Histoire et pouvoir: quand la fiction de "1984" devient la réalité

Claire Langoulant:

Histoire et pouvoir: quand la fiction de "1984" devient la réalité

Juin 1949 : 1984, oeuvre d’un visionnaire doublé d’un iconoclaste, est publiée. Roman écrit en 1948 et traduit en français en 1950, il expose le processus par lequel s’est effectuée en un court laps de temps la marche vers la société totalitaire. De 1948 à 1984 — deux dates aux chiffres simplement inversés — une trentaine d’années ont suffi pour que l’humanité en arrive à l’âge de l’aliénation totale de l’individu : l’âge de l’uniformité, l’âge de la solitude, l’âge de Big Brother. Le livre préfigure un avenir terrifiant contre lequel il sonne l’alarme.
Qui contrôle le passé contrôle l’avenir. Qui contrôle le présent contrôle le passé. Le slogan du parti, répété à satiété dans 1984, est l’expression même du mécanisme totalitaire par lequel le pouvoir détermine l’histoire, le présent modifie le passé et l’Etat domestique le futur. Grâce à une utilisation machiavéliquement habile de la dialectique passé-présent, le mensonge devient vérité et les faits sont « vaporisés » à l’instar des opposants. En un mot, c’est la victoire de Big Brother sur la mémoire.

A cet égard, 1984 traduit la fascination exercée sur Orwell par la question du passé autant que par celle de l’avenir. Lui-même depuis longtemps se sentait interpellé par ce problème angoissant : comment écrire l’histoire, comment établir la vérité. Dès 1939, apparaît sous sa plume, à l’occasion d’un compte rendu du livre de Bertrand Russell sur le pouvoir (Power : a new social analysis), la formule appelée à faire fortune dans 1984 : après tout, écrit-il, puisqu’on n’est nullement assuré que l’objectivité l’emportera, « il est fort possible que nous soyons en train de tomber dans une ère où deux et deux feront cinq quand le chef le dira ».

A plusieurs reprises, il reviendra sur la difficulté de respecter les faits et de donner une image véridique du passé. Ainsi la guerre d’Espagne n’a-t-elle pas donné l’exemple des relations les plus mensongères, « une histoire écrite en fonction, non de ce qui est arrivé, mais de ce qui aurait dû arriver selon les diverses lignes de parti » ? Déjà l’on pouvait éprouver quelque scepticisme à constater les flottements, les variations et les erreurs des historiens, mais au moins jusqu’ici l’on s’accordait sur un postulat de base : la possibilité d’écrire une histoire vraie. Alors que maintenant l’on est saisi d’angoisse à l’idée que la notion de vérité objective est en train de disparaître sous la poussée du totalitarisme.

En effet, un Etat totalitaire constitue une théocratie. Pour conserver le pouvoir, sa caste dirigeante a besoin d’une image d’infaillibilité. Et comme personne n’est infaillible, il faut sans cesse manipuler le passé, réévaluer les principales figures historiques, opérer toutes sortes de suppressions ou de distorsions des faits. Si bien que l’on peut se demander avec inquiétude si « une histoire véridique de notre temps pourra jamais être écrite ». La nouveauté fondamentale, c’est que « le totalitarisme requiert en fait une altération continuelle du passé et à terme le refus de croire à l’existence d’une vérité objective ».

Dans ces conditions, ses propagandistes peuvent bien soutenir, sous prétexte qu’il est impossible d’atteindre la vérité absolue, qu’un gros mensonge n’est point pire qu’un petit mensonge. En fin de compte, pour se perpétuer, une société totalitaire est appelée à instaurer « un système de pensée schizophrénique où les lois du sens commun sont tenues pour valables dans la vie quotidienne et dans certaines sciences exactes, mais peuvent être ignorées par l’homme politique, par l’historien et le sociologue. Il existe déjà un bon nombre incalculable de gens qui trouveraient scandaleux de falsifier un manuel scientifique, mais qui ne verraient aucun inconvénient à falsifier un fait historique ».

Au stade de 1984, l’Etat a acquis le contrôle total de la mémoire collective, qu’il manie à sa guise. D’ailleurs, le métier de Winston Smith — exerçant au sein du Ministère de la Vérité et dont la tâche consiste à supprimer toute trace historique ne correspondant pas à l’Histoire Officielle — ne consiste-t-il pas précisément à réécrire l’histoire ? On peut même dire que la déstructuration de cette mémoire collective constitue l’activité numéro un d’Oceania — l’un des territoires faisant partie des trois régimes totalitaires se partageant le monde. Car le passé est par nature subversif. Le passé, voilà l’ennemi — l’ennemi du parti, de l’Etat, du pouvoir.

En manipulant les archives, l’on manipule les consciences. Il suffit pour cela de « rectifier » le passé en l’alignant sur les nécessités politiques de l’heure. Si d’aventure il arrive que la mémoire individuelle contredise la mémoire collective ainsi façonnée, la contradiction doit être résolue au profit de la seconde par l’élimination de la première. D’où l’utilité de la « double pensée » pour assurer le triomphe de l’orthodoxie. Il n’y a plus ni réalité ni objectivité. Selon les termes même d’O’Brien, « la réalité n’est pas extérieure. La réalité existe dans l’esprit humain et nulle part ailleurs... Tout ce que le parti tient pour la vérité est la vérité ». Par cette perversion totale de l’histoire et de la conscience historique, on atteint le point extrême de la logique totalitaire.

Apathie et soumission garantissent du même coup une société statique et immobile dans laquelle il n’y a plus aucune possibilité de changement. En un sens, c’est la fin de l’histoire, ou du moins de l’histoire conçue comme mouvement et comme devenir. D’où le titre primitivement choisi par Orwell pour son livre : The last man in Europe. Stabilité et solitude se conjuguent pour assurer la pérennité du pouvoir, puisque le but du pouvoir, ce n’est ni le bien-être des citoyens ni même le maintien des privilèges des dirigeants, mais simplement le pouvoir.

(...)

On trouverait, du reste, à propos de la fonction sociale de l’histoire, bien des points communs chez les modèles et les émules d’Orwell. Ainsi, dans le roman de H. G. Wells, When the sleeper wakes (1899), qui a directement inspiré 1984, apparaît l’idée que la classe dirigeante, pour assurer son emprise sur l’avenir, doit à tout prix contrôler le passé à coup de « reconstruction mentale » et de « chirurgie psychique ». Et c’est justement l’incapacité des aristocrates à maîtriser ce passé en la personne du « dormeur » qui cause la révolution décrite par Wells. De même, chez Huxley, dans Le meilleur des mondes, l’histoire se trouve balayée et évacuée, non point parce qu’elle serait dangereuse comme dans 1984, mais parce qu’elle est sans objet : « L’histoire, c’est de la foutaise », tel est l’un des préceptes de Our Ford.

La stabilité sociale acquise grâce au parfait conditionnement par la science enlève, en effet, au passé toute signification, ce qui permet de multiplier manipulations et occultations. Quant à Koestler, qui dans Le zéro et l’infini assimile l’histoire à un oracle moqueur, il lui attribue une place essentielle parmi les instruments de domination du pouvoir, qui se sert d’elle avec cynisme et sans scrupules : « L’histoire nous a appris, écrit Roubachof dans son journal, que souvent les mensonges la servent mieux que la vérité ».

Cependant, dans l’esprit d’Orwell, la déstructuration de l’histoire ne détruit pas seulement la personnalité collective, elle détruit aussi l’individualité personnelle. Car l’être dépourvu de passé se trouve privé de tradition, d’environnement et même du souvenir de l’enfance. Rien n’est plus pathétique chez Winston Smith que sa nostalgie de la nature, des champs et des bois, et plus encore son émotion à se remémorer des comptines à demi-oubliées ou à contempler la beauté d’un presse-papier victorien.

C’est pourquoi Orwell déploie tant d’efforts à restaurer et à légitimer à la fois les valeurs et la valeur du passé. Ce n’est donc pas simplement pour lutter contre l’oubli que se manifeste le besoin d’histoire, c’est également parce que l’avenir a besoin du passé. A cet égard, 1984 constitue une parfaite défense et illustration de la fonction pédagogique et civique de l’histoire. Aujourd’hui comme hier, le livre nous rappelle que la mémoire et l’histoire sont des enjeux essentiels de la liberté de l’esprit, puisque les pouvoirs totalitaires mettent tout en œuvre pour faire oublier le passé et le remodeler à leur guise.

Yukio Mishima and the spirit of a genius based on the soul of history: The last great Japanese writer

Yukio Mishima and the spirit of a genius based on the soul of history: The last great Japanese writer

Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

Japan witnessed many shifting sands since the Meiji Restoration of 1868 based on modernity, liberalism, nationalism, Westernization, reaching out to the past, forging a new future, and other convulsions that ultimately led to a brutal war. In other words, the paths were often contradictory and clashed not only on the political front but also within the soul. Of course, the events of World War Two altered the image of Japan internationally and ultimately enabled America to creep into the psyche of this nation – for good and bad. Hence, the genius of Yukio Mishima is that his books – and thinking – fused the complexities facing individuals in this new world of opportunity – and in the new world of forgetting the past that irked this amazing writer.

In Sun and Steel, Mishima writes, “Was I ignorant, then, when I was seventeen? I think not. I knew everything. A quarter-century’s experience of life since then has added nothing to what I knew. The one difference is that at seventeen I had no ‘realism’.”

If we take these words out of context but relate them to certain ideas held by Mishima, then these worlds can equally equate to the changing landscape of Japan based on skyscrapers and the dilution of faith and philosophy. In other words, maybe Japan had learned everything under the Meiji Restoration based on the hypocrisy of Western, Catholic, and Islamic empires that utilized fear and control at the drop of a hat. Of course, while Islamization followed the Ottomans and Catholicism followed the Spanish – the British view was that you didn’t have to enslave one hundred percent by destroying indigenous faiths. Instead, the essence of the British Empire was to exploit resources at all costs – while destroying the soul of poor indigenous British nationals based on child labor, the workhouse, and a host of other barbaric realities.

This is the world that modern Japan in the Meiji Era woke up to in the nineteenth century. It was a knowledge that exploitation, power, theft, the adulteration of culture, impinging and enslaving the indigenous through various forms outside of chains, controlling resources, and crushing the psyche of others would ultimately benefit the respective ruling elites of Western, Catholic, and Islamic empires. However, for Japan, the same logic they responded to was to become altered based on the changing shifts of time. Hence, Japan was out of step while the international ruling elites utilized their respective hypocrisy, while still controlling wealth and mindsets by utilizing all the negatives of Christianity and Islam to crush the spirit.

Mishima, fearing the soul of Japan was being lost indefinitely based on aspects of the above and the ravages of modernity in defeating the past – would also turn against “words” in time based on his idea of weakness. It is all these convulsions that Mishima sought to express. This is a far cry from modern and relatively mundane writers including Haruki Murakami, Kenzaburo Oe, Banana Yoshimoto, and others, who could never envisage such a world based on being “typical modern souls.”

Mishima said, “If we value so highly the dignity of life, how can we not also value the dignity of death?  No death may be called futile.”

Once more, if we take this out of context but relate it to a psyche that once existed within the body politic of certain Japanese warlords, then Mishima may deem aspects of modern Japan – and modern societies in general – to lack “dignity.” Equally, in the mind of Mishima, many aspects of modernity leads to a “futile” existence based on ignoring the past in relation to culture, society, and history.

Mishima wrote, in The Temple of the Golden Pavilion, “The past does not only draw us back to the past. There are certain memories of the past that have strong steel springs and, when we who live in the present touch them, they are suddenly stretched taut and then they propel us into the future.”

Once more, if these words are taken out of context but relate to ideas held by Mishima, then it appears that the future and past are interwoven providing the past re-emerges. Of course, the degree of the past and its hold on the future is open to interpretation. Yet, in the eyes of Mishima a nation can’t truly be propelled if the past is negated and the new God now becomes modernity, the work ethic without a greater goal, a robotic existence based on national insurance numbers, the usurpation of tax by a self-centered central state, and the destruction of high culture for a quick fix based on trash. Therefore, the final days of Mishima were fused with all the convulsions that he witnessed personally – and based on the history he read – and a changing Japan that he feared would destroy the soul of this nation.

Mishima wrote, “A samurai is a total human being, whereas a man who is completely absorbed in his technical skill has degenerated into a ‘function’, one cog in a machine.”

In a past article, I said, “In Mishima’s short memoir, Sun and Steel, it is clear that his obsession during the last ten years was a fusion of writing and bodybuilding to an extreme.  This book was published in 1968 and it reflected the psyche of Mishima in this period of his life. He now fused the pen with physical training and concepts of the new Japan betraying the old and glorified Japan. The book Sun and Steel relates to Mishima throwing away his earlier novel Confessions of a Mask. After all, Mishima was now building up to be a man of strength. In other words, the Nietzsche ubermensch was born within the ego and spirit of Mishima.”

Overall, while parts of the Islamic world are crushing freedom and writers are being butchered by Sunni Islamists in Bangladesh; while in the opposite direction the West is in a self-imposed machinery of narrowness based on the need to follow the politically correct narrative; then Mishima is an individual who is free from not only this world based on his dramatic death but, equally important, this great writer was free during his time on this earth despite all the trappings of modernity that could have crushed his soul. Therefore, in comparison with other contemporary writers in Japan, it is abundantly clear that Mishima is the last great writer who remains unmatched based on his literature and the power of his psyche in the last moments of his life.

 

Modern Tokyo News is part of the Modern Tokyo Times group

http://moderntokyotimes.com Modern Tokyo Times – International News and Japan News

https://moderntokyonews.com Modern Tokyo News – Tokyo News and International News

PLEASE JOIN ON TWITTER

https://twitter.com/MTT_News Modern Tokyo Times

PLEASE JOIN ON FACEBOOK

https://www.facebook.com/moderntokyotimes

Bulletin célinien n°402

Sommaire : 

- Entretien avec Guy Mazeline (1968)

– Automne 1932 : Céline et le Goncourt

– Dessinateurs de Céline

– Le retour de Lucien Rebatet

Jean Rouaud (bis)

Jean Rouaud, titulaire d’une chronique hebdomadaire dans L’Humanité,  a encore frappé ¹.  « Tout ce qui est excessif est insignifiant » (Talleyrand). Dans le genre, Rouaud excelle, jugez en : « Concernant le nazi de Meudon [sic], il faut être sot ou de mauvaise foi, l’un n’empêchant pas l’autre,  pour  prétendre qu’une cloison étanche empêcherait la contamination des romans par les pamphlets. Comme si la forme était une enveloppe vierge, et non le gabarit d’une morale. On pourrait ainsi en toute impunité crier au génie pour les romans et à l’abomination pour les pamphlets ? De la littérature sous préservatif ?  On a vu  comment ce refoulé,  soixante-dix ans après Auschwitz, avait refait surface. On a assisté à cette renaissance impensable, à la banalisation progressive des thèses du FN relayées par ses compagnons de déroute : Soral, Dieudonné, Buisson, Zemmour, Ménard, Wauquiez, la Droite forte, Sens commun, Causeur et les idiots inutiles. »  Amalgame  mirobolant  qui  met la sioniste Élisabeth Lévy, directrice de Causeur, dans le même camp (du Mal) que l’auteur de Bagatelles. Nul doute qu’elle appréciera ! Tout cela est tellement bouffon que je m’abstiendrai de commenter plus avant.

Cela étant, c’est sans doute l’occasion de souligner qu’en effet Céline constitue un bloc et qu’il est vain de vouloir dissocier les écrits dits « polémiques » du reste de l’œuvre. D’autant qu’à sa manière Voyage au bout de la nuit est aussi une satire. Et que dire de Féerie pour une autre fois   qui  est  également une  diatribe contre l’épuration et tous ceux qui, dans le petit monde littéraire, tenaient alors le haut du pavé ? Dont Claudel épinglé à la fois pour l’opportunisme de ses odes à Pétain, puis à de Gaulle, et pour son appartenance au conseil d’administration d’une société qui fabriquait pendant la guerre des moteurs d’avion pour l’Allemagne. Les romans de Céline ne sont donc pas “contaminés” par les pamphlets mais, étant l’œuvre du même auteur, reflètent peu ou prou ce qu’il pense. Devinette. De quel livre est extraite cette profession de foi contre le métissage : « Moi qui suis extrêmement raciste, je me méfie, et l’avenir me donnera raison, des extravagances, des croisements… »  Bagatelles ? L’École ? Eh non, c’est dans D’un château l’autre.  J’observe que, si Rouaud est sévère pour l’idéologue, jamais il ne se prononce sur l’artiste. C’est que, pour lui, l’un et l’autre se confondent. Un écrivain qui pense mal doit nécessairement être rejeté dans les ténèbres extérieures. Le raisonnement est d’un simplisme confondant : si un auteur a pu exprimer des idées “nauséabondes”, le style qu’il a utilisé est forcément délétère. Comme je l’ai déjà écrit ici, il eût été préférable, pour sa mémoire, que Céline – je ne cite que cet exemple – s’abstînt sous l’Occupation d’adresser des lettres-articles à des officines de délation, tel Au Pilori dont les rédacteurs suscitaient même le mépris d’un Cousteau ². Céline n’avait d’ailleurs aucune illusion sur l’intégrité de ces folliculaires mais considérait leurs journaux comme des “colonnes Morris” où il “coll[ait] une lettre”. Ce n’en est pas moins désolant. Mais cela relève du domaine moral et non du jugement esthétique que l’on doit porter sur une œuvre qui est, quoiqu’en disent ses contempteurs, essentiellement littéraire et non politique.

1. Jean Rouaud, « Devoir d’inventaire », L’Humanité, 12 septembre 2017. Voir aussi notre commentaire paru dans le BC de mai 2017, p. 3 : [ http://bulletincelinien.com/jean-rouaud ]
2. Il le qualifiait de « méprisable journal de chantage ». Cf. Marc Laudelout, « Rebatet et Cousteau jugent Céline », Le Bulletin célinien, n° 379, novembre 2015, p. 7-15.

Ernst Jünger par Georges FELTIN-TRACOL

Ernst Jünger

par Georges FELTIN-TRACOL

Ex: http://www.europemaxima.com

Ernst Jünger aura presque traversé trois siècles. Né en 1895, il décède en 1998 à quelques années seulement de ce XXI^e siècle qu’il pressentait « titanesque ». En 103 ans d’existence, cet Allemand francophone et francophile qui se convertit au catholicisme au soir de sa vie, vécut plusieurs existences.

Ce jeune « cœur aventureux » rejoint d’abord en 1911 le mouvement Wandervogel (« Oiseaux migrateurs »), un vaste mouvement de jeunes épris de randonnées et de nature. Avant d’être renvoyé en Allemagne à la fin de l’année 1913, il fut pendant deux mois membre de la Légion étrangère. Engagé volontaire dès le déclenchement de la Grande Guerre et bientôt six fois blessé, Jünger découvre le déchaînement de la Technique et est fait chevalier de l’ordre Pour le Mérite, la plus haute décoration militaire allemande, dont il deviendra le chancelier en 1975. Rédacteur national-révolutionnaire de la Révolution conservatrice proche de certains cercles nationaux-bolcheviks, Jünger théorise la Figure du Travailleur en 1932 et se lie avec Carl Schmitt et Martin Heidegger. Réticent envers l’hitlérisme qu’il critique implicitement dans son roman allégorique, Sur les Falaises de marbre (1939), Jünger est mobilisé et séjourne pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale à Paris, excepté un trimestre passé au Caucase. Inquiété par la Gestapo, le célèbre écrivain ancien combattant bénéficie cependant de la bienveillance de certains dirigeants nationaux-socialistes.

Le III^e Reich vaincu, les Alliés lui interdisent pendant trois ans toute parution parce qu’il refuse de remplir l’inquisitorial questionnaire de dénazification. En retrait des événements, Ernst Jünger poursuit sa réflexion sur le pouvoir, élabore successivement les Figures du Rebelle, puis de l’Anarque, fait des expériences avec certaines drogues et s’adonne à sa passion : l’entomologie. Peu à peu, il retrouve la notoriété et reçoit prix, médailles, honneurs et consécrations.

Ernst Jünger appartient incontestablement à ces lettrés allemands qui s’enracinent dans l’âme germanique afin de mieux la dépasser et ainsi accéder au psyché européen. C’est ce qu’avait compris Dominique Venner dans son Ernst Jünger. Un autre destin européen (Éditions du Rocher, coll. « Biographie », 2009). Venner oublie néanmoins d’évoquer la sortie en 1962 de L’État universel dans lequel Jünger ne cache pas ses intentions mondialistes. « Un mouvement d’importance mondiale, y écrit-il, est, de toute évidence, en quête d’un centre. […] Il s’efforce d’évoluer des États mondiaux à l’État universel, à l’ordonnance terrestre ou globale (L’État universel suivi de La mobilisation totale, Gallimard, coll. « Tel », 1990, p. 40). » Pour Jünger, la saturation maximale de la Technique et l’assomption du Travailleur aboutissent à l’État universel. Pourtant, l’intrigue du roman de 1977, Eumeswil, se déroule dans une ère post-historique survenue après l’effondrement de l’État universel et la renaissance des cités-États.

Ernst Jünger se moque bien de la forme institutionnelle de l’Europe. Dans Le contemplateur solitaire (1975), il avoue aimer les paysages méditerranéens de l’Italie, de l’Espagne et de la Provence. L’ouvrage le plus européiste d’Ernst Jünger reste toutefois La Paix, ébauché en 1942 et intellectuellement proche des futurs conjurés du 20 juillet 1944. Cet essai prône le rassemblement des peuples européens. « Voici ou jamais venue l’heure de la réunion, celle où l’Europe, se fondant sur le mariage de ses peuples, est en demeure de se donner sa grandeur et sa Constitution (La Paix, La Table Ronde, coll. « La petite vermillon », 2012, p. 71). » Il juge que « le courant tout-puissant du devenir, le règne de l’esprit du monde, tend vers la stabilité. Nous avons le droit d’espérer que la paix qui terminera cette discorde sera d’une durée et d’une fécondité plus grandes que la précédente. Car l’évolution tendait alors à la formation de démocraties nationales, donc à la destruction de ce qui restait encore de structure unitaire en Europe. Cette fois, la constitution des empires pousse à la synthèse, un regroupement général (Idem, pp. 68 – 69) ».

Les vues de l’Européen Ernst Jünger gardent une grande actualité en pleine crise catalane et après les référendums victorieux sur l’autonomie accrue en Lombardie et en Vénétie. « L’Europe peut devenir une patrie sans détruire pour autant les pays et les terres natales. […] Dans la nouvelle demeure, on aura plus de liberté encore pour être breton, guelfe, wende, basque, crétois ou sicilien (Id., p. 109). » Pour Jünger, « il faut que l’Europe devienne la partenaire des grands empires qui se créent sur la planète et tendent à leur forme définitive. Il faut qu’elle participe à la liberté supérieure qui, ailleurs, est déjà conquise sur l’espace et sur l’insuffisance de l’héritage. Mais en vérité la déclaration d’indépendance de l’Europe est un acte plus spirituel encore. Elle suppose que ce continent s’affranchisse de ses conceptions pétrifiées, de ses haines invétérées, faisant de la victoire un bienfait pour tous (Id., pp. 81 – 82) ». Ernst Jünger estimait qu’« en fondant la nouvelle Europe, il s’agit de donner, à un espace divisé par l’évolution historique, son unité géopolitique (Id., p. 105) ».

Incarnation héroïque du noble esprit européen, Ernst Jünger est bien un très grand Allemand d’Europe.

Au revoir et dans quatre semaine !

Georges Feltin-Tracol

• Chronique n° 11, « Les grandes figures identitaires européennes », lue le 7 novembre 2017 à Radio-Courtoisie au « Libre-Journal des Européens » de Thomas Ferrier.

Cette entrée a été publiée dans Chronique des grandes figures identitaires européennes, POUR LA PLUS GRANDE EUROPE… DE L'ESPRIT !. Sauvegarder le permalien.

Yukio Mishima’s The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea

A. Graham

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

The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea remains imprinted upon the mind long after one has read it. It is one of Mishima’s shorter novels, but its tightly-woven narration heightens the intensity of the atmosphere, simulating a taut bowstring upon readying an arrow.

The novel takes place in Yokohama, Japan’s leading port city, during the American occupation, and unfolds mainly from the perspective of a 13-year-old boy by the name of Noboru Kuroda. Noboru lives alone with his mother Fusako, who runs a luxury shop that sells Western-style clothing; his father died when he was eight years old. He belongs to a gang of six precocious young boys who espouse a form of nihilism and hold mainstream society in contempt, reserving especial scorn for fathers.

Noboru is fascinated with the sea and ships. He convinces his mother to take him to a port, where a sailor by the name of Ryuji Tsukazaki, second mate aboard a freighter ship, shows him around his ship. The reader is introduced to Ryuji when Fusako invites him to the Kurodas’ home and Noboru observes the two embracing through a hole in the wall behind a chest in his bedroom.

Ryuji is rough-hewn, muscular, and ruggedly masculine. As a young man he was drawn to the restlessness and vastness of the sea and its rejection of the static confinement of landbound strictures. He was convinced that glory lay in store for him: “At twenty, he had been passionately certain: there’s just one thing I’m destined for and that’s glory; that’s right, glory!” (15). He wanted to lead a life of danger and adventure. Thus his vision of glory was inseparable from the perilous nature of seafaring: “They were consubstantial: glory and the capsized world. He longed for a storm” (15).

Ryuji becomes a hero to Noboru. As a young boy growing up without a father in postwar Japan, Noboru looks to him as a role model and worships the ideal of glory that he represents. He is in awe of Ryuji and likens him to “a fantastic beast that’s just come out of the sea all dripping wet” (41).

Ryuji leaves when his ship sets sail again, and his return marks the beginning of Part Two of the novel. Upon returning, Ryuji proposes to Fusako and the two agree to marry, which enrages Noboru. By marrying Fusako and embracing a life of domesticity, Ryuji is forced to sacrifice life at sea. He realizes this and at one point briefly questions his choice:

Are you really going to give it up? The feeling of the sea, the dark, drunken feeling that unearthly rolling always brings? . . . Are you going to give up the life which has detached from the world, kept you remote, impelled you towards the pinnacle of manliness? The secret yearning for death. The glory beyond and the death beyond. Everything was ‘beyond,’ wrong or right, had always been ‘beyond.’ (87)

Noboru becomes disillusioned with his former hero. Having turned his back on a life of glory, Ryuji forsakes his status as a hero of mythical proportions and becomes an everyday sort of fellow. This is foreshadowed in a scene in which he encounters Noboru one afternoon and calls out to him while flashing a forced grin. Here Ryuji comes across as a sheepish, almost pitiable figure attempting to endear himself to the boys.

Noboru informs the gang of Ryuji’s engagement to Fusako, and they decide it is necessary to “make that sailor a hero again” (107). There is a single means through which this can be achieved. The boys lure Ryuji to a secluded area under the pretense of getting him to talk about his adventures at sea. Ryuji begins to muse about the life he left behind. As he speaks, the immensity of his decision hits him just before he meets his end: “Now only embers remained. Now began a peaceful life, a life bereft of motion” (142).

The prose in the final scene is subtle and understated, which lends it a haunting effect. Mishima also refrains from inserting moral judgments that would color the reader’s interpretation of the deed, recalling Ryuji’s description of the sea’s indifference to human moral schemes.

Like many of Mishima’s works, the novel is essentially an allegory for the decline of traditional Japanese culture and the masculine spirit of the samurai amid the onslaught of Westernization and modernity.

Fusako embodies both the Westernization of Japan and the essence of the feminine. She leads a thoroughly Western lifestyle and decorates her home with Western furnishings, wears Western clothing, etc. She also represents the mentality of the modern West, one which prioritizes economic security, stability, and contentment above all other values. Such values are inherently feminine, eschewing adventure and heroism for comfort and safety. Fusako symbolizes the archetypal feminine, that which is earthbound and static, while Ryuji’s youthful aspirations represent celestial masculinity, that which strives to attain glory and greatness. Female seduction represents a woman’s attempt to lure a man into her domain and drag him down to earth, thereby derailing his quest for glory. Thus the gang scorns fatherhood because they realize that their fathers were each forced to compromise their individual quests for greatness and make concessions to societal custom.

The sense of glory that Noboru and the gang see in Ryuji is the antithesis of bourgeois, modern Western values, which in Mishima’s view were eroding traditional Japanese notions of honor. Thus the ideal of glory that Noboru reveres symbolizes the martial ethos of the samurai, and Noboru and the gang serve to enforce bushidō, the samurai code.

Yet Ryuji himself falls short of fulfilling this ideal. The choice between land and sea that lies before him and his ambivalence in the face of this dilemma is a reflection of the uncertain identity of postwar Japan, a country that over the course of a single century had transitioned from a feudal state into a global military power and was forced to grapple with how to reconcile its indigenous culture with modernity. Ultimately Japan pursued the course of Westernization, reflected in Ryuji’s rejection of his former life.

Thus Ryuji’s rejection of his life at sea in order to marry Fusako represents a surrender to the West/modernity as well as to the feminine. Faced with the fall of his hero, Noboru comes to believe that Ryuji can only be redeemed through dying a heroic death. The gang’s final act symbolizes an attempt to halt Westernization and restore heroism and glory to Japan. In this sense the gang parallels Mishima’s militia, the Tatenokai (“Shield Society”). On the morning of November 25, 1970, Mishima and four Tatenokai members seized control of a Japanese military base and attempted to enact a coup that would restore prewar imperial rule in what is now known as the Mishima Incident. The coup failed but ultimately served as a symbolic ritual (like the murder of Ryuji) that set the stage for Mishima’s suicide.

The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea is far more than an exploration of adolescent mischief gone awry. It illustrates that civilizations fluctuate between two opposite poles: a feminine spirit of bourgeois complacency and mediocrity and a masculine spirit that valorizes glory and greatness. The difference between the two is perhaps most evident in their respective attitudes toward death. In societies characterized by the former, an early or unnatural death is considered the worst fate that can befall a man. Many modern people expend an enormous amount toward artificially prolonging the degenerative state of old age for as long as possible. In societies characterized by the latter, it is held that weakness and dishonor are far worse than death. In such societies it is regarded as noble and heroic to sacrifice one’s life for a great cause, the “Grand Cause” that Ryuji invokes while reminiscing upon his life at sea (142). Mishima sought to do the same and intentionally committed seppuku when he was in his prime.

The modern world is defined by that which Fusako embodies: a desire for contentment and economic security at the expense of glory and heroism. In Greek mythology, sailors who were lured to land by the seductive song of the Sirens invariably met their end. Likewise the prospect of easy living appears alluring in times of national uncertainty but in the long run leads to civilizational decline. Thus the final act of the novel represents not the depravity of disturbed teenagers but rather the role of gang violence in enforcing justice and restoring order to a disturbed world.

Beauty & Destruction in Yukio Mishima’s The Temple of the Golden Pavilion

By A. Graham

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

In 1950, the Temple of the Golden Pavilion (Kinkaku-ji) in Kyoto was burned to the ground by a young monk. The temple had been built in the fourteenth century and was the finest example of the architecture of the Muromachi period. Covered in gold leaf and crowned with a copper-gold phoenix, it projected an image of majesty and serene beauty. It had been designated a National Treasure in 1897 and was considered a national symbol in Japan. Transcripts of the monk’s trial indicate that the temple’s beauty consumed him with envy, and the reminder of his own ugliness engendered in him a hatred of everything that was beautiful. The temple haunted his imagination and became the object of his obsession. This neurotic fixation finally compelled him to destroy it.

This inspired Mishima to write his novel The Temple of the Golden Pavilion. He uses the incident as a basic framework upon which he crafts both a psychological portrait tracing the protagonist’s descent into madness and obsession and a philosophical meditation on the nature of beauty, time, and morality. The novel is a masterpiece and stands as one of Mishima’s greatest works.

The narrator, Mizoguchi, is physically weak, ugly in appearance, and afflicted with a stutter. This isolates him from others, and he becomes a solitary, brooding child. He first learns of the Golden Temple from his father, a frail country priest, and the image of the temple and its beauty becomes for him an idée fixe. The young Mizoguchi worships his vision of temple, but there are omens of what is to come. When a naval cadet visits his village and notices his stutter, Mizoguchi is resentful and retaliates by defacing the cadet’s prized scabbard. From the beginning, he realizes that the beauty of the temple represents an unattainable ideal: “if beauty really did exist there, it meant that my own existence was a thing estranged from beauty” (21). Over time, this seed in his mind metastasizes and begins to consume him.

Like many youths who are afflicted with both physical defects and an overactive imagination, Mizoguchi is prone to delusions of grandeur, imagining himself as a great artist with a special destiny. He takes pride in being misunderstood by others. This sense of alienation feeds his obsession throughout the book.

Mizoguchi’s reaction upon first encountering the temple is one of disappointment, but this changes after he comes across a miniature model of it enclosed in a glass case and realizes that the temple represents an ideal that can be incarnated within his mind at both infinitely small and infinitely large scales. The image of the temple often acquires a boundless and all-encompassing form in his imagination: “It filled the world like some tremendous music, and this music itself became sufficient to occupy the entire meaning of the world. The Golden Temple . . . had now completely engulfed me and had allowed me to be situated within its structure” (125). Conversely, at times he envisions the temple as a miniature model that he is able to possess and control. This duality reflects the tension both between remaining engulfed within the temple or becoming integrated into the real world and between the temple’s hold upon him and his urge to destroy it (Paul Schrader’s biopic Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters contains a dramatization of parts of the novel, in which at one point Mizoguchi holds a model of the temple and crushes it with his hands).

Upon entering the Zen Buddhist priesthood and becoming an acolyte of the temple, Mizoguchi’s obsession intensifies. He hopes that the temple will be destroyed by American air raids, and he along with it: “It became my secret dream that all Kyoto should be wrapped in flames” (47). But when the temple still remains unscathed by the end of the Second World War, Mizoguchi finds that its apparent indestructibility takes on a threatening quality, as if the temple’s beauty had descended from heaven and imposed its divine authority upon the physical world. The transcendent ideal of beauty embodied by the temple increasingly fills him with unease and bitterness. The temple’s very existence serves as an eternal, immutable reminder of his own inferiority and the ideals that elude his grasp. His eventual burning of the temple recalls an incident toward the beginning of the book in which a girl called Uiko is shot by her deserter boyfriend when he learns of her betrayal and realizes that he no longer truly possesses her. The metaphysical and quasi-erotic union with the temple that Mizoguchi dreamt of attaining as he perished along with it while Kyoto went up in flames is impossible. It can only be approximated if Mizoguchi destroys the temple.

All human beings possess a will to power in the Nietzschean sense. This finds its highest expression in self-actualization and self-mastery, and in the achievements of great artists, thinkers, and leaders, but in its lower forms is embodied by the desire of defective beings to assert themselves at all costs. This is manifested in Mizoguchi’s desire to destroy the temple, which intensifies in proportion to his realization that he will never be able to possess it or approach its beauty.

Two years later, Mizoguchi is recommended by Father Dosen (the Superior of the Temple) to attend Otani University, where he befriends a clubfooted boy by the name of Kashiwagi. While the two are on a walk near the university, they spot a girl approaching them. Kashiwagi uses the opportunity to demonstrate to Mizoguchi how he seduces women. He convulses his body and purposefully trips on his clubfeet, falling to the ground. Then he cries out to the girl in an attempt to win her sympathy by drawing attention to his suffering.

Mizoguchi attempts to imitate Kashiwagi’s tactic and make love to a girl but finds that he is impotent. For his mind still remains fixed upon the ideal of beauty represented by the Golden Temple, which renders him incapable of exploiting his disability to his advantage: “Then the Golden Temple appeared before me . . . . It was this structure that now came and stood between me and the life at which I was aiming” (125). As the novel advances this conflict becomes increasingly pronounced.

Later on, Mizoguchi tells Kashiwagi about the Zen koan that Father Dosen read to the priests on the day of Japan’s defeat. The koan involves a priest, Nansen, who settles a dispute over a kitten between two groups within his temple. He declares that he will kill the kitten unless anyone speaks; when met with no response, he cuts the kitten in two. Nansen’s chief disciple, Joshu, reacts by removing his shoes and placing them on his head upon hearing of the incident. Kashiwagi offers his own interpretation and suggests that the kitten represented beauty, which Nansen sought to destroy. He remarks: “Beauty is like a decayed tooth. It rubs against one’s tongue, it hangs there, hurting one, insisting on its own existence. Finally it gets so that one cannot stand the pain and one goes to the dentist to have the tooth extracted” (144). In his view Joshu’s act of placing his shoes on his head was a way of satirizing Nansen’s solution: Joshu realized that destroying an object of beauty was a futile act of desperation and could not eradicate the ideal of beauty itself.

During this conversation, Kashiwagi creates a flower arrangement in the traditional Japanese style, composed of irises and cattails that he persuaded Mizoguchi to steal from the temple grounds. Shortly thereafter, he is visited by the woman who instructed him in this art. After he coldly informs her that her instruction is no longer needed and he wishes never to see her again, she smashes the vase of flowers, and Kashiwagi then hits her face. The manner in which this tranquil scene abruptly escalated into violence exemplifies a tension between elegance and beauty on the one hand and brutality and violence on the other that lies at the core of Japanese culture. An undercurrent of potential brutality lurks beneath Japanese refinement and decorum. The two are not separate but rather closely intertwined. (A modern example would be the deviant and often sadomasochistic sexuality prevalent in Japanese anime and manga, which coexists alongside traditional Confucian mores.) Thus Kashiwagi remarks earlier while he and Mizoguchi are walking about that “it’s on a beautiful spring afternoon like this that people suddenly become cruel” (106). Mishima discusses this theme in a clip from an English-language interview ^[4] he gave in 1970:

You can easily find two contradictory characteristics of Japanese cultures, or Japanese characters. One is elegance, one is brutality. These two characteristics are very tightly combined sometimes . . . Sometimes we are too sensitive about defilement, or elegance, or a sense of beauty, or the aesthetic side. Sometimes we get tired of it. Sometimes we need a sudden explosion to make us free from it.[1]

Mizoguchi’s immolation of the temple can be seen in a similar light. It was a “sudden explosion” that erupted from his obsession with beauty. But amidst the malaise of postwar Japanese society, the dynamic between beauty and violence took on a different form. Mizoguchi’s act is inseparable from this context.

Mishima believed that postwar Japan was characterized above all by spiritual emptiness. Until 1945, Japanese emperors were officially regarded as direct descendants of the sun goddess Amaterasu. With Japan’s defeat and the signing of the Humanity Declaration, Emperor Hirohito renounced his claim to divinity. Mishima rebuked the Emperor for this and saw his renunciation of divinity as a capitulation to secular Western values. In his view the loss of the Emperor’s divine identity was the ultimate symbol of the disintegration and hollowing out of Japanese civilization in the face of modernity.

Mizoguchi’s obsession with the temple represents an attempt to fill this void. But Mizoguchi realizes that the temple symbolizes something fundamentally alien both to his nature and to postwar Japanese society in general. The temple was inextricably linked with the history and iconography of Imperial Japan. Initially Mizoguchi sees it as a refuge from the nihilistic apathy and emptiness of the society in which he lives. Yet the more he broods upon this alienation, the more resentful and vengeful he becomes. Thus the destruction of the temple in part represents a subconscious attempt to eradicate what remained of Imperial Japanese civilization. By the end of the novel, Mizoguchi dreams of bringing about nationwide anarchy: “When the Golden Temple has been burned down . . . the world of these fellows will be transformed, the golden rule of their lives will be turned upside down, their train timetables will be thrown into utter confusion, their laws will be without effect” (185).

The novel possesses a political significance on a broader level in that it sheds light on the psychology behind modern leftism. This is best articulated when Mizoguchi voices his hope that the temple will be destroyed in American air raids: “What I dreamed of was something like a huge heavenly compressor that would bring down disasters, cataclysms and superhuman tragedies, that would crush beneath it all human beings and all objects, irrespective of their ugliness or their beauty” (47). Such represents egalitarianism taken to its logical conclusion. It is impossible to create equality by raising everyone to an equal level. Complete equality can only be achieved by cutting down “tall poppies” and eliminating standards altogether. Mizoguchi’s fantasy finds a parallel in modern progressive ideology.

There is also a semi-autobiographical dimension to the novel. As a child, Mishima was weak, sickly, and smaller than average. He was raised during his formative years by his grandmother, who kept him indoors and forbade him from playing with other boys or engaging in rough play. Like Mizoguchi, the young Mishima was introspective, solitary, and obsessed with the ideal of beauty. Mizoguchi mentions that “when action was needed, [he] was always absorbed in words” (12), which recalls Mishima’s description of his childhood in Sun and Steel. However, rather than lashing out at society on account of his physical inferiority, Mishima sought to strengthen himself and became a bodybuilder as well as a skilled practitioner of Japanese kendo (swordsmanship).

Individuals like Mizoguchi are thus faced with a choice. They can seek either to destroy hierarchical value systems or to uphold transcendent ideals like beauty and greatness and aspire toward them.

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

URL to article: https://www.counter-currents.com/2017/11/beauty-and-destruction-in-yukio-mishimas-the-temple-of-the-golden-pavilion/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: https://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/GoldenPavilionInWinter.jpg

[2] Image: https://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/220px-Burned_Kinkaku.jpg

[3] Image: https://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/GoldenPavilion1.jpg

[4] English-language interview: https://youtu.be/DPAZQ6mhRcU

Alexandru Petria: «la Roumanie aurait tout à gagner à rejoindre le Groupe de Visegrád»

Ex: https://visegradpost.com

Roumanie – Alexandru Petria, poète, prosateur et journaliste roumain : « la Roumanie aurait tout à gagner à rejoindre le Groupe de Visegrád ».

Modeste Schwartz a écrit récemment à Alexandru Petria et s’en est suivi une discussion amicale entre ces deux auteurs décalés, nageant à contre-courant et trublions reconnus du web roumain. Une discussion transformée en entretien pour le Visegrád Post.

---

Modeste Schwartz : Pour autant que je sache, ta carrière politique a commencé en décembre 1989, lorsque tu es descendu dans la rue pour renverser la dictature de N. Ceaușescu : une révolution (on l’a su plus tard) mise en scène de l’extérieur, mais qui a tout de même laissé pas mal de morts sur le pavé. Ceaușescu a été exécuté, mais toi, tu es resté révolutionnaire, et aujourd’hui, 27 ans plus tard, nous te retrouvons (virtuellement) « dans la rue » : après de nombreux blocages injustifiés de ton compte, tu as quitté Facebook, et postes désormais sur le réseau vKontakte, dans le cadre de ton opposition non-dénuée de risques à un nouveau consensus de type totalitaire. Peux-tu nous raconter comment ça s’est passé ?

Alexandru Petria : C’est vrai, j’ai risqué ma vie en 1989 ; j’avais 21 ans ; je l’ai fait parce que la situation de la Roumanie sous Ceaușescu semblait être sans issue. Le niveau de vie était désastreux, on n’avait aucune liberté de parole ou de circulation. En tant qu’écrivain, et comme j’ai un style de vie assez simple, ce qui me touchait le plus, c’était l’absence de liberté d’expression. Et c’est ce qui recommence à me toucher en ce moment, avec ce qui se passe sur Facebook, qui me censure pour enfreinte au politiquement correct.

Sous Ceaușescu, nous rêvions de liberté, et à présent, nous avons, hélas, à nouveau l’occasion d’aspirer à la liberté, devant une UE qui bafoue les droits de l’homme. Comme je l’ai écrit ailleurs, tout se passe comme dans le célèbre roman de George R. R. Martin L’Agonie de la lumière, dans lequel une planète s’enfonce dans l’abîme en perdant peu à peu sa lumière : la Roumanie et, dans une certaine mesure, l’Europe toute entière, se sont engagées dans une trajectoire d’autodestruction. Je me demande où il nous serait encore loisible de cultiver des idéaux et des rêves. Et si ces derniers peuvent encore sauver quoi que ce soit. La vague des migrants déferlant sur notre continent, ajoutée à la réglementation infinie de l’existence, qui prétend légiférer même sur la longueur des concombres vendus au marché, nous montrent une UE de plus en plus semblable à l’URSS. Dans cette UE, notre rôle, à nous roumains, c’est principalement de torcher les vieux, d’être ouvriers du bâtiment sur les chantiers et d’absorber les surplus de production. Nous sommes devenus un pays sans voix, incapable de défendre ses intérêts. Il est impossible de ne pas remarquer que le meilleur de la classe entrepreneuriale autochtone a été liquidé presque intégralement. Comment cela s’est fait, quelles étaient les dimensions et la qualité de cette classe – c’est un autre débat. Il est impossible de ne pas remarquer que l’enseignement est devenu une honte institutionnalisée, une presse à diplômes aberrante, produisant pas mal de docteurs en ceci ou cela incapables d’écrire un roumain correct. Or, privés d’enseignement, nous nous préparons un avenir handicapé. Il est impossible de ne pas remarquer que la Roumanie n’a pas de classe politique, mais une armée d’escrocs, d’arnaqueurs répartis en partis sans aucun projet pour le pays. Il est impossible de ne pas remarquer que la presse n’est plus une presse, infiltrée comme elle l’est par des agents sous couverture ou par des individus qui n’ont aucune idée de ce métier. Et si on le remarque, il se passe quoi ? Qui a des solutions ? Il faudrait passer le bulldozer dans chaque domaine, comme avec les maisons instables, construites selon les plans d’architectes hallucinés. Mais qui va conduire le bulldozer ? On sent une atmosphère d’avant-guerre – et que ne donnerais-je pour me tromper ! … La bureaucratie de l’UE et les dictats verbeux de l’Allemagne (qui, ne l’oublions pas, a déjà fait le malheur du monde à deux reprises !) sont en passe de pulvériser le projet européen. Et la Roumanie s’éteint, avec une lourde complicité de la part des Roumains eux-mêmes.

Je pense avoir été suffisamment explicite.

MS : L’aspect le plus ironique de l’histoire, c’est qu’en 1989, tu as risqué ta vie au nom d’un idéal de liberté que tu identifiais à l’époque plus ou moins à la doctrine politique libérale, pour aujourd’hui te retrouver dans notre camp, le camp des « illibéraux ». Qu’a-t-il bien pu t’arriver – ou arriver au libéralisme ?

Alexandru Petria : Cette ironie, c’est l’ironie de l’histoire, rendue possible par le fait que la population est majoritairement constituée d’analphabètes fonctionnels, soumis au lavage de cerveau ou incultes. Leur mémoire est courte, ils oublient les leçons du passé. Et je ne parle pas seulement de la Roumanie : c’est un problème global. Le néolibéralisme d’aujourd’hui n’a pas grand-chose à voir avec le libéralisme en lequel moi j’ai cru. Je n’estime pas avoir changé de camp ou rejoint tel ou tel camp, en-dehors d’alliance provisoires ; je suis un adepte du dignitisme, idéologie que je m’efforce d’élaborer en ce moment. Il est caractérisé par trois aspects principaux : 1. L’allocation de dignité, un revenu assuré par l’Etat à chaque citoyen de la naissance à la mort, de telle sorte que les besoins élémentaires ne limitent pas sa liberté. 2. La démocratie directe par vote électronique, qui implique la dissolution des parlements, les gens n’ayant plus besoin d’intermédiaires (de députés) pour représenter leurs intérêts. 3. La souveraineté des Etats comme principe non-négociable.

Chaque Etat doit avoir le contrôle de ses banques, de son industrie d’armement, de son industrie pharmaceutique, de l’énergie et des réserves d’eau. Je suis souverainiste, pas nationaliste ethnique. Le dignitisme prône une interpénétration intelligente de l’Etat et du capital privé. A force d’accumuler de l’expérience, je me suis formé ma propre vision du monde.

MS : Pour ceux de nos lecteurs (hors de Roumanie) qui n’ont jamais entendu parler de toi, je précise que tu es un poète vétéran, mais absolument pas académique ou « à l’ancienne », auteur, dans les années 2010, d’un come-back médiatique tonitruant, fruit de la décision que tu as prise (très audacieuse dans l’univers culturel roumain d’il y a dix ans) de poster sur Facebook tes poèmes inédits, t’évadant ainsi de l’ésotérisme suranné des cénacles poétiques et des éditions à tirage limité. Or ces poèmes sont pour beaucoup des œuvres pour lesquelles, encore aujourd’hui, il serait difficile de trouver un éditeur en Roumanie, en raison de la franchise avec laquelle elles abordent une thématique sexuelle exploitée sans périphrases, avec, pourrait-on dire, une certaine gauloiserie. On peut donc dire que – sans pour autant être un athée – tu n’as rien d’une grenouille de bénitier. Or, dans la Roumanie d’aujourd’hui, l’opposition au programme LGBT est principalement le fait de groupes ouvertement religieux (soit orthodoxes traditionalistes, soit néo-protestants), généralement aussi caractérisés par un mode de vie et un style discursif nettement plus pudibond. On peut donc dire que tu représentes une forme atypique d’opposition ?

Alexandru Petria : Dès 1991-1992, j’ai publié deux recueils de poèmes accueillis favorablement par la critique, mais par la suite, je ne suis revenu à la littérature qu’au bout de près de vingt ans, consacrés au journalisme. Comme tu l’as dit, je suis revenu à la surface en postant au début mes nouveaux poèmes sur Facebook, à une époque où un tel geste restait scandaleux. Puis, j’ai recommencé à publier dans des revues et sous forme de volumes. J’ai été le premier écrivain roumain à procéder de la sorte, chose qui, au début, m’a attiré une avalanche de reproches, après quoi les gens ont pris l’habitude, et m’ont manifesté pas mal de sympathie. A posteriori, j’estime avoir fait le bon choix.

Je ne suis pas une grenouille de bénitier, mais un croyant non-dogmatique, et un amoureux des femmes. Je m’oppose au programme LGBT parce que je suis contre leurs mariages et contre l’adoption d’enfants par des couples de gays et de lesbiennes. Ce qu’ils désirent est contre-nature, et je ne peux pas être d’accord avec ce qui va contre la nature, avec ces normes du politiquement correct dont les coryphées LGBT portent la traîne. Je ne pense pas que cette opinion m’isole, même si la grande majorité garde le silence par prudence. Comme je l’ai déjà expliqué ailleurs, le politiquement correct, peut-être lancé avec les meilleures intentions humanistes du monde, a dégénéré jusqu’à devenir un monstre à partir du moment où il est monté sur la scène de la politique mondiale. Il a émasculé de leur naturel des communautés entières, débilité des individus, fait le malheur de nombreuses vies par ses abus innombrables. Et le tout au nom d’un bien commun auto-proclamé, qui s’est avéré être une impasse, incompatible avec la nature humaine. Cette dernière, en effet, est ouverte à la compétition, nous incite à nous départager. On te dit que tu es libre, on alimente ton illusion de liberté. Alors qu’en réalité, on te braque un pistolet sur la tempe. Et on te demande même d’être content de l’avoir sur la tempe, voire d’appliquer des bisous sur le canon.

Le bien promis, à l’arrivée, est un enrégimentement, une uniformisation, une immense machine à laver les cerveaux. Une opération de manipulation destinée à produire des populations dociles, incapables de révolte. Et, comme dans n’importe quel cas de manipulation réussie, ceux qui y sont soumis n’ont pas conscience d’être des marionnettes, mais ont l’impression d’avoir découvert le nombril radieux de la démocratie, la culmination pralinée de l’être.

Tout comme le communisme avait nationalisé les moyens de production et la propriété privée, le politiquement correct « nationalise » le comportement humain, le standardise, étant maintenant sur le point d’obtenir un homme nouveau. Comme dans le vieux rêve communiste, mais à un autre niveau : non plus celui des rapports économiques, mais celui de la pensée et des relations humaines. Un monde où il faut religieusement écouter le dernier des imbéciles, le pire des tarés, lui manifester de la considération, le gâter comme un gosse, de peur qu’il ne se sente lésé par le fait d’être sorti tel qu’il est du ventre de sa mère. On ne peut plus relever le niveau, il faut au contraire s’abaisser respectueusement à celui des idiots, et s’en montrer ravi, tout illuminé par une grandiose vérité. L’idiot devient l’étalon global, le marathonien idéal des empires et des multinationales, dont même la chute des fleurs et le vol des libellules n’a plus le droit de troubler le zen. C’est un monde sens-dessus-dessous, d’une artificialité stridente, alimentée par les médias, avec des repères placés en stand-by et soumis à un dictat de l’anormal. La lutte à mener contre un tel monde a l’importance de l’air et l’urgence de la respiration.

La nature elle-même discrimine, et il est impossible de s’opposer à la nature. Comme dit un proverbe, d’une plasticité hyperréaliste, de la paysannerie transylvaine : « on ne peut pas tresser de fouet dans un caca ». Le politiquement correct, c’est la liberté prise en otage par les marginaux.

MS : Pour ta part, comment expliques-tu le manque de réactions « laïques » aux aberrations du programme LGBT ? Par l’intimidation ? Par la vénalité universitaire ? Ou s’agit-il de quelque maladie plus profonde dont souffrirait la culture des élites roumaines ?

Alexandru Petria : Ce sont à la fois les pourliches distribués aux universitaires, la naïveté et l’opportunisme le plus abject, le tout sur fond de servilité endémique. L’opportunisme est inscrit dans les gènes de la majorité des intellectuels roumains – une réalité qui me répugne. Ils ont, pour la plupart, trahi leur vocation, pour se transformer en vulgaires propagandistes.

MS : Censuré sur Facebook, tu as « migré » (entraînant à ta suite de nombreux admirateurs) vers le réseau social vKontakte, basé en Russie. J’imagine qu’avant 1990, tu faisais partie de ceux qui écoutaient en secret Radio Free Europe. Jusqu’où penses-tu que cette répétition inversée de l’histoire centre-européenne pourra aller ?

Alexandru Petria : Bien sûr que j’écoutais Radio Free Europe. Je me demande bien qui ne l’écoutait pas. Jusqu’où ça peut aller ? En fin de parcours, on va vers de graves troubles sociaux, voire une guerre dévastatrice, dont j’ai déjà exprimé la crainte ci-dessus. Malheureusement, je ne vois pas comment on pourrait les éviter. Il faut méditer les paroles de Saint Antoine le Grand (251-356) : « Le moment viendra où les hommes seront pris de folie, et, quand ils en verront un qui n’est pas fou comme eux, ils se dresseront contre lui en disant ‘tu es fou !’, parce qu’il ne sera pas comme eux. »

MS : En Hongrie, depuis sept ans, on assiste à une puissante réaction face aux excès du libéralisme totalitaire (ou du moins, de l’idéologie occidentale qui a accaparé cette dénomination). Que penses-tu du groupe de Visegrád ? Souhaiterais-tu l’adhésion de la Roumanie à ce groupe ?

Alexandru Petria : Je suis favorable au Groupe de Visegrád, ce sont des pays qui mettent leurs intérêts nationaux avant toute chose. Et ils ont absolument raison de le faire. J’aimerais que la Roumanie ait des dirigeants comme ceux de la Pologne ou de la Hongrie, par exemple, qui jouent la carte de la souveraineté, au lieu de transpirer à force d’agenouillements devant les grands de ce monde.

Oui, la Roumanie aurait tout à gagner à rejoindre le Groupe de Visegrád. A défaut de mieux, elle y recevrait au moins une leçon de dignité.

Evelyn Waugh’s Black Mischief

By Quintilian 

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

Evelyn Waugh (1903–1966) is probably best known today for Brideshead Revisited, his 1945 novel of fin-de-siècle longing and Catholic apologetics that has received both television and cinematic adaptations. He made his fame in the 1930s, however, by penning some of the most biting, satirical novels of the British upper class and its various hangers-on. Waugh was brutally honest about the inferiority of the Negro race and its incompatibility with Western civilization. In the world according to Waugh, wogs began in Calais, and the United States wasn’t far behind. Anglo-Saxon superiority was a given and prejudice (in the sense described by Robert Nisbet) kept the savages and the lower classes at bay. All this was done, though, with great wit and manners. Nowhere is Waugh’s satirical genius seen in better form than in his 1932 novel Black Mischief.

The novel begins with a civil war in the East African nation of Azania, a miserable typically corrupt African hell-hole whose current emperor is one Seth, a deluded ruler whose Anglophilia expresses itself in hare-brained progressivism and an affinity for ornate titles: “We, Seth, Emperor of Azania, Chief of the Chiefs of Sakuyu, Lord of Wanda and Tyrant of the Seas, Bachelor of the Arts of Oxford University,” etc. The native population of Azania on its own is unable to sustain any of the infrastructure or institutions of civil society. Seth’s advisor is an Indian, the head of the army is Irish, Armenians are tradesmen, Arabs are traders, Greeks tend to the engines of the Grand Chemin de Fer Imperial d’Azanie, Jews are money-lenders, and the clergy of the nominally Christian nation are Canadian, English, or American. Through a clever bit of subterfuge by General Connolly, the soldier of fortune commander of the Azanian Army, Seth ends up winning the civil war he had all but lost against his father, who, regrettably, is killed and eaten by the Azanian troops who do not understand the subtleties of the Geneva Convention. General Connolly has gone native and married an Azanian woman whom he affectionately calls Black Bitch.

News of Seth’s victory reaches London where Basil Seal, the ne’er-do-well son of the Conservative Whip and a classmate of Seth’s at Oxford, is recovering from a series of scandalous benders that have forced him to abandon his nascent political career. Desperately in need of money, Seal travels to Azania as a free-lance journalist. Within a short time of his arrival, Basil becomes Seth’s most trusted adviser and is put in charge of the Ministry of Modernization; in effect, Basil has become the real ruler of Azania since Seth spends his time immersed in catalogs and dreaming up more and more ridiculous “progressive” schemes for the betterment of Azanians, such as requiring all citizens to learn Esperanto. The natives who run the other departments are all too happy to refer all business to Basil.

Added to all this are the machinations of the British and French legations, the former of which is staffed by incompetents who have been sent to Azania where it is believed that they can do the least amount of damage. The French, however, are convinced that the British and the Americans are involved in grand espionage in order to shut out all French influence in the region. The situation is further complicated by Basil and Prudence, the daughter of the British envoy, falling in love and the wife of the French envoy engaging in an affair with General Connolly.

A new coup against Seth is plotted when his opponents discover that an aged brother of his grandfather is still alive who has a legitimate claim to the throne of Azania. Just as the coup is about to begin, two British ladies from an ASPCA type organization arrive to investigate allegations of animal cruelty. The natives mistakenly believe the ladies are there to promote animal cruelty, so they brag to them about how horribly they mistreat their farm animals. The coup takes place during a festival for birth control, another “progressive” scheme hatched by Seth who wants to promote sterility among his people. I will leave it up to the readers to discover on their own how the coup turns out, but I can report that the ending is unexpected, and if you’ve ever read Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus you might get a hint of what to expect.

Amazingly for a novel in which the nigger word ^[3] is so liberally used, Black Mischief is readily available on Amazon.

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

URL to article: https://www.counter-currents.com/2017/11/evelyn-waugh-black-mischief/

Deux vidéos sur Aldous Huxley

Qui était Aldous Huxley ?

spectre lumière

Une vie une oeuvre: Aldous Huxley

La Lucarne et la Nuit

 

France Culture - Une vie une oeuvre : Aldous Huxley

 

Bulletin célinien, novembre 2017

Bulletin célinien, n°401, novembre 2017

Sommaire : Les souvenirs d’Hermann Bickler – Le docteur Clément Camus (1^ère partie) – Un célinien au parcours étonnant – D’un château l’autre

Emmanuel Berl

Il y a quelques années, André Derval a signé un recueil des critiques parues en 1938 sur Bagatelles pour un massacre (Éd. Écriture). Curieusement l’article d’Emmanuel Berl, paru le 21 janvier de cette année-là, n’y figure pas. Article pourtant connu des céliniens pour avoir été recensé par  J.-P. Dauphin dès 1977 (Minard éd.).  Et puis, Berl, ce n’est tout de même pas une petite pointure. Éviction due au fait que sa critique de Bagatelles empruntait le mode du pastiche ? Toujours est-il qu’elle est peu banale compte tenu des origines de l’auteur. Cet article, exhumé ici même par Éric Mazet  il y a un an, se conclut par cette constatation: « Le lyrisme emporte dans son flux la malice et la méchanceté »,  ce qui était assez bien vu.  Et  de  conclure : « Juif ou pas juif, zut et zut ! j’ai dit que j’aimais Céline. Je ne m’en dédirai pas. » Curieux personnage que ce Berl marqué comme Destouches par la Grande Guerre, comme lui, pacifiste viscéral (et donc partisan des accords de Munich au grand dam de ses coreligionnaires). Et qui rédigera, autre paradoxe, deux allocutions de Pétain en juin 40. En 1933, il avait vainement sollicité la collaboration de Céline à l’hebdomadaire (de gauche) Marianne qu’il dirigeait mais obtint l’autorisation d’y publier le discours de Médan. Lorsqu’en mai 1939, le décret Marchandeau entraîne le retrait de la vente des pamphlets, Berl s’insurge : « Qu’il soit antisémite, je le déplore. Pour ma part, je l’ai déjà dit, je ne serai pas anticélinien » (!). C’est que ce philosophe égaré en politique n’était pas un sectaire: non seulement il apprécie ses adversaires mais en outre admet l’idée de l’antisémitisme politique. En écho, Céline lui aurait adressé cette promesse : « Tu ne seras pas pendu. Tu seras Führer à Jérusalem. Je t’en donne ma parole. » (De la même manière, Céline eut des échanges furieux avec Jean Renoir, dont il détestait l’idéologie diffusée dans ses films, et… qui était payé en retour par l’admiration indéfectible du cinéaste pour le romancier.)

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 €)

The Magic Cancellation of Crisis and the “Physiognomic Method” of Ernst Jünger

Robert Steuckers

Ex: https://institutenr.org

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 17^th and 18^th 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

Baudelaire et la conspiration géographique

Baudelaire et la conspiration géographique

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)

August Strindberg’s Tschandala

Quintilian

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

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

La gnose poétique d'Ernst Jünger

LE DÉCHIFFREMENT DU MONDE

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

Maledetti ma troppo geniali, gli autori collaborazionisti oltre ogni censura

di Annalisa Terranova

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.

Oscar Wilde in America

By A. Graham

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

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.

 

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

URL to article: https://www.counter-currents.com/2017/10/oscar-wilde-in-america/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: https://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/DeclaringHisGenius.jpg

[2] Image: https://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Oscar-Wilde-I-have-nothing-to-declare-except-my-genius-8x6.jpg

Imperium : roman de Christian Kracht

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 :

• En redécouvrant certains « paganismes » propagés par les Lebensreformer, on peut comprendre le rejet de ces bricolages idéologico-mythologiques par bon nombre de têtes pensantes d’après 1918, même non chrétiennes. Dans le même ordre d’idée, on comprendra aussi les positions successives de Julius Evola dans Impérialisme païen puis dans Le malentendu du nouveau paganisme.
• Le propos de Kracht est de fustiger les tendances actuelles au végétarisme, à un rousseauisme de bazar qui demeurent des idéologèmes de la pensée dominante contemporaine. Kracht, dans son roman et contrairement au destin finalement très malheureux d’Engelhardt, démontre que cet hippisme irénique avant la lettre peut se muer en son contraire sous la pression du réel : c’est l’hétérotélie, soit l’obtention d’un résultat très différent de ce qui était escompté au départ (voir le politologue Jules Monnerot). Les rêves trop éthérés finissent dans la déchéance, les pathologies mutilantes, les pourrissements. Ou dans l’horreur politique.

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.

 

Le n°400 du Bulletin célinien

Vient de paraître

Le n°400 du Bulletin célinien

Sommaire : L’art de l’annonce chez Denoël – Bouquet pour le 400^e – Un flâneur épicurien et lettré.

Ce qui fut écrit en ouverture du n° 300 (septembre 2008)  pourrait  être repris ici. Entre autres la crainte de l’autocélébration, toujours un peu ridicule. Mais si on ne fête pas ce n° 400, qui le fera ?  Soyons néanmoins lucides : le seul titre de gloire du BC est d’être l’unique mensuel consacré à un écrivain. Pas de quoi pavoiser pour autant. Ce modeste Bulletin ne se targue pas d’être une publication scientifique même s’il publie régulièrement des articles de fond. Son responsable n’est ni un exégète ni un chercheur reconnu par ses pairs, juste un publiciste célinien auquel on peut tout au plus reconnaître une certaine constance.Si, selon la formule consacrée, l’important c’est de durer, ce Bulletin aura gagné son pari. Fondé en 1981, année du 20^e anniversaire de la mort de Céline, il atteindra bientôt sa trente-septième année de parution. Pas si mal pour un périodique dont un céliniste, aujourd’hui disparu, prédisait une existence éphémère.

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.

1. Jean-Paul Louis, L’Année Céline 2016, Du Lérot, 2017, p. 7.
2. Annick Duraffour & Pierre-André Taguieff, Céline, la race, le juif, Fayard, 2017, p. 742.
3. Voir le chapitre « À cheval sur un hippogriffe » in Henri Godard, À travers Céline, la littérature, Gallimard, 2014, pp. 122-141.

Cette entrée a été publiée le 1 octobre 2017 .

Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? as Anti-Semitic/Christian-Gnostic Allegory

By Greg Johnson

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

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].

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

URL to article: https://www.counter-currents.com/2017/10/philip-k-dicks-do-androids-dream-of-electric-sheep-as-anti-semiticchristian-gnostic-allegory-2/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: https://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/DoAndroidsDream.png

[2] Blade Runner: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008M4MB8K/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B008M4MB8K&linkCode=as2&tag=thesavdevarc-20

[3] another essay: https://www.counter-currents.com/2014/04/blade-runner-2/

[4] culture of critique: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0759672229/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0759672229&linkCode=as2&tag=thesavdevarc-20&linkId=Y4UHRLOTXSJAKCVO

George Orwell and the Cold War: A Reconsideration

George Orwell and the Cold War: A Reconsideration

By Murray N. Rothbard

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.

The Best of Murray N. Rothbard

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was dean of the Austrian School, founder of modern libertarianism, and academic vice president of the Mises Institute. He was also editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report, and appointed Lew as his literary executor. See his books.

Previous article by Murray N. Rothbard: The State as God’s Will

Chuchotements dans la nuit de Howard Phillips Lovecraft

 

La Lucarne et la Nuit

 

Écrit en 1930, dans l’élan de la découverte de Pluton, et le souvenir d’un réel voyage dans les zones les plus reculées du sauvage Vermont, un des récits les plus implacables et savamment construits de Lovecraft. Malgré un très vaste héritage, et alors même que le « faux documentaire » (depuis La guerre des mondes de H.G. Wells par Orson Welles diffusée en 1938), fait partie de l’histoire de la radio, Lovecraft reste un défi à l’adaptation cinématographique ou radiophonique. Garder l’omniprésence du narrateur, être fidèle à ces nappes de langue très savamment orchestrées, rester toujours dans la seule suggestion de l’horreur ou de la peur ? En proposant des fictions d’une heure, France Culture en permet l’aventure, et ce qu’elle révèle de l’actualité de Lovecraft pour notre imaginaire au présent Chuchotements dans la nuit : Une inondation vient de ravager les zones les plus reculées du sauvage Vermont. On a aperçu d'étranges choses roses dériver au fil des eaux. Tenant du pur rationalisme, Wilmarth, un jeune professeur de littérature, commence une correspondance avec Akeley, propriétaire d'une ferme isolée, lequel lui fait parvenir d'étranges mais irrécusables photographies, et un enregistrement sur cylindre. Tous les moyens narratifs, lettres, télégramme, téléphone, voyages en train, en voiture, sont convoqués pour une tension qui ne cessera de s'accroître. Jusqu'à cette étrange découverte d'un appareil audio-électrique susceptible de conserver les cerveaux, autorisant d'infinis voyages spatio-temporels. Écrit en 1930, dans l'élan de la découverte de Pluton, et le souvenir d'un réel voyage dans ces vallées reculées, un des récits les plus implacables et savamment construits de Lovecraft.

 

Avec

- Julian Eggerickx (Albert Wilmarth)

- Fred Ulysse (Henry Akeley)

- Jean-Noël Lefévre ( Noyes)

- Grégoire Monsaingeon ( La Voix synthétique)

- Marc Barbé ( l’employé des chemins de fer)

- Modeste N’zapassara ( Le contrôleur du train)

- Aurélien Osinski (Brown)

 

Et les voix de Jules Churin, Manon Leroy, Slimane Yefsah, Jean-Marc Layer, Pascal Loison et Othello Vilgard

- Musique originale : François Bonnet

- Prise de son, montage et mixage : Bruno Mourlan et Lidwine Caron

- Assistante à la réalisation : Louise Loubrieu

- Traduction et adaptation : François Bon

- Réalisation : Christophe Hocké

- Conseillère littéraire Caroline Ouazana

 

A Perfeição da Técnica: Friedrich-Georg Jünger

A Perfeição da Técnica: Friedrich-Georg Jünger

por Robert Steuckers

Ex: http://legio-victrix.blogspot.com

 

Nascido em 1 de setembro de 1989 em Hannover, irmão do famoso escritor alemão Ernst Jünger, Friedrich-Georg Jünger se interessou pela poesia desde uma idade muito jovem, despertando nele um forte interesse pelo classicismo alemão em um itinerário que atravessa Klopstock , Goethe e Hölderin. Graças a esta imersão precoce no trabalho de Hölderin, Friedrich-Georg Jünger é fascinado pela antiguidade clássica e percebe a essência da helenidade e da romanidade antigas como uma aproximação à natureza, como uma glorificação da elementalidade, ao mesmo tempo que é dotada de uma visão do homem que permanecerá imutável, sobrevivendo ao longo dos séculos na psique européia, às vezes visível à luz do dia, às vezes escondida. A era da técnica separou os homens dessa proximidade vivificante, elevando-o perigosamente acima do elemental. Toda a obra poética de Friedrich-Georg Jünger é um protesto veemente contra a pretensão mortífera que constitui esse distanciamento. Nosso autor permanecerá profundamente marcado pelas paisagens idílicas de sua infância, uma marca que se refletirá em seu amor incondicional pela Terra, pela flora e pela fauna (especialmente insetos: foi Friedrich-Georg quem apresentou seu irmão Ernst ao mundo da entomologia), pelos seres mais elementares da vida no planeta, pelas raízes culturais.

 

A Primeira Guerra Mundial acabará com essa imersão jovem na natureza. Friedrich-Georg se alistará em 1916 como aspirante a oficial. Severamente ferido no pulmão, na frente do Somme, em 1917, passa o resto do conflito em um hospital de campo. Depois de sua convalescença, se matricula em Direito, obtendo o título de doutor em 1924. Mas ele nunca seguirá a carreira de jurista, logo descobriu sua vocação como escritor político dentro do movimento nacionalista de esquerda, entre os nacional-revolucionários e o nacional-bolcheviques, unindo-se mais tarde à figura de Ernst Niekisch, editor da revista "Widerstand" (Resistência). A partir desta publicação, bem como de "Arminios" ou "Die Kommenden", os irmãos Jünger inauguraram um novo estilo que poderíamos definir como do "soldado nacionalista", expressado pelos jovens oficiais que chegaram recentemente do front e incapazes de se adaptar à vida civil . A experiência das trincheiras e o fragor dos ataques mostraram-lhes, através do suor e do sangue, que a vida não é um jogo inventado pelo cerebralismo, mas um rebuliço orgânico elemental onde, de fato, os instintos reinam. A política, em sua própria esfera, deve compreender a temperatura dessa agitação, ouvir essas pulsões, navegar em seus meandros para forjar uma força sempre jovem, nova e vivificante. Para Friedrich-Georg Jünger, a política deve ser apreendida de um ângulo cósmico, fora de todos os miasmas "burgueses, cerebrais e intelectualizantes". Paralelamente a esta tarefa de escritor político e profeta desse nacionalismo radicalmente anti-burguês, Friedrich-Georg Jünger mergulha na obra de Dostoiévski, Kant e dos grandes romancistas americanos. Junto com seu irmão Ernst, ele realiza uma série de viagens pelos países mediterrâneos: Dalmácia, Nápoles, Baleares, Sicília e as ilhas do Mar Egeu.

 

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.

 

Aposentado da política depois de ter publicado mais de uma centena de poemas na revista de Niekisch - que vê pouco a pouco o aumento das pressões da autoridade até que finalmente é preso em 1937 -, Friedrich-Georg Jünger consagra por inteiro à criação literária, publicando em 1936 um ensaio intitulado Über das Komische e terminando em 1939 a primeira versão de seu maior trabalho filosófico: Die Perfektion der Technik (A Perfeição da Técnica). Os primeiros rascunhos deste trabalho foram destruídos em 1942, durante um bombardeio aliado. Em 1944, uma primeira edição, feita a partir de uma série de novos ensaios, é novamente reduzida às cinzas devido a um ataque aéreo. Finalmente, o livro aparece em 1946, provocando um debate em torno da problemática da técnica e da natureza, prefigurando, apesar de sua orientação "conservadora", todas as reivindicações ambientais alemãs dos anos 60, 70 e 80. Durante a guerra, Friedrich-Georg Jünger publicou poemas e textos sobre a Grécia antiga e seus deuses. Com o surgimento de Die Perfektion der Technik, que verá várias edições sucessivas, os interesses de Friedrich-Georg se voltam aos temas da técnica, da natureza, do cálculo, da mecanização, da massificação e da propriedade. Recusando, em Die Perfektion der Technik, enunciar suas teses sob um esquema clássico, linear e sistemático; seus argumentos aparecem "em espiral", de maneira desordenada, esclarecendo volta após volta, capítulo aqui, capítulo lá, tal ou qual aspecto da tecnificação global. Como filigrana, percebe-se uma crítica às teses que seu irmão Ernst mantinha então em Der Arbeiter (O Trabalhador), que aceitou como inevitável a evolução da técnica moderna. Sua posição antitécnica aborda a tese de Ortega y Gasset em Meditações sobre a Técnica (1939) de Henry Miller e de Lewis Munford (que usa o termo "megamaquinismo"). Em 1949, Friedrich-Georg Jünger publicou uma obra de exegese sobre Nietzsche, onde es interrogava sobre o sentido da teoria cíclica do tempo enunciado pelo anacoreta de Sils-Maria. Friedrich-Georg Jünger contesta a utilidade de usar e problematizar uma concepção cíclica dos tempos, porque este uso e esta problematização acabarão por conferir ao tempo uma forma única e intangível que, para Nietzsche, é concebida como cíclica. O tempo cíclico, próprio da Grécia das origens e do pensamento pré-cristão, deve ser percebido a partir dos ângulos do imaginário e não da teoria, que obriga a conjugar a naturalidade a partir de um modelo único de eternidade e, assim, o instante e o fato desaparecem sob os cortes arbitrários estabelecidos pelo tempo mecânico, segmentarizados em visões lineares. A temporalidade cíclica de Nietzsche, por seus cortes em ciclos idênticos e repetitivos, preserva, pensou Friedrich-Georg Jünger, algo de mecânico, de newtoniano, pelo que, finalmente, não é uma temporalidade "grega". O tempo, para Nietzsche, é um tempo policial, sequestrado; carece de apoio, de suporte (Tragend und Haltend). Friedrich-Georg Jünger canta uma a-temporalidade que é identificada com a natureza mais elementar, o "Wildnis", a natureza de Pã, o fundo natural intacto do mundo, não manchado pela mão humana, que é, em última instância, um acesso ao divino, ao último segredo do mundo. O "Wildnis" - um conceito fundamental no poeta "pagão" que é Friedrich-Georg Jünger - é a matriz de toda a vida, o receptáculo aonde deve retornar toda vida.

 

Em 1970, Friedrich-Georg Jünger fundou, juntamente com Max Llimmelheber, a revista trimestral "Scheidwege", onde figuraram na lista de colaboradores os principais representantes de um pensamento ao mesmo tempo naturalista e conservador, céticos em relação a todas as formas de planificação técnico. Entre os pensadores desta inclinação conservadora-ecológica que apresentaram suas teses na publicação podemos lembrar os nomes de Jürgen Dahl, Hans Seldmayr, Friederich Wagner, Adolf Portmann, Erwin Chargaff, Walter Heiteler, Wolfgang Häedecke, etc.

 

Friedrich-Georg Jünger morreu em Überlingen, perto das margens do lago de Constança, em 20 de julho de 1977.

 

O germanista norte-americano Anton H. Richter, em seu trabalho sobre o pensamento de Friedrich-Georg Jünger, ressalta quatro temas essenciais em nosso autor: a antiguidade clássica, a essência cíclica da existência, a técnica e o poder de o irracional. Em seus escritos sobre antiguidade grega, Friedrich-Georg Jünger reflete sobre a dicotomia dionisíaca/titânica. Como dionisismo, abrange o apolíneo e o pânico, numa frente unida de forças organizacionais intactas contra as distorções, a fragmentação e a unidimensionalidade do titanismo e do mecanicismo de nossos tempos. A atenção de Friedrich-Georg Jünger centra-se essencialmente nos elementos ctônicos e orgânicos da antiguidade clássica. Desta perspectiva, os motivos recorrentes de seus poemas são a luz, o fogo e a água, forças elementares às quais ele homenageia profundamente. Friedrich-Georg Jünger zomba da razão calculadora, da sua ineficiência fundamental exaltando, em contraste, o poder do vinho, da exuberância do festivo, do sublime que se aninha na dança e nas forças carnavalescas. A verdadeira compreensão da realidade é alcançada pela intuição das forças, dos poderes da natureza, do ctônico, do biológico, do somático e do sangue, que são armas muito mais efetivas do que a razão, que o verbo plano e unidimensional, desmembrado, purgado, decapitado, despojado: de tudo o que torna o homem moderno um ser de esquemas incompletos. Apolo traz a ordem clara e a serenidade imutável; Dionísio traz as forças lúdicas do vinho e das frutas, entendidos como uma dádiva, um êxtase, uma embriaguez reveladora, mas nunca uma inconsciência; Pan, guardião da natureza, traz a fertilidade. Diante desses doadores generosos e desinteressados, os titãs são usurpadores, acumuladores de riqueza, guerreiros cruéis e antiéticos que enfrentam os deuses da profusão e da abundância que às vezes conseguem matá-los, lacerando seus corpos, devorando-os.

 

Pan é a figura central do panteão pessoal de Friedrich-Georg Jünger; Pan é o governante da "Wildnis", da natureza primordial que os titãs desejam arrasar. Friedrich-Georg Jünger se remete a Empédocles, que ensinava que ele forma um "contiuum epistemológico" com a natureza: toda a natureza está no homem e pode ser descoberta através do amor.

 

Simbolizado por rios e cobras, o princípio da recorrência, do retorno incessante, pelo qual todas as coisas alcançam a "Wildnis" original, é também o caminho para retornar a esse mesmo Wildnis. Friedrich-Georg Jünger canta o tempo cíclico, diferente do tempo linear-unidirecional judaico-cristão, segmentado em momentos únicos, irrepetíveeis, sobre um caminho também único que leva à Redenção. O homem moderno ocidental, alérgico aos esconderijos imponderáveis ​​onde a "Wildnis" se manifesta, optou pelo tempo contínuo e vetorial, tornando assim a sua existência um segmento entre duas eternidades atemporais (o antes do nascer e o depois da morte). Aqui se enfrentam dois tipos humanos: o homem moderno, impregnado com a visão judaico-cristã e linear do tempo, e o homem orgânico, que se reconhece inextricavelmente ligado ao cosmos e aos ritmos cósmicos.

 

A Perfeição da Técnica

 

Denúncia do titanismo mecanicista ocidental, este trabalho é a pedreira onde todos os pensadores ecológicos contemporâneos se nutriram para afinar suas críticas. Dividida em duas grandes partes e uma digressão, composta por uma multiplicidade de pequenos capítulos concisos, a obra começa com uma observação fundamental: a literatura utópica, responsável pela introdução do idealismo técnico no campo político, só provocou um desencanto da própria veia utópica. A técnica não resolve nenhum problema existencial do homem, não aumenta o gozo do tempo, não reduz o trabalho: ela tão somente desloca o manual em proveito do "organizativo". A técnica não cria novas riquezas; pelo contrário: condena a classe trabalhadora ao pauperismo físico e moral permanente. O desdobramento desenfreado da técnica é causado por uma falta geral da condição humana que a razão se esforça para sanar. Mas essa falta não desaparece com a invasão da técnica, que não é senão uma camuflagem grosseira, um remendo triste. A máquina é devoradora, aniquiladora da "substância": sua racionalidade é pura ilusão. O economista acredita, a partir de sua apreensão particular da realidade, que a técnica é uma fonte de riquezas, mas não parece observar que sua racionalidade quantitativista não é senão aparência pura e simples, que a técnica, em sua vontade de ser aperfeiçoada até o infinito, não segue senão sua própria lógica, uma lógica que não é econômica.

 

Uma das características do mundo moderno é o conflito tático entre o economista e o técnico: o último aspira a determinar processos de produção a favor da lucratividade, um fator que é puramente subjetivo. A técnica, quando atinge seu grau mais alto, leva a uma economia disfuncional. Essa oposição entre técnica e economia pode produzir estupor em mais de um crítico da unidimensionalidade contemporânea, acostumada a colocar hipertrofias técnicas e econômicas na mesma caixa de alfaiate. Mas Friedrich-Georg Jünger concebe a economia a partir de sua definição etimológica: como medida e norma dos "oikos", da habitação humana, bem circunscrita no tempo e no espaço. A forma atual adotada pelos "oikos" vem de uma mobilização exagerada dos recursos, assimilável ​​à economia da pilhagem e da rapina (Raubbau), de uma concepção mesquinha do lugar que se ocupa sobre a Terra, sem consideração pelas gerações passadas e futuras.

 

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.

 

Quem diz automatização total diz organização total, no sentido de gestão. O trabalho, na era da multiplicação exponencial de autômatos, é organizado para a perfeição, isto é, para a rentabilidade total e imediata, deixando de lado ou sem considerar a mão-de-obra ou o útil. A técnica só é capaz de avaliar a si mesma, o que implica uma automação a todo custo, o que, por sua vez, implica troca a todo custo, o que leva à normalização a todo custo, cuja conseqüência é a padronização a todo custo. Friedrich-Georg Jünger acrescenta o conceito de "partição" (Stückelung), onde "partes" não são mais "partes", mas "peças" (Stücke), reduzidas a uma função de mero aparato, uma função inorgânica.

 

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.

 

As massas se entrelaçam voluntariamente nesta automação total, ao mesmo tempo que anulam as resistências isoladas de indivíduos conscientes. As massas são levadas pelo rápido movimento da automação, a tal ponto que, em caso de quebra ou paralisação momentânea do movimento linear para a automação, elas experimentam uma sensação de vida que acham insuportável.

 

A guerra, também, a partir de agora, será totalmente mecanizada. Os potenciais de destruição são amplificados ao extremo. A reivindicação de uniformes, o valor mobilizador dos símbolos, a glória, desaparecem na perfeição técnica. A guerra só pode ser suportada por soldados tremendamente endurecidos e tenazes, apenas os homens que possam exterminar a piedade em seus corações poderão suportá-la.

 

A mobilidade absoluta que inaugura a automação total se volta contra tudo tudo que pode significar duração e estabilidade, especificamente contra a propriedade (Eigentum). Friedrich-Georg Jünger, ao meditar sobre essa afirmação, define a propriedade de uma maneira original e particular. A existência de máquinas depende de uma concepção exclusivamente temporal, a existência da propriedade é devida a uma concepção espacial. A propriedade implica limites, definições, cercas, paredes e paredes, "clausuras" em suma. A eliminação dessas delimitações é uma razão de ser para o coletivismo técnico. A propriedade é sinônimo de um campo de ação limitado, circunscrito, fechado em um espaço específico e preciso. Para progredir de forma vetorial, a automação precisa pular os bloqueios da propriedade, um obstáculo para a instalação de seus onipresentes meios de controle, comunicação e conexão. Uma humanidade privada de todas as formas de propriedade não pode escapar da conexão total. O socialismo, na medida em que nega a propriedade, na medida em que rejeita o mundo das "zonas enclausuradas", facilita precisamente a conexão absoluta, que é sinônimo de manipulação absoluta. Segue-se que o proprietário de máquinas não é proprietário; o capitalismo mecanicista mina a ordem das propriedades, caracterizada por duração e estabilidade, em preferência de um dinamismo omnidisolvente. A independência da pessoa é uma impossibilidade nessa conexão aos fatos e ao modo de pensar próprio do instrumentalismo e do organizacionismo técnicos.

 

Entre suas reflexões críticas sobre a automatização e a tecnificação totais nos tempos modernos, Friedrich-Georg Jünger apela aos grandes filósofos da tradição europeia. Descartes inaugura um idealismo que estabelece uma separação insuperável entre o corpo e o espírito, eliminando o "sistema de influências psíquicas" que interligava ambos, para eventualmente substituí-lo por uma intervenção divina pontual que faz de Deus um simples demiurgo-relojoeiro. A "res extensa" de Descartes em um conjunto de coisas mortas, explicável como um conjunto de mecanismos em que o homem, instrumento do Deus-relojoeiro, pode intervir completamente impune em todos os momentos. A "res cogitans" é instituído como mestre absoluto dos processos mecânicos que governam o Universo. O homem pode se tornar um deus: um grande relojoeiro que pode manipular todas as coisas ao seu gosto e alvedrio, sem cuidado ou respeito. O cartesianismo dá o sinal de saída da exploração tecnicista ao extremo da Terra.

David Mata, cœur rebelle, nous a quitté

Mort d’un lettré : David Mata, cœur rebelle, nous a quitté

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

At the Heart of Darkness

By Samuel Francis

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

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]

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

URL to article: https://www.counter-currents.com/2017/08/at-the-heart-of-darkness/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: https://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Joshi1997.jpg

[2] http://www.unz.org/Pub/Chronicles-1997may-00024: http://www.unz.org/Pub/Chronicles-1997may-00024

The Plumed Serpent: D.H. Lawrence on Radical Traditionalism

By Manon Welles  

Ex: http://www.aristocratofthesoul.com

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.

Orchestrating a Pagan Revolution

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.”

Lawrence and Nietzsche: A Philosophy of the Future

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.

Endnotes:

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.