Bulletin célinien, n°401, novembre 2017
Sommaire : Les souvenirs d’Hermann Bickler – Le docteur Clément Camus (1ère partie) – Un célinien au parcours étonnant – D’un château l’autre
En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.
12:31 Publié dans Littérature | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : littérature, littérature anglaise, lettres, lettres anglaises, angleterre, aldous huxley | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
Bulletin célinien, n°401, novembre 2017
Sommaire : Les souvenirs d’Hermann Bickler – Le docteur Clément Camus (1ère partie) – Un célinien au parcours étonnant – D’un château l’autre
Tous ces faits, et bien d’autres, sont rappelés dans une passionnante biographie de Berl qui est loin d’être complaisante.
• Olivier PHILIPPONNAT et Patrick LIENHARDT, Emmanuel Berl. Cavalier seul (préface de Jean d’Ormesson), La Librairie Vuibert, 2017, 497 p. (27 €)
00:05 Publié dans Littérature, Revue | Lien permanent | Commentaires (1) | Tags : emmanuel berl, louis-ferdinand céline, céline, bulletin célinien, lettres, lettres françaises, littérature, littérature française, france | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
Jünger saw in the figure of the Arbeiter the central category around which the modern world, subjected to the planetary domination of technology, was called to organize itself, in “total mobilization” though and in labor. More precisely, a response adapted to the rise of nihilism in the modern era could be deployed through the technological mobilization of the world. With it, he salutes the advent of a new figure of man, modeled on the Nietzschean superman.
Among the adepts of Marxist ideology, very few have analyzed the thought of those they call “pre-fascist”, or outright “fascist”, including Ernst Jünger, who would evidently be one of the figureheads. Armin Steil is one of the rare Marxist ideologues who has analyzed the paths of Georges Sorel, Carl Schmitt, and Ernst Jünger with pertinence, depth, and especially clarity in his work Die imaginäre Revolte : Untersuchungen zur faschistischen Ideologie und ihrer theoretischen Vorbereitung bei Georges Sorel, Carl Schmitt und Ernst Jünger (The Imaginary Revolt: Inquiries on Fascist Ideology and its Preparation with Georges Sorel, Carl Schmitt, and Ernst Jünger).
Focusing on Der Arbeiter, Steil notes that Jünger’s logic, starting from his “fascism” or more precisely his “revolutionary conservatism,” is not a theoretical logic, a constructed logic, based on the observation of causes and effects, but a metaphorical, poetic, imagistic logic and language. Facing a chaotic socio-economic and political reality, facing the crisis of German society and culture, Jünger wanted to master its perverse effects, its dysfunctions through aesthetics: so his “fascism,” his “revolutionary conservatism,” would essentially be aesthetic in nature, contrary to Marxism, which molds itself on material realities and resolves crises by operating on socio-economic matters themselves, without idealist recourse, without recourse to transcendence or to an aesthetic. Steil very justly concludes: “The book [Der Arbeiter] wants to teach [men] to have a sovereign attitude in the face of social attitudes.” Cold, dispassionate, microscopic observation thus forms the “magic key” that would permit an elite to master the crises, to put an end to chaos and the corrosive disparities that hinder the proper functioning of societies that are subject to them.
To be Hyper-Perceptive Eyes
The willing spirits that thus desire “to take the bull by the horns,” to act on the political terrain, to fight against crises and their effects, should not bind themselves to building a mechanical system of ready made ideas that perfectly match and fit together, but should be hyper-perceptive “eyes,” capable of describing the phenomena of everyday life: what Jünger calls the “physiognomic method.” It allows one to see the essence of a thing in its simple appearance, grasping the unity of essence and appearance, which is the “form” (Gestalt), invisible to all inattentive, distracted observers, not used to wielding the “physiognomic method” with the desired dexterity. All valuable, fruitful phenomena thus bear in themselves a “form,” more or less hidden, a potential force that it captures and puts in the service of a political or historic project. On the other hand, every phenomenon that only appears as “normal” is consequently a phenomenon without further “form”, without “force.” Such a phenomenon would be an early warning sign of decadence, a sign indicating a reshuffling of the cards, forms die, thus obeying a hidden logic, which prepares the advent of new forms, of unbroken forces.
The observation of the phenomena of everyday life, of the details of our daily settings, gives a glimpse of where the fall and death of forms manifest themselves: neon, garish lights, loud and artificial modern cities, are a patent indication of this fading of forces, masked by colors and intensities without real life. Modern traffic in the big cities burdens the pedestrian, the only physical being in this universe of concrete, asphalt, and metal, on the barely tolerated margins are the sidewalks, tracks reserved for the “least speedy.”
The “Arbeiter” uses the “Physiognomic Method”
So the “Arbeiter” is the figure that makes use of the “physiognomic method,” observes, deciphers, plunges into this universe of artifice to seek buried forces, in order to mobilize them for a purely imagined project, “Utopian” in the Marxian and Engelsian sense of the term, Steil explains. This recourse to the imaginary, as the Marxist Steil explains, proceeds from a logic of doubt, which aims to give meaning to that which does not have it, at any cost. It aims to convince us that behind the phenomena of decline, of de-vitalization, an “Order” and laws emerge, which are avatars of the one God refused by the advocates of historical materialism. This “Order”, this Gestalt, this “form”, integrates the infinite diversity of observations posed by people, but it is not, like in the case of historical materialism, a reflection of social relations, but rather a total vision, intuitive, going directly to the essence, that is to say the original form. It is not the objective and positive enumeration of causes and effects that allows one to decide and act, but, on the contrary, a piercing look what allows one to see and grasp the world as the theater where forms confront or cooperate with each other.
The “Arbeiter” is precisely the one who possesses such a “piercing look”, and who replaces the bourgeois, who reasons strictly in simple cause and effect. Steil notes the gap between this vision of the “Arbeiter” and the Marxist and empirical vision of the “Proletarian”: the figure forged by Jünger places himself high above socio-economic contingencies; while the proletarian conscious of his dereliction operates at the heart of these contingencies, without taking any distance, without detachment. The “high flight” of the Arbeiter, his aquiline perspective, gives him a mask: metallic or cosmetic, the gas mask of the combatant, the drivers helmet with the men, makeup with the women. Individual traits disappear behind these masks, as should individual human, all too human, imperfections disappear. The figures of the Arbeiter are certainly imaginary figures, excessively idealized, de-individualized and examined: they act like Prussian soldiers in the Frederician era of practice. Following their leaders, these lesser (but nevertheless necessary) avatars of the Arbeiter and the Prussian soldiers from the “war in lace” [Translator’s note: referring to the ornate uniforms worn by soldiers of the 17th and 18th century] certainly lose the imperfections of their individuality, but also abandon their doubts and disorientation: rules and Order are safety anchors offered by the new elite community of “Arbeiters,” virtuosi of the “physiognomic method.”
The Apparent Independence of the Proletarian
Steil protests that Order, as an imaginary projection, and the “physiognomic method” are instruments against the empirical and Marxist notion of “class struggle,” before clearly giving Jünger’s version: to leave the laborer, the worker, in the grasp of socio-economic contingencies is to leave him in a world entirely determined by the bourgeoisie, arising from the bourgeoisie and ultimately controlled by the bourgeoisie. By occupying a designated place in the bourgeois order, the worker only enjoys an apparent independence, he has no autonomy. Every attack launched against the bourgeois order from this apparent position is also only apparent, destined to be recollected and reinforce the establishment. “Theoretically, every move takes place in the context of an outdated social and human utopia; practically, each brings to dominion, time and again, the figure of the clever business man, whose art consists in bargaining and mediating,” writes Jünger. For Steil, this definition radicalizes the Sorelian vision of socialism, which desires to transform politics into pure means, without a limiting objective, inscribed in contingencies.
To Restore “Auratic” Work
A Marxist will see, in this idealism and in this purification of politics as pure means, an eliminations of politics, a will to put an end to the destructive violence of politics, which is only, in the Marxist view, “class struggle.” But technology operates to sweep away the dead forms in order to establish new forms following a planetary confrontation of extant forms, still endowed with more or less intact forces. So technology destroys residual or obsolete forms, it makes the permanent war of forms planetary and gigantic, but the “Arbeiter,” by coldly instrumentalizing the “physiognomic method,” gives a final form to technology (a desire that is never realized!). This final form will be artistic and the beauty emerging from it will have a magic and “sacral” function, like in so-called “primitive” societies. The restoration of these forms, writes Steil, will be achieved through the restoration of “auratic” work, eclipsed by technological standardization. The Aura, the impalpable expression of form, of the essence of represented phenomenon, restores the sacred dimension, proclaims the return of the cult of beauty, by qualitative replacement of the dead religiosity from the bourgeois era.
“Heroic realism,” the foundation of the new socio-political Order, will be carried by a dominant caste simultaneously exercising three functions: that of retainer of knowledge, that of new warrior forged during the battles of material in the Great War, and that of producer of a new aesthetic, a medium integrating social differences.
Armin Steil, in his Marxist critique of the “pre-fascism” of Sorel, Jünger and Schmitt, clearly lays out the essence of a work as capital as Der Arbeiter, where the mania for fabricating systems is refused in favor of great idealist affirmations, disengaged from the overly heavy contingencies of bourgeois society and proletarian misery. The Jüngerian path, in this view, appears as a disengagement from the yoke of the concrete, as a haughty retreat ultimately leading to a total but external domination of this concreteness. But in the piercing look, demanded by the physiognomic method, is there not, on the contrary, an instrument to penetrate concreteness, much more subtle than simple surface considerations of phenomena?
Reference: : Armin STEIL, Die imaginäre Revolte. Untersuchungen zur faschistischen Ideologie und ihrer theoretischen Vorbereitung bei Georges Sorel, Carl Schmitt und Ernst Jünger, Verlag Arbeiterbewegung und Gesellschaftswissenschaft, Marburg, 1984
01:40 Publié dans Littérature, Philosophie, Révolution conservatrice | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : littérature, littérature allemande, lettres, lettres allemandes, ernst jünger, méthode physiognomique, philosophie, philosophie politique, révolution conservatrice, allemagne | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
par Nicolas Bonnal
Ex: http://www.dedefensa.org
Lisons les Fleurs de Baudelaire moins bêtement qu’à l’école. Et cela donne :
Le vieux Paris n’est plus (la forme d’une ville
Change plus vite, hélas ! que le cœur d’un mortel)…
On est dans les années 1850, au début du remplacement haussmannien de Paris. Baudelaire comprend ici l’essence du pouvoir proto-fasciste bonapartiste si bien décrit par son contemporain Maurice Joly ou par Karl Marx dans le dix-huit brumaire. Et cette société expérimentale s’est étendue à la terre entière. C’est la société du spectacle de Guy Debord, celle ou l’Etat profond et les oligarques se mêlent de tout, en particulier de notre « environnement ». C’est ce que je nomme la conspiration géographique.
La conspiration géographique est la plus grave de toutes. On n’y pense pas assez, mais elle est terrifiante. Je l’ai évoqué dans mon roman les territoires protocolaires. Elle a accompagné la sous-culture télévisuelle moderne et elle a créé dans l’ordre :
• Les banlieues modernes et les villes nouvelles pour isoler les pauvres.
• Les ghettos ethniques pour isoler les immigrés.
• La prolifération cancéreuse de supermarchés puis des centres commerciaux. En France les responsabilités du gaullisme sont immenses.
• La hideur extensive des banlieues recouvertes d’immondices commerciaux ou « grands ensembles » conçus mathématiquement.
• La tyrannie américaine et nazie de la bagnole pour tous ; le monde des interstates copiés des autobahns nazies qui liquident et recouvrent l’espace millénaire et paysan du monde.
• La séparation spatiale, qui met fin au trend révolutionnaire ou rebelle des hommes modernes depuis 1789.
• La décrépitude et l’extermination de vieilles cités (voyez Auxerre) au profit des zones péri-urbaines, toujours plus monstrueuses.
• La crétinisation du public et sa déformation physique (le docteur Plantey dans ses conférences parle d’un basculement morphologique) : ce néo-planton est en voiture la moitié de son temps à écouter la radio.
• La fin de la conversation : Daniel Boorstyn explique dans les Américains que la circulation devient le sujet de conversation numéro un à Los Angeles dans les années cinquante.
Dans Slate.fr, un inspiré, Franck Gintrand, dénonce l’horreur de l’aménagement urbain en France. Et il attaque courageusement la notion creuse et arnaqueuse de smart city, la destruction des centres villes et même des villes moyennes, les responsabilités criminelles de notre administration. Cela donne dans un de ses derniers textes (la France devient moche) :
« En France, cela fait longtemps que la survie du commerce de proximité ne pèse pas lourd aux yeux du puissant ministère de l’Economie. Il faut dire qu’après avoir inventé les hypermarchés, notre pays est devenu champion d’Europe des centres commerciaux. Et des centres commerciaux, ça a quand même beaucoup plus de gueule que des petits boutiquiers… Le concept nous vient des États-Unis, le pays des «malls», ces gigantesques espaces dédiés au shopping et implantés en banlieue, hermétiquement clos et climatisé. »
Il poursuit sur l’historique de cet univers totalitaire (pensez à Blade runner, aux décors de THX 1138) qui est alors reflété dans des films dystopiques prétendant décrire dans le futur ce qui se passait dans le présent.
La France fut ainsi recouverte de ces hangars et autres déchetteries architecturales. Godard disait que la télé aussi recouvrait le monde. Gintrand poursuit à propos des années soixante :
« Pas de centres commerciaux et multiples zones de périphérie dans «La France défigurée», célèbre émission des années 70. Et pour cause: notre pays ne connaissait à cette époque que le développement des hypermarchés (le premier Carrefour ouvre en 1963). On pouvait regretter l’absence totale d’esthétique de ces hangars de l’alimentaire. »
Le mouvement est alors ouest-européen, lié à la domination des trusts US, à la soumission des administrations européennes, à la fascination pour une fausse croissance basée sur des leurres (bagnole/inflation immobilière/pseudo-vacances) et encensée par des sociologues crétins comme Fourastié (les Trente Glorieuses). Dans les années cinquante, le grand écrivain communiste Italo Calvino publie un premier roman nommé la Spéculation immobilière. Ici aussi la liquidation de l’Italie est en marche, avec l’exploitation touristique que dénonce peu après Pasolini, dans ses si clairvoyants écrits corsaires.
En 1967, marqué par la lecture de Boorstyn et Mumford, Guy Debord écrit, dans le plus efficace chapitre de sa Société du Spectacle :
« Le moment présent est déjà celui de l’autodestruction du milieu urbain.L’éclatement des villes sur les campagnes recouvertes de « masses informes de résidus urbains » (Lewis Mumford) est, d’une façon immédiate, présidé par les impératifs de la consommation. La dictature de l’automobile, produit-pilote de la première phase de l’abondance marchande, s’est inscrite dans le terrain avec la domination de l’autoroute, qui disloque les centres anciens et commande une dispersion toujours plus poussée ».
Kunstler a très bien parlé de cette géographie du nulle part, et de cette liquidation physique des américains rendu obèses et inertes par ce style de vie mortifère et mécanique. Les films américains récents (ceux du discret Alexander Payne notamment) donnent la sensation qu’il n’y a plus d’espace libre aux Etats-Unis. Tout a été recouvert de banlieues, de sprawlings, de centres commerciaux, de parkings (c’est la maladie de parking-son !), d’aéroports, de grands ensembles, de brico machins, de centrales thermiques, de parcs thématiques, de bitume et de bitume encore. Voyez Fast Food nation du très bon Richard Linklater.
Je poursuis sur Debord car en parlant de fastfood :
« Mais l’organisation technique de la consommation n’est qu’au premier plan de la dissolution générale qui a conduit ainsi la ville à se consommer elle-même. »
On parle d’empire chez les antisystèmes, et on a raison. Ne dit-on pas empirer ?
Je rappelle ceci dans mon livre noir de la décadence romaine.
« Pétrone voit déjà les dégâts de cette mondialisation à l’antique qui a tout homogénéisé au premier siècle de notre ère de la Syrie à la Bretagne :
« Vois, partout le luxe nourri par le pillage, la fortune s’acharnant à sa perte. C’est avec de l’or qu’ils bâtissent et ils élèvent leurs demeures jusqu’aux cieux. Ici les amas de pierre chassent les eaux, là naît la mer au milieu des champs. En changeant l’état normal des choses, ils se révoltent contre la nature. »
Plus loin j’ajoute :
Sur le tourisme de masse et les croisières, Sénèque remarque :
« On entreprend des voyages sans but; on parcourt les rivages; un jour sur mer, le lendemain, partout on manifeste la même instabilité, le même dégoût du présent. »
Extraordinaire, cette allusion au délire immobilier (déjà vu chez Suétone ou Pétrone) qui a détruit le monde et son épargne :
« Nous entreprendrons alors de construire des maisons, d’en démolir d’autres, de reculer les rives de la mer, d’amener l’eau malgré les difficultés du terrain… »
Je laisse Mumford conclure.
« Le grand historien Mumford, parlant de ces grands rois de l’antiquité, parle d’une « paranoïa constructrice, émanant d’un pouvoir qui veut se montrer à la fois démon et dieu, destructeur et bâtisseur ».
Bibliographie
Bonnal – Les territoires protocolaires ; le livre noir de la décadence romaine ; les maîtres carrés
Debord – La société du spectacle
Kunstler – The long emergency
Mumford – La cité dans l’histoire (à découvrir absolument)
02:25 Publié dans Architecture/Urbanisme, Littérature, Réflexions personnelles | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : architecture, urbanisme, nicolas bonnal, baudelaire, lettres, lettres françaises, littérature, littérature française, réflexions personnelles, paris, france | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
Although best known as a playwright, the Swedish author August Strindberg (1849–1912) was a prolific writer of novels, short stories, poetry, and essays. The official edition of his collected works comes to more than seventy volumes. In 1888 Strindberg attended a series of lectures about the then little-known philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. He quickly became a devotee of Nietzsche and even started up a brief correspondence with the philosopher. After reading Beyond Good and Evil, The Twilight of the Gods, The Case of Wagner, and On the Genealogy of Morals, Strindberg began to write works that were directly influenced by Nietzschean philosophy as well as social Darwinist thought. One of the most explicit examples of this is the novella Tschandala of 1889.
The novella is set in Lund, Sweden in the 1690s, which was in a province that had only been recently captured from the Danes. The protagonist is one Master Andreas Törner, a professor at the University of Lund and an army veteran who had participated in the battle in which the Swedes wrested control of Lund from the Danes. Unlike the situation today, the victorious Swedes realize that multiculturalism does not work, and they use the educational system to enforce the societal norms, language, and ethos of the dominant culture. In scenes reminiscent of a typical Chicago or Detroit public school, Strindberg even describes Törner needing to employ his walking stick as a cudgel against his more recalcitrant students. After a long academic year, Törner is looking forward to taking his wife and children to his home province for the summer. Just as the school year is about to end, Törner receives orders from the Swedish court that he must remain in the area and ingratiate himself with the local population as a means to determine the degree to which the process of integration with Sweden is succeeding.
Törner ends up renting rooms in a dilapidated estate from a demented Danish Baroness. The estate is run by the Baroness’ factor Jensen, who is a gypsy given to wearing outlandish and filthy clothes, lies almost constantly, treats animals in a most cruel fashion, does almost no work on the property, and who is also the Baroness’ lover. In the beginning, Jensen tries to ingratiate himself with Törner, but the gypsy’s monstrous behavior soon puts him at odds with Törner. In a moment of self-clarity, Törner realizes that just proximity to a person as vile as Jensen is debilitating:
When he [Törner] examined himself, he found he had adopted a number of the gipsy’s gestures, borrowed certain tones of voice and, even worse, mixed Danish words and expressions into his speech. He had been jabbering with these infantile people for so long that he was forgetting how to speak properly; he had been lowering himself to their level for so long that his back was becoming hunched; he had been hearing lies for so long that he had come to believe that everyone lied. And he, a strong man who had never been afraid of battle, noticed that his courage was beginning to desert him, that cowardice and fear were creeping up on him in this struggle against invisible powers and enemies who were superior because they did not shrink from using weapons he could not bring himself to employ.
Herein lies Törner’s dilemma: the civilized man has difficulty accepting the fact that the uncivilized play by a different set of rules, that etiquette, good form, fairness, and tolerance are actually weaknesses when confronted by barbarism. As the novella’s narrator states:
What, then, lay at the heart of Törner’s disquiet about crushing this opponent? It was his sense of the value of human life, the doctrine that we should forgive our enemies, defeated or not. Old and foolish teachings which malevolent men have always availed themselves of to overthrow those who have been merciful in victory; stories of the blessings of compassion—omitting, of course, the story of the frozen serpent which turned on the breast that warmed it.
After a visit from a friend who—when hearing of Törner’s conflict with the gypsy—advises Törner to take more drastic measures with Jensen, Törner begins to plot the gypsy’s downfall. Using his superior intellectual abilities and in a manner in which to bring no suspicion upon himself, Törner is able to manipulate Jensen into a very macabre end, which I will not reveal so as not to spoil the delight of readers at witnessing the just desserts of such a reprehensible creature. The narrator states:
The pariah was dead, the Aryan victorious. Victorious thanks to his knowledge and spiritual superiority to the inferior race. But had he not found the strength to commit a crime he could easily have been the victim.
Back at the University, Törner comes across a Hindu text that describes the Tschandala, the lowest substratum of the untouchable class, a race of humiliated persons who are denied permanent abodes, must wear only clothes taken from corpses, and may not wash since they are only allowed water to drink. He realizes that Jensen was a Tschandala and that the hatred that Jensen displayed toward him—who had only shown the gypsy good will—was inevitable, a hatred born of genetics, “the fruit of adultery, incest, and crime.”
Not surprisingly, Tschandala is not easily obtainable in English. The translation I have is by Peter Graves and was published in 2007 by Norvik Press in Norwich, UK. Copies can be found, however, on Amazon and a Swedish version is available on Gutenberg.com
02:03 Publié dans Littérature | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : august strindberg, suède, lettres, lettres suédoises, littérature, littérature suédoise, scandinavie, lettres scandinaves, littérature scandinave | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
La gnose poétique d'Ernst Jünger
Luc-Olivier D'Algange
L'oeuvre d'Ernst Jünger ne se réduit pas à ses récits et journaux de guerre. C'est une méditation originale sur le Temps, les dieux, les songes et symboles. Elle mène de l'art de l'interprétation au rapport des hommes au végétal et à la pierre, elle est aussi une rébellion contre l'uniformisation, incarnée dans la liberté supérieure de l'Anarque envers tous les totalitarismes. Cet ouvrage qui met en regard la pensée de Jünger et celles de ses maîtres, de Novalis à Heidegger, entend rendre compte de son dessein poétique et gnostique. Il donne à voir le monde visible comme l'empreinte d'un sceau invisible.
Poète et essayiste, co-fondateur avec F.J. Ossang de la revue "Cée" (Ed. C. Bourgois) et, avec André Murcie, de la revue "Style", collaborateur régulier de la "Place Royale", Luc-Olivier d'Algange est l'auteur de nombreux articles et chroniques parus dans diverses revues françaises et étrangères. Il a publié réemment "Lux Umbra Dei", "Apocalypse de la beauté" et "Métaphysique du dandysme".
Broché
ISBN : 978-2-343-13346-1 • novembre 2017 • 166 pages
EAN13 : 9782343133461
EAN PDF : 9782140050213
04:33 Publié dans Littérature, Livre, Livre, Révolution conservatrice | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : ernst jünger, luc-olivier d'algange, livre, littérature, lettres, lettres allemandes, littérature allemande, révolution conservatrice, écologie | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
Ex: http://www.secoloditalia.it
Scrittori maledetti o pensatori incompresi? Sognatori da assolvere o complici delle nefandezze dei totalitarismi del XX secolo da condannare senza appello? E’ la domanda che percorre il libro del giornalista Andrea Colombo dal titolo I maledetti. Dalla parte sbagliata della storia (Lindau) che offre al lettore un profilo biografico e di inquadramento storico di poeti, intellettuali, artisti e operatori culturali che a vario titolo furono coinvolti con il fascismo e con il nazionalsocialismo.
Su molti dei nomi studiati da Colombo grava ancora una damnatio memoriae non scalfita dal tempo, su altri il pregiudizio è caduto lasciando spazio ad analisi più riflessive e distaccate. Del resto, come avverte l’autore, gli stessi intellettuali che avevano creduto nel sogno nazionalrivoluzionario di Hitler e Mussolini scelsero destini diversi nel dopoguerra: “C’è chi fuggirà da quel sogno diventato incubo, e tenterà di nascondere per tutta la vita le sue simpatie giovanili, come Lorenz. Chi invece, come Evola, non rinuncerà alle sue idee neanche dopo il 1945… Pound, infine, negli anni della vecchiaia si chiuderà in un mutismo enigmatico. Un tempus tacendi che segnerà la fine definitiva del tragico sogno“.
Differente la sorte degli scrittori collaborazionisti: Robert Brasillach (che l’autore inserisce tra i rappresentanti del nazismo gay) dovrà affrontare il plotone d’esecuzione il 6 febbraio del 1945, un mese dopo Céline e sua moglie fuggono a Copenaghen, dove lo scrittore francese sarà arrestato a dicembre, il 23 aprile dello stesso anno Ezra Pound pubblica l’ultimo articolo per la stampa della Rsi, intitolato “Appunti economici: brani d’attualità” per essere poi a sua volta arrestato il 3 maggio a Rapallo, nel maggio dello stesso anno Leni Riefenstahl viene fatta prigioniera prima dagli americani e poi dai francesi mentre Knut Hamsun, prima di essere internato in un manicomio criminale a Oslo, farà in tempo il 7 maggio a dettare un necrologio per Hitler in cui definisce il dittatore “pioniere dell’umanità”. L’anno seguente, a dicembre, il grande filosofo Martin Heidegger sarà interdetto dall’insegnamento in quanto dichiarato dalla commissione di epurazione un “nazista tipico”.
Il poeta Gottfried Benn dovrà attendere gli anni Cinquanta per una completa riabilitazione, molto meno di Giovanni Gentile (ucciso da un partigiano nel 1944) il cui pensiero e la cui dirittura morale saranno rivalutati e compresi a pieno solo negli anni Sessanta e Settanta del Novecento grazie agli studi di Augusto Del Noce e poi di Sergio Romano. L’etologo Konrad Lorenz farà dimenticare la sua giovanile adesione al nazionalsocialismo capeggiando i cortei ecologisti contro il nucleare, lo storico delle religioni Mircea Eliade, titolare di una cattedra a Chicago, sarà perseguitato dai fantasmi del suo passato di aderente alla Guardia di Ferro grazie a un dossier contro di lui pubblicato in Romania nel 1972.
Ma i nomi di questi personaggi dicono molto di più del coinvolgimento politico durato una stagione: parlano per loro le opere scritte, i pensieri lasciati in eredità oltre le etichette, la fulminante genialità di cui nessuno vuole ancora privarsi nonostante i tardivi ostracismi.
E così questi “maledetti” attraverseranno il dopoguerra sempre camminando tra le minacce di un’oscurantista censura, ma prendendosi qualche rivincita, come quando Leni Riefenstahl venne a Roma negli anni Novanta per una mostra di sue fotografie su una tribù africana invitata dall’assessore alla Cultura (Gianni Borgna) di un sindaco di sinistra. Ma ancora nel 2007 Jodie Foster dovrà rinunciare a fare un film su questa regista geniale cui la storia del cinema deve moltissimo. L’impronta di maledetti non si cancella, allora, ma più che rappresentare un marchio d’infamia diviene stigma di grettezza intellettuale, di incapacità di riconoscere il vero talento e di liberarsi degli spettri del passato.
00:10 Publié dans Histoire, Littérature | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : histoire, europe, littérature, lettres | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
Roy Morris, Jr.
Declaring His Genius: Oscar Wilde in North America
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013
Oscar Wilde arrived in America in January 1882 as a young man of 27. Over the course of the next eleven months he would travel 15,000 miles across the country, delivering a total of 140 lectures primarily on the English Renaissance, the Pre-Raphaelites, and the decorative arts. He encountered a motley cast of characters throughout his travels, ranging from politicians, reporters, and prominent literary figures to miners and cowboys out West. It was in the West that he found the audience most receptive to his ideas.
His lecture tour recalls the lyceum movement that flourished in the early nineteenth century, which entailed the establishment of hundreds of organizations across the country that sponsored public educational programs and provided venues for traveling lecturers and entertainers. Morris’s book chronicles each leg of Wilde’s tour in detail. The usual sequence of events that unfolded in each city upon his arrival lends itself to repetition, but the subject matter is interesting enough that the book remains engaging. It also benefits from the inclusion of a handful of Wilde’s characteristic witticisms (e.g., upon visiting Cincinnati he remarked: “I wonder no criminal has ever pleaded the ugliness of your city as an excuse for his crimes!”).
By 1882 Wilde had not yet distinguished himself as a playwright and poet (he had written only one play, almost never performed today, and a short poetry collection) but was already a figurehead of the Aesthetic Movement on account of his colorful personality and skill in self-promotion. He set off for America at the request of the English impresario Richard D’Oyly Carte, who had produced Gilbert and Sullivan’s Patience and wanted to promote the play in America by showcasing Wilde as a real-life Bunthorne who would familiarize Americans with aestheticism, which the play was meant to satirize. Wilde embraced the role and used it to his advantage. His flamboyant persona attracted the attention of Americans of all stripes, and his lectures regularly drew large crowds.
Wilde grew to be a polarizing figure who was both admired and reviled. As his fame increased he was invited to many social events, where his witty repartees made him a popular guest. Conversely he was often ridiculed in the press: the Chicago Tribune deemed him “a twittering sparrow come to fill his maw with insects” and the Washington Post printed a drawing of him beside a primitive-looking character, “Mr. Wild of Borneo,” suggesting that he represented a decline in human evolution (also inviting comparison to the “Wild Men of Borneo,” a pair of mentally retarded midgets who featured in P. T. Barnum’s freak shows). In Boston he was mocked by Harvard students and criticized by Henry James, who called him a “fatuous fool.” Wilde thrived on the controversy.
Overall he was greeted with the greatest enthusiasm not in the universities or salons of the Eastern cities, but in the West. Wilde likewise preferred the West to the East:
I am especially delighted with the West, it is so new and fresh, and the people are so generous and free from prejudice. In the older cities in the East, the people are enveloped in a perfect mist of prejudice, quite unlimited; they have imported so many Old World ideas, absurdities, and affectations, that they have lost all sincerity and naturalness.
The “prejudice” he mentions likely refers to ideas about class and social conventions. His criticism of such prejudices did not prevent him from disparaging Chinese art and tapping into anti-Chinese sentiment in San Francisco (though Chinatown intrigued him): “Don’t borrow any Chinese art, for you have no need of it any more than you have need of Chinese labor.” Wilde was popular in San Francisco and described it as his favorite American city.
Interestingly he also sympathized with Southerners, comparing their attempt to secede from the Union to Ireland’s struggle for independence. On his tour he encountered the Confederate general P. G. T. Beauregard, who showed him the sites of New Orleans, and Jefferson Davis himself, whom Wilde called “a man of the keenest intellect.”
But most interesting is Wilde’s encounter with silver miners in Leadville, Colorado. Leadville was notable for being one of the world’s largest silver camps as well as for being the hometown of John Baker “Texas Jack” Omohundro, a famous cowboy and friend of Buffalo Bill, and the outlaw Doc Holliday, who took part in the gunfight at the O.K. Corral. The town was the site of regular gunfights and Wilde brushed up on his shooting skills before arriving.
His first appearance in Leadville was at an opera house, where he lectured on Renaissance art to a fascinated audience. The author relates an anecdote: “After Wilde invoked the name of Renaissance goldsmith Benvenuto Cellini, the miners wanted to know why Wilde hadn’t brought him along. When Wilde said that, regrettably, Cellini was dead, they wanted to know who had shot him.” Wilde was then taken to the depths of a silver mine, where he drank whiskey with the miners, who pronounced him “a bully boy with no glass eye” and gave him tips on silver mining.
Wilde’s persona as an effete dandy seems incompatible with the image of manly frontiersmen, but it is perhaps not surprising that his ideas resonated with the miners.
In spite of his foppish appearance, Wilde was described as a man of a vigorous, hearty temperament who possessed a firm handshake and readily engaged in fistfights when challenged. Physically he was described as being six foot three, though thin, with broad shoulders and strong arms. He was an avid drinker and could outdrink most. (He also held realistic views regarding differences between the sexes that would be considered politically incorrect today.)
Moreover Wilde’s worldview was fundamentally anti-bourgeois. His devotion to beauty transcended economic and moral concerns. This led him to criticize the modern, capitalist conception of work, which he believed was inherently antithetical to the creative process. He believed that “a man’s work should be a joy to him” and that one should subordinate himself not to “work” but to higher ideals.
Wilde stated that the intent of his lecture tour in America was “to make art not a luxury for the rich but, as it should be, the most splendid of all the chords through which the spirit of any nation manifests its power.” His idea of a political utopia entailed liberating the working class from their slavery to machinery, which would grant them the opportunity to create art and reach their fullest potential. This was an era in which workers in both America and Britain endured terrible conditions, working long hours and receiving little pay. Thus Wilde was an egalitarian, though his beliefs bore scant resemblance to the leveling force of modern progressivism, as he believed that ultimately one should aspire to attain higher levels of being (the idea that absolute ideals, such as beauty, exist and that one should strive toward them runs counter to egalitarian relativism). The political system he envisioned was one that would enable each individual to pursue self-actualization, thereby ennobling the soul.
Wilde believed that this could be accomplished through future advances in technology:
Under proper conditions machinery will serve man . . . The fact is, that civilisation requires slaves. The Greeks were quite right there. Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralising. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends.[1]
The author notes that Wilde “sounds a little like Marx” in his essay on socialism (“The Soul of Man under Socialism”), but it would be more accurate to compare Wilde’s idea of socialism to the philosophy of Social Credit (apart from their very different approaches to private property) in that the Social Credit movement advocated the advancement of technology toward a similar end and proposed the idea of a “National Dividend” that would lend people the freedom to pursue artistic, intellectual, and spiritual endeavors.
Wilde’s views can be compared to those of William Morris, an English poet, painter, and textile designer associated with the Pre-Raphaelites (who in turn heavily influenced the Aesthetic Movement). Inspired by the workers’ guilds of the Middle Ages, Morris sought to restore dignity to work by promoting hand-craftsmanship and raising it to the level of art. Thus he came to reject the joint forces of modernity and capitalism.
The rugged individualism of the Wild West represented a similar rejection of bourgeois values. In the West, men were masters of their own fate. The notion of economic security was subordinated to the ideals of courage, adventurousness, and honor. Therefore the spirit of the frontier shared the same fundamental instinct as Wilde’s aestheticism. This also occurred to Wilde when he saw a sign in Leadville that read “Don’t shoot the pianist; he is doing his best” and was struck by the fact that in the Wild West, poor piano playing could be grounds for being shot. He declared that this was, in his words, “the only rational method of art criticism I have ever come across.”
Morris’s account of Wilde’s lecture tour in America also recalls an era in which artists and intellectuals engaged with the public on a much broader scale and assumed a level of public responsibility that one rarely finds among artists and intellectuals today. The tradition of the public intellectual remained a staple of American cultural life until it began to fizzle out by the latter half of the twentieth century. There are a number of reasons for this, from the increasing hyperspecialization of academia to the rapid growth of the Internet. But it can also be traced back to the contempt that most modern American intellectuals have for the majority of Americans. There is no bond that exists between them and the people because they entirely lack empathy for the common man. By contrast, Wilde was a populist: he hoped that “the masses [would] come to be the creators in art.” Modern leftists claim Wilde as one of their own but it is clear that were he alive today, his staunch populism and simultaneous aesthetic elitism (and his wit) would set him apart from the rest and perhaps would even render him a fellow traveler of the Right.
Note
1. Oscar Wilde, “The Soul of Man under Socialism,” 1891.
11:37 Publié dans Littérature | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : littérature, littérature anglaise, lettres, lettres anglaises, oscar wilde, états-unis, angleterre, 19ème siècle | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
Imperium : roman de Christian Kracht
Par Robert Steuckers
Ecrivain suisse, journaliste en Allemagne, grand voyageur, en Asie surtout, Christian Kracht a aussi escaladé le Kilimandjaro. Imperium est son quatrième roman. Il a provoqué le scandale car il a heurté la sensibilité des bien-pensants. Certes, tous n’ont pas suivi les mots d’ordre des zélotes du « politiquement correct ». Loin s’en faut. Mais la rage d’un journaliste en particulier, un certain Georg Diez, a sorti du placard toute l’habituelle litanie de reproches : proximité avec la « nouvelle droite », satanisme, similitude avec Céline, racisme (évidemment !), hostilité à la démocratie, totalitarisme, antimodernisme, etc. Cette recension acerbe du Spiegel, ridicule dans ses exagérations, n’a pas empêché Kracht de recevoir un prix du canton de Berne et le Prix Wilhelm Raabe en 2012, immédiatement après la parution du roman.
L’intrigue se passe en Nouvelle-Guinée, ancienne colonie allemande d’avant le Traité de Versailles. Le héros August Engelhardt est un idéaliste, typiquement allemand. Il veut faire fortune en devenant planteur dans cette colonie lointaine. Il découvre une tribu indigène qui ne se nourrit que de noix de coco. Elle est pacifique. Elle correspond à ses idéaux : sur ce modèle exotique, Engelhardt veut fonder une nouvelle religion végétarienne et nudiste, jeter les bases d’un « nouveau Reich » écolo-végétarien qui doit évidemment inspirer le monde entier. En fin de compte, le projet vire à la catastrophe : les végétariens deviennent cannibales, les idéalistes deviennent antisémites, les ascètes se muent en scrofuleux.
Engelhardt, un assistant en pharmacie qui a réellement existé et n’est donc pas simplement une figure de fiction issue de l’imagination de Kracht, était l’un de ces innombrables Lebensreformer allemands (un « réformateur de la vie ») qui annonçaient, avant la première guerre mondiale, les idéaux qui seront ceux des hippies, cannabis en moins. Les Lebensreformer tentaient d’échapper au service militaire et estimaient que l’Allemagne de Guillaume II était trop technique, trop moderne et trop ennuyeuse. Dans la foulée de ce refus, très fréquent à la Belle Epoque, Engelhardt a réellement fondé un paganisme farfelu, le « cocovorisme », religion solaire et naturiste d’origine américaine, gérée par un « Ordre solaire » et par les principes d’un communisme primordial. Le soleil étant la source de toute vie, il convenait de ne pas se vêtir pour laisser entrer dans le corps et dans l’esprit l’énergie de l’astre. S’exposer nu aux rayons du soleil et consommer seulement des noix de coco permet d’atteindre le divin et d’accéder à l’immortalité (« Le cocovorisme nudiste est la volonté de Dieu. La pure diète de coco rend immortel et unit à Dieu » - « Le cocovore reçoit tout directement des mains de son Dieu, le Soleil au cœur bon »). Hélas, la noix de coco n’offre pas suffisamment de force au corps et Engelhardt, miné par la lèpre, périra misérablement sur l’île de Kabakon, en Nouvelle-Guinée en 1919. Engelhardt n’eut que quelques rares disciples, ce qui ne l’empêcha pas de rêver à l’instauration d’un « Empire international et tropical du fructivorisme » qui se serait étendu aux îles du Pacifique, à l’Asie du Sud-Est, à l’Amérique du Sud et à l’Afrique équatoriale.
Engelhardt en Nouvelle-Guinée
L’Allemagne wilhelminienne était promise à un bel avenir. Le siècle aurait parfaitement pu devenir le « siècle allemand » si l’horrible tragédie de la première guerre mondiale n’avait pas freiné brutalement le cours naturel des choses. Kracht joue ici la carte de l’ironie. Imaginons une société pareille à celle rêvée par Engelhardt. Idyllique au début de sa fondation, elle voit se généraliser la suspicion, surtout à cause de l’« amour libre », puis se déclencher une cascade d’inimitiés féroces. L’Engelhardt du roman de Kracht passe de l’idéalisme à la brutalité sans fard des indigènes.
Le roman, d’une part, la vie réelle d’Engelhardt, d’autre part, appellent des réflexions politico-philosophiques précises :
L’utopie d’Engelhardt, telle que moquée dans le roman de Kracht, ne mène à rien, sinon aux quolibets de ceux qui ne l’ont jamais partagée ou au désintérêt des générations futures. Ce sont justement ces quolibets, mis en exergue, et ce désintérêt qui ont fâché les pourfendeurs bruyants du roman de Christian Kracht. L’utopie pré-hippy d’Engelhardt, avec son végétarisme irénique et son sexualisme nudiste, recèle des idéologèmes diffus de notre propre utopie dominante, de type libéral ou gauchiste. Moquer ces idéologèmes est donc un crime de lèse-correction-politique, que ne peut s’empêcher de fustiger un journaliste du Spiegel, chien de garde de l’utopie hippy-festiviste. Qu’on en juge par cette citation : « Engelhardt redevient enfant, Rex Solus. Végétatif et simplet, sans se souvenir de rien, sans perspective, il ne vit plus que dans le présent, reçoit de temps à autre une visite, parle en délirant, et les visiteurs s’en vont et rient de lui ; finalement, il devient l’attraction des voyageurs dans les Mers du Sud ; on vient le voir comme on vient regarder un animal sauvage au zoo ». Notre modernité tardive, ou postmodernité, n’est-elle pas ce pur présentisme, amnésique et sans projets, consécutifs d’un idéalisme déréalisant ?
Kracht entrecoupe la description du naufrage de l’utopie d’Engelhardt de visites d’auteurs, de peintres, d’artistes, emblématiques de l’époque, renouant en quelque sorte avec le style de La montagne magique de Thomas Mann.
Un roman donc qui a fait grincer des dents un chien de garde du système, particulièrement virulent, mais qui a finalement connu un succès retentissant. Comme quoi, ces chiens de garde, on les écoute de moins en moins… Aussi peu que les idéalistes hippies à la Engelhardt. Heureux augure ? Qui plus est, un roman dont on fera un film.
Et, au fond, en le lisant, je n’ai découvert aucune trace d’extrême-droitisme, de racisme, de satanisme. Rien que du cocovorisme.
Christian Kracht, Imperium, Fischer Taschenbuch, n°18.535, Frankfurt am Main, 2015.
17:47 Publié dans Littérature, Livre, Livre | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : littérature, littérature allemande, lettres, lettres allemandes, christian kracht, livre, auguste engelhardt, lebensreformer | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
Le n°400 du Bulletin célinien
Sommaire : L’art de l’annonce chez Denoël – Bouquet pour le 400e – Un flâneur épicurien et lettré.
Tel quel, le Bulletin se veut un lien régulier avec ceux que l’on appelle les « céliniens ». Qui ne sont pas tous « célinistes », ce terme désignant en principe ceux qui travaillent sur le sujet qu’ils soient universitaires distingués ou amateurs éclairés. Que cela soit pour moi l’occasion de rendre hommage à la petite cohorte de pionniers : Nicole Debrie, Jean Guenot, Marc Hanrez, Dominique de Roux (†) et Pol Vandromme (†). Lesquels ont précédé la deuxième vague composée de Philippe Alméras, Jean-Pierre Dauphin (†), François Gibault, Henri Godard (fondateurs en 1976 de la Société d’Études céliniennes), Alphonse Juilland (†), Frédéric Vitoux, Henri Thyssens, Éric Mazet et quelques autres. Depuis lors, la vision que le public a de Céline s’est dégradée avec la parution d’ouvrages ayant pour but d’en faire un propagandiste stipendié. Si son importance littéraire n’est généralement pas remise en question, le portrait diffamant que l’on fait de l’écrivain n’est pas sans conséquence. Dans la bibliographie célinienne – devenue mythique à force de voir sa parution reportée – qu’Arina Istratova et moi finalisons, nous observons la baisse de travaux universitaires à lui consacrés. C’est qu’il devient périlleux de prendre Céline comme sujet de thèse (ou d’en assurer la direction) tant il apparaît aux yeux de certains comme éminemment sulfureux. Jean-Paul Louis, éditeur de la revue L’Année Céline, fustige à juste titre ceux qui veulent « mettre au pas le créateur coupable de déviances et d’expressions trop libres ». Le rêve inavoué étant de « l’exclure de l’histoire littéraire » ¹. Pour cela, certains détracteurs n’hésitent pas à minorer sa valeur. Et posent cette question insidieuse : « Pourquoi l’œuvre de Céline, contrairement à celles de Chateaubriand, de Balzac, de Flaubert ou de Proust, n’a-t-elle pas attiré de grands spécialistes universitaires, pourquoi a-t-elle été négligée par les critiques de haut vol ? ² » Poser la question c’est y répondre. Dans le sérail universitaire, se vouer à Céline suscite ipso facto la suspicion même si l’on affiche un brevet de civisme républicain. Henri Godard, pour ne citer que lui, en sait quelque chose ³.
N’en déplaise à ses contempteurs, l’œuvre de Céline est considérable. Assurée d’une postérité inaltérable – même si elle pourrait dans l’avenir être moins lue qu’aujourd’hui –, elle défie les siècles à l’égal de celle d’un Rabelais.
19:19 Publié dans Littérature, Revue | Lien permanent | Commentaires (2) | Tags : revue, littérature, littérature française, lettres, lettres françaises, france, céline, marc laudelout | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
Philip K. Dick’s 1968 science fiction novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is far less famous than Ridley Scott’s 1982 movie Blade Runner [2], which is loosely based on the novel. A few of the novel’s characters and dramatic situations, as well as bits of dialogue, found their way into Blade Runner, often shorn of the context in which they made sense. But the movie and novel dramatically diverge on the fundamental question of what makes human beings different from androids, and in terms of the “myths” that provide the deep structure of their stories.
In Blade Runner, what separates androids from humans is their lack of memories, whereas in the novel it is their lack of empathy. In the novel, the underlying myth is the passion of the Christ, specifically his persecution at the hands of the Jews (both the Jews who called for his death and their present-day descendants, who continue to mock him and his followers). In Blade Runner, however, it is the rebellion of Satan against God—and this time, Satan wins by murdering God. (I will deal with Blade Runner at greater length in another essay [3].)
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is set in 1992 in the San Francisco Bay Area, with a side trip to Seattle. After World War Terminus, the earth’s atmosphere is polluted by vast radioactive dust clouds. Many animal species are extinct, and the rest are extremely rare, so animals are highly valued, both for religious reasons and as status symbols, and there is brisk market in electric animals. (Hence the title.)
To escape the dust, most human beings have emigrated to off-world colonies. (Mars is mentioned specifically.) As an incentive, emigrants are given androids as servants and slave laborers. (They are called “replicants” in the movie, but not in the book.) These androids are not machines, like electric sheep. They are artificially created living human beings. They are created as full-grown humans and live only four years. Aside from their short lifespans, androids differ from human beings by lacking empathy. In essence, they are sociopaths. Androids are banned from earth, and violators are hunted down and “retired” by bounty hunters. (The phrase “blade runner” does not appear in the book.)
The novel never makes clear why androids return to earth, which is inhabited only by genetically malformed “specials” and mentally-retarded “chickenheads,” who are not allowed to emigrate, and a remnant of normal humans who refuse to emigrate and are willing to risk the dust and endure lifelessness and decay because of their attachment to the earth. Earth does make sense as a destination, however, given the androids’ status as slaves in the off-world colonies and their short lifespans, which obviates concerns about long-term damage from the dust.
I wish to argue that Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? can be read as a systematic Christian and anti-Semitic allegory. Naturally, I do not argue that this brief but rich and suggestive novel can be reduced entirely to this dimension. But I argue that this is the mythic backbone of the narrative and indicates that Philip K. Dick had a good deal of wisdom about Jews and the Jewish question.
Historical Christianity plays no role in the novel. The only religion mentioned is called Mercerism, which of course brings to mind “mercy.” Mercerism apparently arose after WWT, as a reaction to the mass death of human beings and animals, which led the survivors to place a high value on empathy. Given its emphasis on empathy, Mercerism is an experiential religion, facilitated by a device called the Empathy Box, which has a cathode ray tube with handles on each side. When one switches on the Empathy Box and grasps the handles, one’s consciousness is merged with other Mercerists as they experience the passion of Wilbur Mercer, an old man who trudges to the top of a hill as unseen tormentors throw stones at him. At the Golgotha-like summit, the torments intensify. Mercer then dies and descends into the underworld, from which he rises like Jesus, Osiris, Dionysus, and Adonis—and, like the latter three, brings devastated nature back to life along with him.
According to Mercer’s back story, he was found by his adoptive parents as an infant floating in a life raft (like Moses). As a young man, he had an unusual empathic connection with animals. He had the power to bring dead animals back to life (like Jesus, although Jesus did not deign to resurrect mere animals). The authorities, called the “adversaries” and “The Killers,” arrested Mercer and bombarded his brain with radioactive cobalt to destroy his ability to resurrect the dead. This plunged Mercer into the world of the dead, but at a certain point, Mercer conquered death and brought nature back to life. His passion and resurrection is somehow recapitulated in the experience of the old man struggling to the top of the hill, dying, descending into the world of the dead, and ascending again. (The incoherence of the story may partly be a commentary on religion and partly a reflection of the fact that our account of Mercerism is recollected by a mentally subnormal “chickenhead.”)
If Mercerism is about empathy towards other humans and creation as a whole, his adversaries, The Killers, are those that lack empathy and instead exploit animals and other human beings. If Mercerism is analogous to Christianity, The Killers are analogous to Jews. And, indeed, in the Old Testament, the Jews are commanded by God to exploit nature and other men.
The androids, because they lack empathy, are natural Killers. Thus bounty hunter Rick Deckard explicitly likens androids to The Killers: “For Rick Deckard, an escaped humanoid robot, which had killed its master, which had been equipped with an intelligence greater than that of many human beings, which had no regard for animals, which possessed no ability to feel empathic joy for another life form’s success or grief at its defeat—that, for him, epitomized The Killers” (Philip K. Dick, Four Novels of the 1960s, ed. Jonathan Lethem [New York: Library of America, 2007], p. 456).
Of course, although the androids epitomize The Killers, they are not the only ones who lack empathy. Earth has been devastated because human politicians and industrialists had less feeling for life than for political prestige and adding zeroes to their bank accounts. This is precisely why Mercerism puts a premium on empathy. A scene in which the androids cut off the legs of a spider just for the fun of it makes clear why they must be hunted down and killed. Mercer commands his followers “You shall kill only the killers” (ibid.). If only human Killers could be “retired” as well.
The android lack of empathy is the basis of the Voight-Kampff test, which can detect androids by measuring their weak responses to the sufferings of animals and other human beings. (The rationale for the Voight-Kampff test is completely absent from Blade Runner, in which humans and androids are differentiated in terms of memories, not empathy.)
The Killers and the androids are not, however, characterized merely by lack of empathy but also by excess of intelligence, which for the androids expresses itself in intellectual arrogance and condescension toward the chickenhead J. R. Isidore. Intellectuality combined with arrogance are, again, stereotypically Jewish traits. By contrast, Mercerism, because it is based on empathy rather than intellect, can embrace all feeling beings, even chickenheads.
The androids Deckard is hunting are manufactured by the Rosen Association in Seattle, Rosen being a stereotypically Jewish name (at least in America). (In Blade Runner, it is the Tyrell Corporation, Tyrell being an Anglo-Saxon name.) The aim of the Rosen Association is perfect crypsis: androids that cannot be distinguished from humans by any test, even though this agenda conflicts with the aims of the civil authorities to root out all android infiltrators. Deckard notes that “Androids . . . had . . . an innate desire to remain inconspicuous” (p. 529). Crypsis is, of course, an ancient Jewish art, necessary for the diaspora to blend in among their host communities. The Rosen Association obviously has higher loyalties than to the civil authorities, and Jews are notorious for protecting their own people, even criminals, from the civil authorities of their host societies.
The Rosen Association tasks an android named Rachel Rosen (a very Jewish name) to protect rogue androids by seducing bounty hunters. Apparently sex with an android creates something of an empathic bond, at least from the human point of view, which inhibits them from killing androids. Rachel thus plays the role of Queen Esther, the Jewish woman who wedded Ahasuerus, a mythical king of Persia, and used their relationship to protect her people and destroy their persecutor Haman.
One of the most surreal episodes in the novel ensues when Rick Deckard interviews android soprano Luba Luft in her dressing room at San Francisco’s War Memorial Opera House. (In the down-market Blade Runner, she is Zhora, the stripper with the snake.) Before Deckard can complete his interview and “retire” her, Luft turns the tables by calling the police.
Deckard is promptly arrested and discovers that San Francisco has another, parallel police department staffed primarily by humans but headed by an android who, of course, watches out for the interests of his fellow androids. Granted, an entire parallel police department is a rather implausible notion. A more plausible scenario would be the infiltration of the existing police department. But the episode strictly parallels techniques of Jewish subversion in the real world. For instance, the fact that US foreign policy is more responsive to Israeli interests than American interests is clearly the result of the over-representation of ethnically-conscious Jews and their allies among American policy- and opinion-makers. Jews seek positions of power and influence in the leading institutions of their host societies, subverting them into serving Jewish interests at the expense of the host population.
When Deckard frees himself from the fake police department and tracks down Luba Luft, he notices that, although she does not come with him willingly, “she did not actively resist; seemingly she had become resigned. Rick had seen that before in androids, in crucial situations. The artificial life force that animated them seemed to fail if pressed too far . . . at least in some of them. But not all” (p. 529). This brings to mind holocaust stories of Jews allowing themselves to be passively herded en masse to their deaths. (This seems unlikely, for based on my experience, Jews do not lack self-assertion.)
The final anti-Semitic dimension of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is its treatment of the media. Only two media outlets are mentioned, one private and the other owned by the government. (Hollywood is also defunct. Dick’s ability to envision the future obviously failed him here.) The privately owned media broadcasts the same talk show, Buster Friendly and His Friendly Friends, on both radio and television 23 hours a day. How is this possible? Buster and his friends are androids, of course. But who owns Buster and his friends? The Killers, i.e., the Jews and their spiritual equivalents.
This can be inferred from the fact that Buster and his friends make a point of mocking Mercerism, just as the Jewish media mock Christianity (pp. 487–88). Killers and androids are hostile to Mercerism because their lack of empathy excludes them from the communal fusion that is the religion’s central practice. Thus Isidore concluded that “[Buster] and Wilbur Mercer are in competition. . . . Buster Friendly and Mercerism are fighting for control of our psychic souls” (pp. 488, 489). It is a struggle between empathy and cold, sociopathic intellect.
Near the end of the novel, Buster Friendly goes beyond mockery by broadcasting an exposé showing that Mercerism is a fraud. The rock-strewn slope is a sound stage, the moonlit sky a painted backdrop, and Mercer himself is just an old drunk named Al Jarry hired to act the part of the suffering savior. Mercerism, we are told, is merely a mind control device manipulated by politicians to make the public more tractable — just the opiate of the masses.
The androids are delighted, of course, because if Mercerism is a fraud, then maybe so too is empathy, the one thing that allegedly separates androids from human beings. And empathy can be fake, because in the very first chapter of the novel, we learn of the existence of a device called the Penfield Mood Organ, which can induce any mood imaginable if you just input the correct code.
The exposé is true. But none of it matters. Because the magic of Mercerism still works. J. R. Isidore has a vision of Mercer without the empathy box, and Mercer gives him the spider mutilated by the androids, miraculously restored to life. Mercer himself admits the truth of the exposé to Isidore, but still it does not matter. Then Mercer appears to Deckard and helps him kill the remaining androids. Near the end of the novel, Mercer appears to Deckard again and leads him to a toad, a species previously thought to be extinct, which deeply consoles Deckard. His wife Iran, however, discovers the toad is mechanical. The spider probably is as well. But even these fake animals do not undermine the healing magic of Mercerism.
I wish to suggest that Dick’s point is that the historical dimension of Mercerism—and, by implication, of Christianity—does not matter. It can all be fake: the incarnation, the sacrifices, even the miracles can be fake. But the magic still works. This is, in short, a version of the Gnostic doctrine of “Docetism”: the idea that the Christ is an entirely spiritual being and his outward manifestations, including the incarnation, are not metaphysically real.
This may be the sense of J. R. Isidore’s perhaps crack-brained account of a widespread view of Mercer’s nature: “. . . Mercer, he reflected, isn’t a human being; he evidently is an entity from the stars, superimposed on our culture by a cosmic template. At least that’s what I’ve heard people say . . .” (p. 484). A more likely account is that Mercer is a spiritual entity who takes on material forms imposed by our cultural template. Mercer can also employ technological fakery, such as Penfield Mood Organs, mechanical animals, and cheap cinematic tricks, to effect genuine spiritual transformations.
If this is the case, then Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? can be read as offering the template of a revived Gnostic Christianity that is immune to the Jewish culture of critique [4].
19:23 Publié dans Littérature, Livre, Livre | Lien permanent | Commentaires (1) | Tags : philipp k dick, littérature, littérature américaine, lettres, lettres américaines, livre, science fiction | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
Mises.org & https://www.lewrockwell.com
[From Reflections on America, 1984: An Orwell Symposium. Ed. Robert Mulvihill. Athens and London, University of Georgia Press, 1986.]
In a recent and well-known article, Norman Podhoretz has attempted to conscript George Orwell into the ranks of neoconservative enthusiasts for the newly revitalized cold war with the Soviet Union.1If Orwell were alive today, this truly “Orwellian” distortion would afford him considerable wry amusement. It is my contention that the cold war, as pursued by the three superpowers of Nineteen Eighty-Four, was the key to their successful imposition of a totalitarian regime upon their subjects. We all know that Nineteen Eighty-Four was a brilliant and mordant attack on totalitarian trends in modern society, and it is also clear that Orwell was strongly opposed to communism and to the regime of the Soviet Union. But the crucial role of a perpetual cold war in the entrenchment of totalitarianism in Orwell’s “nightmare vision” of the world has been relatively neglected by writers and scholars.In Nineteen Eighty-Four there are three giant superstates or blocs of nations: Oceania (run by the United States, and including the British Empire and Latin America), Eurasia (the Eurasian continent), and Eastasia (China, southeast Asia, much of the Pacific).
The superpowers are always at war, in shifting coalitions and alignments against each other. The war is kept, by agreement between the superpowers, safely on the periphery of the blocs, since war in their heartlands might actually blow up the world and their own rule along with it. The perpetual but basically phony war is kept alive by unremitting campaigns of hatred and fear against the shadowy foreign Enemy. The perpetual war system is then used by the ruling elite in each country to fasten totalitarian collectivist rule upon their subjects. As Harry Elmer Barnes wrote, this system “could only work if the masses are always kept at a fever heat of fear and excitement and are effectively prevented from learning that the wars are actually phony. To bring about this indispensable deception of the people requires a tremendous development of propaganda, thought-policing, regimentation, and mental terrorism.” And finally, “when it becomes impossible to keep the people any longer at a white heat in their hatred of one enemy group of nations, the war is shifted against another bloc and new, violent hate campaigns are planned and set in motion.”2
From Orwell’s time to the present day, the United States has fulfilled his analysis or prophecy by engaging in campaigns of unremitting hatred and fear of the Soviets, including such widely trumpeted themes (later quietly admitted to be incorrect) as “missile gap” and “windows of vulnerability.” What Garet Garrett perceptively called “a complex of vaunting and fear” has been the hallmark of the American as well as of previous empires:3 the curious combination of vaunting and braggadocio that insists that a nation-state’s military might is second to none in any area, combined with repeated panic about the intentions and imminent actions of the “empire of evil” that is marked as the Enemy. It is the sort of fear and vaunting that makes Americans proud of their capacity to “overkill” the Russians many times and yet agree enthusiastically to virtually any and all increases in the military budget for mightier weapons of mass destruction. Senator Ralph Flanders (Republican, Vermont) pinpointed this process of rule through fear when he stated during the Korean War:
Fear is felt and spread by the Department of Defense in the Pentagon. In part, the spreading of it is purposeful. Faced with what seem to be enormous armed forces aimed against us, we can scarcely expect the Department of Defense to do other than keep the people in a state of fear so that they will be prepared without limit to furnish men and munitions.4 This applies not only to the Pentagon but to its civilian theoreticians, the men whom Marcus Raskin, once one of their number, has dubbed “the mega-death intellectuals.” Thus Raskin pointed out that their most important function is to justify and extend the existence of their employers. … In order to justify the continued large-scale production of these [thermonuclear] bombs and missiles, military and industrial leaders needed some kind of theory to rationalize their use. … This became particularly urgent during the late 1950s, when economy-minded members of the Eisenhower Administration began to wonder why so much money, thought, and resources, were being spent on weapons if their use could not be justified. And so began a series of rationalizations by the “defense intellectuals” in and out of the Universities. … Military procurement will continue to flourish, and they will continue to demonstrate why it must. In this respect they are no different from the great majority of modern specialists who accept the assumptions of the organizations which employ them because of the rewards in money and power and prestige. … They know enough not to question their employers’ right to exist.5
In addition to the manufacture of fear and hatred against the primary Enemy, there have been numerous Orwellian shifts between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys. Our deadly enemies in World War II, Germany and Japan, are now considered prime Good Guys, the only problem being their unfortunate reluctance to take up arms against the former Good Guys, the Soviet Union. China, having been a much lauded Good Guy under Chiang Kai-shek when fighting Bad Guy Japan, became the worst of the Bad Guys under communism, and indeed the United States fought the Korean and Vietnamese wars largely for the sake of containing the expansionism of Communist China, which was supposed to be an even worse guy than the Soviet Union. But now all that is changed, and Communist China is now the virtual ally of the United States against the principal Enemy in the Kremlin.
Along with other institutions of the permanent cold war, Orwellian New-speak has developed richly. Every government, no matter how despotic, that is willing to join the anti-Soviet crusade is called a champion of the “free world.” Torture committed by “totalitarian” regimes is evil; torture undertaken by regimes that are merely “authoritarian” is almost benign. While the Department of War has not yet been transformed into the Department of Peace, it was changed early in the cold war to the Department of Defense, and President Reagan has almost completed the transformation by the neat Orwellian touch of calling the MX missile “the Peacemaker.”
As early as the 1950s, an English publicist observed that “Orwell’s main contention that ‘cold war’ is now an essential feature of normal life is being verified more and more from day to day. No one really believes in a ‘peace settlement’ with the Soviets, and many people in positions of power regard such a prospect with positive horror.” He added that “a war footing is the only basis of full employment.”6
And Harry Barnes noted that “the advantages of the cold war in bolstering the economy, avoiding a depression, and maintaining political tenure after 1945 were quickly recognized by both politicians and economists.”
The most recent analysis of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four in terms of permanent cold war was in U.S. News and World Report, in its issue marking the beginning of the year 1984:
No nuclear holocaust has occurred but Orwell’s concept of perpetual local conflict is borne out. Wars have erupted every year since 1945, claiming more than 30 million lives. The Defense Department reports that there currently are 40 wars raging that involve one-fourth of all nations in the world — from El Salvador to Kampuchea to Lebanon and Afghanistan.
Like the constant war of 1984, these post-war conflicts occurred not within superpower borders but in far-off places such as Korea and Vietnam. Unlike Orwell’s fictitious superpowers, Washington and Moscow are not always able to control events and find themselves sucked into local wars such as the current conflict in the Middle East heightening the risk of a superpower confrontation and use of nuclear armaments.7
But most Orwell scholars have ignored the critical permanent-cold-war underpinning to the totalitarianism in the book. Thus, in a recently published collection of scholarly essays on Orwell, there is barely a mention of militarism or war. 8
In contrast, one of the few scholars who have recognized the importance of war in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Fourwas the Marxist critic Raymond Williams. While deploring the obvious anti-Soviet nature of Orwell’s thought, Williams noted that Orwell discovered the basic feature of the existing two- or three-superpower world, “oligarchical collectivism,” as depicted by James Burnham, in his Managerial Revolution (1940), a book that had a profound if ambivalent impact upon Orwell. As Williams put it:
Orwell’s vision of power politics is also close to convincing. The transformation of official “allies” to “enemies” has happened, almost openly, in the generation since he wrote. His idea of a world divided into three blocs — Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia, of which two are always at war with the other though the alliances change — is again too close for comfort. And there are times when one can believe that what “had been called England or Britain” has become simply Airship One.9
A generation earlier, John Atkins had written that Orwell had “discovered this conception of the political future in James Burnham’s Managerial Revolution.” Specifically, “there is a state of permanent war but it is a contest of limited aims between combatants who cannot destroy each other. The war cannot be decisive. … As none of the states comes near conquering the others, however the war deteriorates into a series of skirmishes [although]. … The protagonists store atomic bombs.”10
To establish what we might call this “revisionist” interpretation of Nineteen Eighty-Four we must first point out that the book was not, as in the popular interpretation, a prophecy of the future so much as a realistic portrayal of existing political trends. Thus, Jeffrey Meyers points out that Nineteen Eighty-Four was less a “nightmare vision” (Irving Howe’s famous phrase) of the future than “a very concrete and naturalistic portrayal of the present and the past,” a “realistic synthesis and rearrangement of familiar materials.” And again, Orwell’s “statements about 1984 reveal that the novel, though set in a future time, is realistic rather than fantastic, and deliberately intensifies the actuality of the present.” Specifically, according to Meyers, Nineteen Eighty-Four was not “totalitarianism after its world triumph” as in the interpretation of Howe, but rather “the very real though unfamiliar political terrorism of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia transposed into the landscape of London in 1941–44.”11 And not only Burnham’s work but the reality of the 1943 Teheran Conference gave Orwell the idea of a world ruled by three totalitarian superstates.
Bernard Crick, Orwell’s major biographer, points out that the English reviewers of Nineteen Eighty-Four caught on immediately that the novel was supposed to be an intensification of present trends rather than a prophecy of the future. Crick notes that these reviewers realized that Orwell had “not written utopian or anti-utopian fantasy … but had simply extended certain discernible tendencies of 1948 forward into 1984.”12 Indeed, the very year 1984 was simply the transposition of the existing year, 1948. Orwell’s friend Julian Symons wrote that 1984 society was meant to be the “near future,” and that all the grim inventions of the rulers “were just extensions of ‘ordinary’ war and post-war things.” We might also point out that the terrifying Room 101 in Nineteen Eighty-Four was the same numbered room in which Orwell had worked in London during World War II as a British war propagandist.
But let Orwell speak for himself. Orwell was distressed at many American reviews of the book, especially in Timeand Life, which, in contrast to the British, saw Nineteen Eighty-Four as the author’s renunciation of his long-held devotion to democratic socialism. Even his own publisher, Frederic Warburg, interpreted the book in the same way. This response moved Orwell, terminally ill in a hospital, to issue a repudiation. He outlined a statement to Warburg, who, from detailed notes, issued a press release in Orwell’s name. First, Orwell noted that, contrary to many reviews, Nineteen Eighty-Four was not prophecy but an analysis of what could happen, based on present political trends. Orwell then added: “Specifically, the danger lies in the structure imposed on Socialist and on liberal capitalist communities by the necessity to prepare for total war with the USSR and the new weapons, of which of course the atomic bomb is the most powerful and the most publicized. But danger also lies in the acceptance of a totalitarian outlook by intellectuals of all colours.” After outlining his forecast of several world superstates, specifically the Anglo-American world (Oceania) and a Soviet-dominated Eurasia, Orwell went on:
If these two great blocs line up as mortal enemies it is obvious that the Anglo-Americans will not take the name of their opponents. … The name suggested in 1984 is of course Ingsoc, but in practice a wide range of choices is open. In the USA the phrase “American” or “hundred per cent American” is suitable and the qualifying adjective is as totalitarian as any could wish.13
We are about as far from the world of Norman Podhoretz as we can get. While Orwell is assuredly anti-Communist and anticollectivist his envisioned totalitarianism can and does come in many guises and forms, and the foundation for his nightmare totalitarian world is a perpetual cold war that keeps brandishing the horror of modern atomic weaponry.
Shortly after the atom bomb was dropped on Japan, George Orwell pre-figured his world of Nineteen Eighty-Four in an incisive and important analysis of the new phenomenon. In an essay entitled “You and the Atom Bomb,” he noted that when weapons are expensive (as the A-bomb is) politics tends to become despotic, with power concentrated into the hands of a few rulers. In contrast, in the day when weapons were simple and cheap (as was the musket or rifle, for instance) power tends to be decentralized. After noting that Russia was thought to be capable of producing the A-bomb within five years (that is, by 1950), Orwell writes of the “prospect,” at that time, “of two or three monstrous super-states, each possessed of a weapon by which millions of people can be wiped out in a few seconds, dividing the world between them.” It is generally supposed, he noted, that the result will be another great war, a war which this time will put an end to civilization. But isn’t it more likely, he added, “that surviving great nations make a tacit agreement never to use the bomb against one another? Suppose they only use it, or the threat of it, against people who are unable to retaliate?”
Returning to his favorite theme, in this period, of Burnham’s view of the world in The Managerial Revolution,Orwell declares that Burnham’s geographical picture of the new world has turned out to be correct. More and more obviously the surface of the earth is being parceled off into three great empires, each self-contained and cut off from contact with the outer world, and each ruled, under one disguise or another by a self-elected oligarchy. The haggling as to where the frontiers are to be drawn is still going on, and will continue for some years.
Orwell then proceeds gloomily:
The atomic bomb may complete the process by robbing the exploited classes and peoples of all power to revolt, and at the same time putting the possessors of the bomb on a basis of equality. Unable to conquer one another they are likely to continue ruling the world between them, and it is difficult to see how the balance can be upset except by slow and unpredictable demographic changes.
In short, the atomic bomb is likely “to put an end to large-scale wars at the cost of prolonging ‘a peace that is no peace.’” The drift of the world will not be toward anarchy, as envisioned by H.G. Wells, but toward “horribly stable … slave empires.14
Over a year later, Orwell returned to his pessimistic perpetual-cold-war analysis of the postwar world. Scoffing at optimistic press reports that the Americans “will agree to inspection of armaments,” Orwell notes that “on another page of the same paper are reports of events in Greece which amount to a state of war between two groups of powers who are being so chummy in New York.” There are two axioms, he added, governing international affairs. One is that “there can be no peace without a general surrender of sovereignty,” and another is that “no country capable of defending its sovereignty ever surrenders it.” The result will be no peace, a continuing arms race, but no all-out war.15
Orwell completes his repeated wrestling with the works of James Burnham in his review of The Struggle for the World (1947). Orwell notes that the advent of atomic weapons has led Burnham to abandon his three-identical-superpowers view of the world, and also to shuck off his tough pose of value-freedom. Instead, Burnham is virtually demanding an immediate preventive war against Russia,” which has become the collectivist enemy, a preemptive strike to be launched before Russia acquires the atomic bomb.
While Orwell is fleetingly tempted by Burnham’s apocalyptic approach, and asserts that domination of Britain by the United States is to be preferred to domination by Russia, he emerges from the discussion highly critical. After all, Orwell writes, the
Russian regime may become more liberal and less dangerous a generation hence. … Of course, this would not happen with the consent of the ruling clique, but it is thinkable that the mechanics of the situation may bring it about. The other possibility is that the great powers will be simply too frightened of the effects of atomic weapons ever to make use of them. But that would be much too dull for Burnham. Everything must happen suddenly and completely.16
George Orwell’s last important essay on world affairs was published in Partisan Review in the summer of 1947. He there reaffirmed his attachment to socialism but conceded that the chances were against its coming to pass. He added that there were three possibilities ahead for the world. One (which, as he had noted a few months before was the new Burnham solution) was that the United States would launch an atomic attack on Russia before Russia developed the bomb. Here Orwell was more firmly opposed to such a program than he had been before. For even if Russia were annihilated, a preemptive attack would only lead to the rise of new empires, rivalries, wars, and use of atomic weapons. At any rate, the first possibility was not likely. The second possibility, declared Orwell, was that the cold war would continue until Russia got the bomb, at which point world war and the destruction of civilization would take place. Again, Orwell did not consider this possibility very likely. The third, and most likely, possibility is the old vision of perpetual cold war between blocs of superpowers. In this world,
the fear inspired by the atomic bomb and other weapons yet to come will be so great that everyone will refrain from using them. … It would mean the division of the world among two or three vast super-states, unable to conquer one another and unable to be overthrown by any internal rebellion. In all probability their structure would be hierarchic, with a semi-divine caste at the top and outright slavery at the bottom, and the crushing out of liberty would exceed anything the world has yet seen. Within each state the necessary psychological atmosphere would be kept up by complete severance from the outer world, and by a continuous phony war against rival states. Civilization of this type might remain static for thousands of years.17
Orwell (perhaps, like Burnham, now fond of sudden and complete solutions) considers this last possibility the worst.
It should be clear that George Orwell was horrified at what he considered to be the dominant trend of the postwar world: totalitarianism based on perpetual but peripheral cold war between shifting alliances of several blocs of super states. His positive solutions to this problem were fitful and inconsistent; in Partisan Review he called wistfully for a Socialist United States of Western Europe as the only way out, but he clearly placed little hope in such a development. His major problem was one that affected all democratic socialists of that era: a tension between their anticommunism and their opposition to imperialist, or at least interstate, wars. And so at times Orwell was tempted by the apocalyptic preventive-atomic-war solution, as was even Bertrand Russell during the same period. In another, unpublished article, “In Defense of Comrade Zilliacus,” written at some time near the end of 1947, Orwell, bitterly opposed to what he considered the increasingly procommunist attitude of his own Labour magazine, the Tribune, came the closest to enlisting in the cold war by denouncing neutralism and asserting that his hoped-for Socialist United States of Europe should ground itself on the backing of the United States of America. But despite these aberrations, the dominant thrust of Orwell’s thinking during the postwar period, and certainly as reflected in Nineteen Eighty-Four, was horror at a trend toward perpetual cold war as the groundwork for a totalitarianism throughout the world. And his hope for eventual loosening of the Russian regime, if also fitful, still rested cheek by jowl with his more apocalyptic leanings.
Notes
1.Norman Podhoretz, “If Orwell Were Alive Today,” Harper’s, January 1983, pp. 30-37.
2.Harry Elmer Barnes, “How ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ Trends Threaten American Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity,” in Revisionism: A Key to Peace and Other Essays (San Francisco: Cato Institute, 1980), pp. 142-43. Also see Barnes, An Intellectual and Cultural History of the Western World, 3d rev. ed., 3 vols. (New York: Dover, 1965), 3: 1324-1332; and Murray N. Rothbard, “Harry Elmer Barnes as Revisionist of the Cold War,” in Harry Elmer Barnes, Learned Crusader, ed. A. Goddard (Colorado Springs: Ralph Myles, 1968). pp. 314-38. For a similar analysis, see F.J.P. Veal[e] Advance to Barbarism(Appleton, Wis.: C.C. Nelson, 1953), pp. 266-84.
3.Garet Garrett, The People’s Pottage (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers, 1953), pp. 154-57.
4.Quoted in Garrett, The People’s Pottage, p. 154.
5.Marcus Raskin, “The Megadeath Intellectuals,” New York Review of Books, November 14, 1963, pp. 6-7. Also see Martin Nicolaus, “The Professor, the Policeman and the Peasant,” Viet-Report, June-July 1966, pp. 15-19; and Fred Kaplan, The Wizards of Armageddon (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983). [6]Barnes, “‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ Trends,” p. 176.
6.Barnes, “‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ Trends,” p. 176.
7.U.S. News and World Report, December 26, 1983, pp. 86-87.
8.Irving Howe, ed., 1984 Revisited: Totalitarianism in Our Century (New York: Harper and Row, Perennial Library, 1983). There is a passing reference in Robert Nisbet’s essay and a few references in Luther Carpenter’s article on the reception given to Nineteen Eighty-Four by his students at a community college on Staten Island (pp. 180, 82).
9.Raymond Williams. George Orwell (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971), p. 76.
10.John Atkins, George Orwell (London: Caldor and Boyars, 1954), pp. 237-38.
11.Jeffrey Meyers, A Reader’s Guide to George Orwell (London: Thames and Hudson, 1975), pp. 144-45. Also, “Far from being a picture of the totalitarianism or the future 1984 is, in countless details, a realistic picture of the totalitarianism of the present” (Richard J. Voorhees, The Paradox of George Orwell, Purdue University Studies, 1961, pp. 85-87).
12.Bernard Crick, George Orwell: A Life (London: Seeker and Warburg, 1981), p. 393. Also see p. 397.
13.George Orwell, The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, ed. Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus, 4 vols. (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1968), 4:504 (hereafter cited as CEJL). Also see Crick, George Orwell, pp. 393-95.
14.George Orwell, “You and the Atom Bomb,” Tribune, October 19, 1945, reprinted in CEJL, 4:8-10.
15.George Orwell, “As I Please,” Tribune, December 13, 1946, reprinted in CEJL, 4:255.
16.George Orwell, “Burnham’s View of the Contemporary World Struggle,” New Leader (New York), March 29, 1947, reprinted in CEJL, 4:325.
17.George Orwell. “Toward European Unity,” Partisan Review July-August 1947, reprinted in CEJL, 4:370-75.
19:08 Publié dans Littérature, Philosophie, Théorie politique | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : georges orwell, littérature, littérature anglaise, lettres, lettres anglaises, guerre froide, totalitarisme, théorie politique, politologie, sciences politiques, philosophie, philosophie politique | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
17:48 Publié dans Littérature | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : lovecraft, lettres, lettres américaines, littérature, littérature américaine | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
Quando Hitler sobe ao poder, o triunfante é um nacionalismo das massas, não aquele nacionalismo absoluto e cósmico que evocava a pequena falange (sic) "fortemente exaltada" que editou seus textos nas revistas nacional-revolucionárias. Em um poema, Der Mohn (A Papoula), Friedrich-Georg Jünger ironiza e descreve o nacional-socialismo como "a música infantil de uma embriaguez sem glória". Como resultado desses versículos sarcásticos, ele se vê envolto em uma série de problemas com a polícia, pelo que ele sai de Berlim e se instala, com Ernst, em Kirchhorst, na Baixa Saxônia.
A idéia central de Friedrich-Georg Jünger sobre a técnica é a de um automatismo dominado por sua própria lógica. A partir do momento em que essa lógica se põe em marcha, ela escapa aos seus criadores. O automatismo da técnica, então, se multiplica em função exponencial: as máquinas, por si só, impõem a criação de outras máquinas, até atingir o automatismo completo, mecanizado e dinâmico, em um tempo segmentado, um tempo que não é senão um tempo morto. Este tempo morto penetra no tecido orgânico do ser humano e sujeita o homem à sua lógica letal particular. O homem é, portanto, despojado do "seu" tempo interno e biológico, mergulhado em uma adaptação ao tempo inorgânico e morto da máquina. A vida é então imersa em um grande automatismo governado pela soberania absoluta da técnica, convertida senhora e dona de seus ciclos e ritmos, de sua percepção de si e do mundo exterior. O automatismo generalizado é "a perfeição da técnica", à qual Friedrich-Georg, um pensador organicista, opõe a "maturação" (die Reife) que só pode ser alcançada por seres naturais, sem coerção ou violência. A principal característica da gigantesca organização titânica da técnica, dominante na era contemporânea, é a dominação exclusiva exercida por determinações e deduções causais, características da mentalidade e da lógica técnica. O Estado, como entidade política, pode adquirir, pelo caminho da técnica, um poder ilimitado. Mas isso não é, para o Estado, senão uma espécie de pacto com o diabo, porque os princípios inerentes à técnica acabarão por remover sua substância orgânica, substituindo-a por puro e rígido automatismo técnico.
Friedrich-Georg Jünger cita Marx para denunciar a alienação desse processo, mas se distancia dele ao ver que este considera o processo técnico como um "fatum" necessário no processo de emancipação da classe proletária. O trabalhador (Arbeiter) é precisamente "trabalhador" porque está conectado, "volens nolens", ao aparato de produção técnica. A condição proletária não depende da modéstia econômica ou do rendimento, mas dessa conexão, independentemente do salário recebido. Esta conexão despersonaliza e faz desaparecer a condição de pessoa. O trabalhador é aquele que perdeu o benefício interno que o ligava à sua atividade, um benefício que evitava sua intercambiabilidade. A alienação não é um problema induzido pela economia, como Marx pensou, mas pela técnica. A progressão geral do automatismo desvaloriza todo o trabalho que possa ser interno e espontâneo no trabalhador, ao mesmo tempo que favorece inevitavelmente o processo de destruição da natureza, o processo de "devoração" (Verzehr) dos substratos (dos recursos oferecidos pela Mãe-Natureza, generosa e esbanjadora "donatrix"). Por causa dessa alienação técnica, o trabalhador é precipitado em um mundo de exploração onde ele não possui proteção. Para beneficiar-se de uma aparência de proteção, ela deve criar organizações - sindicatos - mas com o erro de que essas organizações também estejam conectadas ao aparato técnico. A organização protetora não emancipa, enjaula. O trabalhador se defende contra a alienação e a sua transformação em peça, mas, paradoxalmente, aceita o sistema de automação total. Marx, Engels e os primeiros socialistas perceberam a alienação econômica e política, mas eram cegos para a alienação técnica, incapazes de compreender o poder destrutivo da máquina. A dialética marxista, de fato, se torna um mecanicismo estéril ao serviço de um socialismo maquinista. O socialista permanece na mesma lógica que governa a automação total sob a égide do capitalismo. Mas o pior é que o seu triunfo não terminará (a menos que abandone o marxismo) com a alienação automatista, mas será um dos fatores do movimento de aceleração, simplificação e crescimento técnico. A criação de organizações é a causa da gênese da mobilização total, que transforma tudo em celulares e em todos os lugares em oficinas ou laboratórios cheios de agitação incessante e zumbidos. Toda área social que tende a aceitar essa mobilização total favorece, queira ou não, a repressão: é a porta aberta para campos de concentração, aglomerações, deportações em massa e massacres em massa. É o reinado do gestor impávido, uma figura sinistra que pode aparecer sob mil máscaras. A técnica nunca produz harmonia, a máquina não é uma deusa dispensadora de bondades. Pelo contrário, esteriliza os substratos naturais doados, organiza a pilhagem planejada contra a "Wildnis". A máquina é devoradora e antropófaga, deve ser alimentada sem cessar e, uma vez que acumula mais do que doa, acabará um dia com todas as riquezas da Terra. As enormes forças naturais elementares são desenraizadas pela gigantesca maquinaria e retém os prisioneiros por ela e nela, o que não conduz senão a catástrofes explosivas e à necessidade de uma sobrevivência constante: outra faceta da mobilização total.
18:33 Publié dans Histoire, Littérature, Livre, Livre, Philosophie, Révolution conservatrice | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : friedrich-georg jünger, révolution conservatrice, technique, technologie, philosophie, philosophie politique, philosophie écologique, écologie, allemagne, lettres, lettres allemandes, littérature, littérature allemande, ernst jünger | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
Michel Lhomme, philosophe, politologue
Ex: https://metamag.fr
Arnaud Bordes, l’excellent éditeur Alexipharmaque a annoncé cet été le décès d’un écrivain discret d’origine espagnole, disciple d’Ortega y Gasset, David Mata.
Nous avions, pour notre part, particulièrement apprécié ses courts récits comme Violaine en son château, Hermann ou Les solistes de Dresde. Violaine est proprement autobiographique et nous raconte l’histoire d’un jeune homme autodidacte de modeste famille à l’entrée de la vie fasciné par le latin et une jeune châtelaine. Il se dégage du livre une atmosphère à la Fournier mais nous ne sommes pas ici dans les brumes aquatiques de Sologne mais dans le relief parfois asséché de la région de Tarbes qui confère justement à la langue de Mata un romantisme abrupt.
Les Solistes de Dresde est une charge contre l’art contemporain qui nous rappelle les thèses d’un autre grand timide, Kostas Mavrakis dont on attend avec impatience le prochain ouvrage sur la civilisation.
Hermann est sans doute la meilleure promenade virgilienne que l’on puisse faire en Gasgogne.
David Mata est demeuré inconnu et discret toute sa vie, un écrivain clandestin mais sans doute le souhaitait-il, lui-même. Il avait raison. Comme d’autres, nous pensons au poète André Coyné. Il rejoindra cette cohorte ésotérique d’érudits qui ,n’en déplaise à certains, se transmet dans l’ombre par des éditeurs éclairés ou des revues d’avant-garde (Eléments, Livr’arbitres) et qui constituera toujours la vraie littérature et pas celle des 581 romans de la rentrée dont une grande partie finira au pilon sans même avoir été lus.
Pour lire David Mata, cliquer ICI
02:28 Publié dans Hommages, Littérature | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : hommage, david mata, lettres, lettres françaises, littérature, littérature française | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
Editor’s Note:
It is a little-known — but entirely unsurprising — fact that Samuel Francis had a deep love and encyclopedic knowledge of H. P. Lovecraft. In honor of Lovecraft’s birthday, here is Francis’ review of S. T. Joshi’s H. P. Lovecraft: A Life and Lovecraft’s Miscellaneous Writings. — Greg Johnson
“The New Englanders are a people of God, settled in those which were once the Devil’s territories.”—Cotton Mather
S. T. Joshi
H. P. Lovecraft: A Life
West Warwick, Rhode Island: Necronomicon Press
S. T. Joshi
H. P. Lovecraft: Miscellaneous Writings
Sank City, Wisconsin: Arkham House
S. T. Joshi begins his mammoth biographical study of Howard Phillips Lovecraft by quoting his subject’s reaction to a suggestion from a fan that he write his autobiography. With the almost pathological modesty that characterized Lovecraft throughout his life, he snorted in response, “One might as well write the pompously documented biography of a sandwich man or elevator boy in 8 volumes.” If there is one theme that runs throughout Lovecraft’s voluminous correspondence, it is that he never had any illusions that the obscure life he led was worth writing about or that the supernatural horror fiction he wrote, and on which his fame today rests, was worth reading. It is both fortunate and unfortunate that those who have succeeded in turning H. P. Lovecraft into a cult (in some quarters, almost a religion) as well as an industry have paid no attention.
Born in Providence, Rhode Island, in 1890 to a declining high-bourgeois family of New England old stock, Lovecraft lived, or rather endured, a life and writing career that can only be judged failures. His father, a traveling salesman, died in a local insane asylum from what must have been syphilis when Lovecraft was eight. His mother smothered him with possessive and crippling affection and incessantly sought to bind him to her by insisting he was “hideous.” She died in the same asylum in 1921, after two years’ confinement. Dependent on his grandfather’s business for their income, Lovecraft and his family were obliged to leave their home during his childhood and take up far more modest quarters when the business failed. Afflicted from early youth by nightmares, macabre dreams, and a “nervous temperament,” Lovecraft was unable to complete high school and entered adulthood a reclusive and even neurotic young man, utterly unprepared to earn his own living and utterly disinclined to try.
Something of a child prodigy who translated Ovid into heroic couplets at the age of 10 or 12, Lovecraft succeeded in inventing his own world as a substitute for the one in which he was unable or unwilling to participate. As a child and adolescent, he not only immersed himself in 18th-century English and ancient Roman literature and history but acquired a genuine expertise in his hobbies of astronomy and chemistry. He was writing newspaper columns on astronomy at an early age and planned a career as a professional astronomer, but his lack of mathematical aptitude and his inability to complete high school made that career impossible. Instead he turned to amateur journalism, to crafting dreadful poetry that was usually little more than clever imitations of the Augustan masters he adored, and eventually to writing short stories based on his nightmares and heavily influenced by the major literary hero of his youth, Edgar Allan Poe. In the 1920’s, there emerged a small national market for the genre of popular literature known as “supernatural horror” or “weird fiction,” mainly through a now-famous pulp magazine called Weird Tales.
Lovecraft published frequently in Weird Tales and similar pulps in that period, and indeed the principal reason they are remembered today at all is because of him. But even there he did not fit. His stories were often rejected by Weird Tales’s eccentric, mercenary, and largely incompetent editor, Farnsworth Wright, and in truth Lovecraft’s own highly original and distinctive tales of horror simply did not conform to the formulas on which Wright and similar editors insisted.
In 1924, Lovecraft married a woman named Sonia Greene, but in marriage too he was a failure. Unable to find a job in New York that could support both of them, he lived on her earnings as a fashion designer. He was never comfortable doing so, nor indeed in being married at all, and he insisted on divorcing her in 1929. Reduced to poverty—at times nearly to starvation—Lovecraft returned to his beloved Providence to live with an aunt, his only remaining relative, scratching out less than a livelihood by ghostwriting stories, articles, and an occasional book for other “writers.” Wracked by bad health from the days of his boyhood, unable to endure cold temperatures without becoming comatose, and consuming a diet that by his own calculations cost him 30 cents a day, Lovecraft contracted both a kidney infection and intestinal cancer at the age of 46. He died in Providence in 1937. Only seven people attended his funeral, and at the time of his death probably not more than a thousand readers would have recognized his name. And yet, had he lived for only a few more years, he would probably have become world famous and, eventually, wealthy. His work has been in print almost since his death, and in the late 1960’s he began to become something of a cult figure. Not only all his stories and novelettes but five volumes of his letters as well as the substantial collection of his Miscellaneous Writings are in print, and the stories at least continue to sell well. A number of biographical accounts and reminiscences of Lovecraft have been published by his fans and friends; there are at least two magazines devoted to his life and work (one of them seemingly a serious literary journal), and two full-scale biographies (including Mr. Joshi’s new one) have appeared.
Several films have been based on his stories, which have influenced some of the major writers of the late 20th century, including Jorge Luis Borges and Umberto Eco, and an entire school of “supernatural horror fiction” has based itself on the “Cthulhu Mythos” that he invented for his own stories. An academic conference on Lovecraft was held at Brown University on the centenary of his birth, and several monographs on him and his work have been published. Lovecraft himself has popped up as a character in several science fiction and fantasy novels, as well as in comic books; a roleplaying game, based on one of his stories, has been created, and in the 1970’s there was a rock band called “H. P. Lovecraft.” Indeed, in 1996 some Lovecraft fans even mounted a presidential campaign for one of the principal archdemons of his fictitious mythology, using the slogan, “Cthulhu For President: Why Vote For The Lesser Evil?”
Lovecraft has thus evolved into a myth, and much of what has been written about him is no less mythical than the monsters and macabre characters he created. The eccentricity of his personality and the even more bizarre contours of his personal philosophical and political beliefs—he was at once a militant atheist and a “mechanistic materialist” as well as an extreme reactionary and racialist, if not an outright Nazi, who ardently admired Franklin Roosevelt as well as Hitler and Mussolini—simply add to the myth; while the thousands of letters he produced during his lifetime (the published five volumes of letters are heavily edited and abridged and represent only a fraction of the total) render his life and mind difficult to assimilate, especially for an intelligentsia that sneers at both the sort of fiction he wrote and the ideas around which his mind revolved. Some critics have placed his literary work on the same level as that of Poe, while others dismiss his writing as trash. Some regard him as a serious thinker and aesthetic theorist; others, simply as a crackpot and a neurotic malcontent. He has been accepted almost literally as a god—and as the very sandwich man or elevator boy he was convinced he was.
By far the greatest merit of Mr. Joshi’s biography is that it takes Lovecraft seriously—perhaps too seriously —but not as a god. While Joshi spends a good deal of time elaborating and explaining Lovecraft’s philosophical views and showing their importance to his literary work, he is often quite savage in his assessment of Lovecraft’s writing at its worst. At the same time, he readily hails Lovecraft’s several major stories as the masterpieces of literary horror that they are and carefully avoids the temptations either to indulge in speculations about the more obscure corners of Lovecraft’s life or to envelop his peculiar mind and personality in the psychobabble which detracts from the other major biography of Lovecraft by the science fiction writer L. Sprague de Camp.
Lovecraft’s early stories are flawed mainly by verbosity and what critics have called “adjectivitis”—an overreliance on adjectives to describe the horrible, dreadful, frightening, gruesome, mind-chilling, etc.
Moreover, throughout his tales character development is weak: indeed, there are precious few characters at all. The protagonists of his stories are usually thinly disguised doppelgangers of Lovecraft himself, scholarly bachelors of good family but dim prospects who encounter events and beings that defy natural explanation and which usually end in the horrible, dreadful, frightening, gruesome, mind-chilling death or dismemberment of the protagonist or other characters, or at least in their insanity. There are virtually no female characters, little story development (Lovecraft’s plot devices often consist of diaries, letters, and various documents from which a narrative is reconstructed), less dialogue, and a good deal of heavy message between the lines as to how the cosmos is not really as nice or neat as mere mortals like to imagine.
The centerpiece of his stories, developed at various times throughout his career but intensively in the 1920’s, is the aforementioned “Cthulhu Mythos,” a term that refers to various fictitiously named locations in New England (Arkham, Miskatonic University), as well as to a series of supernatural or (more accurately) extraterrestrial beings known as the “Old Ones.” In Lovecraft’s literary cosmology, the Old Ones—with names like Cthulhu, Yog-Sothoth, Nyarlathotep, Azathoth, et cetera, loosely derived from real mythology and philology—dominated the Earth millions of years ago. Hideous in appearance (they often resemble gigantic polymorphous insects compounded with reptiles and crustaceans) but possessed of vastly superhuman intelligence and powers, they are hostile to human beings and can be revived, resuscitated, or invoked through a kind of black magic known to a few and practiced by none but the degenerate (usually nonwhites). The techniques for invoking them are to be found in various ancient tomes also invented by Lovecraft, chiefly the Necronomicon, written in the eighth century A.D. by “the mad Arab Abdul Alhazred” and existing today in only five known copies (one of which is conveniently located in the Miskatonic University Library). But invokers of the Old Ones are generally destroyed by them, and even those who become aware of their continuing existence and the implications of their existence are usually driven mad.
The stories in which Lovecraft developed the Mythos most seriously are among his best and most mature tales, and while they continued to exhibit the peculiarities of his style in their lack of character development and plot, they are gems of setting and atmosphere, enlivened by Lovecraft’s own profound knowledge of New England history, topography, architecture, and antiquities, sparingly written and genuinely effective in communicating what Lovecraft wanted to communicate. Mr. Joshi is right to insist that Lovecraft should not be faulted for avoiding character and plot since both of these would have detracted from the larger effect Lovecraft intended to create. For, as Mr. Joshi shows, in Lovecraft’s stories it is neither the human characters nor their actions that are the main interest but the Lovecraftian Cosmos itself and the beings or forces that animate it.
Lovecraft’s juvenile fascination with science alienated him from Christianity and drew him into a lifelong worldview that Mr. Joshi, as far as I know, is the first to recognize as a modern version of Epicureanism—a cosmology that denies the existence of anything but matter and motion and rejects the view that the universe has any purpose or goal. Lovecraft probably derived his Epicureanism from the Roman poet Lucretius, whom he may have read in Latin, but he also adapted that worldview throughout his life, trying to take account of Einsteinian physics and quantum theory as they became known in the 1920’s. It was the very purposelessness of the universe that lay at the heart of Lovecraft’s almost obsessive conservatism. As he wrote in an essay of 1926, reprinted in Miscellaneous Writings:
The world, life, and universe we know, are only a passing cloud—yesterday in eternity it did not exist, and tomorrow its existence will be forgotten. Nothing matters—all that happens happens through the automatic and inflexible interacting of electrons, atoms, and molecules of infinity according to patterns which are coexistent with basic entity itself . . . . All is illusion, hollowness, and nothingness—but what does that matter? Illusions are all we have, so let us pretend to cling to them; they lend dramatic values and comforting sensations of purpose to things which are really valueless and purposeless. All one can logically do is to jog placidly and cynically on, according to the artificial standards and traditions with which heredity and environment have endowed him. He will get most satisfaction in the end by keeping faithful to these things.
This rather dismal creed, repeatedly developed in his essays and even more in his letters, was indeed something of a crutch for an emotional cripple, but it was also a persuasion to which Lovecraft was seriously and intellectually attached; otherwise, he would not have argued it as carefully as he did or tried to adapt it to recent scientific developments that seemed to contradict it. Given the inherent meaninglessness of life and cosmos, the only way for human beings to extract and preserve meaning is to insist on given social and cultural traditions and the political order that enforces them, and both the given culture as well as the political order are themselves dependent on the race and the ruling class that created them.
Lovecraft’s racialism is a persistent problem for his admirers, and most of them spend a good deal of energy trying to hammer it into the proper psychopathological pigeonholes. The bigotries Lovecraft habitually expresses in his letters and often in his stories are supposedly merely reflections of his own wounded psyche and his personal failure to get along like a normal man. For some reason, however, no one seems compelled to attribute his atheism and materialism to any psychological flaw, and Mr. Joshi is refreshingly free of this sort of cant, though he is careful to make it clear that he finds Lovecraft’s racial views “the one true black mark on his character.”
Lovecraft’s racial opinions were indeed strong even for the decade that saw publication of Madison Grant’s and Lothrop Stoddard’s work. During his life in New York, he wrote to a friend about a walk he and his wife took in the Bronx: “Upon my most solemn oath, I’ll be shot if three out of every four persons—nay, full nine out of every ten—wern’t [sic] flabby, pungent, grinning, chattering n–gers.” Similarly, six years later he remarked, “The population [of New York City] is a mongrel herd with repulsive Mongoloid Jews in the visible majority, and the coarse faces and bad manners eventually come to wear on one so unbearably that one feels like punching every g– d— bastard in sight.” These are only two more printable expressions of his views that are commonplace in his letters. It must be said, however, that there is no known occasion on which Lovecraft offered insult or injury to those whom he despised; indeed, both his wife Sonia Greene and several of his closer friends were Jewish. Decades after his death, Sonia tried to claim that his anti-Semitism was a major reason for her leaving him, but the fact is that Lovecraft insisted on the divorce, against her wishes. All accounts agree that Lovecraft was a charming, highly courteous, and kindly man, a brilliant conversationalist and companion, with an agile and erudite intelligence. His admiration for Hitler seems to have ceased after he learned of Nazi physical attacks on Jews.
Although Mr. Joshi tries to argue that Lovecraft’s racialism was largely irrelevant to his writing, that is not quite true. He is entirely correct in seeing that what he calls Lovecraft’s “cosmicism—the depicting of the boundless gulfs of space and time and the risible insignificance of humanity within them” is the core of his philosophical thought as well as his literary work, and he claims that “This is something Lovecraft expressed more powerfully than any writer before or since” (that may not be true either; there seems to be a strong parallel between Lovecraft’s cosmology and that of Joseph Conrad). Indeed, Lovecraft’s “cosmicism” is the real horror of his stories—not the grotesque appearance of the Old Ones and not the gruesome fate of those who have truck with them, but rather the discovery by the scholarly bachelors who recount the tales that the universe has no meaning at all, that all the conventions and ideas and values on which their lives and those of mankind rest are but shadows in the ceaseless play of impersonal if not actually hostile cosmic forces. As Mr. Joshi summarizes “Lovecraft’s vision”: “Humanity is not at centre stage in the cosmos, and there is no one to help us against the entities who have from time to time descended upon the earth and wreaked havoc; indeed, the ‘gods’ of the Mythos are not really gods at all, but merely extraterrestrials who occasionally manipulate their human followers for their own advantage.”
Mr. Joshi is correct about the cosmic level of meaning in Lovecraft’s stories, but he largely neglects another, social level of meaning. On that level, Lovecraft’s stories are dramas of modernity in which the forces of tradition and order in society and in the universe are confronted by modernity itself—in the form of the shapeless beings known (ironically) as the “Old Ones.” In fact, they are the “New Ones.” Their appearance to earthly beings is often attended by allusions to “Einsteinian physics,” “Freudian psychology,” “non-Euclidean algebra” (a meaningless but suggestive term), modern art, and the writing of T. S. Eliot and James Joyce. The conflicts in the stories are typically between some representative of traditional order (the New England old stock protagonist) on the one hand, and the “hordes” of Mongoloids, Levantines, Negroes, Caribbeans, and Asians that gibber and prance in worship of the Old Ones and invoke their dark, destructive, and invincible powers.
What Lovecraft does in his stories, then, is not only to develop the logic of his “cosmicism” by exposing the futility of human conventions, but to document the triumph of a formless and monstrous modernity against the civilization to which Lovecraft himself—if almost no one else in his time—was faithful. In the course of his brief existence, he saw the traditions of his class and his people vanishing before his eyes, and with them the civilization they had created, and no one seemed to care or even grasp the nature of the forces that were destroying it. The measures conventionally invoked to preserve it—traditional Christianity, traditional art forms, conventional ethics and political theory—were useless against the ineluctable cosmic sweep of the Old Ones and the new anarchic powers they symbolized.
Lovecraft believed that his order could not be saved, and that in the long run it didn’t matter anyway, so be jogged placidly and cynically on, one of America’s last free men, living his life as he wanted to live it and as he believed a New England gentleman should live it: thinking what he wanted to think, and writing what he wanted to write, without concern for conventional opinions, worldly success, or immortality. And yet, despite the indifference he affected, Howard Phillips Lovecraft has in the end attained a kind of immortality, for the classic tales of horror he created will be read as long as that genre of literature is read at all. And since man’s horror of the alien cosmos into which he has been thrown is perhaps the oldest theme of art, that may be for a very long time to come.
Source: Chronicles, May 1997, http://www.unz.org/Pub/Chronicles-1997may-00024 [2]
17:49 Publié dans Littérature | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : lovecraft, littérature, littérature américaine, lettres, lettres américaines, fantastique | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
We must change back to the vision of the living cosmos; we must.
The oldest Pan is in us, and he will not be denied.
The Plumed Serpent is the story of an Aztec pagan revolution that spreads through Mexico during the time of the Mexican Revolution (the 1910s). Published in 1926, it also has themes of anti-capitalism, anti-Americanism, romanticism, nationalism, and primal and traditional roles for men and women.
The protagonist is 40-year-old Kate Leslie, the widow of an Irish revolutionary. She’s not particularly close to her grown children from her first husband, and seeking solitude and change in the midst of her grief she settles temporarily in Mexico.
Soon she meets Don Ramón Carrasco, an intellectual who’s attempting to rid the country of Christianity and capitalism and replace them with the cult of the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl (“the plumed serpent”) and Mexican nationalism. He’s assisted in his vision by Don Cipriano Viedma, a general in the Mexican army. Ramón provides the leadership, poetry, and propaganda that helps the movement take off, and Cipriano lends a military counterpoint.
Ramón writes hymns, then distributes copies to the villagers who quickly become fascinated by the idea of the old gods returning to Mexico:
Your gods are ready to return to you. Quetzalcoatl and Tlaloc, the old gods, are minded to come back to you. Be quiet, don’t let them find you crying and complaining. I have come from out of the lake to tell you the gods are coming back to Mexico, they are ready to return to their own home.
The Mexican commoners flock to listen as hymns are read (Mexico’s illiteracy rate was about 78 percent in 1910) (Presley). Soon the villagers are inspired to dance and drum in the native trance-inducing style that’s foreign to Christian worship, and they refuse the Church’s orders to quit listening to the Hymns of Quetzalcoatl. According to Smith, Lawrence was “interested in two related concepts of male homosociality: Männerbund and Blutbrüdershaft,” and there certainly are aspects of this in The Plumed Serpent among the Men of Quetzalcoatl. Ramón also employs an array of craftsmen to create the aesthetics for the Quetzalcoatl movement—ceremonial costumes, the Quetzalcoatl symbol in iron, and traditional Indian dress that’s adopted by the male followers.
The Plumed Serpent has been called D. H. Lawrence’s “most politically controversial novel” (Krockel). Despite its fascinating plot and the brilliant prose readers expect from Lawrence, it’s been called every name modernists can sling at a book—fascist, sexist, racist, silly, offensive, propaganda, difficult, an embarrassment. So many people have slammed the novel that when literary critic Leslie Fiedler said Lawrence had no followers—at a D.H. Lawrence festival, no less—William S. Burroughs interrupted to say how influenced he was by The Plumed Serpent (Morgan).
A primary reason Lawrence’s book is criticized is because his vision for Mexico may have been inspired by a trip to the Weimar Republic in the 1920s, after which he spoke positively of the growing völkisch movement and its focus on pagan traditions, saying in a 1924 letter: “The ancient spirit of pre-historic Germany [is] coming back, at the end of history” (Krockel). This is a misguided view because the Quetzalcoatl movement has none of the vitriol and racism that later characterized National Socialism (a Christianity ideology). Instead, the Quetzalcoatl leaders’ plan is to unite the various ethnicities in Mexico into one pagan culture, and whites living in the country will be allowed to stay if they are peaceful.
In The Plumed Serpent, Ramón speaks of the need for every country to have its own Savior, and his vision for a traditional, anti-capitalistic society includes a rebirth of paganism for the entire world:
If I want Mexicans to learn the name of Quetzalcoatl, it is because I want them to speak with the tongues of their own blood. I wish the Teutonic world would once more think in terms of Thor and Wotan, and the tree Igdrasil. And I wish the Druidic world would see, honestly, that in the mistletoe is their mystery, and that they themselves are the Tuatha De Danaan, alive, but submerged. And a new Hermes should come back to the Mediterranean, and a new Ashtaroth to Tunis; and Mithras again to Persia, and Brahma unbroken to India, and the oldest of dragons to China.
Although Lawrence’s novel has been criticized numerous times for post-colonial themes, such is an intellectually lazy and incomplete reading. According to Oh, “What Lawrence tries to do in The Plumed Serpent is the reverse of colonialist eradication of indigenous religion. The restoration of ancient Mexican religion necessarily accompanies Lawrence’s critiques of Western colonial projects.”
Ramón performs public invocations to the Aztec god and plans to proclaim himself the living Quetzalcoatl. (When the time is right, his friend Cipriano will be declared the living warrior god Huitzilopochtli, and Kate is offered a place in the pantheon as the goddess Malintzi.) But Ramón’s wife is a devout Catholic and fervently tries to convince him to stop the pagan revolution. Nietzsche was a major influence on Lawrence by the 1920s, and Ramón’s harsh diatribe to his Christian wife sounds straight out of The Genealogy of Morals:
But believe me, if the real Christ has not been able to save Mexico—and He hasn’t—then I am sure the white Anti-Christ of charity, and socialism, and politics, and reform, will only succeed in finally destroying her. That, and that alone, makes me take my stand.—You, Carlota, with your charity works and your pity: and men like Benito Juarez, with their Reform and their Liberty: and the rest of the benevolent people, politicians and socialists and so forth, surcharged with pity for living men, in their mouths, but really with hate . . .
The Plumed Serpent has been compared to Thus Spoke Zarathustra as well. Both feature religious reformers intent on creating the Overman, both use pre-Christian deities in their mythos, and both proclaim that God is dead (Humma). (In a priceless scene, Ramón has Christ and the Virgin Mary retire from Mexico while he implores the villagers to call out to them, “Adiós! Say Adiós! my children.”) A brutal overturning of Christian morality is present in both narratives. In addition, Ramón teaches his people to become better than they are, to awaken the Star within them and become complete men and women.
The Plumed Serpent is an engaging handbook for initiating a pagan revival in the West. The methods employed by Ramón would be more effective in a rural society 100 years ago, but readers will likely find inspiration in the Quetzalcoatl movement’s aesthetics and success. It’s an immensely enjoyable read for anyone interested in reconstructionist paganism or radical traditionalism.
Humma, John B. Metaphor and Meaning in D.H. Lawrence’s Later Novels. University of Missouri (1990).
Krockel, Carl. D.H. Lawrence and Germany: The Politics of Influence. Editions Rodopi BV (2007).
Morgan, Ted. Literary Outlaw: The Life and Times of William S. Burroughs. W. W. Norton (2012).
Oh, Eunyoung. D.H. Lawrence’s Border Crossing: Colonialism in His Travel Writing and Leadership Novels. Routledge (2014).
Presley, James. “Mexican Views on Rural Education, 1900-1910.” The Americas, Vol. 20, No. 1 (July 1963), pp. 64-71.
Smith, Jad. “Völkisch Organicism and the Use of Primitivism in Lawrence’s The Plumed Serpent.” D.H. Lawrence Review, 30:3. (2002)
For more posts on radical traditionalism and Julius Evola, please visit the archives here.
11:12 Publié dans Littérature, Philosophie | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : d. h. lawrence, livre, littérature, littérature anglaise, lettres, lettres anglaises, mexique, paganisme, philosophie | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
Ex: http://www.juanasensio.com
On peut parfaitement adresser les reproches les plus durs au Matin des magiciens de Pauwels et Bergier. Tous resteront sans effet toutefois devant cette évidence : cet ouvrage bizarre et boursouflé, qualifié de «gros livre hirsute» par ses auteurs eux-mêmes (1), nous a permis de découvrir des écrivains qui, en 1960, année où il fut publié, n'intéressaient qu'une poignée de spécialistes de la littérature fantastique et amateurs de fous littéraires.
Nous ne nous poserons point la question de savoir si la suite de l'histoire, servant, selon Ambrose, de meilleur exemple à ses étonnantes vues, histoire intitulée je l'ai dit Le livre vert, n'est point quelque peu en dessous de la remarquable exposition que l'auteur, dans son Prologue, nous livre sur le monde du Mal.
19:07 Publié dans Littérature, Livre, Livre | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : littérature, littérature américaine, lettres, lettres américaines, arthur machen, livre | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
Les éditions du Lore viennent de publier un essai de Jean-Louis Lenclos intitulé Les idées politiques d'Henry de Monfreid. Une façon de redécouvrir sous un angle nouveau l’œuvre de l'auteur des Secrets de la Mer rouge , de La croisière du hachich ou de Mes vies d'aventure.
Pour commander l'ouvrage:
http://www.ladiffusiondulore.fr/recherche?controller=sear...
Cet ouvrage inédit présente le mémoire universitaire de droit soutenu par Jean-Louis Lenclos en octobre 1977, sous la direction du Professeur De Lacharrière, à l’université de Parix X- Nanterre.
Lorsqu’on consultait les proches d’Henry de Monfreid, ils répondaient invariablement : « il n’avait pas d’idées politiques, cela ne l’intéressait pas ; c’était un Aventurier ! »
Contrairement à divers fantasmes colportés, Henry de Monfreid ne fut à aucun moment cet individu louche, dénué de sens moral et de scrupules que recouvre habituellement ce terme d’aventurier.
En se penchant méticuleusement sur son œuvre littéraire prolifique, ce livre explore les idées politiques bien tranchées d’Henry de Monfreid.
Certaines de ses idées sont à rapprocher des penseurs traditionalistes tels que Louis de Bonald ou Joseph de Maistre, mais aussi Nietzsche par certains aspects.
Par ailleurs, Henry de Monfreid semble acquis à l’idée de hiérarchisation des races humaines. Plus surprenant, il vécut une extase quasi-religieuse en la présence de Mussolini…
Cette étude très bien documentée vous fera découvrir les grandes lignes politiques d’un homme qui considérait l’homme comme une créature foncièrement mauvaise et qui n’eut de cesse de s’affranchir des servitudes humaines. "
08:33 Publié dans Littérature, Livre, Livre | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : hnery de monfreid, livre, lettres, lettres françaises, littérature, littérature française | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
We are born, we are given just so much food as will keep the breath in our bodies, and those of us who are capable of it are forced to work to the last atom of our strength; and the very instant that our usefulness has come to an end we are slaughtered with hideous cruelty.Old Major educates the farm animals, making them aware that this is unhealthy. The animals "are forced to work," doing the most burdensome work to exhaustion, and in return, they only receive "just so much food as will keep the breath" in them — so that they can continue to work. As Old Major understands life on the farm, work is a major measure of value for most animals, and "the very instant that our usefulness has come to an end we are slaughtered." Even at the end of a life-time of loyal labour on Manor Farm, animals don't get to enjoy retirement. Instead, they are mercilessly eliminated. Old Major assures Boxer that no animal is immune to this outcome: "the very day those great muscles of yours lose their power, Jones [...] will cut your throat and boil you down for the foxhounds." As with any good doctor, Old Major knows that it isn't enough to diagnose correctly the patient. The treatment must cure the illness.
[W]ork night and day, body and soul, for the over throw of the human race! That is my message to you, comrades: Rebellion!A reader might ask: Why do the ills of Manor Farm have to be treated by the harsh remedy of rebellion? Any increase in animal rights is a decrease in Jones' control. Any further sharing out of resources diminishes profit for Jones. Moreover, not yet unified with the other animals by hunger, the individual animal poses no threat to Jones. The lone animal can't stand against the immediate punishment of a beating or starvation. Divided, the animals don't have power. Without power, negotiation is impossible. Jones doesn't need to compromise, so why would he? People in power rarely like to share it. The only recourse the animals have, therefore, is to take and redistribute power through violent revolution. Old Major believes that this forceful redistribution of power on the farm will be the end of inequality and making of a society based on harmonious relations without exploitation.
The pigs did not actually work, but directed and supervised the others. With their superior knowledge it was natural that they should assume the leadership.The pigs do have language ability to a high degree above the other animals. This "superior knowledge" of language is what makes it "natural that they should assume the leadership." Of course, later Snowball clearly makes use of this "superior knowledge" of language by reading about the campaigns of Julius Caesar. Snowball 's learning allows him to organize and direct the animals to defend themselves against the attacking humans; however, without leisure, even the most useful books remain unread. Therefore, it is not insignificant that the "pigs did not actually work;" un-tired at night, the pigs are holed up in the harness-room, studying "from books." There's an undeniably intimate connection between leisure and learning that enables Snowball to be heroic. Even the modern story-tellers of Hollywood can't ignore this fact. That is why the bat-suited hero of Gotham is the leisured Bruce Wayne during the day. Moreover, the iron-clad Tony Stark is equally free from draining daily work when he's not putting in a shift as Iron Man. In understanding Animal Farm, we shouldn't overlook the importance of leisure. Orwell and Hollywood might agree at least on this point: leisure doesn't make a person heroic, but it is awfully difficult to be heroic without leisure. But leisure isn't the only resource where the animals are found to be unequal.
[N]ature, by endowing individuals with extremely unequal [...] mental capacities, has introduced injustices against which there is no remedy.Nature isn't egalitarian, and clearly the pigs have benefited in part from the lottery of chance. Their leadership is the reward for being "superior" to the other animals. Nature and the effort of the pigs have made the animals unequal. Nonetheless, the "remedy" of enforced equality under Napoleon's dictatorship may be far worse than the disease of Nature's "injustices."
He announced that, by a special decree of Comrade Napoleon, 'Beasts of England' had been abolished. From now onwards it was forbidden to sing it.The root of resistance is language; rebellion can't flower without it. "Beasts of England" is a song of rebellion, but now that Napoleon is in control, he doesn't want rebellion. The language of rebellion makes rebellion possible. Language comes first; the idea exists in language and only then is action possible. However, Squealer assures the animals that rebellion is "No longer needed" because, of course, Napoleon doesn't want it. To kill the flower, Napoleon tears out the root. It's not that "the Rebellion is now completed," as Squealer states, but rather that Napoleon has simply made rebellion impossible by eliminating its language. When the language of freedom disappears, slavery will be inescapable.
01:40 Publié dans Littérature, Livre, Livre, Philosophie | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : george orwell, animal farm, la ferme des animaux, lettres, lettres anglaises, littérature, littérature anglaise, philosophie, philosophie politique, langage politique, idéologie, théorie politique, sciences politiques, politologie | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
Carlos Javier Blanco Martín
Publicado en V.V.A.A. , Junger. Tras la Guerra y la Paz. Pensamientos y Perspectivas, Nº 4. Editorial EAS, Torrevieja, 2017, pps 281-29.
Un tratado de Jünger sobre la Oclocracia. Así veo yo Sobre los Acantilados de Mármol. Oclocracia: el poder de la chusma.
La Civilización siempre vive en peligro. Todo un universo de creaciones culturales, de logros que parecen perdurables y supremos, todo lo que más amamos y de cuya sustancia creemos que está formado el Cielo, todo eso se puede caer en una catástrofe. La Civilización es un delicado edificio cristalino que una mano torpe puede hacer tambalear. Las manos bárbaras acechan siempre allende las fronteras, pero no hay gruesos muros ni tropas de contención que valgan si el bárbaro ya habita dentro. El bárbaro interior es un gran protagonista del libro que quiero comentarles. Sobre los acantilados de mármol es la historia de un gran derrumbe, de un hundimiento civilizatorio. Es la historia de la ruina de Europa, de la existencia entendida como amor a la ciencia, a la naturaleza, al "buen vivir", a la existencia entendida como trabajo, goce y servicio, todo ello a la vez
¿Quienes provocan esa catástrofe? Expeditiva e incompleta será la respuesta que cite al Gran Guardabosque. En principio, su arquetipo es el del "gran bárbaro". Hombre de guerra, reclutador de la peor canalla, todo le es válido con tal de arrasar y dar satisfacción a sus ambiciones. A las mientes nos vienen Atila, Gengis Khan, Almanzor, Hitler, Stalin... El Gran Guardabosque se va acercando al país dulce, de clima bondadoso, de refinada cultura clásica, de límpidas y gratas costumbres, La Marina. Cuanto se ve desde La Marina parece una síntesis geográfica e histórica. Como en los sueños, desde los Acantilados de Mármol se divisa una condensación de tiempos y paisajes. Se perciben valores y hábitos de tiempos medievales, la persistencia de códigos caballerescos, monacales, campesinos, etc. de aquellos siglos lejanos, en unión onírica con elementos propios de la contemporaneidad (automóviles, por ejemplo). La Marina recuerda la Europa mediterránea y templada, el entorno de países con fuerte cultura clásica, países de ricos viñedos y tradiciones hermosas. Por el contrario, el Gran Guardabosque representa la zafiedad de quien procede de brumosos y oscuros bosques, prototipo del bárbaro, al que unos climas y territorios poco amables no pueden afectarle de otro modo sino por embrutecimiento. Sin embargo, la figura del Gran Guardabosque es muy compleja en esta obra de Jünger. No es el "bruto", no carece de cierta grandeza, pese a que su acción sobre la Civilización será nefasta. Los personajes que de todo punto repugnan son los que les siguen, aquellos a quienes sus tropas reclutan y movilizan. La canalla, la hez, aquellos que conforman –en toda civilización o comunidad gastada- la Oclocracia. Tras Aristóteles, las descripciones spenglerianas de la Oclocracia nos parecen aquí fundamentales.
Esta novela es un auténtico tratado sobre la Oclocracia: El poder de la chusma. Desde Aristóteles hasta Spengler, se conoce su sombra horrenda que se extiende sobre todo pueblo civilizado. La sombra de la propia canalla. Es inevitable que en el ascenso civilizado, en el avance moral y educativo, en el refinamiento de costumbres que conducen a la “vida buena”, vida en la que amplias capas de población gustan de la existencia específicamente humana (ciencia, arte, amor, buena mesa) existan también capas irreductibles, rezagados, “barbarie interior”.
La barbarie extraliminar y la barbarie intraliminar (por usar los términos de C. Alonso del Real) se llegan a confundir, se mezclan explosivamente, precipitando con ello la caída de la civilización. La unión y confusión de ambas barbaries es el punto en que se acelera la entropia, la tendencia al desorden.
Me llama la atención en la novela de Jünger el modo en que la hez de las ciudades se refugia en la Campaña, frecuentando la vida bárbara de pastores. Los pastores, extraliminares con respecto a La Marina, vivían en medio de la violencia. Su código de honor venía marcado por el signo de la brutalidad. Y sin embargo, no dejaba de existir entre ellos cierta nobleza primigenia... hasta que la brutalidad fue dirigida y contaminada por los designios del Gran Guardabosques. Entonces, esos bárbaros extraliminares se mezclaron con el detritus, con la barbarie intraliminar, y en sus querellas sangrientas comenzó a percibirse el sinsentido y la degradación. En esta periferia brutal de La Marina aún quedan personajes que conservan el sentido de la nobleza, arcaica y brutal: Belovar. Este anciano formidable aparece descrito como un titán de los más viejos tiempos. Sus perros, sus sirvientes, su clan... todo lo que rodea a Belovar guarda unas muy plásticas resonancias feudales, o referencias incluso más arcaicas todavía, apuntando a un tiempo en que nada era fácil, y el hombre se hizo hombre como animal de rapiña o como verdugo de otras criaturas. Belovar es la fuerza viril que inexcusablemente se requiere, en condiciones históricas ordinarias, para oponerse a las fuerzas demoníacas de la chusma.
Pero nuestro libro muestra precisamente que las “condiciones ordinarias” ya no se darán más. El mundo que rodeaba La Marina no desconocía las guerras, la muerte, los códigos de honor, de heroismo y sangre. De hecho, en la Marina todo se experimenta: la paz, el amor, la ciencia y la guerra. Todo se vive de forma absoluta como si se presentara en oníricas condensaciones. Así vivimos en los sueños, mezclando pasado, presente y futuro, reuniendo a vivos y muertos. Edad antigua, edad media, renacimiento y el más puro siglo XX, todo coexiste en la novela.
Desde cualquier altozano se divisan los hechos en las fronteras o las alteraciones de paisaje y de cultura, todo aquello que supone alejarse de La Marina. La irrupción de la excepción, de un poder tiránico sin límites, sin lógica, sin código comprensible alguno es justamente de lo que trata Jünger. Podemos comprender mejor el Mal si este principio, que nos es odioso, se sujeta a un finalismo, a unas justificaciones, a una lógica. Pero el Mal del mundo contemporáneo, el Mal del totalitarismo, es, por su propia naturaleza, incomprensible. El universo concentracionario, el del nacionalsocialismo o del gulag, es contrario a la lógica, y por ello mismo es Maldad densa, sólida, rotunda. No es la maldad instrumental de quien persigue sus propios fines, que se pueden juzgar con cierta objetividad (riqueza, tierras, esclavos, gloria, honra, poder). Toda maldad es entendible si nos muestra el fin. Pero lo que observan los protagonistas del libro Sobre los acantilados de mármol no admite juicios ni conceptos: es el Mal mismo el que avanza, la crueldad gratuita y la degradación de lo humano.
La cabaña de los desolladores es el pasaje más terrorífico de la novela y, a mi modo de ver, el que vuelve densa la atmósfera de horror ante lo absurdo. Esa cabaña de Köppelsbleek, donde la gentuza viola la humanidad, la degrada y humilla por pura diversión, representa todo el destino de la especie humana, el de Europa especialmente, en el siglo XX. El contraste entre estos horrores y la hermosa naturaleza que los rodea es lacerante. La naturaleza misma es protagonista del conocimiento, ella se funde, a la manera más clásica, helénica, con la contemplación y la fruición; ella misma es la actriz central en la novela, junto con los esforzados protagonistas, el hermano Othón y el propio narrador.
La labor de botánicos que los dos hombres desenvuelven no guarda relación alguna con la ciencia tecnologizada y violenta que se impone al mundo de hoy. Es la labor linneana y aristotélica: recopilación, catálogo, descripción minuciosa, artística y llena de veneración de cuanto en el mundo se ofrece al ojo atento: ojo atento porque amoroso, y amoroso porque atento. Y sin embargo, en aquella Ermita donde trabajan el narrador y el hermano Othón, anida también la barbarie y la humanidad “naturalizada”, en el más prosaico sentido del término. Lampusa, la cocinera y el niño, Erio, un fruto de amoríos pasajeros, ellos mismos “naturaleza”, nada tienen que ver ni con el pasado guerrero de los dos sabios, ni con la noble sapiencia presente que cultivan ahora ellos. Las cuatro personas forman una especie de familia, o más bien, un remedo de hogar, quizá simbolizan la propia socialidad del hombre. No somos iguales, no tenemos todos los dones del guerrero, del sabio o del virtuoso. Hace falta gente que conecte con las víboras, con las plantas más humildes, que ponga la olla en el fuego, que viva la infancia. La propia Lampusa, en el desencadenamiento de la barbarie final, nos recuerda a todos que ella, brujeril y cavernícola, ella misma lleva en sí esa barbarie. Que ella se entregará con ancestral vileza a quien domine en el momento. Con la misma diligencia que lleva la “casa”, esto es la Ermita, la vieja buscó machos para su hija y protección para su progenie, pero nunca de manera noble e incondicional. Lampusa es un principio de cuanto “naturaleza” hay en el hombre. En aquellos gentiles y hermosos parajes de La Marina, hay naturaleza en el doble y maravillosamente ambiguo sentido del término: indomeñable fuerza salvaje, ajena a la moral y madre de toda Barbarie, por un lado, y, por el otro, Belleza absoluta digna de admiración y fruición.
Las personas más civilizadas pueden tener por seguro que en su propio hogar, en su misma caverna, compartiendo la olla y el lecho, hay también una naturaleza salvaje, una semilla de la ancestral barbarie. Más aún, en esas selvas de cemento y hormigón, que se llaman ciudades, anidan las condiciones perfectas de un retroceso, como supieron ver otras grandes mentes de la generación de Jünger; así es el caso de Oswald Spengler. Justamente cuando envejece una civilización y el alma de los hombres se reseca, en la misma fase en que los grandes valores que la vivifican quedan angostados, entonces sucede que el fondo más primitivo y salvaje pase a un primer plano. Ese fondo es el de Lampusa, la caverna y la cocinera del héroe y del sabio. El salvajismo del hombre de la era técnica y de la gran urbe, nos tememos, es de una peor especie que del “primitivo natural”. No proviene de una ingenuidad y de una múltiple vía para recorrer posibilidades y actualizarlas, sino precisamente procede de la muerte y desecación de importantes regiones del alma humana, proviene de una degeneración. La cabaña de Köppelsbleek, con sus calaveras y manos clavadas absurdamente, y los instrumentos para desollar cuerpos humanos a la vista, representa el retroceso demasiado fácil en que la Civilización puede incurrir. Las hogueras en los bosques, las cabañas, granjas, graneros, en fin, la destrucción de los esfuerzos humanos por civilizar el mundo, por cultivar, son prueba irrefutable de cuán fácilmente la destrucción se adueña de todo, y el caos siempre está del lado de los elementos más retardatarios de la Civilización.
La decadencia, en el sentido spengleriano, puede concebirse como la entropía, la degradación que no cesa una vez se ha alcanzado un punto máximo de civismo. La caída es más acusada o catastrófica cuando este punto se halla muy alto. En el Imperio decadente de Roma, según atestiguan las fuentes, no eran pocos los “ciudadanos” dispuestos a renunciar a sus libertades puramente formales y auparse en una mayor “libertad”, a saber, imitar la existencia del bárbaro germano, en cuyas filas muchas veces engrosaban los romanos huyendo de su propia putrefacción. Se barbariza exactamente aquel que ya en su corazón ha experimentado esa transformación irreversible, una tal que lo conduce a seguir hacia abajo la línea pendiente. Sólo después se traduce este cambio interior en actos externos, en señales de conversión, en emigraciones o afiliaciones.
Algo semejante podríamos hallar en los primeros años de invasión islámica de la Hispania goda. Quienes ya llevaban en sí la “mozarabía”, esto es, el alma de un cristianismo “mágico” o “arábigo” (por hablar al estilo de Spengler), en el Sur y en el Levante españoles, apenas se forzaron para volverse mahometanos, apenas tuvieron que renunciar esos cristianos “mágicos” a su alma en aras de una aclimitación o incluso a una conversión a la fe mahometana. Eran cristianos, de origen godo o hispanorromano, pero que ya vivían perfectamente inmersos en el espíritu afromediterráno, semita y oriental. Todavía no habían podido conocer el nuevo cristianismo surgido en las montañas y bosques del Norte, el cristianismo fáustico. No supieron detectar el “enemigo”, de ahí procede la falta de resistencia suya, que anacrónicamente tanto nos ofende a los españoles de hoy, aunque nos ofende de manera absurda y anacrónica.
Depende de un estado fundamental del alma el detectar adecuadamente a los enemigos, a los hombres que, aun siendo sustancialmente como usted y como yo, hombres comunes y corrientes, representan valores incompatibles con la razón de ser de nuestra existencia y de nuestra civilización. Aquella mozarabía de los siglos VIII al X, en un principio, buscó el modus vivendi e incluso vio continuidad en su existencia cotidiana, pero luego fue demasiado tarde. Muy pronto llegó el día en que esa gente sufrió una aculturación y un infierno represivo, y se percataron de su aculturación cuando ya era inútil lamentarse. Aquella tropa beréber y asiática invasora pudo parecer, simplemente, una nueva especie de amos que sustituirían parcialmente a la antigua raza de los dominadores godos y del patriciado romano. Grave error. Grave error que acontece cuando no se sabe eliminar el huevo de la serpiente, o decapitar a la hidra antes de que se reproduzca. Algo de esto hemos de temer hoy en día, cuando hay tantos intereses ocultos por que se produzca una sustitución étnica de las poblaciones europeas, así como una imposición de religiones foráneas, especialmente la islámica, que más que como religión se nos presenta como una teología política supersticiosa y totalitaria. El Gran Guardabosque exige silencio, miedo a hablar, tolerancia con lo intolerable.
La decadencia de la civilización europea, que queda expuesta peligrosamente a la acción de bárbaros exteriores en connivencia con los bárbaros intraliminares, es para mí el trasunto de la novela jüngeriana que comentamos. Nosotros somos los legítimos dueños y habitantes de La Marina. La Marina podría ser España o cualquier país europeo que, tras sus avatares, ha llegado a ser, históricamente, un país bello y una conquista de nuestros mayores. Todo lo que sabemos del buen vivir y del vivir a nuestra manera, todo cuanto llamamos tradición, cultura, socialidad, identidad, todo ello es fruto de ríos y mares de sangre, de sudor, de esfuerzo cotidiano. Si queremos seguir siendo ciegos ante lo que se agita en las fronteras, ante los incendios (“gusanos de luz”, escribe Jünger), debemos saber que sólo nos queda contemplar la Destrucción. Hacer la guerra, ir a la guerra, demostrar un instinto belicista, no es otra cosa, en ciertas ocasiones, que la voluntad existencial: seguir siendo. No somos “ellos”. Estamos dispuestos a defender nuestras casas, campos, mujeres y niños. Cuando vemos, como lo ven los hombres de La Marina, que el Mal, la entropía, aumenta sus dominios y se extiende entre nuestras propias tierras, se infiltra y recaba aliados, entonces está en juego algo más que una patria chica, o un orgullo nacionalista estrecho. Las armas deben volver a brillar bajo el sol y cegar a nuestros rivales, causarles miedo, por cuanto que la Civilización entera, un enjambre de patrias secularmente hermanadas, está en grave riesgo. Se puede morir con honor, oponiéndose al Caos, midiendo fuerzas con Él, o morir tristemente vejado, víctima de los despellejadores de la Cabaña de Köppelsbleek. En La Marina había cierta conciencia de enfrentarse al Caos, de poner coto al Gran Guardabosques.
El veterano “mauritano” y el príncipe, en su visita a la Ermita representan esa necesidad de conservar el honor, la identidad, la tradición. El príncipe, un joven viejo, lleva en su sangre azul el instinto de repeler al Caos, de plantar batalla a ese Poder entrópico. Ser digno de nuestros mayores, ponerse a la altura de las glorias pasadas... Esto puede ayudar, pero nunca será lo bastante para la nueva situación de emergencia. El príncipe representa un pasado, una aristocracia que se despide y cuya sangre está diluída, ejerciendo un papel en la historia que acabará en irrelevancia. Todavía puede concitar focos de resistencia, pues esa sangre es sabedora de las viejas luchas. El instinto dirá, en nuestro caso hispano, cuándo hay que resucitar el ardor de Covadonga o de Las Navas de Tolosa, el empuje de la Reconquista o de los Tercios, pero no nos será dable recuperar un pasado, aun cuando fuese éste de lo más glorioso. Pues los desafíos nuevos exigen algo más, mucho más que retomar modelos del pasado. El Enemigo de nuestra Civilización no es fácilmente visible tras de una frontera (“hay moros en la costa”) o una bandera. El Enemigo, en tanto que alteridad irreductible y conjunto de valores inasimilables en nuestra Civilización, ha tomado posiciones de índole estructural. La estrategia del caos de éste Gran Guardabosque ha consistido en contar con algo más que “invasiones” físicas y amenazas armadas. Es una estrategia de confusionismo ideológico. Todos los pilares axiológicos de Europa van siendo dinamitados uno a uno, ante una indiferencia general o un aplauso orquestado desde las “ideologías”. Hoy en día, liberales o marxistas, socialdemócratas o conservadores, hoy en día todos aplauden orquestadamente en medio de un silencio de corderos. Los ideólogos difunden ideologías y supersticiones, llámense “democracia” o “derechos humanos”, por encima de las pequeñas diferencias de detalle en cuanto a programas de gobierno o reformas económico-políticas, matices en el estilo o verborrea doctrinaria. El príncipe ya no puede mover a una clase caballeresca que enarbole la bandera de la buena “tradición”. Apenas un puñado frente al griterío de masas barbarizadas. Los programas aristocráticos de un Spengler o de un Jünger, su “socialismo” nacionalista, su conservadurismo no reaccionario nada tenían que ver con la movilización parda o roja de masas intoxicadas. La verdadera sangre azul que pudiera hacer frente a la muchedumbre parda y roja, eran cuatro gotas ya impotentes en la República de Weimar. Y otro tanto se diga del arquetipo del veterano militar “mauritano”. Los “mauritanos”, orden militar, podrán nutrir siempre a ese conjunto de fuerzas que son el brazo del nacionalista, de quien desea proteger a su patria de los enemigos externos o internos. Pero estos hombres duros, curtidos, gente de armas que llevan siempre afiladas para la ocasión bien pueden errar y pasarse a las filas del Caos, contribuir al Caos mismo. También se observa que aquellos que se presentan como protectores, y que han sido designados para tal función, se agazapan esperando el cambio de poder y su adaptación a los nuevos tiempos. Tal es el destino de las manzanas podridas: se convierten en el cobijo de toda clase de gusanos.
Otro asunto que reclama máxima atención en esta obra es el papel de la ciencia, del conocimiento. En el más clásico sentido, la ciencia de Sobre los Acantilados de Mármol es objeto de fruición. Los griegos y los medievales contemplaron así la tarea de la investigación científica. La detallada cartografía y la exhaustiva descripción y catalogado del mundo. La belleza de cada orgánulo, florecilla y menudencia viviente...contemplar con ojos calmos y limpios todo el espectáculo de la creación ¿habrá fuente de placer que supere a ésta? Sin embargo, la creciente amenaza debería sacar al Hermano Othón y al protagonista de su ensimismamiento contemplativo. El Gran Guardabosques representa una amenaza radical, el triunfo inexorable de la Barbarie. Con la degradación del hombre y de la vida buena todo lo sublime llega a su fin, todo muere y se pudre. Y sin embargo nuestros dos protagonistas, el narrador y su hermano, parecen no inmutarse. Acompañan a Belovar, y a las fuerzas escasas que harán las veces de resistencia, de muro de contención ante el Caos, pero no por ello la contemplación –casi sagrada- de sus objetos es abandonada. Este papel de la ciencia, una ciencia de lo bello, una ciencia bella por sí misma, una contemplación aristotélica y linneana de la gran maravilla del mundo nos hace recordar qué fue la Edad Media, en qué consistió Europa misma. En mitad de la barbarie, entre la degradación de la civilización grecorromana y la inicial brutalidad de la barbarie germana, la Europa fáustica es la civilización que nace de su crisálida, que brotará con una nueva alma, un alma que no se la dará la vieja Grecia, la podrida Roma ni la alienígena Jerusalén. Un alma nueva que aúna el clásico sentido contemplativo, entre estético y místico, con la visión extática y caballeresca de una nueva espiritualidad que es, entre otras cosas, espiritualidad guerrera. El guerrero, brutal y animalesco en “tiempos bárbaros”, se transforma en caballero. Y el ejercicio de las armas no excluye el de las letras, e incluso ambos se potenciarán bajo formas de espiritualidad superiores. La propia biografía del autor parece atestiguar esta visión grandiosa del Caballero. La idea del Caballero, ojo atento para la Ciencia, ojo que contempla el mundo con fruición tanto como brazo armado y fuerte, esa es la idea que a partir del siglo XVIII comienza a desvanecerse, a olvidarse, a ser objeto de burla. El caballero andante que convive con las armas de fuego y una sociedad rufianesca que ya se burla de él nos es muy conocido a través de la figura de El Quijote. El Caballero cruzado, el caballero monje o el sabio con yelmo, espada y armadura nos parecen hoy pura fantasía. Pero existieron y dieron fundamento a Europa. Toda la modernidad se mofa de estos personajes, pues no les entiende, los toma como contradicciones insoportables que atentan contra su propia razón de existir. El mismo perfil de Jünger -soldado, poeta, científico, filósofo- es una síntesis “anti-moderna”. El progresismo desea un tipo de hombres tallados, unilaterales, especializados. Y, desde luego, en la utopía imposible de un capitalismo para “ciudadanos consumidores” satisfechos, el honor, el valor, la lealtad, la disciplina, el respeto y la organización jerárquica son valores que nada cuentan. Estos valores más bien estorban, son contradicciones inherentes a la forma de existencia que se nos programa.
No se trata de una ciencia entendida como “fuerza productiva”. No se trata de esa tecnología que hoy impera, completamente desconectada de la admiración. La verdadera ciencia y la filosofía se identificaban en los clásicos griegos y en los escolásticos medievales. La curiosidad innata e insaciable del hombre entonces no debía quedar presa de afanes mezquinos, afanes de “tendero”. La curiosidad del sabio, al igual que el honor del guerrero, no “sirven para nada” salvo para justificar la Civilización misma. Nada menos. Las cosas más nobles –arte, ciencia, filosofía, - no sirven para nada porque su función consiste en dar fundamento a la existencia. Y una existencia dotada de fundamento es una existencia verdaderamente humana, civilizada, feliz.
Hoy, ya no tenemos noticia sobre el fundamento existencia de nuestra Civilización. No sabemos quiénes somos porque no sabemos de dónde venimos. Las Civilizaciones se defienden con honor o sucumben. Europa sigue enfrascada en las ideologías caducas de la Modernidad. Esas ideologías contienen todas, necesariamente, el germen totalitario. Las ideologías son productos irracionales o “defectuosamente racionales”, productos de filosofías jurídicas, políticas, económicas, etc. , ideologías rebasadas ya por el propio curso de los acontecimientos. Cuando el capitalismo burgués necesitó al individuo atómico, productor-consumidor, aplastó las comunidades orgánicas nacidas en la Edad Media y las trituró a mayor gloria del Capital, convirtiéndolas en masas inorgánicas. El burgués fue el gran enemigo de la Comunidad orgánica. Después, el comunismo, el socialismo y la socialdemocracia no hicieron sino reconstruir utópicamente la sociedad siempre desde la imagen, ahora invertida, del burgués atómico. Las clases sociales, y la lucha de clases, son conceptos que llevan consigo el pecado original de su cuna. Son pretendidas antítesis del individuo ideal del burgués liberal. El obrero será un burgués generalizado. El socialismo se convertirá en una apoteosis del propio liberalismo: que todos sean obreros pero obreros en una sociedad opulenta en la que podrán vivir como burgueses. La ciencia, la espiritualidad, el culto a la máquina y al productivismo quedarían así, pues, inalterados. La Civilización se rebaja a la condición de resultar en una plasmación utópica de las ideologías (liberales, marxistas, etc.) mismas. Al atacar a una o varias de esas ideologías, el europeo moderno se expone a atacar a su Civilización misma en la medida en que “ha generalizado” en exceso. El hombre europeo tira el niño junto con el agua de la bañera, como se suele decir.
Esta novela jüngeriana expresa magníficamente lo que significa el fin de una Civilización y el advenimiento de la barbarie. Expresa como pocas obras literarias el peligro que continuamente corre Europa de “echarlo todo a perder”, el peligro de sucumbir ante valores e imposiciones extraños. Llevamos, desde el siglo XVIII, demasiado tiempo pensando en términos de ideologías y no de valores civilizatorios. Llevamos demasiado tiempo negando los propios fundamentos de nuestra existencia: natalidad, familia, milicia, patriotismo, lealtad, honor, espíritu de sacrificio y disciplina, amor al saber y amor al hombre. Los fundamentos antropológicos de nuestra civilización son objeto de saqueo, escarnio, burla. Y eso que, de no haber bajado la guardia en nuestro sistema educativo y en nuestras instituciones familiares y comunitarias, esos valores serían fácilmente reconocidos por todos, salvo por la Oclocracia, como valores esenciales que no entienden de izquierda ni de derecha, que no saben de banderías ni de sectas. El Gran Guardabosque no sólo asoma por las fronteras (por ejemplo inmigración masiva y descontrolada, cuando no teledirigida, americanización, islamización, etc.). El Gran Guardabosque, igual que Saurón o Big Brother, está entre nosotros, e incluso lee los sueños mientras dormimos.
00:05 Publié dans Littérature, Révolution conservatrice | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : ernst jünger, littérature, littérature allemande, lettres, lettres allemandes, révolution conservatrice, allemagne | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
Das Buch hier bestellen:
goo.gl/p4JH2x
Akif Pirinçci bleibt sich treu: In seiner neuen Essaysammlung »Der Übergang« widmet sich der Autor verschiedenen Facetten des gewaltigen Transformationsprozesses, in dem sich unser Land seit Jahren befindet, und legt die verborgenen Grundlagen frei – den Archetyp des Spießers, die deutsche Lust an der (politischen) Sauberkeit und andere.
In ihrem 20. Empfehlungsvideo bespricht Sezession-Literaturredakteurin Ellen Kositza den neuen Pirinçci. Es ist kein Buch, das einfache Lösungen verspricht – es ist eine Anatomie der Lage, die absehbar war und in die wir wie die Schafe hineingetrottet sind.
09:55 Publié dans Actualité, Littérature, Livre, Livre | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : akif pirinçci, livre, littérature, allemagne, littérature allemande, lettres, lettres allemandes | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
20:00 Publié dans art, Littérature, Livre, Livre | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : art, arts plastiques, ernst jünger, allemagne, littérature, littérature allemande, lettres, lettres allemandes | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
18:35 Publié dans Littérature | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : céline, littérature, littérature française, lettres, lettres françaises, france | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook
21:12 Publié dans Evénement, Littérature | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : léon bloy, littérature, littérature française, lettres, lettres françaises, événement, paris, france | | del.icio.us | | Digg | Facebook