Sorel y el Sindicalismo Nacional

Sorel y el Sindicalismo Nacional

 Gustavo Morales

Ex: http://alternativaeuropeaasociasioncultural.wordpress.com/

Si alguien se atreve a levantar su voz contra las ilusiones del racionalismo en el acto es considerado como un enemigo de la democracia

Georges Sorel (1847-1922) era un ingeniero francés, padre del revisionismo revolucionario que supera el carácter materialista del marxismo y llegará a ser básico para la génesis del fascismo. El ambiente intelectual de Sorel se enmarca en el Barrio Latino de París, muy lejos de las frías escuelas teoréticas de Viena.
Marxista confeso, Sorel pretende, originalmente, completar el pensamiento de su maestro. A principios del siglo XX el pensamiento socialista debe enfrentarse a una serie de problemas nuevos, difícilmente explicables mediante el análisis marxista ortodoxo. Sorel se desmarca de las estructuras racionalistas y destaca que el marxismo es la construcción de un mito revolucionario para ilusionar a las masas, negando su valor como explicación racional de la realidad.
Sorel niega el valor del racionalismo, al que acusa de corruptor. Antepone a Pascal y a Bergson frente a Descartes y a Sócrates. Sorel sustituye los fundamentos racionalistas y hegelianos del marxismo por:
1.- La nueva visión de la naturaleza humana que predica Le Bon, quien aconseja que "para vencer a las masas hay que tener previamente en cuenta los sentimientos que las animan, simular que se participa de ellos e intentar luego modificarlos provocando, mediante asociaciones rudimentarias, ciertas imágenes sugestivas; saber rectificar si es necesario y, sobre todo, adivinar en cada instante los sentimientos que se hacen brotar". Resume Le Bon que "la razón crea la ciencia, los sentimientos dirigen la historia".
2.- Por el anticartesianismo de Bergson. Las enseñanzas de Bergson permiten sustituir el contenido racionalista, es decir, utópico, del marxismo por los mitos revolucionarios. Sorel afirma que todo gran movimiento viene motivado por mitos. El método psicológico toma el relevo al enfoque mecanicista tradicional (1899), frente al método científico, el recurso a una teoría de los mitos sociales. Sorel no repudia el marxismo, incluso llega a defenderlo contra algunos socialistas democráticos. Se debe a que considera que no existe ninguna relación entre la verdad de una doctrina y su valor operativo en tanto que instrumento de combate. Sorel desplaza el mito de la esfera del intelecto y lo instala en la de la afectividad y la actividad. Una mentalidad religiosa contra la mentalidad racionalista. Sorel recuerda que Bergson nos ha enseñado que la religión no ocupa en exclusiva la región de la conciencia profunda, la ocupan también, por las mismas razones, los mitos revolucionarios. Con ello, Sorel rechaza el presunto carácter científico del marxismo y niega la posibilidad de la explicación social en términos cuasi matemáticos.
3.- Por la rebelión de Nietzsche.. La única actitud coherente del revolucionario es la negación de los valores imperantes y la afirmación de otros nuevos y rebeldes. En Reflexiones sobre la violencia, Sorel afirma: Los mitos no son descripciones de cosas, sino expresiones de voluntad... conjuntos de imágenes capaces de evocar en bloque y exclusivamente a través de la intuición, previamente a cualquier tipo de análisis reflexivo, la masa de los sentimientos que corresponden a las diversas manifestaciones de la guerra librada por el socialismo en contra de la sociedad moderna. Sorel identifica mito y convicciones, entendiendo éstas en términos de las ideas y creencias de Ortega. Sorel distingue entre la ética del guerrero, que apoya, y la del intelectual, que condena: Ya no hubo soldados ni marinos, sólo hubo tenderos escépticos.

Fases del pensamiento soreliano

Socialismo marxista

En una primera fase, los sorelianos metamorfosean el marxismo, construyen una nueva ideología revolucionaria, desechando las teorías marxistas de plusvalor y de clase. Sorel vacía el marxismo de hedonismo y de materialismo, haciéndolo pasar de ser una máquina intelectual esclerotizada a una fuerza movilizadora en pos de la destrucción de lo que existe, el mundo materialista burgués. La teoría de los mitos se vuelve el motor de la revolución y la violencia su instrumento: La violencia proletaria, no sólo puede garantizar la revolución futura, sino que, además, parece ser el único medio de que disponen las naciones europeas, embrutecidas por el humanismo, para recobrar su antigua energía. Para Sorel, sólo los hombres que viven en estado de tensión permanente pueden alcanzar lo sublime. En esa vía, Sorel reivindica el cristianismo primitivo y el sindicalismo de combate de su tiempo. No nos molestaremos en demostrar que la idea de violencia revolucionaria no se ciñe al derramamiento de sangre ni a la brutalidad, que son inherentes a la explotación del trabajador, camuflada bajo la cortina de humo del sufragio partitocrático. Por esa vía, también la crítica del sociólogo Pareto al marxismo, base de su teoría de las élites, se acerca a la de Sorel.

 

Sindicalismo nacional

En una segunda fase, a partir de que Sorel abandona el socialismo (1909), el mito nacional sustituye al mito exclusivamente proletario, ya desalentado en la lucha contra la decadencia democrática y racionalista. La enseñanza obligatoria, la alfabetización en las zonas rurales, el acceso lento pero continuo de la clase obrera a la cultura, no favorecen la conciencia de clase del proletariado, sino más bien una nueva toma de conciencia de la identidad nacional. Los sorelianos ven la organización de la sociedad en términos sindicalistas. Sorel cree que el sindicalismo, en su lucha contra la dictadura de la burguesía y la dictadura del proletariado, ambas materialistas, posee un alto valor civilizatorio. La influencia de Sorel se refleja en el parlamento de productores defendido por José Antonio, así como en la afirmación: Concebimos a España como un gigantesco sindicato de productores. Ledesma asumirá, además, el término de sindicalismo nacional que se extiende entre los sorelianos franceses e italianos. A la postre, lo nacional vira hacia formas de sindicalismo al igual que los sindicalistas varían hacia diferentes escuelas de nacionalismo. Asumen, también, de Sorel que la disciplina, la autoridad, la solidaridad social, el sentido del deber y del sacrificio, los valores heroicos, son otras tantas condiciones necesarias para la supervivencia de la nación. El mito nacional releva al mito meramente social como motor revolucionario. Para ello, es preciso que la convicción se apodere absolutamente de la conciencia y actúe antes que los cálculos de la reflexión hayan tenido tiempo de aparecer en el espíritu. Es decir, opta por la opción de la nueva civilización que nace de la acción directa antes de la reflexión teórica. Aquí Ledesma recibe una mayor influencia soreliana que José Antonio, que a pesar de su renuncia a la torre de marfil de los intelectuales siente una cierta nostalgia por ella, visible en su Elogio y reproche a Ortega y Gasset.
La vanguardia cultural de la primera década del siglo XX, los futuristas, reciben con entusiasmo las ideas sorelianas prefascistas: Los elementos esenciales de nuestra poesía serán el coraje, la audacia y la rebelión.. Queremos derribar los museos, las bibliotecas, atacar el moralismo (...) Ensalzamos las resacas multicolores y polifónicas de las revoluciones. En pie en la cumbre del mundo, lanzamos una vez más el desafío a las estrellas. (Marinetti, 1909).
Un hecho crucial en la opinión pública occidental está en 1920. Cuando, respaldados por numerosas huelgas parciales y ocupaciones de fábricas en el norte de Italia, los nacionalsindicalistas italianos presenten su propuesta de autogestión de la industria al ministro de Trabajo, Arturo Labriola. El primer ministro Giolitti reconoce el derecho de participación de los trabajadores en las empresas. El nacionalsindicalismo italiano obtiene así una victoria épica.
Con todo ello, los sorelianos abren la tercera vía entre las dos concepciones totales del hombre y la sociedad que son el liberalismo y el marxismo, ideologías presas del racionalismo donde se prescinde de la intuición y del sentimiento en favor de un imposible concepción matemática de las ciencias sociales. El discurso de Sorel se hace transversal, basado fundamentalmente en el poder de los sindicatos pero repudiando el carácter meramente reivindicativo de éstos, es decir, su domesticación en brazos del socialismo parlamentario. Sorel repudia los pactos y acuerdos con la burguesía, así como el sistema de dominio del liberalismo democratizado: el parlamentarismo. Sorel odió tanto a la burguesía y la democracia liberal que recibió con expresiones de júbilo la revolución rusa, a pesar de haber criticado enérgicamente el leninismo de los revolucionarios profesionales. Sorel ve en Lenin la revancha del genio creador del jefe contra la vulgaridad democrática. Aconsejaba a los sindicatos alejarse del mundo corrupto de los políticos y de los intelectuales burgueses, distinguiendo entre conspiración y revolución. Sólo la segunda da vida a una nueva moral. Sólo los trabajadores más militantes -dice Sorel- son sindicalistas: El obrero de la gran industria sustituirá al guerrero de la ciudad heroica. Por tanto, los valores de ambos son comunes y el ascetismo y la eliminación del individualismo suponen características compartidas por el soldado-monje y por el obrero-combatiente. Podemos encontrar coincidencias entre el desarrollo de Sorel y el de Spengler.

 

Fascismo

Sorel no desacreditó el uso que los fascistas hacían de su nombre. De hecho, el fascismo nace de la crítica sindicalista, con un fuerte componente soreliano, al marxismo racionalista ortodoxo. El fascismo se revela contra la deshumanización introducida por la modernización en las relaciones humanas, pero, al contrario que el tradicionalismo, desea conservar celosamente los logros del progreso. La revolución fascista busca transformar la naturaleza de las relaciones entre el individuo y la comunidad sin que por ello sea necesario desbaratar el motor de la actividad económica moderna. Los sorelianos son los primeros revolucionarios surgidos de la izquierda que se niegan a cuestionar la propiedad privada. Consideran que atacarla supone confundir al enemigo real: la concepción burguesa y materialista de la existencia, que también encarnan el jacobino y el socialdemócrata.

 

Los sorelianos se mantienen fieles a la idea de que todo progreso depende, y dependerá, de una economía de mercado, al igual que hoy defiende el economista joseantoniano Velarde Fuertes, distintas de los planteamientos estatistas de Dionisio Ridruejo. En este punto del debate, los nacionalsindicalistas se escinden, la mayoría pasa a apoyar directamente al fascismo, incluso cuando éste modera su aspecto de transformación económica de la sociedad. Otro pequeño sector, el ala izquierda, rompe con el fascismo y recupera el viejo axioma del sindicalismo revolucionario: la sociedad de trabajadores libres.
El paso de uno a otro es visible en José Antonio en la comparativa del Discurso de la Comedia de 1933 al Discurso de la revolución Española de 1935, en el que enumera cuatro tipos de propiedad: la personal, la familiar, la comunal y la sindical. Están ausentes la estatal y la correspondiente a sociedades anónimas.
En cualquier caso, con la síntesis fascista, la estética revolucionaria y heroica se convierte en parte integrante de la política y de la economía.

 

Conclusión

Sorel, en los artículos reunidos en las Ilusiones del Progreso, denuncia a Descartes, dado que sus ideas lo son de la clase dominante. Desecha el racionalismo que deviene en optimismo al entender el mundo como un inmenso almacén donde todos pueden satisfacer sus necesidades materiales. Sorel pide que el socialismo se transforme en una filosofía de comportamiento moral, donde las relaciones de los trabajadores generen una nueva ética, absolutamente distinta de la moral burguesa, el enemigo real de Sorel.
Sorel abandona el proletarismo cuando comprueba que la violencia obrera, sustentada en las reivindicaciones materiales, no eleva al proletariado al nivel de una fuerza histórica susceptible de engendrar una nueva civilización. Sorel anuncia que el sindicalismo se separa del socialismo racionalista y repudia, finalmente, a Marx y a Hegel. Sorel asume la frase de Croce y afirma: El socialismo ha muerto, cuando descubre, con amargura, que las ideas, preocupaciones, fines y comportamientos del trabajador no difieren de aquellas de los burgueses. El carácter pactista del parlamentarismo liberal ha seducido a los partidos socialistas europeos occidentales y los sindicatos, animados por la acción directa y el mito de la huelga revolucionaria, o se amoldan o se separan radicalmente del socialismo parlamentario.
Sorel se desentiende de las construcciones teóricas que anteceden a la acción. Él es un enamorado del hecho revolucionario, lo que ayuda a comprender su paso del marxismo de combate, que abandona cuando la socialdemocracia se domestica en los parlamentos, y da su posterior adhesión a los procesos de revolución nacional que sacuden Europa.
Cuando el 23 de marzo de 1919, en la plaza San Sepolcro de Milán, Mussolini funda el fascismo italiano, entre los presentes se encuentran muchos sindicalistas sorelianos, hastiados de la connivencia de la burguesía con el Partido Socialista Italiano del que también procede el futuro Duce.
En resumen, el fascismo no nace de la burguesía sino que es una escisión de la izquierda socialista, la fracción de aquellos que abominan del liberalismo parlamentario y consideran que la misión histórica del proletariado no es imponer una dictadura sino crear una civilización.
A la postre el fascismo pierde su empuje revolucionario, es decir, cuando inicia su política de pactos con la burguesía industrial, los partidos nacionales del resto de Europa rompen con él y buscan un nuevo engarce de la revolución nacional con el brío puro y antipolítico de las masas anarcosindicalistas. El mejor ejemplo lo tenemos en Ramiro Ledesma y La Conquista del Estado. Ledesma no opta por el fascismo, a pesar de su viva la Italia de Mussolini o viva la Germania de Hitler, ni por el bolchevismo, también a pesar de su viva la Rusia de Stalin, sino por algo consustancial a todos ellos, el fin de la democracia liberal, ese régimen basado en palabras del soreliano Berth, en el voto secreto...el símbolo perfecto de la democracia. Ved a ese ciudadano, ese miembro de lo soberano, que temblorosamente va a ejercer su soberanía, se esconde, elude las miradas, ninguna papeleta será lo suficientemente opaca para ocultar a las miradas indiscretas su pensamiento....
Ledesma, como Sorel y José Antonio, entienden que el trabajador está llamado a recuperar el sentimiento heroico de la existencia, antaño en manos del guerrero.
Sorel es la superación del mecanicismo marxista.. José Antonio da un paso más, superando el fascismo corporativista y enlazando la cuestión social y la nacional con el compromiso humano y utópico.
En resumen, el fascismo es un revisión del socialismo. El nacionalsindicalismo, al final, supone una superación del carácter material y pactista de ambos, entroncando con el sindicalismo revolucionario y la nacionalización del proletariado, construyendo una sociedad vertebrada sin estatismo.

Gilbert Sincyr au Local

Gilbert Sincyr au Local :

Nessuno tocchi la Siria

How are Revolutions Born?

How are Revolutions Born?

By Dominique Venner 

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

Translated by Greg Johnson

The birth of revolutions is a fascinating, quite relevant, and little-known topic. It was studied by the sociologist Jules Monnerot (1908–1995) after the French events of May 1968 in his book Sociologie de la Révolution [Sociology of Revolution] (Paris: Fayard, 1969). A valuable work for which the author has forged a series of concepts applicable to all situations.

As a sociological study and not one in the history of ideas, Monnerot uses one term, “revolution”—without, of course, ignoring all that separates and opposes the various revolutions of the 20th century:  Bolshevism, Italian Fascism, German National Socialism, the French revolutions of 1944 or 1968. Indeed, he applies the same sociological analysis to these mass phenomena while making a clear distinction between conservative revolutions and deconstructive revolutions.

To begin, Monnerot defines some concepts applicable to any revolution. Firstly, the “historical situation“: it is one we’ll never see twice. This is true for 1789, 1917, 1922, 1933, or 1968. Another complementary notion: the “situation of distress.” It is characterized by uncontrolled disturbances. The social structure is defeated: the elements are no longer in place.

When a society is stable, we can distinguish normal (“homogeneous“) and marginal (“heterogeneous“) social elements. Marginal elements are marginal because they are maintained by the pressure of “homogeneous” elements. When a critical threshold of upheaval is reached, the homogeneous part begins to dissociate. Chaos then becomes contagious.

An interesting observation that applies to conservative revolutions: “the homogeneous, even in dissociation, remains homogeneous.” When the upheaval is radical, “the very foundation of society mounts a demand for power.” Fascism, in 1922 or 1933, for example, was a response to this demand in a highly developed society (industry, science, culture). In such a society, when order collapsed, the conservative elements (homogeneous) become temporarily revolutionary in their desire for order and demanded power.

How do we arrive at a “revolutionary situation“? Monnerot’s synthetic response: deficiency at the top. A regime crisis is characterized by a “plurality of conflicts.” Any exception to the authority of those in power, and disorder becomes endemic. The society “boils over.”

This effervescence is not revolution. It is a phase, a time, with a beginning and an end (a cooling down) when the medium “is no longer combustible.” When the excitement dies down, the same people are not in command (Robespierre was replaced by Napoleon, Trotsky by Stalin, Mussolini by Balbo).

The revolutionary and turbulent condition involves the “masses.” These are momentary coagulations, troops of revolution. To lead the masses, to give them a nervous system, the Jacobins and Lenin (much more efficiently) developed the instrument of the party.

What Leninists called “the radicalization of the masses” is a tendency to politicize those hitherto conformist and little inclined to be passionate about the public good (those who above all ask the state to do the job of the state). When it enters a phase of turmoil, “society is traversed in all directions intense emotional reactions, like iron filings in a magnetic current.”

Situations of distress bring to the fore violent elites: the “subversive heterogenes,” the irregular and marginal that the customary barriers cannot stop. They give the movement the force to break through.

In a revolutionary situation, the painful lack and need of power can force social elements that aspire to order down the road to revolution. “A time comes when the Arditi or young Baltic lancers,[1] previously regarded as reprobates, appear more reassuring than worrisome to the most homogeneous part of the population. They seem to embody, through misfortune, the values ​​of courage, bravery, and character without which there is no great country. . . . Even those who are not supporters think they should be allowed to try.” This is a good summary of exceptional historical situations. But, as Monnerot specified, the “historical situation” is that which never arises twice.

In the France of 2013, we are entering a “historical situation”? Not yet, surely. But there are signs that it may head toward such an unforeseen situation. Will it be all that it promises? It is too early to say. But nothing is impossible.

Source: http://www.dominiquevenner.fr/2013/04/comment-naissent-les-revolution/ ^[2]

Translator’s Note

1. The Arditi were the Italian shock troops of the First World War, many of whom became Fascist Blackshirts. Baltic lancers probably refer to the German Freikorps veterans who played a similar role in the National Socialist movement. I wish to thank Robert Steuckers for clarifying the latter point. If Monnerot is alluding to a specific individual, please email me at: [e-mail].

 

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/04/how-are-revolutions-born/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/franceprotest.jpg

[2] http://www.dominiquevenner.fr/2013/04/comment-naissent-les-revolution/: http://www.dominiquevenner.fr/2013/04/comment-naissent-les-revolution/

Establish a multipolar world order

Leonid Savin

 

Ex: http://www.geopolitica.ru/

 

 

 

- Could you describe in a few key words the essence and goals of your movement? Does it place itself in an existing sociopolitical-historical trend of Russian politics? Does it lobby in Russian government circles to achieve its goals?

The main idea and goal of the International Eurasian Movement is to establish a multipolar world order, where there will be no dictatorship of the U.S. anymore or of any other country or actor of world politics. In the sector of ideology we strongly reject (neo)liberalism and the globalization process as its derivative. We agree that we (as well as other nations) need a constructive platform for our alternative future. In the search of it, our work is directed to dialogue with other cultures and peoples who understand the meaning and necessity of conservative values in contemporary societies. Speaking about Russian reality, we are heirs and assigns to the former eurasianists (this ideology was born in the 1920s): Piotr Savitsky, Nikolay Trubetskoy, Nikolay Alekseev as well as Lev Gumilev – the famous Soviet scholar. They all studied historical processes and proposed a unique vision of our history, separate from the eurocentric science approach. The understanding that Russia is not part of Europe or Asia, but forms a very own unique world, named Eurasia, is also implemented in our political activity. In cooperation with members of parliament or the Council of the Federation or other governmental bodies, with our advices and recommendations, we always provide a strong basis linked to our history, culture, diversity and so on. And I must tell you that many people understand and support our ideas and efforts (in governmental structures, local and regional authorities, science and education, religious institutions and in society at large).

- What is your vision on a multipolar world? Which role do you see for Western European nations? Do they have any future at all on the world stage of the 21st century? Will they surmount the actual crises on a demographic, metaphysical and mental level?

In my opinion, a multipolar world is the order with 5 or more centers of power in the world and this reality will keep our planet more safe and balanced with shared responsibility between the regions. But it is not just interdependence by the logic of liberalism: some regions might well exist in relative political and economic autarky. Beside that, there might exist a double core in one center (for example Arabs and Turks in a large Muslim zone or Russia and Central Asian states for Eurasia) and shifted and inter-imposed zones, because, historically, centers of power can be moved. Of course at the moment the most significant centers of power are described in terms of nuclear arms, GDP, economic weight/growth and diplomatic influence. First of all we already have more poles than during the Soviet-US opposition. Secondly, everybody understands the role of China as a ‘Bretton Woods-2’, as well as emerging countries under acronyms as BRICS or VISTA, “anchor countries” and so on. And, thirdly, we see the rise of popular and unconventional diplomacy and the desire of many countries (many of them are strong regional actors such as Iran, Indonesia and Brazil) to not follow the U.S. as satellites or minor partners.

Of course, Washington does not like this scenario and tries to make coalitions based on states with a neocolonial background or on dutiful marionettes. But even in the U.S., politicians and analysts understand that the time of unipolar hegemony has gone. They are trying to build a moreflexible approach to international relations, called ‘multilateralism’ (H. Clinton) or ‘non-polarity’ (R. Haas), but the problem is that the U.S. do not have enough confidence in foreign actors united as joint, but who still have no strong alternative to the contemporary world order. So, they use another option for destabilization of rising regions, known as controlled chaos. Because of its military presence over most parts of the globe and its status of promoter of democracy and the protection of human rights, the White House can justify its own interests in these places. And cyberspace is also the object of manipulation, where the whole world is divided in two camps that remind us of the times of the Cold War (I call it ‘Cold Cyber War’).

We think that the contemporary West European nations are one of the poles (centers of power) in a forthcoming multipolar world order). But the problem for now is their engagement in U.S. proatlanticistpolitics, as manifested in the Euro-Atlantic chart of cooperation (common market, legislation and regulation mechanisms, including items of domestic politics), as well as NATO activity. The same we see on the other side of Eurasia – attempts of Washington to start trans-Atlantic cooperation with Asian countries. The contemporary crisis is neither good nor bad. It’s a fact. And the European nations must think about the way they’ll choose, because it will form the future (at least in Europe). It is not the first time in history: during the middle ages there was decline of population because of pestilence and wars. Religious schisms also occurred, so Europeans have some experience in metaphysics and ethics dealing with system failure too. The point is that now we have more interconnected reality and the speed of information sharing is fantastic, that was not possible, imagine, a century ago. And European society becomes more consumerist! But even in Europe, there are a lot of voices in respect of nature (organic greens), anti-grow movements (in economics) and traditionalists who try to keep and preserve ethnic andhistorical values and manners. Even the Soviet experience could be useful: after the Great Social Revolution there was a strong anti-church attitude promoted by the government, but after 70 years we’re back at our roots (of course during all this time not all people were atheists and the return to church happened during Stalin’s period when the institute of the Patriarchy was restored).

- How do you see the dialogue of civilizations in the light of more than 10 years of wars between the West and the Muslim world? Where does Russia stand in this opposition? Are there fears of an islamization process within the Russian Federation, or are Russian authorities setting on long-time accommodation with Muslim minorities and actors?

At first we must bear in mind that the idea of Huntington (the ‘clash of civilizations’) was developed out of necessity of justifying the U.S.’s military and economic expansion. His book was issued when the first wave of globalization as the highest principle of Westcentrism just began its tide in the Third World. By the logic of neoliberal capitalism it must be re-ordered and re-programmed in the search for new markets. All non-western societies must consume western products, services and technologies by this logic. And let’s remember that war against the Muslim countries originated from the neocons from Washington. So, these 10 years of wars that you to mention is nothing more than a provoked conflict by a small group that was very powerful in American politics at the beginning of the 2000s. By the way, all kinds of radical Islam (Wahhabism) were promoted by the United Kingdom. This version of Islam was founded in Saudi Arabia only with London’s special support. The Great Game in Eurasia was started many years ago and Britain has played here a most significant role.The U.S. took this role only after WW2, but many destructive processes were already unleashed. Of course, Russia is suspicious of the radical Islam, because emissaries of the wahhabis and al-Qaeda were already in the Northern Caucasus. And still now, there are different terrorist groups with the idea of the socalled “Emirate of the Caucasus”. There were also attempts to spread another sectarian beliefpromoted by Fetullah Gullen (Nurjular), but for now this sect is prohibited here. Actually Islam is not a threat to Russia, because, traditionally, a lot of people living here are Muslim. Regions like Tatarstan, the North Caucasus republics, Bashkortostan have an Islamic population. And our government supports traditional Islam here.

- What do you think about the American/Western strategy of strategic encirclement of Russia? Can we see this as well in the process of the so-called 'Arab Spring'? Is an open, Western-waged war against Syria and Iran possible and would it be the onset to a major world conflict, a 'Third World War'? Where would Russia stand?

It works. Not only because of the reset of the Anaconda strategy for Eurasia by means of militarypresence. Sometimes it doesn’t manifest in classical bases. Logistics is the main element ofcontemporary warfare, as well as C4ISR – Command, Control, Computer, Communications, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance – works in the vein of smart engagement. Other tools are: economics, promotion of democracy and human rights, cyber politics. The Arab Spring is a very complex phenomenon – there are a couple of components, but you can see that the U.S. has a bonus anyway: Egypt has asked for a huge loan from the World Bank; Western companies go to Libya; Muslim extremists are being manipulated against moderate Muslims, because they are a threat to western interests and so on. Organized chaos is just another view on the socio-political reality in turbulence. As Steve Mann (famous theorist of the chaos principle in diplomacy) wrote: the state is just hardware and ideology is its soft version. It were better to use ‘virus’ (in other words ‘promoting democracy’) and not to break PC. Syria and Iran are interesting for many nations now. The hysteria of Israel is not good, because this country has nuclear weapons. What will come of Israel using it? The Palestinian question is also on the table. I think that Israel is a more serious problem than Syria and Iran. Russia firmly supports Syria and takes a moderate position on Iran. During the presidency of Dmitry Medvedev, Russia declined to provide the “S-300” rocket complex to Iran (we had already signed the contract) and the deal was canceled. You bear in mind that during the same time Russia supported resolution 1973 of UN Security Council and the West started operation “Odyssey Dawn” against Libya. So, even VIP politicians in Russia sometimes do wrong things! But Mr. Putin is actively pro-Syrian and I think that the position of Russia about Iran and about Western pressure will be more adequate than before. As foreign minister Sergey Lavrov told: “we got experience with Libya and don’t believe the West anymore”.

- What do you think about the Western Europeans: should they remain loyal to their historical-political heritage of individualism and atlanticism, or should they rethink themselves and orient themselves towards Russia and continentalism? What about pro-Russian elements in European society? Can they be partners or are they, politically and socially spoken, too marginal for that?

John M. Hobson, in his brilliant work The eurocentric conception of world politics, made very clear that the West is rooted in the logic of immanence instead of the logic of co-development that is characteristic of non-western societies. He continues that the formula “the West and the Rest” is wrong, because without the rest there is no place for the West. Now we see one United Europe, but in real life we have two levels. The first one is presented by the bureaucratic establishment with its symbols, history, power projections and procedures. The second one is active publicity with movements, political parties and personal activists who are not interested in an Orwellian future with “Big Brother”, universal values and so on. Actually, in geography we have more than one substance. And where is the border between Southern, Western and Eastern Europe? It’s mostly in the minds. From history we remember the Celtic space, the Roman Empire, the Germanic and nomad invasions (Huns, Avars, etc.), that shows that the face of Europe permanently changed throughout the centuries. Now the European population includes people from Africa and Asia and soon the demographic balance will change. Political culture will change too. Without Russia, Europe is impossible. Not only because of geography (just look at the map and you will see that the EU is just the small, overpopulated western peninsula of Eurasia), but also because of the role of Russia in European history. Napoleon and Hitler – the two most significant unifiers of Europe - were stopped and defeated in Russia and, after that, new political orders were established. And for now in Europe we have so many Russian “prints”: in culture, history, the role of some persons and diasporas. I think that pro-Russian elements just now have a very good choice, because the window of opportunity is open. All these elements could form an avant-garde of a new kind of cooperation: in trade relations, science, art and education and public diplomacy. The last one is the tie for all activities. Actually Minister Lavrov just today (i.e. 26.02.2013) announced that, because of the Russia year in the Netherlands and vice versa, there will be more than 350 actions on state level. It is a good sign of mutual respect and it may be deeper.

- What about key power Germany? Do you believe in, let's say, an 'Indo-European bloc', an axis Berlin-Moscow-New Delhi, as a formidable counterweight to the atlanticist bloc of the axis Washington-London-Paris? Do the horrors of the Second World War still affect Russians' views of Germany and the Germans, or is it possible to turn the page on both sides and look forward? What about the French: do they belong in the atlanticist bloc, or can they be won for the continentalist bloc without giving in to their chauvinism? And what about China: will it turn out to be an even more dangerous enemy than the USA, or will both Russia and China remain strategic partners, e.g. within the SCO?

Because the EU has two levels, the same is true for Germany. One Germany, represented by the political establishment, is pro-U.S. and cannot do anything without Washington. Another one (latent or potential) is looking for closer cooperation with Russia. At the time of the Russian Empire a lot of German people came to our country at the invitation of Empress Catherine the Great. Even before that, many foreigners were in Russia as military officers, teachers, technical specialists, etc. People’s potential can do a lot of things. We must keep in mind that, besides Sea Power and Land Power in geopolitics, we have Man Power, which is the unique and main axis of any politics. The problem is that, after WWII, there was in most European countries a strong influence of Britain and the U.S.. They used very black propaganda and the peoples of Europe were afraid of a communist invasion. The U.S. even started more horrible projects in Western Europe (for example Propaganda-Due and operation “Gladio” in Italy, as well as “Stay Behind” NATO secret armies, formed from right-wing extremist elements). Still now in the EU, we see anti-Russian propaganda, but our borders are open and any European can go to Russia and see what happens here. The case of Gérard Depardieu is just one example.

If we look at what happens in China we’ll understand that it is a very strong actor and that its power grows from year to year. In the UN Security Council China is an important partner of Russia (for the Syria voting too). Russia is a supplier of oil and gas to China and we have new agreements for the future. Besides that we provide military equipment to China, though they have good weapon systems of their own as well. In the SCO we had good results and I think thatcooperation in this organization must be enlarged through strategic military elements with the entry at least of Iran, Belarus, India and Pakistan (they have an observer or dialogue partner status). Turkey is interested as well, but because of its NATO membership it will be difficult to join.

I know that some Russians and Europeans describe China as a possible enemy, a “yellow threat” (the Polish writer Ignacy Witkiewicz even wrote about it in his novel in 1929!!!) and so on, but in reality China has no intents of border pretence to Russia. We have had some incidents in Siberia with contraband, but these are criminal cases which do not deal with state politics. China will focus on Taiwan and on the disputed islands in the Pacific and it will take all geopolitical attention and may be some loyalty from Russia and SCO members.

Also China has the same view on the future world order – multipolarity. Actually this idea (duojihua) was born in China in 1986. And with the strategic cooperation with many other countries in Africa and South America, joint efforts against western hegemony will be fruitful.

So, I think China and Russia can do a lot for a reform of the forthcoming world order.

A lot of people now want to forget their own origins and the origins of other peoples. Bavaria, for example, was populated centuries ago by Avars from Asia (part of them still live in the Caucasus) during the Migration Period. Groups of Turkish origin also went to lands of contemporary Austria. So in contemporary Europe we have a lot of Asian elements. And vice versa in Asia we have people of Aryan origin. Not only in the North of India, but also in Tajikistan, Pakistan, Iran (arya is the self-name of the people of Iran and India). And hybridization is continuing as we speak in Europe and in other regions. Just before Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union we had a pact with Germany and had been cooperating extensively in technologies and in the economy. And France was attacked first by Germany, but now relations between both countries are normal. I think that historical harms between Germany and Russia have been mostly forgotten. And I think that many Germans still remember that the most destructive attacks did not come from the Soviet army but from U.S. and British air forces (Dresden, Leipzig...). It was not a war, but a deliberate destruction of cities and non-armed refugees. Actually now Germans is mostly good businessmen for Russians, compared to representatives of other European nations (these facts have been confirmed by many friends who do business with Europeans).

I can not to speak with enough certainty of what happens with Russian-French relations, because I'm not very interested in this sector. During the XXth century we had many deals with France and after WWII it was the idea of Stalin to give the winner status to France. Charles de Gaulle also was pro-Soviet in a geopolitical sense. But after the legalization of the gay marriage in France, many Russians feel suspicious about this country. But every people and every country has its own specifics. We have had many interesting philosophers from France who have had influence on Russian thinkers too.

- Turning to domestic Russian problems: Russia under President Putin has been able to make enormous progress in the social field, mainly due to energy sales during the 2000s.  Has this changed the face of Russia? Has this period come to an end or is there stagnation? How will Russia cope with its domestic problems, such as the demographic crisis, which it shares with Western Europe? Should the Siberian land mass be 're-colonized' by Russians and other Europeans, in order to make it an impregnable 'green lung fortress' for the white peoples?

The grand contribution of Mr. Putin is that he stopped liberal privatization and the process of separatism in Russia. Persons such as Chodorkovsky were representatives of the Western oligarchy, especially of powerful financial clans (for example, he is a personal friend of Rothschild) and he had plans to usurp power in Russia through the corruption of parliament. We still have the rudiments of predatory liberalism such as misbalances, corruption, fifth column, degradation of traditional values, etc. For now we see in Russia efforts to build a smarter kind of economics, but it must be done very carefully. The questions that must be at the center are: how to deal with the Federal Reserve System? What about a new currency order that may be represented by BRICS? How to start mobilization? What to do with the neoliberal lobby within the government? The demographic crisis is also linked with neoliberalism and consumerism. A century ago, there was a rise of population in Russia, but two world wars have cut it. Even during Soviet times we had a good demography index. Now the government has started supporting young families and the process of human reproduction. In addition to birth programs we have an initiative dealing with the return of compatriots to Russia and all people who were born in the USSR can come to Russia very easily and get certain funding from the state. But I think that, because the Russians were the state-forming people, there must be a preference forSlavonic origin, because migrants from Asian countries (who do not speak Russian and have other traditions) will flow to Russia for economic reasons. Many Russian activists who take a critical stance on Asian people are already disappointed by this program. I think that the attraction of Byelorussians and Ukrainians can equalize this disproportion. But, strategically, the state must support a system of child-bearing with all necessary needs (fosterage, education, working place, social environmental, etc.). In some regions governors personally start up that kind of programs dealing with local and regional solidarity. First of all, Siberia is still Russian. The Siberian type of Russian is different from citizens fromthe central or southern regions, but till now it's still mainly Russian, not only institutionally, but also ethnically. Actually, according to our statistics, most labor migrants to Russia come from Ukraine! So, in spite of strange relations between both countries and with strong anti-Russian stances on the part of Ukrainian nationalists and pro-western "democrats", people just make their own choice. Rationally speaking, Siberia is not only interesting, because of its virgin forests and natural resources, but also because of its neighbors - and China is one of them with an emerging economy. So Siberia could serve as a hub in the future. I think that Europeans would also go to Russia (not only to Siberia), but this migration must be done meticulously, because of the language barrier, with a period of adaptation to different social conditions and so on. Maybe it could be useful to organize towns of compact residence and also city-hubs for foreign people who come to live in Russia, where they can live and work in new conditions. New Berlin, New Brussels, New Paris (of course translated into the Russian language) will then appear on a new Russian map.

- What is your opinion about the future of Putinist Russia? Will the government be able to enduringly counter Western propaganda and destabilization campaigns, and come to a 'generation pact' between the older generation, born during Soviet times, and the younger generation, born after 1991? What will be President Putin's fundamental heritage for Russian history?

The key problem for Russia is a neoliberal group inside the Kremlin. Putin has the support of people who want more radical actions against corruption, western agents and so on. But a “colored revolution” in Russia is impossible, because the masses do not believe in the prowesternopposition. Ideas of democracy and human rights promoted by West have been discredited worldwide and our people understand well what liberalization, privatization and such kind of activities in the interest of global oligarchy mean. And because of the announcement of the Eurasian Customs Union Russia must work hard the coming years with partners from Kazakhstan and Belarus. As for counterpropaganda, the new official doctrine of Russian foreign policy is about soft power. So Russia has all the instruments officially legalized to model its own image abroad. In some sense we do this kind of work, just as other non-governmental organizations and public initiatives. You mention a “generation pact”, referring to different ideals of young and older people, especially in the context of the Soviet era. Now, you would be surprised that a figure as Stalin is very popular among young people and thinking part of the youth understands well that Soviet times were more enjoyable than contemporary semi-capitalism. As I told in my previous answer, Putin is important because he stopped the disintegration of Russia. He already is a historical figure.

- Is there a common 'metaphysical future' for the whole of Europe after the downfall of Western Christianity (catholicism, protestantism)? Can Russian Orthodoxism be a guide? What do you hold of the modest revival of pre-Christian religious traditions across the continent? What about countering the influence of Islam on the European continent? Is there a different view concerning that discussion between Russia and Western Europe?

Russian Christian Orthodoxy is not panacea, because there are also some problems. Christianity in XIIth century, XVIth century and nowadays is very different. Now many formal orthodox Christians go to church two times a year, at Easter and at Christmas. But Orthodox Christianity is also a thesaurus of wisdom where you can find ideas from ancient Greek philosophy, metaphysics, cultural heritage, transformed paganism and psychology. In this sense, Russian Christian Orthodox old believers keep this heritage alive and may be interested as well in forms (ceremonies) as in the spiritual essence with its complex ideas. Speaking about paganism, Russia is the only country in Europe that still has authentic pagan societies (Republics of Mari-El, Mordovia, Komi) with very interesting rites and traditions. Actually Finno-Ugric peoples historically were very close to Slavonic people and assimilated together, so there is a good chance to research these traditions for those who are interested in Slavonic pre-Christian culture.But the postmodern version of a restored paganism in Europe or any other region to my opinion is just a fake and there is not so much from true paganism. As for Islam, as I told before, in Russia there exist a couple of versions of traditional Islam, which are presented by several law schools (mazhabs). In the Northern Caucasus, the regional government has tried to copy the idea of multiculturalism and to implement EuroIslam as an antithesis to spreading wahhabism. But it has not worked and now more attention is paid to traditional religious culture linked with education and the social sector. But the project of multiculturalism has failed in Europe as well, so all common Euro-Russian outlooks on Islam are finished. But, to be honest, I think that Europe must learn from the Russian experience of coexistence of different religions (not forgetting paganism and shamanism – this belief is widely found in Siberia). In Europe, they use the term tolerance but we, eurasianists, prefer the term complimentarity, proposed by Lev Gumilev, meaning a subconscious sympathy between different ethnic groups. As Gumilev explained, Russia became so large because Russians, during the expansion, looked on otherpeople as on their own and understood them. This differs from the point of view (more specifically in ethnosociology) that all ethnic groups have the idea of “We are” against “The Other”, represented by another group. The imperial principle works with the idea of mosaics where every ethnos is a “We are”. And our famous writer and philosopher Fjodor Dostoevsky told about all-human (all-mankind) nature (not common to all mankind) that is represented by the Russians, because inside, you can find all radical oppositions. I think it is a good reason to turn to Russia and its people.

 

Antonio Pennacchi und der Canale Mussolini

Antonio Pennacchi und der Canale Mussolini

Götz Kubitschek 

Ex: http://www.sezession.de/

Canale Mussolini ist ein Epochen- und Familienroman, der – autobiographisch angereichert – davon erzählt, wie aus den Männern und Frauen einer norditalienischen, mittellosen Bauernsippe handfeste Faschisten werden: un-ideologische zwar, aber ist das nicht immer so, wenn es um die Masse unterhalb der weltanschaulich gefestigten Revolutionäre geht?

Grandios schildert Pennacchi den Kippunkt in diesem hervorragend erzählten Buch: wie die Männer und Frauen der Sippe Peruzzi auf ihren Felder schuften und trotzdem auf keinen grünen Zweig kommen; wie sie schon mit einem Fuß bei den Sozialisten stehen, aber auch bei den Faschisten auf einer Versammlung vorbeischauen; wie sie dann unter dem gewaltsamen Druck der Linken (die das nicht dulden mögen) halb im Zorn, halb aus Rache zu den Schwarzhemden überlaufen und erst einmal alles niederbrennen, was an sozialistischen Parteilokalen in ihrer Reichweite ist.

Hier findet schlicht die persönliche Lage das geeignete politische Gefährt, und die Widerborstigkeit der Sippe paßt einfach nicht zur Bräsigkeit der linken Gewerkschaftsbonzen. Der Dank der Bewegung bleibt nicht aus: Mitte der dreißiger Jahre bekommen die Peruzzis Land in den trockengelegten Pontinischen Sümpfen und bauen mit an diesem faschistischen Großprojekt, das 30000 umgesiedelten Neubauern Land und Brot gibt.

Ein Rezensent, der Canale Mussolini im Original las, berichtete von hinreißenden Dialogen in Mundart. Zum Glück versucht die Übersetzung erst gar nicht, irgendein Kauderwelsch an die Stelle der italienischen Dialekte zu setzen, der Ton des Romans ist auch so »mündlich« genug. Es wird richtig erzählt, episch, abschweifend.

Die ganze faschistische Epoche Italiens wird plastisch, immer aus Sicht der kleinen Leute, der unterschiedlichen Charaktere der Peruzzis. Da tauchen die faschistischen Suppenküchen auf, die Solidaritätsvereine, die Versammlungshäuser, die Paraden, Uniformen und modernen Errungenschaften. Der Duce hämmert – noch nicht an der Macht – den Pflug der Peruzzis wieder gerade und starrt dabei dem Sippen-Zentrum, der stolzen »Mama« Armida, auf den Hintern, was ihr nicht schlecht gefällt. Immer wieder schildert der Erzähler die völlig harmlose Szene, und vielleicht erinnert sich Mussolini nur deshalb nach Jahren noch an diese Familie.

Wenn überhaupt von ideologischem Überbau die Rede ist, dann treuherzig, ein bißchen wie auswendig gelernt (»diese fixe Idee vom Römischen Reich und von der imperialen Größe, die uns Italienern von Natur aus und von Rechts wegen zustanden, aber auch diese etwas heidnische Vorstellung, daß die Menschen nicht irgendwie alle gleich sind«). Die Weltgeschichte ist mit eingewoben, denn irgendein Peruzzi ist immer dabei: ob im Abessinienkrieg und seinen elenden Gemetzeln, ob in Nordafrika oder beim griechischen Intermezzo (das nur mit deutscher Waffenhilfe nicht in einem Desaster endete), aber auch dort, wo – erzählt wie vom Hörensagen – Mussolini sich mit Italo Balbo oder einem anderen faschistischen Granden anlegt oder auf Hitler trifft.

Es gibt dieses seltsame Wort von der »befreienden Lektüre«: Ein Text rauscht durch die Köpfe wie das Wasser durch den Augiasstall – der ganze Mist, der sich angesammelt hat, wird fortgespült. Canale Mussolini könnte für Italien eine solche Wirkung haben, die Voraussetzungen für einen hysteriefreien Blick auf die eigene Geschichte sind dort besser als bei uns.

Für deutsche Leser könnte die Wirkung nur dann befreiend sein, wenn sie verstünden, daß man die Massen im faschistischen Italien durchaus mit jenen im Dritten Reich vergleichen kann. Aber dieses Vorverständnis einzufordern, ist für sie etwa so, als vergliche man eine Mausefalle mit einer Tretmine.

Antonio Pennacchi: Canale Mussolini. Roman, München: Hanser 2012. 446 S., 24.90 €

Le vivre-ensemble ne marche pas

Malgré la loi et les contraintes, le vivre-ensemble ne marche pas

PARIS (NOVOpress)

Gérald Pichon, auteur de “Sale Blanc ! Chronique d’une haine qui n’existe pas”, analyse pour Novopress les différents aspects négatifs du vivre-ensemble imposé qui se transforme en l’explosion de communautarismes antagonistes.

 

A l’inverse de l’image d’Epinal d’une « République française métisse » et à contrario du discours purement démagogique sur le nécessaire «vivre ensemble », les communautés ont ostensiblement refusé de se mélanger et se sont même séparés au cours des dernières décennies. C’est ce que démontre brillamment le géographe Christophe Guilluy dans son livre « Fractures françaises ».

Recul de la mixité et dynamique de séparation
L’analyse de l’évolution du voisinage des enfants d’origine étrangère entre 1968 et 1999 montre « que si les enfants d’immigrés originaire d’Europe du Sud ont vu la possibilité d’avoir des voisins d’origine française s’accroître, cette tendance est inverse pour les enfants d’immigrés originaires de pays extra-européens » (Maroc, Afrique subsaharienne et la Turquie). Ces derniers ont un voisinage composé en moyenne de seulement 40% de Français de souche. Autre chiffre, le voisinage des jeunes Français dont les deux parents sont nés en France est composé à plus de 80% d’enfants de la même origine alors que le taux de jeunes Français d’origine étrangère est passé en trente ans de 11,7 à 16,9%. Pour Christophe Guilluy, « ce constat illustre non seulement un recul de la mixité, mais une dynamique de séparation au sein même des milieux les plus modestes ».

Perte de confiance, isolement : bienvenue dans les villes de la diversité ethnique
Car comme l’a démontré l’étude du sociologue et politologue américain Robert Putnam, « plus la diversité ethnique et culturelle grandit, plus la confiance entre les individus s’affaiblit (…) pire, dans les communautés les plus diversifiées les individus ont moins confiance en leurs voisins » ! Pour ce chercheur proche de la gauche américaine, « la diversité ethnique conduit généralement à l’anomie et à l’isolement social ».

Le piège des statistiques ethniques : imposer les extra-européens
Le débat sur l’opportunité d’autoriser les statistiques ethniques agite depuis quelques années les ligues de vertu de l’antiracisme et l’Etat républicain. Utilisées à bon escient, elles pourraient être outil performant pour connaître efficacement l’avancée du Grand Remplacement des peuples européens par les communautés extra-européennes ou le profile des délinquants. Malheureusement, c’est à une toute autre utilisation que se destinent les statistiques ethniques, celle d’imposer les minorités visibles dans les villes et entreprises où ils sont encore en sous nombre. En 2006, le rapport « Les statistiques “ethniques” : éléments de cadrage » du Centre d’analyse stratégique montrait dans le cas des HLM que c’est une volonté d’agir positivement « en faveur des immigrés qui a été à l’origine de la construction de tableaux sur la base de critères ethniques » afin de respecter la loi sur la mixité sociale. Dans un futur proche, il est probable que les communes encore trop pâles soient invitées à accueillir plus de diversité sous peine de sanction financière dans un premier temps, ou sous la menace des armes dans un second temps.

Nicolas Sarkozy – Malek Boutih : la contrainte du Grand Mélange
Car le Grand Mélange de la société française n’est plus devenu un choix individuel mais une contrainte comme l’a déclaré publiquement l’ancien président de la République, Nicolas Sarkozy ⁽¹⁾ (vidéo ci-dessus). Malek Boutih, président de SOS Racisme de 1999 à 2003, secrétaire national du Parti socialiste chargé des questions de société de 2003 à 2008 et membre du bureau national ne dit pas autre chose en préconisant la reconstruction, « dans un vaste plan Marshall des cités, des quartiers ethniquement mélangés. Black-blanc-beurs. Même s’il faut recourir au tri ethnique, même s’il y faut un peu de force, on n’y coupera pas… » !

A quand la création d’une police de la Diversité ?

***

(1) Discours de Nicolas Sarkozy sur « l’égalité réelle des chances et la promotion de la diversité » à l’École polytechnique à Palaiseau (Essonne) : « L’objectif, c’est de relever le défi du métissage. Défi du métissage que nous adresse le XXI^ème siècle. Ce n’est pas un choix, c’est une obligation, c’est un impératif. On ne peut pas faire autrement (…) Si ce volontarisme républicain ne fonctionnait pas, il faudra que la république passe à des méthodes plus contraignantes encore. »

[cc] Novopress.info, 2013. Les dépêches de Novopress sont libres de copie et diffusion sous réserve de mention de la source d'origine. La licence creative commons ne s'applique pas aux articles repris depuis d'autres sites [http://fr.novopress.info/]

Enlightenment & Global History

Enlightenment & Global History

Posted By Domitius Corbulo

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

The history of Europe is undergoing a massive re-interpretation in the name of a World History for Us All ^[2]. Europe and Asia are now regularly portrayed as “surprisingly similar ^[3]” in their markets, standard of living, and scientific knowhow as late as 1750/1800. Jack Goldstone has even argued that there “were no cultural or institutional dynamics leading to a materially superior civilization in the West” before 1850,[1] except for the appearance in Britain, “due to a host of locally contingent ^[4] factors,” of an “engineering culture.” 

Academics are instructing their students that Europeans don’t inhabit a continental homeland independently of Asia and Africa. Their history has to be seen in the context of “reciprocal connections” with the globe. “The exceptional interconnectedness of Afroeurasia ^[5] shaped the history of this world zone in profound ways.” The only thing that stands out about Europeans was the “windfall” profits they obtained from the Americas, the “lucky” presence of coal in England, and the blood-stained manner they went about creating a new form of international slavery ^[6] combined with “scientific ^[7]” racism. Only a handful of soon-to-retire admirers of the West ^[8] remain.

The Enlightenment, always viewed as a European phenomenon, and respected in academia for its call upon “humanity” to subject all authority to critical reflection, is now enduring a fundamental revision as a movement that was global in origins and character. This is the view expressed in a recent article, “Enlightenment in Global History: A Historiographical Critique,” authored by Sebastian Conrad, who holds the Chair of Modern History at Freie University, Berlin. This is not an isolated paper, but a “historiographical” assessment based on current trends in the global history of the Enlightenment. The article was published in The American Historical Review, the official publication of the American Historical Association ^[9], and since 1895 a preeminent journal for the historical profession in the United States.

Conrad calls upon historians to move “beyond the obsession” and the “European mythology” that the Enlightenment was original to Europe:

The assumption that the Enlightenment was a specifically European phenomenon remains one of the foundational premises of Western modernity. . . . The Enlightenment appears as an original and autonomous product of Europe, deeply embedded in the cultural traditions of the Occident. . . . This interpretation is no longer tenable.

Conrad’s “critique” is vaporous, absurd, and unscholarly; a demonstration of the irrational lengths otherwise intelligent Europeans will go in their efforts to promote egalitarianism and affirmative action on a global scale. It is important for defenders of the West to see with clear eyes the extremely weak scholarship standing behind the prestigious titles and “first class” journals of many professors today. Conrad’s claims could have been taken seriously only within an academic environment bordering on pathological wishful thinking. (He is grateful to nine established academic readers plus “the anonymous reviewers” working for the AHR). The intended goal of Conrad’s paper is not truth but the dissolution of Europe’s intellectual identity within a mishmash of intercultural connections.

It should be noted that Conrad is a product of his time. The ploy to rob Europeans of their heritage has been in the making for some decades. It is no longer an affair restricted to squabbling academics looking for promotion, but has become an established reality across every high school and college in the West. This can be partly ascertained from a reading of the 2011 AP World History Standard ^[10], as mandated by The College Board, which was created in 1900 to expand access to higher education, with a current membership of 5,900 of the world’s leading educational institutions. This Board is very clear in its mandate that the courses developed for advanced placement in world history (for students to pursue college level studies while in high school) should “allow students to make crucial connections . . . across geographical regions.” The overwhelming emphasis of the “curriculum framework” is on “interactions,” “connected hemispheres,” “exchange and communication networks,” “interconnection of the Eastern and Western hemispheres,” and so on. For all the seemingly neutral talk about regional connections, the salient feature of this mandate is on how developments inside Europe were necessarily shaped by developments occurring in neighboring regions or even the whole world. One rarely encounters an emphasis on how developments in Asia were determined by developments in Europe – unless, of course, they point to the destructive effects of European aggression.

Thus, the Board continually mandates the teaching of topics such as: how “the European colonization of the Americas led to the spread of diseases,” how “the introduction of European settlements practices in the Americas often affected the physical environment through deforestation and soil depletion,” how “the creation of European empires in the Americas quickly fostered a new Atlantic trade system that included the trans-Atlantic slave trade,” and so on. The curriculum is thoroughly Marxist in its accent on class relations, coerced labor, “modes of production,” economic change, imperialism, gender, race relations, demographic changes, and rebellions. Europe’s contribution to painting, architecture, history writing, philosophy and science is never highlighted except when they can be interpreted as “ideologies” of the ruling (European) classes. It is not that the curriculum ignores the obvious formation of non-Western empires, but the weight is always on how, for example, the rise of “new racial ideologies, especially Social Darwinism, facilitated and justified imperialism.” Even the overwhelming reality of Europe’s contribution to science and technology in the nineteenth and twentieth century is framed as a global phenomenon in which all the regions were equal participants.[2]

A similar curriculum can be found across all the Social Sciences and Humanities in Western academia. This has been well-documented by various organizations ^[11] and publications. Suffice it to add that this globalist curriculum has long been promoted through countless university programs, organizations and journals, including the World History Association ^[12] (1982), the Journal of World History ^[13] (1990), the online journal World History Connected ^[14] (2003), and the H-World network ^[15]. Every single world history textbook, as far as I know, written in the last three decades or so, views Europe as an interconnected region with no special identity.[3]

Meanwhile, the Western Civilization history course, virtually a standard curriculum offering 30 years ago, disappeared from American colleges; today, only two percent ^[16] of colleges offer western civilization as a course requirement. No wonder the authors of recent Western Civ texts, pleading for survival, have been adopting a globalist approach; Brian Levack et al. thus writes in The West, Encounters & Transformations (2007): “we examine the West as a product of a series of cultural encounters both outside the West and within it” (xxx). They claim that one of the prominent religious features of the West was Islam. Clifford Backman, in his just released textbook, The Cultures of the West (2013), traces the origins of the West to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel; and then goes on to tell students that his book is different from previous texts in treating Islam as “essentially a Western religion” and examining “jointly” the history of Europe and the Middle Eastern world (xxii).[4]

Conrad’s article came out of this background. His article seeks to show that recent research has proven false the “standard” Eurocentric interpretation of the Enlightenment. Conrad views this standard interpretation as the “master” narrative today, which continues to exist in the face of mounting evidence against it. It is true that the Enlightenment is still viewed as uniquely European by a number of well-respected scholars such as Margaret Jacob, Gertrude Himmelfarb, and Roy Porter. It is, actually, the most-often referred Western legacy used by right wing liberals (or neoconservatives) against the multicultural emphasis on the equality of cultures. These days, defending the West has come down to defending the “universal” values of the Enlightenment – gender equality, freedom of thought, and individual rights – against the “intolerant” particularism of other cultures. The late Christopher Hitchens, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Niall Ferguson, Pascal Bruckner ^[17] are some of the most notorious advocates of these values as universal norms that represent all human aspirations. The immigration of non-Europeans in the West poses no menace to them as long as they are transformed into happy consuming liberals. I have no interest celebrating the West from this cosmopolitan standpoint. It is commonly believe (including by members of the New Right) that the global interpretation Conrad delineates against a European-centered Enlightenment is itself rooted in the philosophes exaltation of “mankind.” Conrad knows this; in the last two paragraphs he justifies his postmodern reading of history by arguing that the Enlightenment “language of universal claim and worldwide validity” requires that its origins not be “restricted” to Europe. The Enlightenment, if it is to fulfill its universal promises, must be seen as the actual child of peoples across the world.

This is the more reason why Conrad’s arguments must be exposed, not only are they historically false, but they provide us with an opportunity to suggest (and argue further in a future paper) that the values of the Enlightenment are peculiarly European, rooted in this continent’s history, and not universally true and applicable to humanity. These values, for one, are inconsistent with Conrad’s style of research. Honest reflection based on reason and open inquiry shows that the Enlightenment was exclusively European. The great thinkers of the Enlightenment were aristocratic representatives of their people with a sense of rooted history and lineage. They did not believe (except for a rare few) that all the peoples of the earth were members of a race-less humanity in equal possession of reason. When they wrote of “mankind” they meant “European-kind.” When they wrote about equality they meant that Europeans have an innate a priori capacity to reason. When they said that “only a true cosmopolitan can be a good citizen,” they meant that European nationals should enlarge their focus and consider Europe “as a great republic.”

What concerns Conrad, however; and what will be the focus of this essay, is the promotion of a history in which the diverse cultures of the world can be seen as equal participants in the making of the Enlightenment. Conrad wants to carry to its logical conclusion the allegedly “universal” ideals of the Enlightenment, hoping to persuade Westerners that the equality and the brotherhood of mankind require the promotion of a Global Enlightenment.

Conrad blunders right from the opening when he references Toby Huff’s book, Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution, as an example of the “no longer tenable” “standard reading” of the Enlightenment. First, this book is about the uniquely “modern scientific mentality” witnessed in seventeenth century Europe, not about the eighteenth century Enlightenment. It is also a study written, as the subtitle says, from “a Global Perspective.” Rather than brushing off this book in one sentence, Conrad should have addressed its main argument, published in 2010 and based on the latest research, showing that European efforts to encourage interest in the telescope in China, the Ottoman Empire, and Mughal India “did not bear much fruit.” “The telescope that set Europeans on fire with enthusiasm and curiosity, failed to ignite the same spark elsewhere. That led to a great divergence that was to last all the way to the end of the twentieth century” (5). The diffusion of the microscope met the same lack of curiosity. Why would Asia experience an Enlightenment culture together with Europe if it only started to embrace modern science with advanced research centres in the twentieth century? This simple question does not cross Conrad’s mind; he merely cites an innocuous sentence from Huff’s book which contains the word “Enlightenment” and then, without challenging Huff’s argument, concludes that “this interpretation is no longer tenable.”

Conrad then repeats phrases to the effect that the Enlightenment needs to be seen originally as “the work of historical actors around the world.” But as he cannot come up with a single Enlightenment thinker from the eighteenth century outside Europe, he immediately introduces postmodernist lingo about “how malleable the concept” of Enlightenment was from its inception, from which point he calls for a more flexible and inclusive definition, so that he can designate as part of the Enlightenment any name or idea he encounters in the world which carries some semblance of learning. He also calls for an extension of the period of Enlightenment beyond the eighteenth century all the way into the twentieth century. The earlier “narrow definitions of the term” must be replaced by open-minded and tolerant definitions which reflect the “ambivalences and the multiplicity of Enlightenment views” across the world.

From this vantage point, he attacks the “fixed” standard view of the Enlightenment. Early on, besides Huff’s book, Conrad footnotes Peter Gay’s The Enlightenment: An Interpretation, 2 vols. (1966-1969), Dorinda Outram’s, The Enlightenment (1995), Hugh Trevor-Roper’s, History and the Enlightenment (2010), as well as The Blackwell Companion to the Enlightenment (1992). Of these, I would say that Gay is the only author who can be said to have offered a synthesis that came to be widely held, but only from about the mid-60s to the mid-70s. In the first page of his book, Gay distinctly states that “the Enlightenment was united on a vastly ambitious program, a program of secularism, humanity, cosmopolitanism, and freedom” (1966: 3). In the case of Outram’s book, it is quite odd why Conrad would include it as a standard account since the back cover alone says it will view the Enlightenment “as a global phenomenon” characterized by contradictory trends. The book’s focus is on the role of coffee houses, religion, science, gender, and government from a cross-cultural perspective. In fact, a few footnotes later, Conrad cites this same book as part of new research pointing to the “heterogeneity” and “fragmented” character of the Enlightenment. However, the book makes not claims that the Enlightenment originated in multiple places in the world, and this is clearly the reason Conrad has labeled it as part of the “standard” view.

The truth is that Conrad has no sources to back his claim that there is currently a “dominant” and uniform view. Gay, Outram, Trevor-Roper, [5] including other sources he cites later (to be addressed below), are not part of a dominant view, but evince instead what Outram noticed in her book (first published in 1995): “the Enlightenment has been interpreted in many different ways” (8). This is why Conrad soon admits that “at present, only a small – if vociferous – minority of historians maintain the unity of the Enlightenment project.” Since Gay died in 2006, Conrad then comes up with two names, Jonathan Israel and John Robertson, as scholars who apparently hold today a unified view – yet, he then concedes, in a footnote, that these two authors have “a very different Enlightenment view: for Israel the ‘real’ Enlightenment is over by the 1740s, while for Robertson it only begins then.” In other words, on the question of timing, they have diametrically different views.

“Historiographical” studies are meant to clarify the state of the literature in a given historical subject, the trends, schools of thought, and competing interpretations. Conrad instead misreads, confounds and muddles up authors and books. The reason Conrad relies on Outram, and other authors, both as “dominant” and as pleasingly diverse, is that European scholars have been long recognizing the complexity and conflicting currents within the Enlightenment at the same time that they have continued to view it as “European” with certain common themes. We thus find Outram showing appreciation for the multiplicity and variety of views espoused during the Enlightenment while recognizing certain unifying themes such as the importance of reason, “non-traditional ways of defining and legitimating power,” natural law, and cosmopolitanism (140).

Conrad needs to use the proponents of Enlightenment heterogeneity to make his case that the historiography on this subject has been moving in the non-Western direction he wishes to nudge his readers into believing. But he knows that current experts on the European Enlightenment have not identified an Enlightenment movement across the globe from the eighteenth to the twentieth century, so he must also designate them (if through insinuation) as members of a still dominant Eurocentric group.

In the end, the sources Conrad relies on to advance his globalist view are not experts of the European Enlightenment but world historians (or actually, historians of India, China, or Middle East) determined to unseat Europe from its privileged intellectual position. Right after stating that there are hardly any current proponents of the dominant view, and that “most authors stress its plural and contested character,” Conrad reverts back to the claim that there is a standard view insomuch as most scholars still see the “birth of the Enlightenment” as “entirely and exclusively a European affair” which “only when it was fully fledged was it then diffused around the globe.” Here Conrad finally footnotes a number of books which can be said to exhibit an old fashion admiration for the Enlightenment as a movement characterized by certain common concerns, though he never explains why these books are mistaken in delimiting the Enlightenment to Europe. One thing is certain, these works go beyond Gay’s thesis. Gertrude Himmelfarb’s The Roads to Modernity: The British, French, and American Enlightenments (2004), challenges the older focus on France, its anti-clericalism, and radical rejection of traditional ways, by arguing that there were English as well as American “Enlightenments” that were quite moderate in their assessments of what human reason could do to improve the human condition, respectful of age-old customs, prejudices, and religious beliefs. John Headley’s The Europeanization of the World (2008) is not about the Enlightenment but the long Renaissance. Tzvetan Todorov’s In Defence of the Enlightenment (2009), with its argument against current “adversaries of the Enlightenment, obscurantism, arbitrary authority and fanaticism,” can be effectively used against Conrad’s own unfounded and capricious efforts. The same is true of Stephen Bronner’s Reclaiming the Enlightenment (2004), with its criticism of activists on the Left for spreading confusion and for attacking the Enlightenment as a form of cultural imperialism. These two books are a summons to the Left not to abandon the critical principles inherent in the Enlightenment. Robert Louden’s, The World We Want: How and Why the Ideals of the Enlightenment Still Eludes Us (2007), ascertains the degree to which the ideals of the Enlightenment have been successfully actualized in the world, both in Europe and outside, by examining the spread of education, tolerance, rule of law, free trade, international justice and democratic rights. His conclusion, as the title indicates, is that the Enlightenment remains more an ideal than a fulfilled program.

What Conrad might have asked of these works is: why they took for granted the universal validity of ideals rooted in the soils of particular European nations? Why they all ignored the intense interest Enlightenment thinkers showed in the division of humanity into races? Why did all these books, actually, abandon the Enlightenment call for uninhibited critical thinking by ignoring the vivid preoccupation of Enlightenment thinkers with the differences, racial and cultural, between the peoples of the earth? Why did they accept (without question) the notion that the same Kant ^[18] who observed that (i) “so fundamental is the difference between these two races of man [black and white] . . . as great in regard to mental capacities as in color,” was thinking (ii) about “mankind” rather than European kind when he defined the Enlightenment as “mankind’s exit from its self-incurred immaturity” through the courage to use [one’s own understanding] without the guidance of another”? Contrary to what defenders of the “emancipatory project of the Enlightenment” would have us believe, these observations were not incidental but reflections expressed in multiple publications and debated heavily; what were the differences among the peoples of different climes and regions? The general consensus among Enlightenment thinkers (in response to this question) was that animals as well as humans could be arranged in systematic hierarchies. Carl Linnaeus, for example, considered Europeans, Asians, American Indians, and Africans different varieties of humanity.[6]

However, my purpose here is to assess Conrad’s global approach, not to invalidate the generally accepted view of the Enlightenment as a project for “humanity.” It is the case that Conrad wants to universalize the Enlightenment even more by seeing it as a movement emerging in different regions of the earth. The implicit message is that the ideals of this movement can become actualize if only we imagine its origins to have been global. But since none of the experts will grant him this favor, as they continue to believe it “originated only in Europe,” notwithstanding the variety and tension they have detected within this European movement, Conrad decides to designate these scholars, past and present, as members of a “dominant” or “master” narrative. He plays around with the language of postcolonial critiques — the “brutal diffusion” of Western values, “highly asymmetrical relations of power,” “paternalistic civilizing mission” — the more to condemn the Enlightenment for its unfulfilled promises, and then criticizes these scholars, too, for taking “the Enlightenment’s European origins for granted.”

Who, then, are the “many authors” who have discovered that the Enlightenment was a worldwide creation? This is the motivating question behind Conrad’s historiographical essay. He writes: “in recent years, however, the European claim to originality, to exclusive authorship of the Enlightenment, has been called into question.” He starts with a number of sources which have challenged “the image of non-Western societies as stagnating and immobile”; publications by Peter Gran on Egypt’s eighteenth century “cultural revival,” by Mark Elvin on China’s eighteenth century “trend towards seeing fewer dragons and miracles, not unlike the disenchantment that began to spread across Europe during the Enlightenment,” and by Joel Mokyr’s observation that “some developments that we associate with Europe’s Enlightenment resemble events in China remarkably.”

This is pure chicanery. First, Gran’s book, Islamic Roots of Capitalism: Egypt, 1760–1840 (1979) has little to do with Enlightenment, and much to do with the bare beginnings of modernization in Egypt, that is, the spread of monetary relations, the gradual appearance of “modern products,” the adoption of European naval and military technology, the cultivation of a bit of modern science and medicine, the introduction (finally) of Aristotelian inductive and deductive login into Islamic jurisprudence. Gran’s thesis is simply that Egyptians were not “passive” assimilators of Western ways, but did so within the framework of Egyptian beliefs and institutions (178–188). Mokyr’s essay “The Great Synergy: The European Enlightenment as a Factor in Modern Economic Growth,” argues the exact opposite as the cited phrase by Conrad would have us believe. Mokyr’s contribution to the rise of the West debate has been precisely that there was an “Industrial” Enlightenment in the eighteenth century, which should be seen as the “missing link” between the seventeenth century world of Galileo, Bacon, and Newton and the nineteenth century world of steam engines and factories. He emphasizes the rise of numerous societies in England, the creation of information networks between engineers, natural philosophers, and businessmen, the opening of artillery schools, mining schools, informal scientific societies, numerous micro-inventions that turned scientific insights into successful business propositions, including a wide range of institutional changes that affected economic behavior, resource allocation, savings, and investment. There was no such Enlightenment in China where an industrial revolution only started in the mid-twentieth century.

His citation of Elvin’s observation that the Chinese were seeing fewer dragons in the eighteenth century cannot be taken seriously, and neither can vague phrases about “strange parallels” between widely separated areas of the world. Without much analysis but through constant repetition of globalist phrases, Conrad cites works by Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Arif Dirlik, Victor Lieberman, and Jack Goody. None of these works have anything to say about the Enlightenment. Some of them simply argue that capitalist development was occurring in Asia prior to European colonization. Conrad deliberately confounds the Enlightenment with capitalism, globalization, or modernization. He makes reference to a section in Jack Goody’s book, The Theft of History (2006: 122), with the subheading “Cultural similarities in east and west,” but this section is about (broad) similarities in family patterns, culinary practices, culture of flowers, and commodity exchanges in the major post-Bronze Age societies of Eurasia. There is not a single word about the Enlightenment! He cites Dirlik’s book, Global Modernity in the Age of Global Capitalism (2009), but this book is about globalization and not the Enlightenment.

Conrad’s historiographical study is a travesty intended to dissolve European specificity by way of sophomoric use of sources. He says that the Enlightenment was “the work of many authors in different parts of the world.” What he offers instead are incessant strings of similarly worded phrases in every paragraph about the “global context,” “the conditions of globality,” “cross-border circulations,” “structurally embedded in larger global contexts.” To be sure, these are required phrases in academic grant applications assessed by adjudicators who can’t distinguish enlightening thoughts from madrasa learning based on drill repetition and chanting.

A claim that there were similar Enlightenments around the world needs to come up with some authors and books comparable in their novelty and themes. The number of Enlightenment works during the eighteenth century numbered, roughly speaking, about one thousand five hundred.[7] Conrad does not come up with a single book from the rest of the world for the same period. Half way through his 20+ page paper he finally mentions a name from India, Tipu Sultan (1750–1799), the ruler of Mysore “who fashioned himself an enlightened monarch.” Conrad has very little to say about his thoughts. From Wikipedia one gets the impression that he was a reasonably good leader, who introduced a new calendar, new coinage, and seven new government departments, and made military innovations in the use of rocketry. But he was an imitator of the Europeans; as a young man he was instructed in military tactics by French officers in the employment of his father. This should be designated as dissemination, not invention.

Then Conrad mentions the slave revolt in Haiti led by Toussaint L’Ouverture, as an example of the “hybridization” of the Enlightenment. He says that Toussaint had been influenced by European critiques of colonialism, and that his “source of inspiration” also came from slaves who had “been born in Africa and came from diverse political, social and religious backgrounds.” Haitian slaves were presumably comparable to such enlightenment thinkers as Burke, Helvetius, D’Alembert, Galiani, Lessing, Burke, Gibbon, and Laplace. But no, the point is that Haitians made their own original contributions; they employed “religious practices such as voodoo ^[19] for the formation of revolutionary communities.” Strange parallels indeed!

He extends the period of the Enlightenment into the 1930s and 1940s hoping to find “vibrant and heated contestations of Enlightenment in the rest of the world.” He includes names from Japan, China, India, and the Ottoman Empire, but what all of them did was to simply introduce elements of the Enlightenment into their countries. He rehearses the view that these countries offered their own versions of modernity. Then he cites the following words from Liang Qichao, the most influential Chinese thinker at the beginning of the twentieth century, reflecting on his encounter with Western literature: “Books like I have never seen before dazzle my eyes. Ideas like I have never encountered before baffle my brain. It is like seeing the sun after being confined in a dark room.” Without noticing that these words refute his argument that Asians we co-participants of the Enlightenment, Conrad recklessly takes these words as proof that “the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century was not the intellectual monopoly of Europeans.” It does not occur to him that after the eighteenth century Europe moved beyond the Enlightenment exhibiting a dizzying display of intellectual, artistic, and scientific movements: romanticism, impressionism, surrealism, positivism, Marxism, existentialism, relativism, phenomenology, nationalism, fascism, feminism, realism, and countless other isms.

In the last paragraphs, as if aware that his argument was a charade, Conrad writes that “an assessment of the Enlightenment in global history should not be concerned with origins, either geographically or temporarily.” The study of origins, one of the central concerns of the historical profession, is thusly dismissed in one sentence. Perhaps he means that the “capitalist integration of the globe in an age of imperialism” precludes seeing any autonomous origins in any area of the world. World historians, apparently, have solved the problem of origins across all epochs and regions: it always the global context. But why it is that Europe almost always happens to be the progenitor of cultural novelties? One unfortunate result of this effort to see Enlightenments everywhere is the devaluation of the actual Enlightenment. If there were Enlightenment everywhere why should students pay any special attention to Europe’s great thinkers? It should come as no surprise that students are coming out with PhDs incapable of making distinctions between high and average achievements.

Alan Macfarlane, Professor Emeritus of King’s College, Cambridge, and longtime proponent of the idea that it was in western Europe between the thirteenth to eighteenth centuries that the “Nuclear Family based on Romantic Love, the Renaissance, Capitalism, the Scientific Revolution and the Industrial Revolution complex emerged,” has recently ^[20] observed that current efforts to explain Western uniqueness in global terms should be seen as responses to the rise of East Asia and its challenge to Western hegemony. The rise of the West, in light of this momentous rearrangement in geopolitical power, no longer seems so unusual, a “miracle,” but a phenomenon of short duration copied by other nations set to become the new hegemons. Macfarlane thinks it is important to reveal this background condition, and thereby disallow it from interfering with the actual historical record. Asia is rising today, but the West did so first in a very distinctive way.

This perspective strikes me as overtly academic and soft in its assessment of the underlying intentions driving the globalist historians. Macfarlane is a learned man who came of age in an England ^[21] long gone and suffering a huge ethnic alteration. The way this alteration was imposed, who and for what purposes, should be the background from which to evaluate this global perspective. The originality of the Enlightenment stands like an irritating thorn in the march towards equality and European nations inhabited by rootless cosmopolitan citizens without ethnic and nationalist roots. The achievements of Europeans must be erased from memory, replaced by a new history in which every racial group feels equally validated inside the Western world. In the meantime, the rise of Asians as Asians continues unabated and celebrated in Western academia.

Notes

1. “Capitalist Origins, the Advent of Modernity, and Coherent Explanation,” Canadian Journal of Sociology, 33, 1 (2008).

2. When I asked an American history teacher about The College Board, he replied: “The Board has a monopoly on the entire AP curriculum all across America and Canada and the rest of the world that buys into the program, i.e., ‘American schools’ anywhere and everywhere. And yes it is totally Marxist and it sickens me whenever the students have to regurgitate this totally one-sided perspective on the tests. Because the AP tests are based on the official curriculum, each AP World teacher must submit their syllabus to the board for approval. If the board does not approve, the school does not have the right to offer the test and the class is nullified. They have a tight grip on everything that goes on in the classroom, therefore. The trainings are something out of one of those university diversity trainings: anti-Western to the tilt. When they talk about European accomplishments, they do it tongue-in-cheek.”

3. For a thorough assessment of the pedagogical character of recent world history texts, which also covers world or universal historians from ancient times, see the 800-page survey by David Tamm, Universal History and the Telos of Human Progress (University of Antarctica Press, 2012). Tamm is an MA graduate aware that pursuing a PhD is virtually impossible if one rejects multiculturalism and mass immigration. He has founded his own virtual university in Antarctica with a publishing house.

A Wisconsin Policy Institute Research Report published in 2002, “Evaluating World History Texts in Wisconsin Public High Schools,” by Paul Kengor, made the following observations: “they avoid ethnocentrism, Euro-centrism, and so-called “Ameri-centrism;” “there are also multicultural excesses at the expense of the West;” “they include no section on the United States…Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Hamilton, and Lincoln are not mentioned even once;” “the most commonly named individuals in the texts are Mohammed, Gandhi, and Gorbachev;” “nearly all note the aggressive actions of Christianity in the distant past.” See: http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume15/Vol15no4.pdf ^[22]

4. Writing about Western Civ texts from a globalist approach has been building up since the 1990s; in this article published in 1998, Michael Doyle ^[23] asks teachers of Western Civ “to continue to incorporate a more inclusive approach to all cultures with which it [the West] came into contact.” “Certainly Western Civ students should read parts of the Qur’an and understand the attitudes that produced Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth.” He refers to Eric Hobsbawm’s ^[24] widely read books on European history as a model to be followed.

5. Designating Trevor-Roper’s History and the Enlightenment as a “standard” account seems out of place. Trevor-Roper died in 2003; and when his book was published, which consisted mainly of old essays, reviewers seemed more interested in Trevor-Roper the person than the authority on the Enlightenment. The New Republic ^[25] (March 2011) review barely touches is views on the Enlightenment, concentrating on Trevor-Roper’s life-time achievements as a historian and a man of letters. The Washington Post ^[26] (June 2010) correctly notes that Trevor-Roper was an “essayist by inclination,” interested in the details and idiosyncrasies of the characters he wrote about, without postulating a unified vision. The Blackwell Companion to the Enlightenment is a reference source encompassing many subjects from philosophy to art history, from science to music, with numerous topics (not demonstrative of a unifying/dominant view) ranging from absolutism to universities and witchcraft, publishing, language, art, music and the theater, including several hundred biographical entries of diverse personalities. Better examples of a dominant discourse would have been Ernest Cassirer’s The Philosophy of the Enlightenment or Norman Hampson’s, The Enlightenment. Mind you, Cassirer’s book was published in the 1930s and Hampson’s survey in 1968, and neither one is now seen as “dominant.”

6. Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze, ed., Race and the Enlightenment: A Reader (1997).

7. This is an approximate number I came up after counting the compilation of primary works cited in The Cambridge History of Eighteenth Century Philosophy, Volume II, Ed. Knud Haakonssen, (2006), pp. 1237–93.

 

---

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/04/enlightenment-and-global-history/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/prometheus.jpg

[2] World History for Us All: http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu/

[3] surprisingly similar: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6823.html

[4] locally contingent: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/11/04/jack-goldstone/how-an-engineering-culture-launched-modernity/

[5] Afroeurasia: http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/5.2/christian.html

[6] slavery: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/king-cottons-long-shadow/?ref=opinion

[7] scientific: http://www.amazon.com/Eastern-Origins-Western-Civilisation/dp/0521547245

[8] admirers of the West: http://www.arktos.com/christmas-sale/roger-scruton-west-and-rest-globalisation-terrorism-threat.html

[9] American Historical Association: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVaQIOPwFcA

[10] AP World History Standard: http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/AP_WorldHistoryCED_Effective_Fall_2011.pdf

[11] organizations: http://www.campusreform.org/

[12] World History Association: http://www.thewha.org/

[13] Journal of World History: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_World_History

[14] World History Connected: http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/

[15] H-World network: http://www.h-net.org/~world/

[16] two percent: http://www.nas.org/images/documents/TheVanishingWest.pdf

[17] Pascal Bruckner: http://www.signandsight.com/features/1146.html

[18] same Kant: http://www.public.asu.edu/~jacquies/kant-observations.htm

[19] voodoo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KsVMHbLv5M

[20] recently: http://www.socanth.cam.ac.uk/2012/12/the-huxley-memorial-lecture-professor-alan-macfarlane-at-the-rai/

[21] England: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3HpaC7mKEA

[22] http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume15/Vol15no4.pdf: http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume15/Vol15no4.pdf

[23] Michael Doyle: http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/1998/9805/9805TEC.CFM

[24] Eric Hobsbawm’s: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2211961/Eric-Hobsbawm-He-hated-Britain-excused-Stalins-genocide-But-traitor-too.html

[25] The New Republic: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/84508/hugh-trevor-roper-oxford-review

[26] Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/23/AR2010062305093.html

JEAN THIRIART, EL LENIN DE LA REVOLUCIÓN EUROPEA

JEAN THIRIART,

 

EL LENIN DE LA

 

REVOLUCIÓN EUROPEA

 

por René Pellissier

Ex: http://alternativaeuropeaasociasioncultural.wordpress.com/

Articulo aparecido en Le Partisan Européenne, número 9 enero 1987, y publicado en “La Nazione Europea”. Febrero 2005

Cofundador del Comité d’Action de Défense des Belges à l’Áfrique (CADBA), constituído en julio de 1960, inmediatamente después de las violaciones de Leopoldvlile y de Thysville, de las que fueron víctmas los belgas de Congo y cofundador del Mouvement d’Action Civique que sucedió al CADBA, el belga JeanThiriart, en diciembre de 1960, lanzó la organización Jeune Europe, que durante varios meses será el principal sostén logístico y base de retaguardia de la OAS-Metro.
Hasta aquí, parecería nada más que la trayectoria, en definitiva, clásica de un personaje de la derecha más extrema.
No ostante, los partisanos europeos deben mucho a Thiriart – y lo que le deben no permite ciertamente clasificarle de... ¡“extrema-derecha”! Le deben la denuncia de la “impostura llamada Occidente” (es el título de un editorial de Jean Thiriart en la publicación mensual “La Nation Européenne”, nº 3, 15 marzo/15 abril 1966 (1) y la denuncia de los siniestros payasos que son sus defensores, desde Henri Massis a Ronald Reagan; la designación de los Estados Unidos como el principal enemigo de Europa (Thiriart añadió desde 1966, el sionismo – la revista “Conscience Européenne” que tomaba como referente a Thiriart, titulaba su número 7 (abril de 1984): “Imperialismo americano, sionismo: un solo enemigo para la Nación Europea”) Le deben la idea de una Europa independiente y unida de Dublín a Bucarest, después de Dublín a Vladivostok (2) y la idea de una alianza con los nacionalistas árabes y los revolucionarios del Tercer Mundo. Le deben por fin, el esbozo, con la organización Jeune Europe, de un Partido Revolucionario europeo, que se inspira en los principios leninistas y la versión modernizada de un socialismo que quiere ser nacional (Nación europea), comunitario y “prusiano”.

El recorrido de Thiriart y la influencias ideológicas que ha sufrido, no hacen de él, a priori, un personaje de extrema derecha. Nacido en Lieja en una familia liberal, que tenía una estrecha simpatía por la izquierda, Thiriart milita en la Jeune Garde socialista y en la Unión Socialista antifascista. Después durante la guerra colabora con el Fichte Bund, organización de inspiración nacionalbolchevique, dirigida desde Hamburgo por el doctor Kessemaier. Al mismo tiempo es miembro de la AGRA (Amigos del Gran Reich Alemán), que agrupaba en Bélgica a los elementos de extrema izquierda favorables a la colaboración europea y a las anexiones al Reich. En los años 40, el corpus doctrinal thiriarista está ya cimentado. Desde esta época, se le puede clasificar como de revolucionario y europeo.
Solo particulares circunstancias políticas (independencia del Congo, secesión de Kananga, cuestión argelina, problema rhodesiano, etc.) le llevan en los años 1960 a 1965 a abrazar, provisionalmente, las tesis de la extrema derecha. Se empeña, de hecho, en la lucha por el Congo belga (después, el Katanga de Moise Chombé), por la Argelia francesa y Rodhesia; porque le parece que a Europa económica y estratégicamente le es necesario el control de África. Thiriart es un firme defensor de Euráfrica. Más aun, Thiriart lleva el apoyo de Jeune Europe a la OAS, porque una Francia-OAS le parece el trampolín ideal para la auspiciada Revolución europea.

Pero entre 1964 y 1965, Thiriart se separa de la extrema derecha, de la cual rechaza en bloque: el pequeño nacionalismo, el anticomunismo intransigente, la sumisión a los intereses capitalistas, el atlantismo, el prosionismo y –particularmente entre los franceses – el racismo antiárabe y el espíritu de cruzada contra el Islam. Resultando fallida la experiencia de la OAS (dividida, pusilánime, sin ideología revolucionaria o un programa político coherente), Thiriart vuelve sus esperanzas, primero sobre el gaullismo (1966), después intenta obtener el apoyo chino (a través de Ceaucescu se encuentra con Chu en Lai en Bucarest) y por fin, el apoyo árabe.

Su empeño revolucionario y su pragmatismo le llevan, después de haber combatido por el Congo belga y la Argelia francesa, a auspiciar la alianza Europa-Tercer Mundo (3) Thiriart, a pesar de todo, no ha renegado de sus planteamientos; su proyecto sigue siendo el mismo: la unidad e independencia de Europa. Su lucidez le permite distinguir tanto en las guerras coloniales, como en las luchas políticas que se han sucedido, al mismo enemigo de Europa: los Estados Unidos, que en una época armaban y apoyaban las revueltas contra las colonias europeas para sustituir a los colonizadores europeos y que hoy apoyan masivamente el sionismo, cuya agitación belicista y “antirracista” en Europa (racista en Israel, el sionismo es antirracista en el resto del mundo) amenaza la supervivencia misma de Europa.

En 1969, desilusionado por el relativo fracaso de Jeune Europe y por la timidez de los apoyos externos, Jean Thiriart renuncia provisionalmente a la lucha. Pero en los años 70-80, su influencia, la mayoría de las veces indirecta, se deja sentir en el ala radical (neo-fascista) de los movimientos de extrema-derecha, donde el ideal europeo se abre camino, sobre los grupos nacional revolucionarios y socialistas europeos que se inspiran a la vez en Evola, Thiriart y el maoísmo (4) (se trata en particular de la Organización Lotta di Popolo en Italia, Francia y España y, en gran medida, en sus correspondientes alemanes de Aktion Neue Rechte, tras Sache des Volkes, cfr. Orion nº 62) y por fin sobre la Nouvelle Droite (a partir del giro ideológico operado en los años 70-80 por la joven generación del GRECE, entorno a Guillaume Faye)
En 1981, Thiriart rompe el silencio que guardaba desde 1969 y anuncia la publicación de un libro: El Imperio eurosoviético de Vladivostok a Dublín. A esas alturas preconiza la unificación de Europa por parte del Ejército Rojo y bajo la guía de un Partido Comunista (euro)-soviético preventivamente desembarazado del chauvinismo panrruso y del dogmatismo marxista (5). Hoy Thiriart se define como un nacionalbolchevique europeo. Pero no ha hecho más que precisar y ajustar a la situación política actual los temas que defendía en los años 60. Al mismo tiempo, bajo el impulso de Luc Michel han visto la luz un Parti Communitariste Nacional-Européen y una revista: Conscience Européenne; que retoman lo esencial de las ideas de Thiriart.

Si se quiere, Thiriart ha sido el Lenin de la Revolución Europa, pero un Lenin que sigue esperando su octubre de 1917. Con la organización Jeune Europe intentó crear un Partido revolucionario europeo y de suscitar un movimiento de liberación a escala continental, en una época en la cual el orden de Yalta era contestado tanto en el Oeste por De Gaulle, como en el Este por Ceaucescu y por los diversos nacionalcomunismos. Pero ese intento no se consiguió por la falta de serios apoyos externos y de un terreno favorable en el interior (o sea, una crisis política y económica que habría podido conseguir las masas disponibles para una acción revolucionaria a gran escala)
No es cierto que este apoyo y este terreno falten aun durante mucho tiempo. Es importante seguir ininterrumpidamente el camino trazado por Jean Thiriart. Esto es: difundir los conceptos thiriaristas y formar sobre el modelo de Jeune Europe, los cuadros de la Europa revolucionaria del mañana.

Notas:

(1) El tema antioccidental será retomado, cerca de quince años más tarde, por la Nouvelle Droite, en la revista Eléments (nº 34, "Pour en finir avec la civilisation occidentale" , abril/mayo 1980)

(2) La idea de la Gran Europa, de Dublín a Vladivostok, aparece tímidamente en los escritos de Jean Thiriart a principios de los años 60. El neo-derechista Pierre Vidal, defiende esta idea en el artículo titulado: “Objectif Sakhaline”, en Elements nº 39 verano 1981

(3) La alianza Europa-Tercer Mundo es objeto de un libro de Alain de Benoist, Más allá de Occidente. Europa-Tercer Mundo: la nueva alianza, La Rocía di Erec.

(4)Para muchos militantes nacional revolucionarios, la Libia del Coronel Ghadafi, así como la revolución islámica han reemplazado hoy a la China popular como modelo.

(5) En los años 60 Thiriart teorizaba sobre la formación de Brigadas Europeas, que tras haberse adiestrado en teatros de operaciones externos (Próximo Oriente y América Latina) regresarían a suelo europeo cuando se verificasen las condiciones políticas para una guerra de liberación. La dirección política de esta operación correspondería al Partido Revolucionario Europeo, preconfigurado por Jeune Europe. En los años 80, en el espíritu de Thiriart, el Ejército Rojo y el Partido Comunista de la Unión Soviética (PCUS) reemplazaron a las Brigadas Europeas y a Jeune Europe