm bank).

 

* * *

 

Manning Up might be a good “beach book” for women readers of Counter-Currents, but I have trouble imagining men enjoying it, though they would find some insights into the mind of the typical woman. I found it interesting for its wealth of statistics about marriage rates and ages, men and women in the workplace and universities, and summaries of various causes that contributed to the (mostly white) single and childless young men and women today.

There have been numerous debates on Counter-Currents and other websites about what exactly has caused the decline in marriage and childbirth. Manning Up does a good job of touching on some of the contributing forces, but never addresses any of the larger forces.

The good news from Manning Up is that the majority of young men and women still want to get married and have children. In addition, while women in their early 20s are “hot commodities,” by the time they reach 30, they are beginning to get desperate and may “settle for Mr. Good Enough” as the subtitle of the book Marry Him advises. More good news lies in the fact that young people today are scrambling for any advice whatsoever about how to successfully date and marry, revealing a large market for New Righters and Traditionalists to step into to help young people successfully navigate through the increasingly unsatisfying modern world.

Hans-Joachim Schoeps und die Restauration der Monarchie: Über die Unterschätzung des liberal-demokratischen Nihilismus

Hans-Joachim Schoeps und die Restauration der Monarchie: Über die Unterschätzung des liberal-demokratischen Nihilismus

Geschrieben von: Prof. Dr. Paul Gottfried (Gastautor)   

 

Ex: http://www.blauenarzisse.de/

 

Einem Monarchisten jüdischen Glaubens, Hans-Joachim Schoeps (1909-1980), fühle ich mich schon längst schicksalsgemeinschaftlich zugetan. Als seine preußischen Vorfahren, der Hohenzollern-Hausmacht huldigend, im Ersten Weltkrieg zu Felde zogen, meldete sich zeitgleich mein öesterreichisch-jüdischer Onkel zum Kriegsdienst. Auch als Greis mit steigender Hinfälligkeit schlug sich Schoeps gegen Deutschhasser jeder Couleur und vor allem gegen die Verächter des preußischen Erbguts. Außerdem trat er mutig der Beschimpfung entgegen, dass er gegen die von den Alliierten installierte Demokratie als „jüdischer Nazi“ antrat.

Während der Lektüre von Frank-Lothar Krolls Monographie über Schoeps’ Leben und Wirken, Hans-Joachim Schoeps und Preußen (2010), wurde ich angespitzt, über bestimmte Anklagen gegen den philosophierenden Historiker nachzudenken. Das Grübeln wurde durch eine Unterhaltung mit meinem Sohn veranlasst, nachdem er Schoeps’ Preußen. Geschichte eines Staates (1965) mit Gewinn las. Es fiel meinem Sohn auf, wie unerwartet ausgereift und unbefangen die darin befindlichen Geschichtsurteile sind. Schoeps scheint keineswegs von dem letzten Kaiser geblendet zu sein und er befindet etwa die deutsche Vereinigung unter Bismarck als einen Fehltritt, der der Entgrenzung der schon geregelten internationalen Beziehungen in Mitteleuropa Tür und Tor öffnete.

Falsche Fährte: Schoeps sieht das Aufgehen Preußens im Deutschen Kaiserreich kritisch

Des weiteren bekrittelte er die „Verausgabung“ der aufgespeicherten preußischen Kraftquellen, die das Zustandebringen des Deutschen Reiches ermöglichte. Besser wäre es für die jenseits der Elbe gesiedelten Deutschen ausgefallen, wenn Preußen nie in Deutschland aufgegangen wäre. Schoeps beruft sich auf die Vorfechter einer älteren, gutsherrlichen und christlich gebundenen, deutschen Tradition, die in Preußen auf dem Lande Wurzeln schlugen und in dieser Biosphäre langjährig gediehen ist. Diesem „anderen Preußen“ widmete er 1951 ein Werk, worin er hervorragende „konservative Gestalten“ im Zeitalter Friedrich Wilhelm IV. herausstellt und als Vorbilder der politischen Ehre hochhält. In dieselbe Kerbe schlägt er in seinen eingehenden Schilderungen von Ernst und Ludwig von Gerlach, die altkonservativen Gegner, die sich mit Bismarck zerstritten haben. Diese von Schoeps verehrten Ritterfiguren lehnten das Vereinigungsringen der Kleindeutschen und des Eisernen Kanzlers glattwegs ab. Wenn man einen Deutschnationalisten in Schoeps Preußengeschichte sucht, dann sitzt man also bestimmt auf dem falschen Dämpfer.

Trotzdem haftet ihm dauernd die Belastung an, dass nach Hitlers Machtantritt er und seine Mitkämpfer in dem rechtsgestellten deutschjüdischen Verein Vortrupp. Gefolgschaft Deutscher Juden für das hinaufziehende Dritte Reich eintraten. Wie der Chemnitzer Historiker Kroll stichhaltig beweist, gibt es gar keine Begründung für diese breitgetretene Schimpferei. Außer einer allgemeinen Versicherung seitens des Vereins, dass ihre Mitglieder dem deutschen Vaterland festgebunden blieben, erschliesst sich in seinem Bekenntnis zum Deutschtum kein Grund, warum damit zugleich Hitlers Machtstellung bejubelt worden wäre.

Positionen intellektueller Juden im Schicksalsjahr 1933

Etliche deutsche Zionisten, allen voran Joachim Prinz, der in die USA auswanderte, haben die Nazis eingangs schwärmend begrüsst. Diese jüdischnationalen Gegner der Assimilierung erhofften sich, dass ihre Stammesgenossen durch die Nazis in dem Maß ausgegrenzt worden wären, dass sie samt und sonders nach Palästina aufbrechen würden. Nach seiner Emigration firmierte Prinz als dezidiert „antifaschistisch“ und in den 1960ern wurde er dann zu einem Linksaktivisten, der gegen die bis dahin gewohnte Betensverrichtungen in den Staatsschulen mit besonderem Nachdruck opponierte.

Es gibt auch einen Briefwechsel zwischen Schoeps und dem schon ausgezogenen deutschen Zionisten, Gershom Scholem, worin Scholem Schoeps vorwirft, den Deutschjuden Sand in die Augen gestreut zu haben. Wenn er seinen Mitjuden behilflich sein wollte, dann würde er, so Scholem, Himmel und Erde in Bewegung setzen, um das jüdische Volk von Deutschland zu entfernen. Es ist beachtenswert, dass Scholem mehr als zwanzig Jahre als überzeugter Zionist agiert hat, bevor er die in Frage stehende Ansicht vorbrachte. Im Ersten Weltkrieg stellte er sich gegen die deutsche Seite, um die kaisertreuen Eltern zu bestürzen und um seine bewusste Distanz von seinem nichtjüdischen Geburtsort zu bekunden.

Innere Emigration deutschnationaler Juden bis zu dem Punkt, an dem das Exil unumgänglich wurde.

Es bleibt offen, ob Schoeps weniger tiefblickend war als sein Gesprächspartner. Schoeps hielt unbeirrt an seinem Vaterlandssinn fest. Das führte dazu, dass er Deutschland in den 1930ern durchstreifte und andere Juden aufrief, weiter auf ihrem Posten auszuharren, bis die brausende Krise verfliegt. Rückblickend war das unklug, aber verständlich dass Schoeps bis auf seine eigene Flucht am Heiligabend 1938 nach Schweden die Hoffnung hegte, dass die Nazis gestürzt werden könnten.

Dass er die Sachlage falsch einschätzte, war schade, ist aber bestimmt nicht mit Nazi-Mitwisserschaft gleichzusetzen. Es ist unberechtigt, seinen zionistischen Gegnern zuviel Einsicht beizumessen. Scholems betonierte antideutsche Stellung entstieg einer früheren Zeitepoche. Diese Haltung verdichtete sich bei ihm lange vor der katastrophalen Gegebenheit, die sein Antideutschtum zu rechtfertigen schien. Man würde dem antideutschen Scholem zuviel zumuten, wenn man glaubt, dieser habe schon 1913 den gesamten Verlauf der Zeitgeschichte von dem Kaiserreich bis zur Nazi-Gewaltherrschaft erspürt.

Versuche konservativer Restauration nach 1945

Eine für mich weniger verständliche Seite von Schoeps’ Tätigkeit ist seine langjährige Bestrebung, die Hohenzollernmonarchie nach 1945 wiederherzustellen. Kroll belegt, dass Schoeps nach seiner Heimkehr stets auf eine monarchistische Restauration hingearbeitet hat. Zum Thronprätendenten Louis Ferdinand von Hohenzollern (1907-1994) knüpfte er eine innige Beziehung. Er verschrieb sich parallel dazu der Aufgabe der Neugestaltung eines preußischen Landesgebiets. Sein Zorn war groß darüber, dass die Alliierten Nazismus im preußischen Militärgeist beheimateten. Aufgrund dieses Mißgriffs gingen die Siegermächte daran, Preußen als geläufigen Begriff und als Verwaltungsgebiet abzuschaffen, um es endlich aus dem Sinn der Deutschen zu schlagen.

Für Schoeps bilden Preußen und Monarchie ein einheitliches Gespann. Sein ausgeprägt preußisches Bewußtsein und die Wiedereindeutschung des dazugehörigen Ortsbezuges gingen mit einer monarchistischen Staatsform Hand in Hand. Beides zielte auf eine moralische Wiederbewaffnung der deutschen Nation ab, die nur zu erlangen war im Zusammenhang mit einer erneuten traditionsgebundenen Gruppenidentität. Schoeps beweifelte, dass die „liberaldemokratische“ Staatsform mit ihrer Betonung auf Erwerbstätigkeit und Konsumismus die erwünschte „Umkehr“ bewirken könnte. Nur die Wiederaufwertung einer preußischen Dienstethik mit einem „mehr an Autorität“ von einer altkonservativen Ausprägung, so Schoeps in einem „nicht gehaltenen Vortrag in eigener Sache“ vom Februar 1968, würde es den Deutschen erlauben, ein neues Selbstbewußtsein und eine Kollektividentität erreichen zu können. Die Frage steht noch offen, warum die angestrebte Restauration in den so gelagerten Umständen die gewollte Wirkung haben müsste. Auf Schoeps entfällt die Beweislast zu zeigen, dass die Rückkehr zu einer monarchistischen Staatsform das Genesungsverfahren in seiner zergeschlagenen Heimat beschleunigt hätte.

Die moralische Wiederbewaffnung der deutschen Nation und letztlich gescheiterte Konzepte dazu

Was er eigentlich verlangte, ist eine Galionsfigurmonarchie von einer Art, die schon in den Benelux-Ländern und in Großbritannien zu finden war. Eine solche Restauration strebte er an, als er in seiner Konservativen Erneuerung. Ideen zur deutschen Politik (1958) ausführte: Die monarchistische Staatsform sei Alternative zu einer nivellierenden Mittelstandsgesellschaft sowie Korrektiv zur „antiautoritären Vermassung und Entpersönlichung des öffentlichen Lebens“. Mit Respekt zu melden, deutet Schoeps auf keinen Heiligen Gral sondern auf die Ausdehnung auf die Deutschen von einer schon in Westeuropa befindlichen „figure head monarchy“.

In westlichen Ländern erzeugt dieser Bezug auf die Tradition allerdings kein Gegenmittel gegen die Auflockerung durch den liberaldemokratischen Nihilismus. Es wäre einfältig zu glauben, dass Schweden und England, um nur zwei treffende Beispiele anzuführen, den schädlichen Folgen der Spätmoderne entfliehen könnten, indem sie eine monarchistische Galionsfigur beibehalten. Sie eilen gleichfalls der Vermassung und Entpersönlichung, die Schoeps beängstigten, mit Vollgeschwindigkeit entgegen. In dieser Frage zeigt sich Schoeps als „politischer Romantiker“ schlechthin.

Das traurige Ende seiner wissenschaftlichen Karriere

Tieftraurig klang Schoeps’ professorale Laufbahn aus, als Ende 1967 der Sozialistische Deutsche Studentenbund (SDS) ihn in Erlangen aus seinen Seminaren mit Drohmitteln heraustrieb. Schoeps wurde von der Philosophischen Fakultät im Stich gelassen. Bis zu seinem Lebensende hat er mit Fakultätssitzungen keinen weiteren Kontakt gehabt und trotz seines internationalen Rufes als Sachverständiger über die urchristliche Kirche und deren Beziehung zu der alteren jüdischen Kulturwelt hat Schoeps nie wieder in einem akademischen Zusammenhang sein Fachwissen vermittelt.

Sein Gegengift gegen die massendemokratische Zerrüttung hätte keineswegs gereicht, das bangmachende Übel zu mildern – geschweige denn zu unterbinden. Die Wiederherstellung der spanischen Monarchie nach Francos Tod erreichte es nicht, Spanien auf einer mäßigen Kursrichtung zu halten. Das Land schwenkte danach ausufernd nach links in kulturellen sowie wirtschaftlichen Angelegenheiten. Warum hätte es anders in Deutschland ablaufen sollen, auch wenn es dem wackeren Schoeps gelungen wäre, sich programmatisch durchzusetzen?