Ok

En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

dimanche, 03 février 2013

P. Vial: le droit à l'identité touareg...

Une Terre, un Peuple : le droit à l'identité touareg...

Un communiqué de Pierre Vial :

Touareg-lanceFEN.jpgConformément à la ligne qui a toujours été la sienne, le mouvement Terre et Peuple affirme et défend le droit à l’identité du peuple touareg, qui doit se traduire par la reconnaissance d’un Etat de l’Azawad.

Reconnaissance qui doit être le fait de l’Etat malien (mais qui est représenté en réalité par qui aujourd’hui ?), de la France et de la communauté internationale. Seule cette reconnaissance, qui doit s’accompagner d’une protection active de la population touareg, menacée par les exactions de l’armée malienne, peut permettre de stabiliser la situation dans le Sahel et de marginaliser au maximum les islamistes qui essayent d’exploiter à leur profit les légitimes revendications des Touaregs.

An interview with Manuel Ochsenreiter

The Fourth Political Theory

An interview with Manuel Ochsenreiter

 

Natella Speranskaya: How did you discover the Fourth Political Theory? And how would you evaluate its chances of becoming a major ideology of the 21st century?
 
 
Manuel Ochsenreiter: Since a certain time I try to follow the developments in Russia, especially Prof. Alexandr Dugin. So it is not a coincidence to get in touch with the Fourth Political Theory. You are asking about the chances. Let me say it like this: The west is actually trapped in its own liberalism. It seems right now that there is no way out because the liberal mainstream political opinion doesn´t accept any alternative ideas. It is like digesting yourself with the same acid over and over again. In my opinion, the Fourth Political Theory could be a medical cure for that sick intellectual situation. It can be a way out of the liberal hamster wheel. And more and more people are looking for such an exit.
 
 
Natella Speranskaya: Leo Strauss when commenting on the fundamental work of Carl Schmitt The Concept of the Political notes that despite all radical critique of liberalism incorporated in it Schmitt does not follow it through since his critique remains within the scope of liberalism”. “His anti-Liberal tendencies, – claims Strauss, - remain constrained by “systematics of liberal thought” that has not been overcome so far, which – as Schmitt himself admits – “despite all failures cannot be substituted by any other system in today’s Europe. What would you identify as a solution to the problem of overcoming the liberal discourse? Could you consider the Fourth Political Theory by Alexander Dugin to be such a solution? The theory that is beyond the three major ideologies of the 20th century – Liberalism, Communism and Fascism, and that is against the Liberal doctrine.
 
 
Manuel Ochsenreiter: First of all, the liberal doctrine is a totalitarian doctrine. Convinced liberals hate to hear that. They even would deny that it is a “doctrine”. But the reality is: The world wide liberalism and the postmodernism of “values” seem to be more totalitarian than communism, fascism or any –isms before. Liberalism doesn´t accept alternative ideas coexisting beside it. It shows its ugly totalitarian face every day all over the world and its sharpest sword is hypocrisy. The liberal “tolerance”, one of the most mentioned and beloved liberal values just enjoy other liberals. There is no tolerance towards non-liberals. The west showed a couple of times in the past towards some countries who didn’t adjust to this liberal world order, what that can mean at the end: If other societies, people, and countries are not convinced by NGOs, “civil society” and other forms of “western help”, they will be convinced by drones and Cruise missiles. The liberal west tells the beloved stories about “human rights” violations to convince the western societies about the necessity of such military operations. Liberals liberate with money or bombs. The choice is upto the “backwarded” aim. But at the end, everybody knows the “open society” (Karl Popper) means in reality “open market”, “free speech” means “liberal speech” and “freedom of choice” means “McDonalds or Burger King”. There is even a liberal “new speech” for these things: Military ground offensives are now “humanitarian zones”, air raids are “installing a no-flight zone” and ugly primitive Russian girls urge the west to shout “Free Pussy riot!”.
 
 
dugin_-_the_fourth_political_theory_little.jpgEvery established intellectual, politician or media company moves inside this totalitarian liberal system. For example you will not find any established political party in the German parliament that doesn´t claim to be “also liberal”. Our universities “research” about “identities”, “gender”, and “culture” to change this or that. The new liberal types of human being don´t have a heritage, homeland or cultural identity. Even the gender can be changed. We could consider that as a type of slapstick comedy if it wouldn´t be so serious, because it means a type of destruction of basics and values, which might be hard to repair.
 
 
So Prof. Dugin’s theory shows an emergency exit out of this totalitarian system. It is like opening a window to let some fresh air into the western paralyzed intellectual environment. But the liberalism is not a weak ideology which would wait for its defeat.
 
 
Natella Speranskaya: Do you agree that today there are “two Europes”: the one – the liberal one (incorporating the idea of “open society”, human rights, registration of same-sex marriages, etc.) and the other Europe (“a different Europe”) – politically engaged, thinker, intellectual, spiritual, the one that considers the status quo and domination of liberal discourse as a real disaster and the betrayal of the European tradition. How would you evaluate chances of victory of a “different Europe” over the ”first” one?
 
 
Manuel Ochsenreiter: This reminds me to the “old Europe” and the “new Europe” Donald Rumsfeld was talking about in 2003. The “old Europe” was the one that refused to support the US in the Iraq war, especially Germany and France, and the “new Europe” joined the „coalition of the willing“. But of course you mean something else with your question. There is certainly a “different Europe”. We wouldn´t be talking if it didn´t exist. In all the European countries you see certain types of intellectual resistance against the liberal totalitarian system. I would even call this type of Europe the “real” one. Because the official “Europe” is just a weird construction that denies traditions and differences, everything what makes the rich nature of Europe and the Europeans.
 
 
The “real Europe” is everywhere, where intellectuals, journalists, and politicians turn their back to Brussels and the liberal system. You find it in a huge amount of magazines, newspapers, internet forums, and political organizations all over the continent. They do it without any powerful support from other countries, just with their idealism. There are no NGOs or other institutions that fund that important work. But this shows exactly that type of these new political grassroots.  
 
 
Natella Speranskaya: “There is nothing more tragic than a failure to understand the historical moment we are currently going through; - notes Alain de Benoist – this is the moment of postmodern globalization”. The French philosopher emphasizes the significance of the issue of a new Nomos of the Earth or a way of establishing international relations. What do you think the fourth Nomos will be like? Would you agree that the new Nomos is going to be Eurasian and multipolar (transition from universum to pluriversum)?
 
 
Manuel Ochsenreiter: Western liberal propaganda always claims: “Even if we wanted, we couldn´t do something else because it would result in violence and war!” They spread panic and fear among the people. You have to imagine, our German politicians tell us that even if we Europeans would abolish the Euro currency, we might end up in a war. The postmodern globalization is presented as the only single way for the future. I spoke about liberal hypocrisy before. The truth is that the way of globalization is a painful and bloody one as we can see in many countries with western “liberation” attempts. It is a hamster wheel of wars and more wars. The longer it goes the more blood is spilt. This logic is as simple as cruel.
 
 
Why is it like this? After the downfall of the Soviet Union and the communist eastern block, western political scientists (Charles Krauthammer, Francis Fukuyama and many others) welcomed more or less the “unipolar moment”; one world with one pole which was the west. This idea was like a western “idyll”. With “Western democracy” and “western freedom” spreading all over the world also to the last little corner, mankind will face a long-term, a “final” period of peace and prosperity. Although we see every day in the news the evidence of failure of this ideology, the west still works on it. As I already said, since the end of the Cold war and the geopolitical attempts of the west to install this unipolar idea, we witness the chaotic and violent results of this sort of geopolitics.
 
 
A multipolar international order is not just the answer. It is a logical result. The question is how will this multipolar order be organized? A well-organized multipolar world would not just bring stability, but would also be a great intellectual chance of cultural exchange on a really high level. It recognizes the value of “difference” while the west today propagandizes worldwide equality and unity. The local and regional cultures would have the chance of free development, tradition, and cultural identity (both is denied by the western ideology) that could prosper. The actual western hegemony with the means of NGOs and media tries to push down these things, but not forever. And of course Eurasia will play an important role.
 
 
Natella Speranskaya: Do you agree that the era of the white European human race has ended, and the future will be predetermined by Asian cultures and societies?
 
 
Manuel Ochsenreiter: Today’s Europe is losing its human substance. It shows once more that the liberal ideology is a suicidal idea. On the one hand it fights against families and promotes for example abortion; on the other hand it campaigns extremely for mass immigration. The consequence is extinction of the Europeans. How long it takes is pure mathematics. How much the face of Europe already has changed you can witness in any European capital between Lisbon and Athens. We cannot say that the quality of the human resources really become better by immigration even if we would consider that as a neutral or even “positive” development as the liberals do. In contradiction, we face a lot of problems with immigrant communities. The liberal ideology refuses to see the reasons where they are: in ethnic backgrounds. They just speak about an alleged “discrimination” of the migrant communities and about the alleged social injustice the migrants are facing. Politics denying ethnic differences deny the reality.
 
 
Of course this development weakens Europe. We are busier more and more with “integration”, what means with ourselves. You have really to be an anti-realist to see a benefit in that suicidal development. But this exactly is told by the liberal dogma. This means automatically that other entities and cultures who don´t suffer under such development will have an advantage against a weak Europe.
 
 
Natella Speranskaya: Do you consider Russia to be a part of Europe or do you accept the view that Russia and Europe represent two different civilizations?
 
 
Manuel Ochsenreiter: I don´t see a contradiction. I personally consider Russia as a European country, of course with diverse ethnic groups. And of course it has its own culture, traditions, and identity. But every European country has its own culture and traditions. The only difference is, we Europeans are told nonstop by the Brussels propaganda that we are all somehow “the same”. The Russians have the benefit not being bombarded by that ridiculous nonsense. For me as a German, Russia should be our close friend and ally. We share a lot of interests, we share a common history of course with ups and downs – at least Moscow is closer to us than Washington. A close relationship to Russia would be in the national interest of Berlin and Moscow.
 
 
Natella Speranskaya: Contemporary ideologies are based on the principle of secularity. Would you predict the return of religion, the return of sacrality? If so, in what form? Do you consider it to be Islam, Christianity, Paganism or any other forms of religion?
 
 
Manuel Ochsenreiter: When people start worshipping their bank accounts, the horoscopes in the yellow press magazines or their luxury cars what does that tell us about the alleged absence of religion? When it is forbidden to deny liberalism as it used to be forbidden to deny the existence of god in the Middle Ages? The “secularity” in today’s Europe just refers to the power of the organized religion, but obviously not to the needs of the people. When the religion disappears they find something else. In Berlin housewives are running into Buddhist temples because they adore the eternal smile of the Dalai Lama or the haircut of Richard Gere. Of course they don´t understand anything about the spirituality of Buddhism. Trendy Businessmen do some yoga exercises. Others start doing esoteric things. But this is also an element of liberalism: superficiality. While this is happening, the organized churches are more and more weakened themselves by the liberal virus. Sometimes it is really hard to see the difference between a protestant bishop and a liberal teacher. It is somehow ironic that God comes back to Europe in these days as a Muslim migrant. All of a sudden people go on the streets to protest against blasphemy. And this takes place at the same time when “Christian” clerics in Germany seriously support the blasphemy group “Pussy riot”.
 
 
So we see on the one side the spiritual needs of the people, but on the other side also today’s Christian churches’ refusal to serve those needs. Of course there are also some exceptions. But the general situation especially in Germany and other central and western European countries is like that.
 
 
I personally don´t believe that a new type of paganism might be a dominant religious power in Europe. Why? Because it would be a pure artificial concept for the people. The strength of the churches in the past was their ties to the traditional daily life of the people. Especially Catholicism perfected to adopt and integrate old pagan traditions in its system. If Europe recovers, I am sure that maybe a new type of European Christianity would also recover. It would be a logic thing. When liberalism starts to disappear, it´s totalitarian system will also disappear. Even the Bishops of liberalism like George Soros would lose their power. But if Europe falls, the last of the “three Romes” will be Moscow – and the only resistance against the liberalist doctrine in Europe will be done by the Muslim communities while the organized Christians celebrate their own downfall. 

vendredi, 01 février 2013

Sezession: Heft 52

Sezession: Heft 52, Februar 2013

heft52 gross Aktuelle Druckausgabe (10 €): Heft 52, Februar 2013 Editorial

Bild und Text

Wo ich ganz bei mir selbst bin
Heino Bosselmann

Thema

Wir selbst – anthropologisch
Andreas Vonderach

Wir selbst – magnetisch
Götz Kubitschek

Schriftsteller, Partisan, Rebell
Richard Millet

Über Richard Millet
Benedikt Kaiser

20 Jahre »Anschwellender Bocksgesang«
Karlheinz Weißmann

Der goldene Käfig der Kunst
Sebastian Hennig

Anschlußfähigkeit, Mimikry, Provokation
Harald Seubert

Neo Rauchs konservatives Minimum
Benjamin Jahn Zschocke

Generation Österreich Martin Lichtmesz

Volkslustige Träumereien Gespräch mit
Friedrich Baunack

Debatte

Der Islam als Kampfgemeinschaft
Manfred Kleine-Hartlage

Perspektiven einer Debatte
Erik Lehnert

Bücher

Maschkiavelli zum 70.
Thor v. Waldstein

Der Dissident – Ernst Nolte ist 90
Thorsten Hinz

Stalingrad – 70 Jahre danach
Olaf Haselhorst

Rezensionen

Vermischtes

00:05 Publié dans Nouvelle Droite, Revue | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

jeudi, 31 janvier 2013

Cultural Communism

communism-party.jpg

Cultural Communism & the Inegalitarian Basis of All Genuine Art

By Jonathan Bowden

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

Edited by Alex Kurtagić 

Editor’s Note: 

The Following is an excerpt from Blood, written between April and May 1992. It is part of a much longer discussion about art, where Bowden explores one of his favorite themes: the art of the radical Left versus the art of the radical Right.

Here he outlines the idea—ignored or denied nowadays—that, since all genuine artistic activity is predicated on human inequality, the pursuit of radical equality in the arts means the destruction of all possible art. The text has been only lightly edited for punctuation, spelling, and capitalization.

According to Stewart Home and other denizens of Smile magazine, a communist-nihilist publication, the Situationists, whom he calls the ‘specto’-Situationists to differentiate them from the artists who followed in their wake, were guilty of bourgeois abstraction. They were guilty of the cardinal sin—in such circles—of idealism, of not basing their thought on a materialist grounding, a perspective of limiting matter and limitless class struggle.

The view of Home and his acolytes (if there are any) is that [Guy] de Bord and [Raoul] Vaneighem were guilty of theoretical deviation, an ideological detour around the bourgeois houses. This was an ideological faux pas that led them to endorse art, hierarchy, and bourgeois values at the moment when they proclaimed their destruction.

In a sense, when Home itemized the fringe and necessarily inadequate achievements of these artists, certainly in terms of artistic creation—Metzger’s auto-destructive art, for instance—he wishes to counter-point the poverty of Situationist theory. What he actually did was to point out the inadequacies—intellectual and technical—of the reductio ad absurdum, ‘sin bin’ avantgarde.

His main point was that a Utopian tradition of anarchy, ecstasy, and plebeian fury had animated a string of counter-cultural authors and artists—Coppe, Blake, Sade, Lautremont, the Surrealists, etc. . . . This is a neat theory, it must be admitted—a form of misstatement, when what we want to say is that this is a necessary fiction on which the author can hang a dissident tradition. It is a tradition, moreover, which dissents against a localized phenomenon, namely against modernism, which is purely a 20th-century event, a happening of modernity as its name suggests.

What this critique wishes to establish, however, is a continuity of rebellion in relation to pre-existing artistic structures—an argument that brings it perilously close to a form of self-serving addenda, whereby lettrism, for instance, can be classified as on a par with the libertarian Christian poetry of William Blake. This is something that ultimately serves the ends of cultural distortion—the assimilation and absorbtion of difference, the denial of quality and hierarchy in relation to culture.

The basic point of Home’s critique, however, involves a certain amount of nostalgia, a respectful nod in the direction of Dadaism, in particular the Dadaist idea that anything can be a work of art. Whereas Surrealism always insisted, under [André] Breton’s tutelage, that anyone can produce art—in the latter case by a dextrous manipulation of unconscious forces that can be used to create. ‘Everyone dreams! Everyone can create Art!’, ran the catch-phrase.

Situationism, on the other hand, at least the specto-Situationist variant that Home is prepared to recognize, believed that everyone should destroy art by achieving its futility at the moment of its recreation—its final gasp. The Post-Situationism that Home’s analysis favoured, all of which is laid out in his book, Assault on Culture, is a form of mannerist council communism—with an individualist twang—in the realm of art. Hence, we see his advocacy of industrial protest against bourgeois culture, namely an artist’s strike, whereby no artworks would be produced for the art market, thereby marginalizing the fringe artists who were stupid enough to endorse this position!

Home and his associates wish to see a situation where nothing rests easy, where everything is contumacious and unclear, where art has no meaning except as a form of proletarian indulgence—a type of mute and redundant sensibility. Hence, we see the call for artists to strike, an attempt to engineer on behalf of these nihilists a go-slow action, a cultural taint—what we might call a refusal to observe reality, when reality is a minefield of action. (Hence, the exhibition that was entitled Culture on the Ruins; the Ruins of Culture—a show they claim was smashed up. They probably did it themselves!)

In short, Home and his adherents wish to bring about a culture of the ruins, an archaic splendour without the echo—the footfall of the Gods—an attempt at an arrested process of deliverance. Now Home and these other cultural bullies—these vandals of the screen—wish to anaesthesize their audiences. They want to render them mute—silent—spendthrift and withdrawn. Hence, we see the fascination with working-class culture—more accurately, the avoidance of the fact that the proletariat has no culture!

Stewart Home, Installation view at SPACE, London, 2012 [2]

Stewart Home, Installation view at SPACE, London, 2012

For Home, of course, to talk of art is to believe in a form of unity, a type of transcendence beyond class and yet rooted in elitism. These are the things he is in violent rebellion against! Ultimately, what he wants to destroy is not transgression, or even the sublime, the wilfully articulate—no; it is the prospect of transcendence in relation to hieratic order, and his colleagues (it may just be him) are intent on the destruction, through denial, of what is described in such circles as ‘essence’, ‘essentialism’—the fact that reality is rooted in the nature that we see all around is, but which such critiques tend to visualise as nothing more than a sea of bourgeois filth.

Men like Home ultimately want to use art as the final communist frontier—a basic resource in their strategy to attack and degrade art, to leave it no room of manoeuvre, and finally destroy it. The point of this is not purely nihilistic, however, in that Home has a definite political agenda that is somewhat submerged. It is submerged amidst the debris of culture, particularly his own, amongst the shards of a fractured dialectic—but it is there nevertheless. Moreover, it is an attempt to deny any transcendent aspect to culture, thereby degrading it, reducing it to the level of proletarian swill. In short, it is an attempt to come to power in a wasteland of the imagination, where the method of the artists’ strike holds good for all time—hence, the sheer nihilism of its viewpoint, its conspectus of the absence of horror.

Stewart Home, Retrospective at SPACE, London, 2012 [3]

Stewart Home, Retrospective at SPACE, London, 2012

Yet, although there is a strong dose of the merely destructive in this argument, this is by no means all. There is a hidden agenda, unspoken and possibly even unconscious, and this is the desire to come to power (if only in the cultural area) on the backs of a philistine proletariat, on the basis of a plebeian disdain for culture. Thus, the Assault on Cultureis paving the way—in its imagination, of course; in the real world these things are of scant importance—for the destructive power of non-creativity.

Rather like the murderer, the psychopathic killer, who sees all of society as his victims, this Left Communist/Nihilist analysis is designed to leave a lonely T. S. Eliot in his wasteland—in fact, to find a wasteland without an author, T. S. Eliot or anyone else, to transcribe it effectively, when what is opposed is the possibility of transcription, of change in relation to essence; when Home and his colleagues do not know what they want.

On the one hand, they wish to cut the bourgeois out of art, whether the term is used in a social or a ‘Marxist descriptive’ sense, but they have nothing to replace it with. On the other, they dream—in the loose manner of the Left-wing mind—of a complete transformation of the social scene (the response, it must be said, of a severely alienated intellect). This is the sort of intellect that can mystify itself over the prospect of essence, from a strongly materialist position, when what is believed in is positively chiliastic. Namely, this is the idea that all social structures, idealistic concepts (i.e., all forms of recognised religion), every positive and actual cultural affirmation or statement, can be done away with, be destroyed, find itself lonely and abandoned.

Yet, after this momentary act of vandalism, what do we find? Nothing but the fact that the author believes in the prospect of proletarian footling, of the working-class individuality, and collectively replacing culture with another form of culture (whatever that means). With a culture that is so free that it is worth nothing at all—a mere grubbing around in the sand, dust, and ashes of what is left, an attempt to approach what Home would call the free creativity of the universalized proletariat—namely, no art whatsoever. This is a vision that truly resembles psycho-art—the often drug-induced despair and cultural illiteracy of the squat, of the anarcho-punk hatred of existence—i.e., the hatred of themselves. It is the state of mind one sees in the following piece of squat graffiti: the acronym ‘F.O.A.D.’—Fuck Off and Die!

Home ultimately wants to see a somewhat baboonish vision of culture—a veritable Tower of Babel—that people like himself will find easy to control, in that the far Left always consists of conflicting strands, even within the same individual. These consist, on the one hand, of a desire to apply a form of universal humanism—do-goodery, in other words. While the other element, the other admixture, is blindly destructive, wilfully nihilistic, anarchic, vengeful, and without pity. It is essentially a position that exists to mouth its own despair! Particularly when society itself can serve as a vehicle for an individual’s misanthropy. When an individual can vent his or her spleen on the society, on the social whole—especially when the do not have to pay any price for it!

As a consequence, there is a deeply cynical side to this endeavor, an attempt to trap proletarian mores in a way that will have to be denied ever afterwards. Namely, that the absence of working-class culture is used as an excuse to ‘destroy bourgeois culture’—the only form of existing culture—just because of personal dissatisfaction, a feeling of inadequacy, and unfulfillment. In short, nihilistic cultural communism is the rebellion of the fart and the belch—of a distended and inadequate angst on all finer things, particularly when those higher notions go under the general heading of ‘God’.

Nevertheless, Home attempt to go beyond art, to transgress towards a type of culture that bears no relation to what we call art, was bound to fail. It rested too hopelessly on an image of self-achievement, an understanding of a process that was otherwise impossible, namely the free creation of the sovereign proletariat. This is something that would involve the destruction of all possible art, even the avoidance of creativity itself.

What is actually required is a specific understanding of what we mean by art, in particular in relation to the definition that Wyndham Lewis gave of it in The Demon of Progress in the Arts.

Lewis adumbrated several principles of artistic excellence, all of which involved creative expression, literary interpretation, and radical foreknowledge—all of which refers to the fact that creativity has to communicate something; it must enhance the intensity— not the quality, but the intensity—of life, insofar as the one excludes the other.

The artistic act also has to adopt the configuration of the line—draughtmanship as a real token of meaning rather than an indulgence, something to be mastered so that it can be dispensed with after the act.

It also has to marshall and order experience in relation to a creative gesture, so that it does not have to come to rely on sensuous impressions in a manner that is passive or unduly effeminate.

All of which relates very strongly to the artistic theory of Greenberg, Herbert Reed, or Clive Bell—all of whom posited a sensuous or impressionistic art criticism against the hard-edged rationality, the masculinity, and diachronic insight that Lewis favored.

Another thing that the observer has to be aware of is the notion of art as a form of hierarchical ordination, an understanding of the fact that art is hieratic, religious, and occasionally spiritual. (This analysis should not be overdone, but a spiritual dimension to life cannot be ignored.)

In a sense it is a recognition of the purity of the process, the fact that art has a genuinely apolitical element attached to it, and that human inequality is the basis for all genuine artistic activity.

Moreover, when we mention the term ‘apolitical’, we do not declare an absence of social consideration—far from it—merely an understanding of the fact that art impinges on things that are slightly beyond the category of machine-guns and butter, even though without machine-guns and butter, of course, there could be no art.

Source: http://www.wermodandwermod.com/newsitems/news240120131723.html [4]

 


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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/01/cultural-communism-and-the-inegalitarian-basis-of-all-genuine-art/

00:05 Publié dans art, Nouvelle Droite | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : art, communisme, jonathan bowden, nouvelle droite | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

mercredi, 30 janvier 2013

Neue Ordnung IV/2012

Zur Vergrößerung auf das Umschlagbild klicken!

Neue Ordnung IV/2012

http://www.neue-ordnung.at/

Staatsfeinde oder Mitbürger? Seite 2–3, 9
Von Hans B. von Sothen

Zitiert 4

Knapp & klar Seite 4–5

Merkel und sonst nichts Seite 6–7
Von Dr. Hans-Dietrich Sander

Pannonicus Seite 8

Die Identitären Seite 10–11
Von Martin Lichtmesz

Europa der Vaterländer – Vaterland Europa Seite 12–15
Zehn Thesen
Von Univ.-Dozent Dr. Friedrich ­Romig

Entkommunifizierung Seite 14–16
Das undurchführbare Projekt in Kroatien
Von Dr. Tomislav Sunic

Stalingrad Seite 17–18
Der Untergang der 6. Armee vor 70 Jahren

Treue und Glaube Seite 19–22
Das ideengeschichtliche Vermächtnis von Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Von Benedikt Kaiser

Die Rubrik „Abendland“ Seite 23

Odin statt Jesus? Seite 24–31
Gott- und Jenseitsvorstellungen im deutschen Neuheidentum
Von Dr. Baal Müller

Heidentum – Sukzession – Überlieferung Seite 32–37
Von Johannes Auer

Heldischer Christus – Wehrhaftes Christentum Seite 38–43
Für eine christlich-nationale Neubesinnung in der deutschen Kulturnation
Von Manfred Müller

Libri legendi Seite 44–46

10:09 Publié dans Nouvelle Droite, Revue | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : autriche, revue, nouvelle droite | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

lundi, 21 janvier 2013

The Fourth Political Theory

 

 

 

 
Natella Speranskaya:  How did you discover the Fourth Political Theory? And how would you evaluate its chances of becoming a major ideology of the 21st century?
 
Felix H. Widerstand:  I discovered the Fourth Political Theory after making some research and looking for alternative political ways of organization. I understood that the concepts “left” and “right” are tricky and deceptive ways to mislead the people in order to divide them; and that there must be a real way to combat against globalism and resist the “new world order” that is being implemented by Zionist controlled West (USrael and it´s colony “EU”).
 
So, I discovered Third-positionism, and became a supporter of national-revolutionary movements in a multipolar geopolitical order (In the Arab countries they have Baathism, Nasserism; in Latinamerica they have Peronism, Bolivarianism; and in our countries we have Eurasianism). This is also known as "international nationalism"; against chauvinism and racism but for the preservation of all identities and of all cultures. I see Eurasianism, or the Fourth Political Theory, as a contemporary way of resistance  for those of us who live “from the Canary Islands to Vladivostok”. For resistance against the plutocratic, materialistic, economicist sytem disguised as "democracy", and against american cultural imperialism.
 
The chances to become a major ideological force are now still low in my opinion (at least for westerners), because of the constant brainwashing that our society is exposed to. Consumerism, individualism, mammonism, and all kind of filth is being pumped in the brains of our people by the media on a daily basis. But the first step should be to spread the idea, to open the eyes of the people, letting them know that other ways of social organization are possible. Then, we need good leaders able to organize the people and who can stand strong and defiantly against the NWO, always defending national soveraignity, at all costs. 
 
The best way of political organization is, in my opinion, a traditional one, were spiritual values are respected, were a collective pride is encorauged, and were social justice is implemented; against usury, exploitation and capitalism.
 
But this ideas are viewed as “extremist” “fascist” and “anti-democratic” by the politically correct left and by the politically correct right.
 
Natella Speranskaya:  Leo Strauss when commenting on the fundamental work of Carl Schmitt The Concept of the Political notes that despite all radical critique of liberalism incorporated in it Schmitt does not follow it through since his critique remains within the scope of liberalism”. “His anti-Liberal tendencies, – claims Strauss, - remain constrained by “systematics of liberal thought” that has not been overcome so far, which – as Schmitt himself admits – “despite all failures cannot be substituted by any other system in today’s Europe. What would you identify as a solution to the problem of overcoming the liberal discourse? Could you consider the Fourth Political Theory by Alexander Dugin to be such a solution? The theory that is beyond the three major ideologies of the 20th century – Liberalism, Communism and Fascism, and that is against the Liberal doctrine.
 
Felix H. Widerstand:  Indeed, the Liberal doctrine (plutocracy, usury and wild capitalism) is the parasitic economic system used by US-imperialists (Zionists, because Zionists are not only in “Israel”, they are in Washington and New York as well) to control the world and destroy the economic and national soveraignity of all countries that still follow independent policies and don´t bow to globalism. We have seen this very recently in Libya, we saw this in Iraq, in Yugoslavia, and are witnessing the same again with the events going on in Syria. What a coincidence that all countries that are being destroyed by the warmongers had an independent banking system and were not followers of the Liberal doctrine!!
 
Leo Strauss was the main perpetrator of the “neocon” ideology, he was a Zionist supremacist like all his powerful and now active followers (Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and so on and so forth – all this filthy disgusting criminals have a very evil agenda)
 
The solution to liberalism would be to restore the national and economic soveraignity of all countries, in a geopolitically multipolar world. We must go out of the “European Union”, go out of the World Bank, Greece (for instance) should stop paying interests to the banksters of Goldmann Sachs; all countries wanting national soveraignity back should go out of all this international globalist organizations that, in an Orwellian way, are enslaving countries in the name of “freedom and democracy”.
 
I see Prof. Dugin´s organization and activism as a very good alternative to fight against this system.
 
Natella Speranskaya:  Do you agree that today there are “two Europes”: the one – the liberal one (incorporating the idea of “open society”, human rights, registration of same-sex marriages, etc.) and the other Europe (“a different Europe”) – politically engaged, thinker, intellectual, spiritual, the one that considers the status quo and domination of liberal discourse as a real disaster and the betrayal of the European tradition. How would you evaluate chances of victory of a “different Europe” over the ”first” one?
 
Felix H. Widerstand:  Of course, there are this two Europes; the first one is being imposed upon us by the Masonic architects of the liberal agenda – see the “Kalergi plan” – particularly since the so-called “Frankfurt School” (Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse…) started to spread all kind of filth and poison to overthrow the traditional European values and society with their “cultural Marxism” and “political correctness”; they (by the way) directly influenced the May ´68 protests in France (a CIA operation, the first “colour revolution”, long time before Ukraine´s) with agitators like Cohn-Bendit, to overthrow President De Gaulle, who did not bow to NATO as requested.
 
This “liberal Europe”, slowly suffocating us, is sadly the majoritary tendency; particularly in the West. The “other” Europe, the “different” one, is the one resisting to this psychological warfare and dominium strategy. We are the minority. But this spiritual, traditional Europe, proud and conscious of its roots and willing to preserve its soveraignity and its identity is geographically much better represented in the East: I see Russia as a big hope for all Europeans.
 
Natella Speranskaya:  “There is nothing more tragic than a failure to understand the historical moment we are currently going through; - notes Alain de Benoist – this is the moment of postmodern globalization”. The French philosopher emphasizes the significance of the issue of a new Nomos of the Earth or a way of establishing international relations. What do you think the fourth Nomos will be like? Would you agree that the new Nomos is going to be Eurasian and multipolar (transition from universum to pluriversum)?
 
Felix H. Widerstand:  Yes, we must rediscover our past, to better understand our present, because only if we understand our present we will be able to construct our future. A Multipolar worldview, like the one proposed by the Eurasian movement, is the only alternative against the planetary hegemony on the “one-World” imperialists.
 
Natella Speranskaya:  Do you agree that the era of the white European human race has ended, and the future will be predetermined by Asian cultures and societies?
 
Felix H. Widerstand:  I would rather say that the white European human race has being forced to an end in Europe, due to bio-social engineering, and a very careful and well prepared long-term programm (remember the Kalergi-plan).
 
Indeed, the Asian (particularly the Chinese and Indian masses) outnumber the Europeans extremely, and the Africans as well… They are very numerous, while the whites are always becoming less and less.
 
In this context of the Asian cultures, it is sad to point out that the great Japanese nation, with a heroic history and tradition, has been americanized in the last decades becoming also a corrupted capitalistic-mercantilistic society, almost as bad as the modern western civilization.
 
Natella Speranskaya:  Do you consider Russia to be a part of Europe or do you accept the view that Russia and Europe represent two different civilizations?
 
Felix H. Widerstand: I consider Russia a particular, an own civilization, but with European roots. Nowadays there is a very huge difference in the average mentality of the ordinary westerner and the Russians (and other Eastern Europeans); because Russians and Easterners are still not that corrupted by western poison, and they are still able to preserve their heritage and identity.
 
Natella Speranskaya: Contemporary ideologies are based on the principle of secularity. Would you predict the return of religion, the return of sacrality? If so, in what form? Do you consider it to be Islam, Christianity, Paganism or any other forms of religion?
 
Felix H. Widerstand: The contemporary ideologies that proliferate in the West after the French Revolution and were reaffirmed during the XX century by freudo-marxist currents are indeed propagating secularism and atheism. The Masonic-talmudic architects behind these modern ideologies know perfectly well that this is the best method to weaken a society: by spreading individualism and condemning communitarism and spirituality: “Divide and conquer!”
 
Christianity has been infiltrated and destroyed from within in the western world, and almost all (organized churches) what remains is corrupt (the Vatican, the Protestant sects, etc). Only in the East, like in Russia, the Orthodox faith represents still a spiritual alternative. Islam, on the other side, has proved to be a good way of resistance for the Muslim countries. Particularly the Shia-current, practiced mostly in Iran, and that preserves also some ancient Persian Zoroastrian heritage. But also within Islam there is a tendency trying to destroy this religion from within, like a Trojan horse: It´s Saudi wahhabism, the “Calvinist” kind of Islam. This wahhabi (or salafi) fanatics are being supported by the West, this is the main ideology behind “Al-Qaeda” and all this terrorist groups which took over Libya and are trying to destroy Syria. Also, this is the ideology of the Chechen terrorists, and of the Bosnian ones in the Yugoslavian wars of the ´90. This demonic perversion, which has nothing to do with real Islam (like scholar Imran Hosein and many other real Muslims pointed out), is being used by the West as proxy, as mercenaries, as "useful idiots".
 
Zionist imperialism is trying to put Christianity and Islam against each other (“Clash of civilizations”), to destroy both of them more easily. And the sad thing is that they are being succesfull! We must awake and realize who the real enemy is.
 
While I sympathize with ancient Paganism, I think that we have to be very careful with the modern “neo-pagan” tendencies that are being spread in the West since the “hippy” times; all this “New Age” fake spirituality is also a part of this plan to overthrow culture and society.
 
In my opinion, every nation, every culture, should be attached to its own spiritual tradition; be proud of it and stay strong. We see this with sovereign national leaders like President Chávez from Venezuela, who is a fervent Catholic; or with President Lukashenko from Belarus who is a devout Orthodox Christian. Also the martyr Gaddafi, was a strong believer in Islam (he encouraged Sufism and Islamic studies in Libya). He condemned the Wahhabi terrorism and rightly pointed out that this disgusting Saudi ideology is nothing more than an infiltration of the Zionist West in the Arab-Muslim world.

mercredi, 16 janvier 2013

Il ricordo di Adriano Romualdi (1940-1973)

fm5906474118_d01b16efc7_z.jpg

Ricorrenze. Il ricordo di Adriano Romualdi (1940-1973), intellettuale controcorrente

Pubblicato il 17 dicembre 2012 da Gianfranco de Turris
Categorie : Personaggi Rassegna stampa
Ex: http://www.barbadillo.it/ 

Se lo sono chiesto, ce lo siamo chiesto, me lo hanno chiesto nel 1983, nel 1993, nel 2003: che cosa avrebbe fatto, che cosa avrebbe detto, che avrebbe scritto, come si sarebbe comportato Adriano se fosse stato vivo?

Una domanda cui non è facile rispondere, anche per uno come me che della storia fatta con i “se” si occupa. Una domanda però che sottintende un senso di distacco, di privazione, ancora d’incredulità di fronte al suo destino, di sotterranea ammirazione per un uomo immaturamente e tragicamente scomparso a causa di un’imperscrutabile e terribile decisione del Fato (che nel 2000 ha voluto ripetersi con Marzio Tremaglia), anche da parte di chi non l’ha mai conosciuto se non, forse, attraverso i suoi scritti.

Adriano era della mia generazione, quella degli anni ’40, ma il primo di tutti essendo nato proprio nel 1940: oggi avrebbe avuto 63 anni, un signore di una certa età con sicuramente alle spalle molti libri, moltissimi articoli, forse anche una carriera universitaria.

Personalmente già mi sono posto l’interrogativo presentando il volume di tutti gli scritti di Adriano dedicati ad Evola (Su Evola, Fondazione Evola, 1998), ma oggi come oggi non riesco a pensare esattamente alla sua posizione rispetto alla politica odierna, se non che sarebbe stato intransigentemente all’opposizione di quella attualmente espressa dal partito erede del MSI, soprattutto sarebbe stato contro la sua politica non-culturale. Infatti, l’azione di Adriano fu sempre su questo piano che possiamo definire metapolitica, secondo gli insegnamenti evoliani. In tutti questi anni, se fosse vissuto, la sua importanza avrebbe potuto essere, nonostante alcune sue rigidità caratteriali, quella di un catalizzatore culturale: sarebbe diventato un’importante figura di riferimento, organizzatore e promotore d’iniziative, in polemica con l’ufficialità. Per semplice induzione sono quasi sicuro che avrebbe polemizzato con gli indirizzi presi, nella sua ultima fase, dalla Nuova Destra, e penso proprio che in qualche modo ambiguo avrebbero cercato d’incastrarlo, com’è successo a molti altri, durante gli anni del terrorismo e dello stragismo, in qualcosa di losco, di certo lontanissimo dal suo modo di pensare e dai suoi intenti. Era, infatti, una personalità di primo piano, anche per essere il figlio di Pino, uno dei fondatori del MSI ed alla fine vice-segretario, e si esponeva parlando e scrivendo: insomma poteva dare fastidio e per le sue idee e per essere una figura aggregatrice.

Era, proprio per quel suo scarto di pochi anni di età, un “fratello maggiore” (mi pare che la definizione sia di Maurizio Cabona), perché l’unico “maestro” della Destra italiana del dopoguerra, anche se non voleva essere chiamato così, era e rimane Julius Evola, di cui Adriano, per la lunga vicinanza e frequentazione, e per essere stato il primo a divulgarne ed interpretarne la “visione del mondo”, può considerarsi l’unico vero “allievo”. Come tale, come “fratello maggiore”, aiutò ed incoraggiò diversi di noi aprendoci le pagine de L’Italiano, uno dei mensili politico-culturali degli anni ’70, su cui si fecero le ossa in molti e dove si dibatterono argomenti oggi comuni ma che allora erano “nuovi” per la Destra ufficiale e del tutto trascurati: non solo cinema e narrativa contemporanea, ma anche fumetti, uso dei mass media, scienza, ecologia, letteratura fantastica, nuove tecnologie e nuove forme d’espressione, analisi della persuasione occulta, tendenze del costume italiano.

Una parte cospicua della storia della cosiddetta “destra pensante” si dovrà fare esaminando le pagine de L’Italiano soprattutto nel periodo in cui Adriano se n’occupò abbastanza direttamente, cioè negli anni della “contestazione”, fra il 1967 ed il 1973.

Era, infatti, del parere che più che lamentarsi della situazione esistente si dovesse agire concretamente sul piano, appunto, culturale e metapolitico. Conclude, infatti, così il suo saggioPerché non esiste una cultura di Destra del 1965 ed in edizione definitiva del 1970: “Bastano pochi cenni per tracciare le linee di sviluppo di una cultura di destra. Ma quest’astratto orientamento incomincerà a prendere forma quando dei singoli si metteranno a scrivere ed a fare”.

Penso che molti dei suoi amici di allora, magari prendendo strade personali diverse, questa via l’abbiano seguita: hanno scritto ed hanno fatto, nei limiti quantitativi consentiti dalle difficoltà insite all’establishment culturale italiano, per parlare degli ostacoli frapposti dalla stessa Destra ufficiale.

Ma l’hanno fatto.

L’idea che Adriano aveva di cultura la espresse in questo suo saggio, ancor oggi attuale e preveggente, per il semplice motivo che, a distanza di quasi 40 anni, le condizioni – diciamo così ambientali – non sono cambiate affatto. Le ragioni essenziali e di fondo di questa storica difficoltà della “cultura di destra”, a parte le situazioni contingenti e pratiche che non venivano per nulla da lui sottovalutate, Adriano le sintetizzava così: “Ciò non deve farci dimenticare la vera causa del predominio dell’egemonia ideologica della Sinistra. Esso risiede nel fatto che là esistono le condizioni per una cultura, esiste una concezione unitaria della vita materialistica, democratica, umanitaria, progressista. Questa visione del mondo e della vita può assumere sfumature diverse, può diventare radicalismo e comunismo, neo-illuminismo e scientismo a sfondo psicanalizzante, marxismo militante e cristianesimo positivo d’estrazione “sociale”. Ma sempre ci si trova di fronte ad una visione del mondo unitaria dell’uomo, dei fini della storia e della società”.

Invece – ecco la contrapposizione secondo le sue parole – “dalla parte della Destra nulla di tutto questo. Ci si aggira in un’atmosfera deprimente fatta di conservatorismo spicciolo e di perbenismo borghese (…). A Destra si brancola nell’incertezza, nell’imprecisione ideologica. Si è “patriottico-risorgimentali” e s’ignorano i foschi aspetti democratici e massonici che coesistettero nel Risorgimento con l’idea unitaria. Oppure si è per un “liberalismo nazionale” e si dimentica che il mercantilismo liberale e il nazionalismo libertario hanno contribuito potentemente a distruggere l’Ordine Europeo. O, ancora, si parla di “Stato Nazionale del Lavoro” e si dimentica che una Repubblica Italiana fondata sul lavoro ce l’abbiamo già – purtroppo – e che ricondurre in questi termini la nostra alternativa significa soltanto abbassarsi al rango di Socialdemocratici di complemento”.

E concludeva: “Basta poco ad accorgersi che se a Destra non c’è una cultura, ciò accade perché manca una vera idea della Destra, una visione del mondo qualitativa, aristocratica, agonistica, antidemocratica; una visione coerente al di sopra di certi interessi, di certe nostalgie e di certe oleografie politiche”.

Ecco perché nel saggio La “nuova cultura” di Destra, Adriano criticava le idee dell’allora nominato “consigliere culturale” del MSI, Armando Plebe, che era riuscito ad annacquare la piattaforma ideale dell’allora Destra Nazionale facendola diventare neo-illuminista, pragmatica, de-ideologizzata ed al massimo anti-comunista: “egli”, scriveva Adriano, “sotto il profilo ideologico è piuttosto un liberale che un uomo di Destra”. Plebe incassò e non replicò, ma si ricordò di queste critiche, tanto che dopo la sua morte non ebbe la minima remora a definire la posizione di Adriano come “l’aspetto più retrivo ed infecondo della cultura di destra”. Quasi quasi aveva ragione a contrario: nel senso che le posizioni dell’attuale partito che dovrebbe rappresentare la Destra italiana sembrano essere proprio quelle propugnate da Plebe; basti leggere il colloquio-intervista del suo presidente a La Repubblica (4 Novembre 2003) dove, alla domanda “Quali sono le nuovi componenti culturali del suo partito”, così risponde: “Indicherei tre radici essenziali: nazionale, nell’accezione non di nazionalismo ma di amor-patrio; liberale; cattolica”. Come ben si vede, Adriano aveva già capito tutto 40 anni fa. La sua posizione, infatti, faceva riferimento alla “Rivoluzione Conservatrice” nel senso più ampio, e non solo tedesco, del termine. Lo confermò in quello che fu uno dei suoi ultimi scritti: la risposta ad un’inchiesta su “le scelte culturali dei giovani di destra” che avevo preparato per Il Conciliatorema che poi venne pubblicata, poiché si era bruscamente troncata la mia collaborazione con il mensile milanese, sulla rivista dell’Ingegner Volpe, Intervento, nell’aprile 1973, pochi mesi prima del fatale incidente, e che ora ho riunito nel volume I non-conformisti degli anni Settanta(Ares, 2003).

Una rivoluzione che, come ben si sa, si rivolgeva ai valori del passato per andare avanti, secondo una definizione di Moeller Van Den Bruck da Adriano citata: “Essere conservatori non significa dipendere dall’immediato passato, ma vivere dei valori eterni”. Frase che – se permettete – accosterei ad un altro grande cui mi avvicinano alcuni miei interessi: Tolkien, il quale a sua volta diceva: “Autore o amatore di fiabe è colui che non si fa servo delle cose presenti”. In fondo esprimono lo stesso concetto.

Nel prendere questa posizione Adriano metteva in pratica i dettami di Julius Evola che già nel 1950, scrivendo per i ragazzi reduci dell’esperienza della RSI, su Orientamenti al punto secondo consigliava di abbandonare il contingente e mantenere l’essenziale. Per questo motivo, Adriano, pur essendo dissenziente su certe posizioni evoliane, poteva concludere così la sua risposta all’inchiesta prima ricordata: “Se mi è permessa una valutazione personale, noi che abbiamo letto da adolescenti Gli uomini e le rovine (e non siamo poi così pochi) siamo nel nostro ambiente – grazie ad Evola – i soli non qualunquisti”. Appunto, quel che è diventata la Destra ufficiale di oggi. Ma questa possibilità da lui indicata, purtroppo, non è mai stata sfruttata, né sembra possibile farlo attualmente anche se ci sarebbero le condizioni teoriche ottimali per farlo. Infatti, la Sinistra è ideologicamente,culturalmente e moralmente allo sbando: regge solo per il suo essersi da mezzo secolo innestata profondamente nei gangli della cultura italiana e per il rimanervi grazie alla forza d’inerzia, alla convivenza ed al mutuo soccorso. Oggi a sinistra si stanno ammettendo le colpe delle stragi compiute dopo il 25 aprile, si stanno ammettendo i compromessi ed i silenzi colpevoli nei confronti di Stalin e Togliatti, si riconosce l’asservimento degli storici ad una visione comunista con il conseguente condizionamento d’intere generazioni, si ammettono connivenze, complicità, conformismi. Eppure, non si riesce ad approfittare di questo momento di gravissima crisi perché l’ambiente della Destra Politica non è cambiato rispetto a quello descritto da Adriano 40 anni fa, non si è creata una “visione del mondo”, si è andati avanti alla giornata al punto da, alla fine, negare se stessa, rinnegando il proprio passato praticamente in blocco, rifiutando tutti i suoi riferimenti culturali, preferendo il Nulla o il qualunquismo (il che è quasi la stessa cosa) ad un serio ripensamento e ad una riattualizzazione: non ha rifiutato il contingente e mantenuto l’essenziale, ma ha rifiutato sia il contingente che l’essenziale. Ha tagliato, com’è stato scritto con grande compiacimento dei progressisti (ma strumentalmente, ai fini della politica-politicante), tutte le sue radici. Aggiungiamo che ha distrutto i ponti ed ha bruciato i vascelli alle sue spalle: ma non esiste alcun futuro senza un passato. Tanto meno con un passato costruito all’impronta, da neofiti, da nuovi arrivati. Ma c’è di peggio. Non ci si limita a rifiutare il passato di tutto un mondo umano, ma, per essere ben accetti, lo si denigra e lo si offende, andando addirittura contro certe correnti storiografiche che cercano di riequilibrare giudizi puramente ideologici su di esso, con un cinismo assoluto e strumentale. Sicché, per tornare a noi, si è potuto leggere che Adriano era un esaltato, che viveva condizionato dal nibelungico crepuscolo del nazismo, al punto di essere affetto da “autismo ideologico” e di rappresentare una “cultura di addetti alla nostalgia” (Marco De Troia, Fronte della Gioventù, Settimo Sigillo, 2001), quasi un piccolo cattivo maestro nazista, razzista e radicale (G.S. Rossi, La destra e gli ebrei, Rubettino, 2003), perché ovviamente il grande cattivo maestro era Julius Evola, entrambi contrapposti ai “buoni” del vecchio MSI, quelli che poi avrebbero creato l’attuale entità politica sua erede.

Di fronte a questo rinnegamento e a questa denigrazione da parte di una destra che si vuole accreditare presso i “poteri forti” attuali, non si può fare a meno di pensare a qualcosa di concreto, non solo ricordando Adriano, ma ristampando in edizione critica le sue opere da troppo tempo scomparse. Fosse vissuto sino ad oggi, con alle spalle il curriculum culturale di 40 anni di attività, sarebbe stato un punto di riferimento, come ho detto, di una resistenza non solo culturale e metapolitica, ma anche morale. Non essendoci più, noi non possiamo far altro che cercare di seguire gli spunti, le idee, i riferimenti che ci ha lasciato, adeguandoli ai tempi naturalmente, come del resto avrebbe fatto anche lui. Tempi questi che, mai – credo – Adriano avrebbe voluto prevedere, pur avendoli in parte immaginati, anche nelle sue visioni più pessimistiche.

A cura di Gianfranco de Turris

mardi, 15 janvier 2013

Limonov, intellettuale ribelle tra Nuova Destra, David Bowie e Che Guevara

limonov_012-604x446.jpg

Limonov, intellettuale ribelle tra Nuova Destra, David Bowie e Che Guevara
 
Pubblicato il 8 gennaio 2013 da Mario Laferla blog

Un ritratto del 2 giugno 2009

Domenica 31 maggio, a Mosca, in piazza Triumfalnaia, la polizia ha arrestato Eduard Limonov, durante una manifestazione antigovernativa non autorizzata. Con Limonov sono finiti in prigione altri venti dimostranti, tutti fedelissimi del fondatore del partito nazional-bolscevico. Nessuno può sapere quale sarà la sorte di Limonov. Strenuo oppositore di Vladimir Putin e della sua politica, Limonov era stato arrestato altre volte; in particolare nel 2001 era stato condannato a quattro anni (poi ridotti a due) per “terrorismo”.
Eduard Limonov è un personaggio noto in tutto il mondo. Scrittore di successo (ha scritto finora ventotto libri, pubblicati in molti paesi tra cui l’Italia), ha sempre dimostrato tutta la sua avversione per il Cremlino, accentuata con l’avvento al potere di Putin, del quale Limonov non approva nessuno dei suoi provvedimenti in politica interna e in quella estera. A Limonov “L’altro Che” di Mario La Ferla dedica un capitolo intitolato “A Mosca contro Putin”. Perchè Limonov ha sempre dichiarato la sua ammirazione e la sua passione per Ernesto Guevara, suo idolo indiscusso.
Quando si rivolge ai suoi detrattori, Limonov parla così: “Siete tutti figli di puttana! Io sono il Casanova e il Che Guevara della letteratura russa! In questo mondo di belle donne e di uomini malvagi, in questo mondo del sangue, della guerra, degli eroi e dei draghi, io mi sono già conquistato un posto alla tavola rotonda degli eventi”.
Il continuo riferimento al Che nei suoi scritti e nei suoi discorsi é il motivo dominante della sua protesta politica contro il Cremlino. Ernesto Guevara -Limonov lo sa bene- non è mai stato apprezzato dai capi sovietici, nemmeno ai tempi delle sue imprese rivoluzionarie. Anzi, proprio quelle imprese, fastidiose per Fidel Castro e per la sua politica di collaborazione con l’Urss, avevano convinto il Cremlino a contrastare l’attività del Comandante. Per Limonov é un vero piacere sbandierare l’immagine barbuta del Che in ogni manifestazione di protesta nelle vie e nelle piazze di Mosca. Come sbattere in faccia al regime l’ “eroe” che non aveva mai amato.
Eduard Limonov é senza dubbio il personaggio più detestato dall’establishment russo. Non soltanto per la continua attività di oppositore, ma anche per il suo curriculum di scrittore e uomo politico. I suoi libri sono noti ovunque. In particolare hanno ottenuto un successo straordinario il suo primo romanzo “Fuck off America!” (scritto dopo un soggiorno negli Stati Uniti), “Il libro dell’acqua”, “Diario di un fallito” e “Eddy-baby ti amo”. Un suo ammiratore italiano ha scritto: “Dal 2001 al 2003 Eduard Limonov è in carcere e sogna l’acqua. Sogna il mare e i fiumi. Sogna laghi, stagni, paludi, fontane, saune e bagni turchi. Dalle coordinate idrogeografiche evoca i ricordi di epiche scopate, di bagni nell’oceano freddissimo, di amici morti in battaglia. Ogni luogo è un frammento di memoria. Come un mosaico si compone l’autoritratto di un irruente leader politico, un pericoloso bastardo i cui hobby principali sono la fica e la guerra. Dissidente, esule, combattente, Limonov fonda nel 1993 il Partito nazionalbolscevico, vigorosa sintesi di ogni totalitarismo, che seduce hooligans dadapunk e nostalgici, teste rasate e metallari, situazionisti. ‘Il libro dell’acqua’ è la superficie dell’opera d’arte, infedele resoconto di un progetto esistenziale, agiografia di un delirio. Limonov sta lì dove la letteratura finisce, e inizia la vita vera. Anzi, la Storia. Eduard Limonov è Che Guevara e Hitler, Kirillov e Cristo, Henry Miller e David Bowie. Eduard Limonov è una rockstar”.
Questo ritratto, perfetto, spiega l’atteggiamento dei governanti russi nei suoi confronti. Ovunque sia andato, a Parigi o a New York, in Italia o altrove, Limonov ha suscitato interesse e curiosità, ha fatto scrivere cose ripugnanti sulla sua persona e lodi smisurate. Di lui, dei suoi libri e della sua attività politica si sono occupati i giornali di tutto il mondo. Fuggito, o espulso, dalla Russia, alla fine degli anni Sessanta, era andato a vivere negli Stati Uniti, dove aveva simpatizzato con i trozskisti ed era stato avvicinato dal Kgb per fare la spia.Aveva vissuto anche a Parigi e i parigini si erano innamorati di lui. Il suo editore italiano lo ha presentato come un “agitatore politico e artista ribelle, dissoluto libertino e feroce militante armato, Eduard Limonv (nome d’arte che evoca il suono della parola russa ‘granata’) é la più scomoda e inclassificabile figura di dissidente intellettuale nella Russia postcomunista”.
Nel 1993, dopo alcune fallimentari esperienze politiche alternative, Limonov aveva fondato il Fronte, poi diventato Partito, nazional-bolscevico. All’inizio sembrava un gruppo rock: artisti alla moda, ragazzi di buona famiglia annoiati e sempre disposti a partecipare a una divertente provocazione politica, e ragazze che trovavano Limonov attraente. Tra i primi aderenti, chiamati nazbols, c’erano, fra gli altri, il cantante del gruppo comunista siberiano “Difesa civile” Jegor Letov, il gruppo heavy-metal “Metallo arrugginito”, l’ex moglie di Limonov, la cantante di night-club Natalia Medvedjeva, il gruppo di artisti performativi “Nord”, e molti poeti, musicisti e giornalisti. Da un punto di vista ideologico, il partito veniva propagandato come una combinazione tra un programma economico di sinistra (giustizia sociale, proprietà comune, lavoro colletivo) e una politica di destra (priorità dello Stato e della nazione, espansione della Russia fino a Gibilterra). L’obiettivo era quello di riunire sotto un’unica bandiera tutti i gruppi radicali giovanili di destra e di sinistra. La bandiera era un misto tra elementi nazisti e comunisti: il rosso e il bianco di Hitler e la falce e martello di Stalin. Fin dalla fondazione, a fianco di Limonov, c’era anche il filoso Aleksander Dugin, il capofila del neo-eurasismo, il teorico della “rivoluzione conservatrice” che aveva avuto stretti contatti con alcuni esponenti dell’estrema destra europea: Jean-Fracois Thiriart, fondatore della “Jeune Europe”; Claudio Mutti, responsabile italiano di quel movimento; Alain De Benoist e Robert Steuckers. I maestri ai quali il partito di Limonov si ispirava erano Evola e Guénon. Il nazional-bolscevismo di Limonov puntava al superamento di destra e sinistra, secondo l’ispirazione di Thiriart, il quale ammoniva: “Il fascista cattivo e nostalgico non mette paura a nessuno, anzi è utile e funzionale al sistema. Quello che mette veramente paura è il rivoluzionario… Questo non significa certo diventare di sinistra, perchè questa sinistra ci disgusta quanto la destra. Significa oltrepassare i limiti imposti dalla cultura borghese e creare una nuovaq concezione della politica al fine di articolare un fronte nazionale, popolare, socialista”.
Un seguace appassionato delle teorie di Dugin e Limonov é Oleg Gutsulyak, scrittore e filosofo ucraino appena quarantenne. Dopo aver militato nell’eterodossia comunista, al sopraggiungere dell’indipendenìza ucraina aveva aderito all’estremismo nazionalista dell’Una-Unso. Poi era passato nella corrente della “Nouvelle Droite” accettando le tesi del neo-eurasismo russo. Ancora prima di aderire alla “Nouvelle Droite”, il filosofo ucraino aveva letto tutti i libri su Che Guevara che ammirava come “rivoluzionario e come eroe morto per difendere le proprie idee”.
Non molto simpatici alla destra tradizionale, i nazbols sono odiati a sinistra. Nonostante Limonov abbia fatto di tutto per accreditarsi come socialista vicino a Lenin e Trotzsky, i suoi atteggiamenti provocatori, i suoi discorsi offensivi, i suoi libri scandalosi hanno finito per isolarlo in un “splendido ghetto” dove continua a coltivare le sue teorie e a lanciare messaggi minacciosi. I suoi miti sono i personaggi che hanno coltivato l’idea della rivoluzione: in testa ci sono quelli che la rivoluzione l’hanno fatta sul serio, in un modo o nell’altro. Oltre a Lenin, quindi, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung, Ho Chi Minh, Giap, Saddam Hussein, Gheddafi, Tito, Milosevic, Salvador Allende, Eva Peròn, Gandhi, Malcom X, Nelson Mandela, Augusto Sandino. Ma sopra tutti c’è Ernesto Guevara, il suo Che glorificato in ogni occasione e in ogni maniera.
Della sua attività politica ha detto: “La mia carrietra politica di leader di un partito estremista è inconsueta agli occhi dell’Europa del XXI secolo, ma anche la Russia è un paese inconsueto, e se mi accusano di violenza, allora anch’io posso allo stesso modo rimproverare il potere russo della violenza che viene esercitata nei miei confronti. Il mio tempo è occupato dalla politica e dalla lotta contro il Cremlino. E il Cremlino lotta contro di noi. Ci picchia. Ci reprime, ci mette in prigione… Io non sono fascista, i fascisti hanno cessato di esistere nel 1945 e da allora sono sorti nuovi fenomeni nel mondo politico, sia in Italia che in Russia”.
Il quartier generale del partito di Limonov è in una specie di cantina al numero 3 della Frunceskaja Ulica, spessissimo “visitata” dalla polizia segreta nel tentativo di scoprire qualcosa di compromettente. Sui muri della sede, un grande manifesto con una colomba con la falce e martello e il poster del Che. All’inviata di “la Repubblica”, Margherita Belgioioso, il portavoce di Limonov aveva detto: “Siamo contro la guerra in Iraq e contro quella in Cecenia; Putin è un dittatore. Ci è stata negata per cinque volte la registrazione come partito nonostante abbiamo un diffuso appoggio tra la gente”.
Parlando di Limonov, la Belgioioso scriveva: “Limonov è un enigma che divide l’intellighentia russa: ma tra chi lo sosteneva apertamente c’era persino Anna Politkovsaja, la giornalista assassinata nell’ottobre 2006 mentre rientrava a casa”. Poi aveva parlato Limonov: “Siamo gli unici a fare una vera opposizione a Putin: per questo il Cremlino ci teme”.

A cura di Mario Laferla blog
 

mercredi, 09 janvier 2013

Jeudi 10 janvier, Pierre Vial au local!

Jeudi 10 janvier,

Pierre Vial au local

10-JANVIER-2013.jpg

Lectures fermes pour une époque molle

Alexis_Carrel.jpg

Lectures fermes pour une époque molle

Dominique Venner

À celles et ceux qui me lisent, je présente tous mes vœux d’énergie, de courage et de beauté. Pour accompagner ces vœux, je vais commenter ma relecture récente d’un ouvrage fondamental et un peu oublié, voire dénigré (signe de qualité dans un environnement décadent) : L’Homme cet inconnu d’Alexis Carrel. Mon édition date de 1968, elle reprend l’édition Plon originale de 1935 (1) (image en Une, édition de 1957).
Prix Nobel de médecine en 1912, le Dr Carrel ne fut pas seulement un biologiste inventif et un virtuose de la chirurgie, c’était un esprit d’une hauteur exceptionnelle. Loin de s’enfermer dans sa discipline, il s’intéressait à tout ce qui se rapporte aux mystères de la vie humaine envisagée sous ses aspects physiologiques, intellectuels et moraux afin d’améliorer la société moderne.

On sait combien sont solidesp hysiquement et moralement ceux qui, dès l’enfance, ont été soumis à une discipline intelligente… C’était un esprit très ouvert et jamais dogmatique, qui s’exprimait avec une grande clarté. On trouve chez lui une foule d’observations précieuses pour se reconstruire ou éduquer les enfants. Celle-ci, par exemple sur les bienfaits de l’adaptation à des conditions de vie contrastées : « L’homme atteint son plus haut développement quand il est exposé aux intempéries, quand il est privé de sommeil et qu’il dort longuement, quand sa nourriture est tantôt abondante, tantôt rare, quand il conquiert par un effort son abri et ses aliments. Il faut aussi qu’il exerce ses muscles, qu’il se fatigue et qu’il se repose, qu’il combatte, qu’il souffre, que parfois il soit heureux, qu’il aime et qu’il haïsse, que sa volonté alternativement se tende et se relâche, qu’il lutte contre ses semblables et contre lui-même. Il est fait pour ce mode d’existence, comme l’estomac pour digérer les aliments. C’est dans les conditions où les processus adaptatifs s’exercent de façon intense qu’il devient le plus viril. On sait combien sont solides physiquement et moralement ceux qui, dès l’enfance, ont été soumis à une discipline intelligente, qui ont enduré quelques privations et se sont accommodés à des conditions adverses » (p. 282).
Le Dr Carrel était un homme de son temps, un homme des années 1930, hanté, entre autres par les effets de la Première Guerre mondiale et de la grande crise économique consécutive au krach de 1929. Il avait une perception forte d’une dégénérescence des peuples blancs qui avaient été, depuis quatre siècles, les bâtisseurs d’un nouveau type de société associé au progrès des sciences et des techniques. C’était un volontariste, comme on l’était en son temps (avant les désastres de la Seconde Guerre mondiale). Il croyait fermement à la possibilité d’endiguer la déchéance qu’il voyait poindre. Pour cela, il pensait nécessaire de mettre ses conclusions à la disposition des réformateurs politiques en vue de décisions salvatrices. Cette ambition élevée était aux antipodes de l’individualisme forcené, des promesses de jouissance liée à la consommation de biens inutiles et du verbiage compassionnel qui dominent notre époque. Mais ces dérives décadentes actuelles n’auront qu’un temps, alors que les enseignements de Carrel ont une valeur éternelle.
La foi qui l’habitait lors de la publication de L’Homme cet inconnu (plusieurs millions d’exemplaires vendus dans le monde entier) est résumé à la fin du livre en une page toujours actuelle. Après avoir rappelé le rôle des ordres monastiques et des ordres de chevalerie durant les périodes sombres du haut Moyen Âge, il enchaîne (p. 348) : « Il n’y aurait pas besoin d’un groupe dissident très nombreux pour changer profondément la société moderne. C’est une donnée ancienne de l’observation que la discipline donne aux hommes une grande force. Une minorité ascétique et mystique acquerrait rapidement un pouvoir irrésistible sur la majorité jouisseuse et aveulie. Elle serait capable, par la persuasion ou peut-être par la force, de lui imposer d’autres formes de vie. Aucun des dogmes de la société moderne n’est inébranlable. Ni les usines gigantesques, ni les offices buildings qui montent jusqu’au ciel, ni les grandes villes meurtrières, ni la morale industrielle, ni la mystique de la production ne sont nécessaires à notre progrès. D’autres modes d’existence et de civilisation sont possibles. La culture sans le confort, la beauté sans le luxe, la machine sans la servitude de l’usine, la science sans le culte de la matière permettraient aux hommes de se développer indéfiniment, en gardant leur intelligence, leur sens moral et leur virilité... » Virilité pour les hommes et aptitudes à l’amour, à l’énergie, au dévouement et à l’éducation des enfants chez les femmes, parmi bien d’autres qualités.

Dominique Venner

(1) Dr Alexis Carrel, L’Homme cet inconnu, Plon. D’occasion sur différents sites en ligne.[Note de Novopress : l’édition de 1999 est également disponible neuve.]

Elementos 38: Werner Sombart / Elementos 37: Federalismo

ELEMENTOS Nº 38. WERNER SOMBART. EL BURGUÉS: HOMO OECONOMICUS MODERNO
 
Enlace Revista electrónica

Enlace Revista documento pdf


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sumario.-
 
El burgués: paradigma del hombre moderno, por Alain de Benoist
Werner Sombart y la teoría histórica de la economía, por José Antonio Rubio
Werner Sombart y el hombre económico moderno, por João Carlos Graça
El burgués, de Werner Sombart, por Conrado García Alix
Las doctrinas económicas de Werner Sombart, por E. L. Marshall
Socialismo, fútbol y movilidad social. A proposito de ¿Por qué no hay socialismo en los Estados Unidos?, de W. Sombart, por Francisco Javier Noya Miranda,
Sombart. La cultura de la otra Europa, por Thule
Sombart y la teoría de la destrucción creativa, por Jorge Ortega
Sombart y los judíos, por Claudio Mutti
Sombart: lujo y capitalismo, por Juan Soler Llácer
Actualidad de Werner Sombart, por José Mª Castroviejo
Sombart y Spengler. Las Grandes Ciudades y sus contradicciones, por Patricio H. Rändle
Libros electrónicos:
¿Por qué no hay socialismo en Estados Unidos?
Los judíos y el capitalismo moderno
Enlaces a esta entrada
 
Enlace Revista electrónica

Enlace Revista documento pdf


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sumario
 
El primer federalista. Johannes Althusius, por Alain de Benoist
 
Carl Schmitt y el Federalismo, por Luis María Bandieri
Nacionalismo, Democracia y Federalismo, por Ramón Máiz
Europa federal y el principio de subsidiariedad, por Rodrigo Agulló
España, ¿federación o autodeterminación?, por Sebastian J. Lorenz
Plurinacionalidad, Federalismo y Derecho de Autodeterminación, por Jaime Pastor
El federalismo pluralista. Del federalismo nacional al federalismo plurinacional, por Miquel Caminal
Federalismo plurinacional, por Ramón Máiz
Estado federal y Confederación de Estados, por Max Sercq
De la Confederación a la Federación. Reflexiones sobre la finalidad de la integración europea, por Joschka Fischer
Federalismo versus Imperialismo, por Juan Beneyto
Europa. De imperio a federación, por Josep M. Colomer
Entrevistas imaginarias con el Presidente de Europa y el Jefe del Gobierno europeo

Is Catastrophe Inevitable?

Is Catastrophe Inevitable?

 

Alex Kurtagic

Ex: http://www.amren.com/  

How liberalism may lead to collapse and Western rebirth.
 
Guillaume Faye, Convergence of Catastrophes, Arktos, 2012, 220 pp., $28.05 (soft cover)

Convergence of Catastrophes is the third book by French author Guillaume Faye to be published by Arktos in English. If you have read the other two (Archeofuturism and Why We Fight), you will recognize in the title a familiar theme in the author’s critique of liberal modernity: the idea that liberalism has unleashed a series of catastrophic processes now converging towards a cataclysmic global implosion.

I was keen to read this volume because it promised an elaboration on one of the key arguments Dr. Faye makes in Archeofuturism. This proved to be the case, though one difference is that Dr. Faye’s prose has shifted to reflect a higher degree of rage, directed at Europe’s and particularly France’s liberal establishment.

Dr. Faye frankly addresses the unfolding, slow-motion policy car crash no politician wants to talk about. Though in a different order and separated into more categories, he identifies the following lines of catastrophe converging in the West today:

  1. The collapse of the earth’s ecosystem, caused by overpopulation, half-hearted or absent environmental policies, and the belief that the Third World needs to be “developed” to the American standard—which Faye thinks would require several earths’ worth of resources.
  2. The degeneracy of European culture and man, brought about by egalitarianism, secularism, and social liberalism.
  3. The clash of civilizations, particularly between a degenerate Europe and a vigorous Islam, which Faye considers extremist by nature and never moderate (Dr. Faye deems the idea of a secular, moderate Islam a myth invented by scared Western politicians).
  4. The demographic coma in Europe, resulting in a shrinking and ageing population, and the lack of political will to reverse this with pro-natalist policies rather than immigration.
  5. The colonization of Europe by settlers from the Third World, who see the continent as a welfare El Dorado and whose continued arrival will increase ethnic tensions to the point of ethnic civil war.
  6. The giant economic crisis caused by the failure of the casino economy of finance capitalism, which will lead to a collapse worse than the Great Depression and to universal poverty and a new Middle Ages.

The tone of Convergence is lighter than in Archeofuturism and Why We Fight, though each page drips with sarcasm, cynicism, and animated exasperation. There is no mincing of words here.

Dr. Faye takes the darkest view of everything, predicting always the worst possible outcomes. In his view it is too late; for decades the warning signs have been ignored, suppressed, and explained away by politicians, academics, and the media. Nothing has been done. They have let structural problems grow worse in the belief that disaster will somehow be averted or that things will magically work themselves out. Though he does not state it explicitly, it is clear that Dr. Faye has no hope of any kind of counter-cultural movement with the power to halt the final cataclysm.

Towards the end of the book, Dr. Faye outlines three possible collapse scenarios: a soft one, a hard one, and a very hard one. In the soft one a total systemic breakdown is averted, but Western societies live on impoverished and in a state of permanent crisis. In the very hard one there is total breakdown. Western civilization is destroyed and the world population collapses, ushering in a new Middle Ages. Dr. Faye considers this both the most likely and the most desirable scenario. For him, history is cyclical. We are at the end of a cycle, and the harder scenario clears the decks for a new beginning, founded on entirely different—and better—philosophical suppositions. For this reason, Dr. Faye believes that this grim convergence of catastrophes is positive and necessary, and that the prospect of a new beginning should be reason for hope.

For the future, Convergence offers the vision outlined in Archeofuturism: a diversified world with a highly developed zone in the northern hemisphere and agricultural or subsistence societies in the south. Dr. Faye sees this as not only environmentally more sustainable, but as a more accurate reflection of the diversity of human societies; only a fraction of humanity, in his view, is suited to a techno-industrial society.

I generally agree with Dr. Faye’s thesis of converging catastrophes, but I fear it includes a slight element of wishful thinking. It seems Dr. Faye looks forward to the collapse; his attitude is the mirror image of the liberals’, who are either complacent or in denial. This may lead him to paint a scenario that satisfies him and that begins to unfold within his lifetime—in other words, he imagines he will be there to gloat as liberals bite the dust. He also suggests that Europeans will rise naturally from the ashes, without stressing that this depends on what we do now; it is not the natural outcome of collapse. This assumption is dangerous, because there are no guarantees of anything.

There is no guarantee that Europeans will rise from the ashes.

I am less willing than Dr. Faye to predict cataclysm sometime within the next eight years (when he wrote Archeofuturism in 1999, he predicted disaster by 2020). Nor would I assume that the lines of catastrophe will all converge within a narrow timeframe, or that European man will necessarily exist in the post-collapse world, even in smaller numbers.

To begin with, collapse scenarios can take a variety of forms, including forms in which the collapse would not be recognized as such by those living through it, or even by those living after it. A soft collapse, for example, can be one in which life remains pleasurable, so collapse is never widely recognized as such. Standards of morality weaken, the race degenerates, and a culture dissolves gradually, giving way to another that takes over therapeutically, subtly enslaving people who do not mind because they love their slavery. There may be a few bumps here and there along the way, of course, but, on the whole, this is how it unfolds. Does this not sound like the collapse of WASPdom in the United States?

Dr. Faye’s soft collapse scenario I would describe as either “deferred” or “slow.” In the first, the collapse has already occurred, but the final cataclysm is endlessly postponed, more or less like the financial crisis we are living through now. Through subterfuge, ways keep being found to levitate what should already be on the ground. In the second, the collapse unfolds gradually, in a managed and technocratic manner, and the social temperature is always kept below the threshold needed for a revolution.

One can also debate the “hard” convergence thesis. We can accept that various catastrophic trends are in place, but will they converge close enough together in time for a complete collapse, or will the catastrophes hit in succession over a long period? It is conceivable that each line of catastrophe may progress at a different speed, and that some will prompt a delaying action, thus weakening the convergence.

For example, global warming may be slowed significantly if electric cars are improved enough to trigger a phase out of the internal combustion engine over the next 10 to 15 years. In 2004, when Convergence was originally published in French, the electric car was still a distant prospect; now it is getting closer, and with decreasing petroleum reserves, it may soon make sense for motorists to make the switch. A technological breakthrough could potentially take the environmental and even the economic trend out of the equation, or at least slow them down, though this may not matter a great deal if the other trends continue.

Of course, this does not argue against the very real prospect of declining economic conditions, continuing political paralysis, and so on; it simply argues in favor of what Dr. Faye may consider the worst and most insidious of all scenarios: a “soft” convergence and a protracted or deferred collapse, whose final denouement occurs so far in the future that there are not enough of us left for it to matter any longer.

The important point is that the outcomes of collapse are not foreordained: They depend on what we do now. If some form of collapse is inevitable, then it is imperative that we establish today the bases for the world that will follow that collapse, and that we seize control of the process—including precipitating it artificially—so as to ensure for us the most favorable outcome. I believe Faye would agree with this, although he does not say so explicitly.

I must refer to this book’s latent anti-Americanism. It is only a minor part of the narrative, but it is a flaw, and Jared Taylor’s foreword points out Dr. Faye’s careless conflation of America with the American government. For many Americans, their government is their number-one enemy, and is distinct and separate from America. In Convergence, Dr. Faye accuses America of trying to weaken Europe by promoting free trade and multiculturalism, while practicing protectionism and controlling immigration to the US, when, in fact, America enthusiastically practices the same policies it promotes in Europe. Fortunately, and as Mr. Taylor points out, Dr. Faye has since revised this position: In a speech delivered in Nashville at the 2012 American Renaissance conference, he described Americans and Europeans as brothers in arms.

Dr. Faye speaking at the 2012 American Renaissance conference.

The philosophical foundations of the American republic are classical liberalism, but I believe it is essential—even if difficult—to separate liberalism (Americanism) from America, and to re-imagine America in philosophically non-liberal terms. To this we would need to look at the parts of American heritage that existed before, or beyond the reach of, classical liberalism. One can think of the early colonial period (before) and the wild West (beyond). This may prove vital in the effort to guarantee the continuity in the 21st century of white Americans and white American culture in the New World.

Do not look to Dr. Faye for a practical action plan; his purpose is to frankly assess present trends in the West and to point out that any cataclysmic outcome marks a beginning as well as an end. It is up to each reader to decide his course of action and translate what he has learned into effective action. For more concrete policy matters, Dr. Faye has just published Mon Programme (My Program), but it is available only in French.

Despite its imperfections, Convergence is a compelling and furious read, addressing important topics with an honesty that is rarely found and never with such intensity in a single volume. Futurology is very subjective, so one must be lenient with predictions—particularly those involving complex global events; but Dr. Faye’s analysis is fundamentally correct and will be read with profit by anyone who wants to understand how the liberal global experiment will eventually end.

mardi, 08 janvier 2013

Introduction to Guillaume Faye’s book Convergence of Catastrophes

Introduction to Guillaume Faye’s book Convergence of Catastrophes, published by Arktos Media

An Explosive Cocktail

The modern world is like a train full of ammunition ­running in the fog on a moonless night with its lights out.’ (Robert Ardrey[1])

GFcoc_1.jpgFor the first time in its history, humanity is threatened by a convergence of catastrophes.

A series of ‘dramatic lines’ are approaching one another and converging like a river’s tributaries with perfect accord (between 2010 and 2020) towards a breaking point and a descent into chaos. From this chaos — which will be extremely painful on the global scale — can emerge the new order of the post-catastrophe era and therefore a new civilisation born in pain.

Let us briefly summarise the nature of these lines of catastrophe.

The first is the cancerisation of the European social fabric. The colonisation of the Northern hemisphere for purposes of permanent settlement by the peoples of the global South, which is increasingly serious despite the reassuring affirmations of the media, is pregnant with explosive situations; the failure of the multiracial society, increasingly full of racism of all kinds with different communities becoming more and more tribal; the progressive ethnic and anthropological metamorphosis of Europe, a true historical cataclysm; the return of poverty to Western and Eastern Europe; the slow but steady growth of criminal activity and drug use; the continual disintegration of family structures; the decline of educational infrastructure and the quality of academic programs; the disruption of the transmission of cultural knowledge and social disciplines (barbarisation and loss of needed skills); the disappearance of popular culture and the increasing degrading of the masses by the culture of spectacles.[2] All this indicates to us that the European nations are moving toward a New Middle Ages.[3]

But these factors of social breakdown in Europe will be aggravated by the economic and demographic crisis which will only get worse and end by producing mass poverty. By 2010 the number of active workers will not be large enough to finance the retirements of the ‘grandpa boomers’. Europe will collapse under the weight of old people; then its ageing countries will see their economies slowed and handicapped by payments for healthcare and retirement benefits for unproductive citizens; in addition, the ageing of the population will dry up technical and economic dynamism. In addition to these problems, the economy will increasingly resemble the Third World because of the uncontrolled immigration of unskilled populations.

Modernity’s third dramatic line of catastrophe will be the chaos of the global South. By displacing their traditional cultures with industrialisation, the nations of the South, in spite of a deceptive and fragile economic growth, have created social chaos that is only going to get worse.

The fourth line of catastrophe, which has recently been explained by Jacques Attali,[4] is the threat of a world financial crisis, which will be much more serious than the crisis of the 1930s and will bring about a general recession. The harbinger of the crisis will be the collapse of the stock markets and currencies of the Far East, like the recession that is striking this region.

The fifth line of catastrophe is the rise of fanatical religious cults, principally Islam. The rise of radical Islam is the backlash to the excesses of the cosmopolitanism of modernity that wanted to impose on the entire world the model of atheist individualism, the cult of material goods, the loss of spiritual values and the dictatorship of the spectacle. In reaction to this aggression, Islam has radicalised, just as it was already becoming once again a religion of domination and conquest, in conformity with its traditions.

The sixth line of catastrophe: a North-South confrontation, with theological and ethnic roots, will appear on the horizon. It is increasingly likely to replace the risk of an East-West conflict, which we have so far avoided. No one knows what form it will take, but it will be serious, because it will be based on collective challenges and sentiments much stronger than the old and artificial partisan polarity of the USA and USSR, capitalism and Communism.

The seventh line of catastrophe is the uncontrolled increase of pollution, which will not threaten the Earth (which still has four billion years to look forward to and can start evolution over again from zero), but the physical survival of humanity. This collapse of the environment is the fruit of the liberal and egalitarian myth (which was once also a Soviet myth) of universal industrial development and a dynamic economy for everyone.

We can add to all this the probable implosion of the contemporary European Union, which is increasingly ungovernable, the risks involved with nuclear proliferation in the Third World, and the probability of ethnic civil war in Europe.

The convergence of these factors in the heart of a globalised and very fragile civilisation allows us to predict that the Twenty-first century will not be the ‘progressive’ continuation of the contemporary world, but the rise of another world. We must prepare ourselves for this tragic possibility with lucidity.

Believing in Miracles

We are dealing with a general prejudice inherited from the egalitarian and humanitarian utopias, like the philosophy of Progress, according to which ‘we can have everything at the same time’ and that reality never has negative consequences.

People believe they can have their cake and eat it too. They imagine, according to the liberal faith, that an ‘invisible hand’ will spontaneously restore a harmonious equilibrium. I shall mention a few examples of believing in miracles:

•    Imagining that the dogma of the unlimited economic development of every nation is possible without massive pollution and ecological catastrophes that will destroy this very development. This is the illusion of indefinite development.

•    Believing that a permissive society will not produce a social jungle, and that you can obtain at the same time libertarian emancipation and self-disciplined harmony. We see this drama being acted out in the shipwreck of our schools, where violence, insecurity, ignorance, and illiteracy are arising out of the illusion of progressive education, an educational method which rejects any form of discipline for its students.

•    Believing that it will be possible to preserve retirement systems and social and medical entitlements while remaining faithful, in a period of demographic decline, to the ideal of ‘solidarity of distribution’. This is the illusion of the Communist conception of solidarity.

•    Believing that large-scale alien immigration is compatible with the ‘values of the French Republic’ and the preservation of the civilisation of the nations and peoples of Europe; and that Islam can become secular and blend in with republican values. Believing also that we can renew the working population by importing immigrants, when these immigrants are unskilled welfare recipients and our responsibility. Imagining also that by regularising the status of masses of illegal immigrants, it will be possible to assimilate them and avoid the arrival of new masses, although we observe exactly the opposite. This is the illusion of the benefits of immigration.

•    Extolling the assimilation and integration of aliens while wanting to preserve and maintain their special characteristics, their original cultures, their memories and native mores. This is the communitarian illusion, one of the most harmful of all, which is particularly cherished by ‘ethno-pluralist’ intellectuals.

•    Imagining that by cancelling Third World debt we can encourage their economic growth and prevent new indebtedness in the future. This is the Third Worldist illusion.

•    Demanding at one and the same time that we abandon nuclear energy programs and replace them with power plants using natural gas, coal and petroleum, while advocating the reduction of polluting gases. This is the ecologist’s illusion.

•    Thinking that a world economy founded on short term speculation based on computerised markets and replacing monetary policies with the caprice of financial markets will guarantee a lasting ‘new growth’. This is the illusion of the new economy.

•    Believing that democracy and ‘republican values’ will be reinforced by eliminating ‘populism’, that is, the direct expression of the will of the people.

I could make the list longer. In all these matters, believing in miracles can be explained by the incorrigible optimism of the secular religion of egalitarian progressivism, but also by the fact that, although it has reached an impasse, the dominant ideology does not dare deny its dogmas or make heartbreaking revisions, while clinging to the idea that ‘the storm will never come’. The whole thing is explained by the sophisms of bogus experts, whose conclusions are always that everything is going well and getting better and that we have the situation under control. They are like a driver who speeds through a red light and justifies it by explaining that the faster he drives, the less time he spends in the intersection and therefore reduces the risk of a collision.

Man, a Sick Animal

Paul MacLean,[5] Konrad Lorenz,[6] Arthur Koestler,[7] and Jean Rostand[8] have sensed that man is a sick animal, endowed with a brain that is too large. Conscience is perhaps, on the evolutionary scale, an illness and intelligence a burden. Man has lost touch with his natural survival instincts. We have not been on the Earth for a long time and it may be that, from life’s point of view, or Gaïa’s,[9] we are a failed species, an abortive experiment; and that, especially by destroying the ecosystem that supports it, the suicidal human race is hastening its own disappearance.

Our neocortex, which some biologists compare to a tumour, does not function sufficiently in symbiosis with our reptilian brain. This is ‘cerebral schizo-physiology’, the source of a chaotic and self-destructive culture: wars, religious fanaticisms, frenzied exploitation of nature, aberrant demographic proliferation or, on the other hand, catastrophically low birth levels, frustrating natural selection, etc.: Homo sapiens sapiens does not deserve the name he has given himself. He is not ‘wise’, only intelligent. But he will perhaps perish from this excessive intelligence, which is pushing him to excess, hybris[10], and is making him lose every instinct of collective survival and all capacity to ‘feel’ the dangers that are piling up.

The Golem Parable, or the Machine that Went Mad

Humanity has lost control of the forward rush of the technological and globalised civilisation born in the Nineteenth century. We should remember the parable of the Golem, the Jewish allegory from Prague, in which a mud figure brought to life by magic escapes its maker, becomes an autonomous and out of control entity, and then starts spreading terror.

Today’s little Jules Vernes[11] are mistaken. Optimistic and short-sighted mechanics, they are only making the situation worse. More than that, they are not in control of the machine and have no idea where it is heading. There really is a pilot in the airplane, but he is convinced that he is driving a locomotive.

Among the inescapable trends at work today, there are other risks that are unforeseeable today but which will make things worse (or perhaps better, but this is less likely), or else create new tendencies or new earth-shattering phenomena. At any rate, it is hard to see any positive signs. All the indictors are flashing red.

In futurology, there are only two types of extrapolation from current trends that one can make with a high degree of probability: the weak and the strong. Today predictions are typically based on weak extrapolations. These latter are, for example, the pursuit of economic growth, linear and continuous technological progress, scientific civilisation, the affirmation of democracy everywhere in the world (who is telling us that Europe will be ‘democratic’ in 2030?); the lasting character of the United Nations; the effectiveness of antibiotics in the next century, and so on.

We are less concerned with strong extrapolations, which have a good chance of being realised in the next twenty years: the demographic disequilibrium of North and South that will grow massively; the unavoidable ageing of the indigenous European population; the growth of mass immigration into rich countries; the worsening of pollution, atmospheric warming and the exhaustion of resources, which is growing worse regardless of what measures may be taken today on a global level (and they are not being taken); the rising power of Islam; the worsening of social disintegration in Europe along ethnic lines, etc. All these strong extrapolations are headed in the direction of the system’s breakdown, and are what we might call ‘pessimistic’.

The ‘Billiard Ball’ Theory

The current implicit ideology that dominates the world, especially in the West, still continues to profess, officially, the utopia inherited from the egalitarian philosophy of the Enlightenment (Eighteenth century), positivism[12] and scientism (Nineteenth century): to create a situation where, in a few decades from now, some eight billion people will live on the planet with a good standard of living and democracy for all. All this resembles the billiard player who imagines that after four or five rebounds his ball will automatically fall into the hole. These professors of ballistics are playing golf, but they do not know it.

It is a quasi-certainty that this persistent belief in progress and modernity, concepts which the political classes of the West are always jabbering about and which are totally obsolete, will never see its objectives occur. The dream will shatter into pieces. Constraining forces, a physical wall, makes this ideology resemble a mass of intellectual stupefaction and belief in miracles.

The demanding parameters, mentioned above, based upon the assumption that current realities will persist and that current projections for the future will be realised, are not taken into account. No one is looking at the dashboard or the fuel gauge. Only the short-term counts, but for how much more time? The majority of the elites do not concern themselves with the long term, or even the middle term, in this civilisation of the here and now. The fate of future generations does not interest the decision-makers at all. They care only about their own careers.

*  *  *

They are helped by the experts in every field, who practice constant disinformation and censorship of pessimism, taking advantage of the good old Coué method of optimistic autosuggestion:[13] ‘Everything is going badly, so, to reassure myself, I say that everything is going well.’ Actually pessimism would be more convincing, since it incites people to improve matters and to try to cure the disease. Alas, I think that is already too late. We have passed the point of no return.

The majority of intellectuals, media people, politicians and businessmen maintain a language of utopian optimism, clinging to their dogmas and making a gross travesty of reality: ‘republican assimilation is making progress and will continue to make progress in France’; ‘we are on the path to control massive illegal immigration’; ‘Islamism is in decline’; ‘we are on track to win the war on terror’; ‘economic growth will resume next year and, because of the economic recovery, unemployment will go down’ (when tomorrow comes, erasing it will cost nothing); ‘we are going to establish democracy in the Near East’; ‘we can stop using nuclear power and reduce pollution by making more efficient use of other resources, even if we go back to power plants that use petroleum, natural gas and coal’; ‘we are going to find the money to pay for the costs of healthcare insurance without increasing public borrowing’; and so on.

We go forward each time either by lying and misrepresenting the objective situation, or by deliberately ignoring the parameters and changes that are taking place.

If elites of all different kinds pretend to believe this nonsense, public opinion (once upon a time we used to say, ‘the people’) subscribes to it less and less. Pessimism is present everywhere, like a sort of presentiment of a coming apocalypse. Already in 1995, an IFOP[14] poll published in the Leftist newspaper Libération revealed that to the question, ‘In ten years will we live in a better world?’ 64 % of those polled responded in the negative. They were not mistaken.

‘Catastrophe Theory’ and ‘Discrete Structural Metamorphoses’

In his ‘catastrophe theory’ French mathematician René Thom[15] explained that a ‘system’ (whether physical-chemical, mechanical, climatic, organic, social, civilisational, etc.) is an always fragile ensemble that can suddenly lurch into chaos, without anyone anticipating it, as a result of an accumulation of factors. It is the famous ‘drop of water that causes the cup to overflow’. Every system is unstable and every civilisation is mortal, like everything in the universe. But sometimes the collapse is violent and sudden. For a long time a system can be worn away from inside by an endemic crisis; it holds out for a long time and then, suddenly, everything tips over. We find here the law of viral and bacterial biology: incubation is slow, but the final attack is as fast as lightning. A tree, apparently in good health, falls down during the first storm, although no one suspected that its insides were eaten away.

History offers us examples of sudden and unforeseen collapses: the Amerindian civilisation after the Spanish invasion, or else the Egyptian empire facing the assault of the Romans. I am defending the thesis that this is what awaits today’s global civilisation in the next twenty years. We are going to hit a very sudden breaking point arising from the simultaneous convergences of great crises. It is easy to envisage spectacular and rapid historical reversals.

*  *  *

It is always necessary to beware of surprises, these unforeseen and sometimes discrete transformations, which turn everything upside down. They radically modify a system’s structure, without making a loud noise and suddenly, their consequences explode and change everything. That is what is heading for us today. They are ‘discrete structural metamorphoses’.

We believe that we are still living in world X, when we are already in world Y, and the house of cards of the old world collapses without warning. These metamorphoses do not always make the front pages of newspapers; they take place without making a fuss. They constitute history’s infrastructure, not its ephemeral surface.

The founding of the Fifth Republic,[16] the fall of Communism, the results of American elections, etc., are events that depend on the superstructure. On the other hand, what we have called the ‘discrete structural metamorphoses’ will have incalculable consequences. For a generation they have been increasingly frequent and rapid. They are transforming the face of our civilisation.

Let us mention some cases. In France and Belgium, and soon in other countries, the number of active practitioners of Islam is soon going to surpass that of the Christian churches; the depopulation of Europe has begun as the radical ethnic modification of its population; the Spanish language has already equalled and even surpassed English in the American Southwest; some twenty nations possess the technology for making nuclear weapons; in a number of Western countries the traditional family is collapsing and a demographic coma is in place; the ‘casino economy’, purely speculative and unregulated, stretches over the entire world, especially in China, which still calls itself ‘Communist’; antibiotics are less and less effective against bacterial epidemics, and so on.

We are in control of none of these structural metamorphoses. And very few people are aware of the power of their interaction.

We Must Stop Believing in Sorcerers: Techno-science Gone Mad

The elites who direct the Western world, the over-credentialed ‘experts’, are pulling the wool over our eyes. They possess neither strategy nor mastery of analysis and are satisfied with tactics. The real problems are never investigated. The solutions are rhetorical or electoral. The good apostles, bureaucrats with MBAs from prestigious schools, are only masters of words. No improvement is in sight. The Golem’s inexorable march continues.

The burden of ‘doing nothing’ is the heaviest. But the experts and specialists (once called ‘savants’) are consoling us. They play the role sorcerers played in ancient societies.

*  *  *

No one is directing science and technology any longer and, far from improving the human condition as they used to, they are making it worse, notably by exhausting resources and destroying the environment. The modern myth of ‘development’, which is venerated more than ever all over the world, leads to its opposite, a gigantic regression, a race to the bottom. No authority, no international planning has emerged. Globalisation is anarchy. The backdrop of this fatal movement is generalised individual consumerism, the search for the highest possible standard of living, unbridled enthusiasm for the free market, the speculative economy and the cult of ‘taking each day as it comes’.

Similarly, democracy has to be seen as an aggravating factor, for this type of regime removes any central authority that can, when it sees the storm appearing, react in an emergency. Liberal democracy favours improvidence, the law of the market, and short-term calculation by individuals or corporations. If once upon a time this type of regime was efficient, today it seems incompetent, as it shows every day, to stem the rise of dangers.

International conferences on the environment are a futile waste of time. Just as there is no control over mass immigration, so the destruction of fish reserves and our forest heritage, the increased emission of greenhouse gases, the demographic gap between North and South, etc., are out of control. Even the authorities who arise to reverse the catastrophic course of events, whether they represent countries or the United Nations, do not succeed in correcting the direction of the cargo ship that is going full sail, faster and faster, towards the reefs.

*  *  *

But we are reassured by the ‘experts’ and are still fascinated by techno-science, believing that it will solve all our problems using some new form of magic. Computers, the electric or low-polluting engines, organic agriculture, and pharmaceutical research will not prevent the return of famines and epidemics or the exponential growth of pollution. It is too late. The machine is racing. Intellectuals and ‘philosophers’ have been telling us over and over again for decades that ‘the myth of Progress’ is dead. On the contrary, it has never been in such good shape, especially in the developing countries of the South. We are victims of the psychological condition of derealisation, a loss of the sense of reality of what is happening. Our contemporaries have persuaded themselves that ‘catastrophe cannot happen’ and that this civilisation is at the same time eternal and continually getting better and better, that it will never experience a reversal, and a fortiori[17] not a collapse. Not only is this a possibility, but it will happen, and very soon.

What comforts us in this gloomy illusion is our techno-scientific environment, which we consider to be indestructible, when on the contrary this global civilisation is a colossus with feet of clay. The politicians and the experts, who possess neither audacity nor imagination, reject every radical solution. They always prefer little solutions, tactical or rigged, compromises that please an electorate with cold feet, always respecting the status quo. They believe, like King Arthur, that ‘the fortress is impregnable’ when no one is guarding the walls.[18]

The groundswell — or rather the different groundswells arriving at the same time, demographic, strategic, sociological, economic, environmental — is arrogantly ignored. In France we even use the surreal expression ‘sustainable development’! The dominant ideology, which calls itself rationalist, is really magical. In every area it plays the role of an ‘ideology of sleep’.

*  *  *

We must not forget — and it is one of the central theses of this work — that mini-catastrophes reinforce one another, multiplying their effects among one another to produce a global mega-catastrophe. An accident (of an airplane, for instance) is the result of a series of causes and never just one: for example, the conjunction of a technical problem in the controls, bad weather and pilot error.

It is the same with the situation we are living through, or rather that we are soon going to be living through. For example, the natural calamities produced by global warming aggravate the famines caused by other economic and demographic causes and thus make the economic situation even worse and push the populations of the South to emigrate to the North, thus destabilising the West still more. Growing poverty in certain countries feeds religious fanaticism that, in turn, complicates political instability. And so on.

The system is holistic and interactive, which explains the acceleration of the arrival of the breaking point, since a multitude of crises converge at the same moment, without anyone being able to treat them separately.


[1]     Robert Ardrey (1908-1980) was a widely read and discussed author during the 1960s, particularly his books African Genesis (1961) and The Territorial Imperative (1966). Ardrey’s most controversial hypothesis, known as the ‘killer ape theory’, posits that what distinguished humans’ evolutionary ancestors from other primates was their aggressiveness, which caused them to develop weapons to conquer their environment and also leading to changes in their brains which led to modern humans. In his view, aggressiveness was an inherent part of the human character rather than an aberration. Ardrey’s ideas were highly influential at the time, most notably in the ‘Dawn of Man’ sequence of 2001: A Space Odyssey, and also in the writings of GRECE, in which Ardrey was frequently cited.

[2]     Presumably a reference to ‘society of the spectacle’, a term coined by Guy Debord (1931-1994), a French Marxist philosopher and the founder of the anarchist Situationist International. The spectacle, as described in his principal work, The Society of the Spectacle, is one of the means by which the capitalist establishment maintains its authority in the modern world — namely, by reducing all genuine human experiences to representational images in the mass media, thus allowing the powers-that-be to determine how individuals experience reality.

[3]     This is a concept developed by the French author Alain Minc, in which he predicts a coming time of chaos and hardship resembling the Middle Ages, which will end in the development of a much smaller, but more sustainable, global economy. He discusses this idea in Le Nouveau Moyen-âge (Paris: Gallimard, 1993).

[4]     Jacques Attali (b. 1943) is a French economist who was an advisor to Mitterrand during the first decade of his presidency. Many of his writings are available in translation. Faye may be referring to Attali’s article ‘The Crash of Western Civilisation: The Limits of the Market and Democracy’, which appeared in the Summer 1997 issue of the American journal Foreign Policy. In it, Attali claimed that democracy and the free market are incompatible, writing: ‘Unless the West, and particularly its self-appointed leader, the United States, begins to recognise the shortcomings of the market economy and democracy, Western civilisation will gradually disintegrate and eventually self-destruct.’ In many ways his arguments resemble Faye’s.

[5]     Paul D. MacLean (1913-2007) was an American neuroscientist who developed the triune theory of the human brain, postulating that, over the course of its evolution, the brain was actually made up of three distinct elements: the reptilian complex, the limbic system, and the neocortex. As a result, human behavior is the product of all three tendencies.

[6]     Konrad Lorenz (1903-1989) was an Austrian ethologist who won the Nobel Prize in 1973. He was a member of the National Socialist Party during the Third Reich. He speculated that the supposed advances of modern life were actually harmful to humanity, since they had removed humans from the biological effects of natural competition and replaced it with the far more brutal competition inherent in relations between individuals in modern societies. After the war, his books on popular scientific and philosophical topics earned him international fame.

[7]     Arthur Koestler (1905-1983) was a Hungarian writer who, in his 1967 book The Ghost in the Machine, speculated that the triune model of the brain as described by Paul MacLean was responsible for a failure of the various parts to fully interconnect with each other, resulting in a conflict of desires within each individual leading to self-destructive tendencies.

[8]     Jean Rostand (1894-1977) was a French biologist who was a proponent of eugenics as a means for humanity to take responsibility for its own destiny.  He was also a pioneer in the field of cryogenics.

[9]     Gaïa is the Ancient Greek name for the goddess of the Earth. In recent decades, the name has been adopted by ecologists, who use it to depict the combined components of the Earth as a living organism with its different parts acting in symbiosis with one another, rather than as a resource merely intended to be exploited by humans.

[10]    Latin: ‘pride’.

[11]    Jules Verne (1828-1905) was a French novelist who is regarded as the inventor of the science fiction genre. Several of his books are notable for their predictions of future technological developments.

[12]    Positivism holds that the only knowledge which can be considered reliable is that which is obtained directly through the senses and via the (supposedly) objective techniques of the scientific method.

[13]    Émile Coué (1857-1926) was a French psychologist whose method involved repeating ‘Every day, in every way, I am getting better and better’ at the beginning and end of each day in a ritualized fashion, believing that this would influence the unconscious mind in a manner that would allow the practitioner to be more inclined toward success.

[14]    The Institut français d’opinion publique, or French Institute of Public Opinion, is an international marketing firm.

[15]    René Thom (1923-2002) was a French mathematician who made many achievements during his career, but is best remembered for his development of catastrophe theory. The theory is complex, but in essence it states that small alterations in the parameters of any system can cause large-scale and sudden changes to the system as a whole.

 

[16]    The Fifth Republic began after the collapse of the Fourth Republic in 1958 as a result of the crisis in Algeria, bringing Charles de Gaulle to power and resulting in the drafting of a new constitution. It has remained in effect up to the present day.

[17]    Latin: ‘an argument with a stronger foundation’.

[18]    King Arthur’s Camelot was frequently left unguarded while his knights were engaged in lengthy quests.

Boganmeldelse af Guillaume Fayes ‘Mon programme’

Boganmeldelse af Guillaume Fayes ‘Mon programme’

 

Vi bringer en boganmeldelse, som blev bragt i Den Danske Forenings blad Danskeren nr. 4, 2012. (Ikke online før næste nummer udkommer)

Et ægte systemskifte

Guillaume Faye:
Mon programme.
(Les Éditions du Lore, 2012. 221 sider. 20 euro).

Faye,%20Guillaume%20-%20Mon%20Programme.jpgEt yndet argument mod dem, der ønsker befolkningsudskiftningen og globalismen tilbagerullet, er, at det er urealistisk eller ganske enkelt ikke kan lade sig gøre. Det har derfor stor værdi, at den franske filosof Guillaume Faye nu for sit eget lands vedkommende har skrevet et meget konkret og udførligt program for national genopretning med undertitlen: ”Et revolutionært program, der ikke skal ændre spillets regler, men ændre selve spillet.”

Faye ser økonomien som nøglen til en nations magt, men den er dog kun noget sekundært i forhold til den nationale overlevelse, som afhænger af nationens ”antropo-biologiske germen” – dens demografiske kim eller kerne – samt af kvaliteten og videreførelsen af dens kultur.

Men ikke mindst i Frankrig har socialismen og bureaukratiseringen gået sin sejrsgang i en sådan grad, at kampen mod dette kvælertag på et frit samfund har høj prioritet. Som Faye påpeger, er venstrefløjens kritik af de borgerliges ”ultraliberalisme” og ”kommercialisering” jo helt ude af proportioner i et land, hvor skattetryk og administrationens dødvægt kun slår nye rekorder. Krisen er fremkaldt af bl.a. for lidt økonomisk liberalisme, ikke af for meget. Globaliseringen er et ideologisk valg, for så vidt som 70 % af de firmaer, der er flyttet ud af Frankrig, ville være blevet, hvis der havde været en mere fornuftig skattepolitik. Socialstaten udspringer i bund og grund af misundelse, ikke af seriøs økonomisk analyse. Og den støtter kun, den hjælper ikke grundlæggende. Den lammer og fratager folk modet (også nationalt), og den har skabt en arbejdsløshedskultur, som derpå skaber ”behov” for indvandring: Alene i Frankrig kan man ikke finde indfødte ansøgere til en halv million job. Lediggang er mere indbringende. Det samme er paradoksalt nok kommet til at gælde for de indvandrere, man angiveligt har lukket ind for at løse problemet. Muslimerne i Frankrig (og hele Vesteuropa) forfordeles jo ikke eller holdes som slaver, tværtimod har de fået mere støtte end nogen indfødt gruppe. Sammen med de indfødte bureaukrater i beskyttede stillinger udgør muslimerne (som i bogen kaldes et nyt fødselsaristokrati) i Fayes øjne nutidens udbyttende klasse eller ”parasitter”, som han maner til klassekamp imod på vegne af det produktive folk og de marginaliserede indfødte franskmænd.

Faye foreslår derimod et system, der giver franskmænd incitament til at arbejde, og samtidig giver indbyggere med ikke-europæisk baggrund incitament til at udrejse – altså så lidet tiltrækkende vilkår, at de ikke har grund til at blive i landet. Statslige ydelser såsom børnepenge begrænses til franskmænd, og så snart ikke-vestlige i landet ophører med at være selvforsørgende, skal de ud uanset tidligere status. Illegale indvandrere kan aldrig nogensinde legaliseres og skal selvfølgelig altid udvises umiddelbart.

Desuden er det mht. indvandringen nødvendigt at gå til ondets rod, hvilket de i dag anerkendte ”internationale forpligtelser” ikke muliggør. Derfor må retten til at søge asyl ophæves. Udgifterne til den tvangsmæssige behandling af disse for det meste grundløse sager er jo uhyre. Ej heller kan asylsøgere, der er godkendt andetsteds i EU, få indrejsetilladelse til Frankrig. Flygtninge skal kun anerkendes som en absolut undtagelse via et særlig, personligt dekret fra præsidenten. Endelig overskygges princippet om, at love ikke må have tilbagevirkende kraft, af national nødret.

Faye gør op med den herskende misforståede læsning af Montesquieu, hvorefter domstolene skulle udgøre en ”tredje magt” i samfundet på linje med regering og parlament. Af denne forfejlede læsning udspringer nutidens juristvælde, hvor politikerne angiveligt er magtesløse. Ideen var dog oprindelig, at domstolene kun skulle være en myndighed med en bestemt autoritet, underlagt folkesuveræniteten.

I kriminalitetsbekæmpelsen slagter Faye flere hellige køer. Betingede straffe afskaffes. Enten straffes man eller ej. Og straffens formål skal ikke være ”resocialisering”, men netop straf. Det modsatte fører logisk set i sidste instans til ophævelse af enhver straf, fordi alle ugerninger kan forklares psyko-socialt. Et enkelt og inappellabelt straffesystem har i USA ført til mere end en halvering af kriminalitet på få måneder, og samme resultat kan selvfølgelig nås i Europa. I modsætning til i USA vil Faye dog ikke bruge dødsstraf, men total isolation på livstid som højeste straf. Som alternativ til denne frygtelige skæbne kan den dømte så vælge frivillig eutanasi.

Udenrigspolitisk ønsker Faye, at Frankrig kun blander sig, når landets interesser, borgere eller territorium er direkte truede. Han ser de forskellige ”krige mod terrorisme” diverse steder i verden som direkte kontraproduktive, alt imens befolkningsudskiftningen herhjemme kun fortsætter. Det franske forsvar bør derimod indrettes efter den eventualitet, at massive udvisninger af visse befolkningsgrupper eller etnisk borgerkrig i Frankrig fører til straffeforanstaltninger fra fx USA, hvilket franskmændene så må være i stand til at værge sig mod. NATO må derfor gradvist erstattes af et forsvarssamarbejde mellem nationalt sindede europæiske regeringer. Pirat-uvæsnet mod vestlige skibe vil Faye løse på kort tid ved hjælp af hær og flåde uden at tage fanger.

For Faye at se er ulandene ikke ofre for et ”neoliberalt” udbytningssystem. De er derimod deres egne værste fjender. Ulandshjælp-ideologien er den sande nykolonialisme, som må undsiges, fordi den altid har slået fejl. Han afviser, at ulandshjælp kan ses som et forsøg på at hindre indvandringen til Europa. Den har virket modsat, og i sin bog viser han udførligt, at masseindvandringen netop udmærket kan standses uden ulandshjælp som værktøj. Faye påpeger, at man aldrig i historien har set, at en invasion er standset ved, at man har ”stimuleret” aggressoren til ikke at invadere, kun ved at man har forbudt invasionen med trussel om brug af magt.

Principperne i Fayes program udspringer af hans retsfilosofiske grundanskuelse, som han kalder aristotelisk. Den forkaster formalisme og evige principper og ser udelukkende på realiteten og dens konkrete krav (efter den græske filosof Aristoteles’ modsætningsforhold til Platons idealisme). Faye erkender med Aristoteles, at enhver form for politik har en bagside. Enhver god afgørelse er samtidig problematisk. Det afgørende er bare, at det positive med tiden overskygger det negative. Det moderne ønske om at kunne tilfredsstille alle parter er en illusion. Trods ulemperne for nogle må Faye derfor kalde sit program for ”plan A”, den fornuftige løsning. For plan B, hvor lidenskaberne uundgåeligt på et tidspunkt tager over, kender hverken ”elegance, respekt eller nåde”.

Peter Neerup Buhl

00:20 Publié dans Livre, Nouvelle Droite | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : nouvelle droite, livre, guillaume faye | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

samedi, 05 janvier 2013

Terre et Peuple Magazine n°54 Hiver 2012

Terre et Peuple Magazine n°54

Hiver 2012

TP_54_-_dcembre_2012_Copier

13:31 Publié dans Nouvelle Droite, Revue | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : revue, nouvelle droite, empire | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

vendredi, 21 décembre 2012

Sezession - Heft 51

Sezession

Heft 51, Dezember 2012

heft51 gross Aktuelle Druckausgabe (10 €): Heft 51, Dezember 2012 Editorial

 

Kolumnen

Bild und Text

zwischentag – Szene
Wiggo Mann

Grundlagen

Die Ostfrau als Avantgarde
Ellen Kositza

Ehrenrettung für einen Pastor
Thorsten Hinz

Über Othmar Spann
Michael Rieger

Identitär
Martin Lichtmesz

Debatte

Islamkritik – Leitideen und Einwände
Karlheinz Weißmann

Kreuzzug und Dschihad
Stefan Scheil

Gewalt gegen Deutsche – Auswahl 2012
Felix Menzel

Bücher

»Ich möchte nicht niederknien« –
Ein Gespräch mit Arno Surminski

Die Intelligenz und ihre Feinde
Andreas Vonderach

Gerhart Hauptmann zum 150.
Erik Lehnert

»Umstritten« – Drieu la Rochelle
Benedikt Kaiser

Rezensionen

Vermischtes

Briefe an alle und keinen

vendredi, 30 novembre 2012

Roberto Fiorini: "CRISE OU OFFENSIVE DU CAPITAL ?"

Roberto Fiorini: "CRISE OU OFFENSIVE DU CAPITAL ?"

Méridien Zéro a reçu Roberto Fiorini, secrétaire général de Terre & Peuple, pour développer avec lui sa thèse d'une offensive du Capitalisme sur fond de crise.

crise économique, capitalisme, offensive, dette, monnaie, chômage,

Pour écouter:

http://www.meridien-zero.com/archive/2012/11/09/emission-n-118-crise-ou-offensive-du-capital.html

mercredi, 28 novembre 2012

Le nouveau "Big Brother"

 

george-orwell.jpg

Le nouveau « Big Brother »

Dominique Venner

Source cliquez ici

Dans un nouvel essai à contre-courant, Jean-Claude Michéa décrit l’étonnante alliance qui s’est peu à peu formée au-delà des années 1980 entre l’intelligentsia de gauche et le capitalisme mondialisé. Cette convergence, difficilement imaginable trente ans plus tôt, en pleine guerre froide, dans les années 1950, avait déjà été étudiée de façon précoce par la philosophe Flora Montcorbier (Le Communisme de marché. De l’utopie marxiste à l’utopie mondialiste, L’Âge d’Homme, 2000). Ce phénomène n’avait pas échappé non plus à La Nouvelle Revue d’Histoire qui l’avait analysé dans son n°44 (septembre-octobre 2009) à l’occasion d’un article intitulé Violence et “doux commerce” (1).

La description foisonnante faite par Michéa commence par une réflexion qui justifie le titre un peu mystérieux de son essai. Ce titre se rapporte au mythe d’Orphée qu’il faut rappeler. Descendu au royaume des morts pour retrouver sa jeune épouse, la belle Eurydice, mordue par un serpent, Orphée parvient à convaincre Hadès de la laisser repartir avec lui. À une condition toutefois. Jamais Orphée ne devra « tourner ses regards en arrière ». Bien entendu, au moment où ils vont franchir la limite imposée par Hadès, Orphée ne peut s’empêcher de se retourner vers sa bien-aimée, perdant celle-ci pour toujours… S’appuyant sur ce mythe conté par Ovide, à la façon de Freud avec Œdipe, Michéa désigne par le « complexe d’Orphée » le faisceau de postures qui définit depuis deux siècles l’imaginaire d’une gauche adoratrice du Progrès. « Semblable au pauvre Orphée, l’homme de gauche est en effet condamné à gravir le sentier escarpé du “Progrès”, censé nous éloigner, chaque jour un peu plus, du monde infernal de la tradition et de l’enracinement, sans jamais s’autoriser le moindre regard en arrière ». Inutile de faire de gros efforts pour comprendre que ce parti pris de l’intelligentsia rejoint celui du capitalisme mondialiste. Ils ont en commun l’adoration du “Progrès” et le rejet de tout enracinement. Ils communient également dans la religion de l’Humanité, du cache-sexe humanitaire, du nomadisme et du métissage. Parmi une moisson d’autre faits révélateurs, Michéa rappelle qu’au début de l’année 2011, « on a pu voir coup sur coup Christine Lagarde, Laurence Parisot et Jean-François Copé (autrement dit, les véritables gardiens du temple libéral) venir discrètement reprocher au ministre de l’Intérieur [de l’époque] d’avoir joué avec le feu et lui rappeler fermement “que ses déclarations sur la diminution de l’immigration ne tenaient pas debout d’un point de vue économique” [souligné]. Que si, par conséquent, de tels propos improvisés venaient à être pris à la lettre par l’électorat populaire, on risquerait de compromettre les bases mêmes d’un économie capitaliste compétitive » (Le Canard enchaîné, 13 avril 2011). Cette question était devenue si évidente pour la survie du capitalisme globalisé, que, dès le 17 avril 2011, ainsi que le note Michéa, Le Monde offrait une page entière à Laurence Parisot (présidente du Medef) pour lui permettre de lancer un appel à « rester un pays ouvert, qui tire profit du métissage ». Est-il nécessaire d’en dire plus ? Oui, naturellement, et Michéa ne s’en prive pas. Chacun pourra donc se reporter à la masse de faits et de réflexions de son livre qui fait toute sa place au rôle de la police de la pensée.

Il faut noter au passage que Michéa n’est pas un populiste de droite. Il se dit « socialiste » à la façon de Pierre Leroux, inventeur en 1834 de ce mot aujourd’hui un peu carbonisé. Il conserve même une certaine tendresse pour le jeune Karl Marx, avant le tournant du socialisme « scientifique ». Il se sent surtout proche de George Orwell, auteur célèbre de 1984, qui se disait volontiers « anarchist tory », c’est-à-dire « anarchiste-conservateur », ce qui est plutôt sympathique et fait penser à ce qu’Ernst Jünger entendait par l’anarque. Cette attitude autorise Michéa à démolir joyeusement l’idéologie progressiste commune à l’intelligentsia de gauche et au capitalisme nomade. Le sens du passé, écrit-il, n’est pas seulement ce qui nous donne le pouvoir de méditer sur les civilisations disparues. Il est surtout ce qui permet à chaque individu et à chaque peuple « de s’inscrire dans une continuité historique et dans une somme de filiations et de fidélités », échappant ainsi à l’illusion adolescente d’un perpétuel recommencement, l’île déserte de Robinson ou l’an I de la Révolution.

Notes

(1) Réflexion développée dans mon livre Le Choc de l’Histoire (Via Romana, 2011).
(2) Jean-Claude Michéa, Le complexe d’Orphée (Climats, 358 p., 20 €).

mardi, 27 novembre 2012

Articles de Guillaume Faye en espagnol

guillaume faye, nouvelle droite, Un blog avec les articles de Guillaume Faye en espagnol:

http://ejefuturo.hautetfort.com/

00:09 Publié dans Nouvelle Droite | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : guillaume faye, nouvelle droite | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

jeudi, 22 novembre 2012

La Russie, l’Occident et l’Allemagne

 AlexanderDugin816-755.jpg

La Russie, l’Occident et l’Allemagne

 

Extrait d’un entretien accordé par Alexandre Douguine au magazine allemand “Zuerst”

 

Q.: Monsieur Douguine, l’Occident ne se trouve-t-il pas dans une mauvaise situation?

 

AD: Absolument. Mais la situation dans laquelle se débat l’Occident est différente de celle en laquelle se débat la Russie. Regardez l’Europe: l’UE se trouve dans un état de crise profonde; la rue en Grèce se rebelle ouvertement, l’Europe centrale et septentrionale croupit sous les charges sociales, politiques et économiques apportée par l’immigration de masse depuis ces dernières décennies. Même les Etats-Unis sont plongés dans une crise profonde. Mais, pourtant, c’est cette crise qui va faire se corser la situation. Car dans de telles situations d’instabilité et de précarité, ce sont toujours les partisans de lignes dures qui finissent par avoir le dessus. Aux Etats-Unis, actuellement, on évoque ouvertement une guerre contre l’Iran, même si à New York un bon paquet de citoyens américains manifestent contre Wall Street. On ne discute plus que du moment idéal pour commencer la prochaine guerre. Lénine disait en son temps: hier, c’était trop tôt, demain ce sera trop tard.

 

Q.: Vous defendez l’idée d’une alliance eurasiatique. Cette idée n’implique-t-elle pas que les Etats européens se détachent progressivement de l’UE bruxelloise, un processus à prévoir pour le moyen voire le long terme, et se donnent de nouvelles orientations. Est-ce là une hypothèse réaliste?

 

AD: La Russie est l’allié naturel d’une Europe libre et indépendante. Il n’y a donc pas d’autres options. Bien sûr, l’Europe actuelle n’envisage pas cette option, car elle est systématiquement refoulée par le fan-club transatlantique des égéries des “Pussy riots”. Mais cela pourrait bien vite changer. Qui imaginait, au début de l’été 1989, que le Mur de Berlin allait tomber en automne? Une poignée d’esprits lucides que l’établissement considérait comme fous ou dangereux.

 

Q.: Comment voyez-vous l’avenir des relations germano-russes, tout en sachant que celles-ci ont été jadis bien meilleures?

 

AD: Il y a beaucoup de liens entre l’Allemagne et la Russie. Nous avons une longue histoire commune. On aime à l’oublier aujourd’hui, surtout dans le vaste Occident. Lors de la signature de la convention de Tauroggen en 1812, le Lieutenant-Général prussien Johann David von Yorck a négocié de son propre chef un armistice entre le corps prussien, contraint par Napoléon de participer à la campagne de Russie, et l’armée du Tsar Alexandre. La Russie a soutenu la révolte prussienne contre les Français, ce qui a permis de lancer la guerre de libération des peuples contre Napoléon. La diplomatie russe a permis aussi en 1871 que le Reich allemand de Bismarck puisse devenir réalité  sur l’échiquier européen. La Russie a toujours soutenu le principe d’une Allemagne forte sur le continent européen. Otto von Bismarck recevait souvent l’appui de Saint-Pétersbourg. Ce ne sont là que deux exemples: la liste des coopérations germano-russes est longue et, à chaque fois, les deux protagonistes en ont bénéficié. Sur le plan culturel, les relations sont tout aussi étroites: philosophes russes et allemands s’appréciaient, se sentaient sur la même longueur d’onde. Mais nous nous sommes également opposés dans des guerres sanglantes mais, Dieu merci, cette époque est désormais révolue.

 

Q.: Et aujourd’hui?

 

L’Allemagne est le pilier porteur de l’économie européenne. L’économie européenne, c’est en réalité l’économie allemande. L’idée sous-jacente de l’économie allemande diffère considérablement de l’idée qui sous-tend la praxis économique du capitalisme occidental et britannique. En Allemagne, on mise sur l’industrie, de même que sur une création de valeurs réelles par le biais de la production de biens et non pas sur le capitalisme financier et bancaire qui, lui, ne repose sur rien de matériel. Aujourd’hui l’Allemagne est contrôlée par une élite exclusivement imprégnée d’idéologie “transatlantique”, qui empêche tout rapprochement avec la Russie. En Russie, on a aujourd’hui des sentiments pro-allemands. Poutine, on le sait, passe pour un grand ami de l’Allemagne. Mais malgré cela, le gouvernement de Berlin, et aussi l’opposition à ce gouvernement, essaie d’intégrer encore davantage l’Allemagne dans une UE en mauvaise posture, tout en renonçant à de larges pans de la souveraineté allemande. Pour l’Allemagne, une telle situation est dramatique!

 

Q.: Dans quelle mesure?

 

AD: L’Allemagne est aujourd’hui un pays occupé, déterminé par l’étranger. Les Américains contrôlent tout. L’élite politique allemande n’est pas libre. Conséquence? Berlin ne peut pas agir pour le bien du pays comme il le faudrait, vu la situation. Pour le moment, l’Allemagne est gouvernée par une élite qui travaille contre ses propres intérêts. Nous, les Russes, pouvons aider l’Allemagne parce que nous comprenons mieux la situation de votre pays, en état de servilité, et parce que nous travaillons à créer des réseaux germano-russes en divers domaines. Nous pourrions travailler avec divers groupes au sein de la République Fédérale, nous pourrions améliorer nos relations culturelles. Je crois fermement qu’un jour se recomposera une Allemagne libre, forte et autonome en Europe, qui lui permettra de jouer un rôle d’intermédiaire entre l’Est et l’Ouest du sous-continent. Le rôle que jouent actuellement les vassaux de l’eurocratie bruxelloise et de Washington ne permet pas de forger un vrai destin pour l’Allemagne.

 

Q.: Monsieur Douguine, nous vous remercions de nous avoir accordé cet entretien.

 

Entretien paru dans le magazine “Zuerst!”, Oktober 2012, http://www.zuerst.de/ ).

mercredi, 21 novembre 2012

Een interview met Alexander Doegin

alexandre douguine,alexander dugin,russie,entretien,nouvelle droite,synergies européennes,théorie politique,sciences politiques,politologie

Een interview met Alexander Doegin

Inleiding

In februari 2012 reisde professor Alexander Doegin naar New Delhi, India, om er deel te nemen aan het 40ste Wereldcongres van het International Institute of Sociology, waarvan het thema dit jaar in volgend teken stond: “After Western Hegemony: Social Science and its Publics.”

Professor Doegin was zo vriendelijk om wat tijd vrij te maken voor enkele vragen vanwege medewerkers van Arktos die eveneens op het congres aanwezig waren. 

We hebben in dit interview gepoogd om professor Doegin enkele van zijn basisconcepten te laten verduidelijken om zodoende de verwarring en de desinformatie weg te nemen die rond hem en zijn beweging, de Eurazische Beweging, en haar zijtak in de Engelstalige wereld, de Global Revolutionary Alliance, hangen. Het interview werd afgenomen door Daniel Friberg, CEO, en John B. Morgan, hoofdredacteur van Arktos.

Dit interview werd gepubliceerd op het moment dat professor Doegin als spreker aanwezig was op Identitarian Ideas 2012, georganiseerd door de Zweedse organisatie Motpol in Stockholm op 28 juli 2012, en verliep tegelijk met de publicatie, door Arktos, van professor Doegins boek The Fourth Political Theory (http://www.arktos.com/alexander-dugin-the-fourth-political-theory.html [5]). Dit is het eerste boek van de hand van professor Doegin in het Engels.

In het Westen leeft de perceptie dat u een Russische nationalist bent. Voelt u zich hierdoor aangesproken?

Het concept van de natie is een kapitalistisch, westers concept. Daartegenover staat het Eurazisme, dat zich richt op culturele en etnische verschillen, en niet op éénmaking op basis van het individu, zoals het nationalisme vooropstelt. Wij verschillen van het nationalisme, doordat we een pluraliteit van waarden verdedigen. Wij verdedigen ideeën, niet onze gemeenschap; ideeën, niet onze maatschappij. Wij dagen de postmoderniteit uit, maar niet enkel namens de Russische natie. De postmoderniteit is een gapende leegte. Rusland vormt slechts een deel van de globale strijd. Het is zeker en vast een belangrijk deel, maar het vormt niet het uiteindelijke doel. Voor onze medestanders in Rusland kunnen we Rusland niet redden, zonder tegelijkertijd de wereld te redden. Net zoals we de wereld niet kunnen redden, zonder Rusland te redden.

Het gaat niet enkel om een strijd tegen het westerse universalisme. Het gaat om een strijd tegen alle, ook islamitische vormen van universalisme. We aanvaarden geen enkele politiek die universalisme wil opdringen aan anderen – westers, noch islamitisch, noch socialistisch, noch liberaal, noch Russisch. Wij zijn niet de verdedigers van het Russische imperialisme of revanchisme, maar wel van een globale visie en multipolariteit die gebaseerd zijn op de dialectiek van de beschaving. Onze tegenstanders beweren dat de veelheid aan beschavingen noodzakelijkerwijs leidt tot een clash. Deze bewering is fout. De globalisering en de Amerikaanse hegemonie leiden zonder uitzondering tot bloedige inmenging en geweld tussen beschavingen, waar er vrede, dialoog, of conflict zouden kunnen zijn, afhankelijk van de historische omstandigheden. Maar het opleggen van een heimelijke hegemonie leidt tot conflicten en, onvermijdelijk, erger in de toekomst. Ze hebben het dus over vrede, maar voeren oorlog. Wij verdedigen de gerechtigheid – niet oorlog of vrede, maar gerechtigheid en dialoog en het naturlijk recht van elke cultuur om haar identiteit te bewaren en te streven naar wat ze wil zijn. Niet enkel historisch, zoals in het multiculturalisme, maar ook in de toekomst. We moeten onszelf bevrijden van die zogezegde universalismen.

Welke rol dicht u Rusland toe bij het organiseren van de antimoderne krachten?

Het opzetten van antiglobalistische, of eerder antiwesterse, bewegingen en stromingen in heel de wereld bestaat uit verschillende stappen. Het gaat er fundamenteel om mensen te verenigen in hun strijd tegen het status quo. Dus, wat bedoel ik precies met status quo? Het gaat hier om een reeks met elkaar verbonden fenomenen die een belangrijke shift van moderniteit naar postmoderniteit met zich meebrengen. Het wordt vormgegeven door een shift van de unipolaire wereld, op de eerste plaats in de vorm van de invloed van de Verenigde Staten en West-Europa, naar een zogenaamde niet-polariteit, zoals ze zichtbaar wordt in de huidige impliciete hegemonie en in de revoluties die erdoor worden georchestreerd via handlangers, zoals bijvoorbeeld de oranje revoluties. Het hoofddoel van het Westen achter deze strategie is de definitieve controle over de planeet, niet enkel door middel van directe interventie, maar ook via een universalisering van zijn waarden, normen en ethiek.

Het status quo van de liberale hegemonie van het Westen is wereldomvattend geworden. Het gaat om de verwestersing van de hele mensheid. Dat betekent dat zijn normen, zoals de vrije markt, vrijhandel, liberalisme, parlementaire democratie, mensenrechten, en absoluut individualisme universeel zijn geworden. Deze normenset wordt verschillend geïnterpreteerd in verschillende regio’s van de wereld, maar het Westen beschouwt zijn specifieke interpretatie als vanzelfsprekend en de verspreiding ervan als onvermijdelijk. Dit is niets meer of minder dan een kolonisering van de geest. Het gaat hier om een nieuwe vorm van kolonialisme, een nieuwe vorm van macht, en een nieuwe vorm van controle, die in de praktijk wordt gebracht door middel van een netwerk. Iedereen die aangesloten is op het globale netwerk wordt onderworpen aan zijn code. Dit maakt deel uit van het postmoderne Westen, en wordt in snel tempo globaal doorgevoerd. De prijs die door een natie moet worden betaald om deel te kunnen uitmaken van het globale netwerk van het Westen is het aanvaarden van deze normen. Dit is de nieuwe hegemonie van het Westen. Het is een opschuiven van de open hegemonie van het Westen, zoals het kolonialisme en het openlijke imperialisme van het verleden, naar een meer impliciete, subtielere versie.

Om deze globale bedreiging van de mensheid te bestrijden is het belangrijk om alle verschillende krachten te verenigen, die zichzelf vroeger als anti-imperialistisch zouden hebben omschreven. Vandaag de dag moeten we onze vijand beter begrijpen. De vijand van vandaag leeft in het verborgene. Hij handelt door gebruik te maken van de normen en waarden van het westerse ontwikkelingspad en door de pluraliteit van andere culturen en beschavingen te negeren. Vandaag roepen we iedereen op die de geldigheid erkent van de specifieke waarden van niet-Westerse beschavingen, en waar er andere vormen van waarden bestaan, om op te staan tegen deze poging tot globale universalisering en verborgen hegemonie.

We kunnen in dezen spreken van een culturele, filosofische, ontologische en eschatologische strijd, omdat we in het status quo de essentie van het Donkere Tijdperk, of het grote paradigma terugvinden. Maar we moeten ook evolueren van een zuiver theoretische benadering naar een praktisch, geopolitiek niveau. En op dit geopolitiek niveau behoudt Rusland het potentieel, de middelen en de wil om deze uitdaging aan te gaan, omdat de Russische geschiedenis van oudsher instinctief gericht was tegen dezelfe horizon. Rusland is een grote macht, bij wie er een acuut bewustzijn heerst van wat er gaande is in de wereld, en bij wie men zich terdege bewust is van de eigen eschatologische missie. Het is daarom evident dat Rusland een centrale rol zou spelen in deze anti-status quo-coalitie. Rusland heeft zijn identiteit verdedigd tegen het katholicisme, het protestantisme en het moderne Westen tijdens de tsaristische periode, en tegen het liberale kapitalisme tijdens de Sovjettijd. Nu zien we een derde golf van deze strijd – de strijd tegen de postmoderniteit, het ultraliberalisme, en de globalisering. Maar dit keer is Rusland niet meer in staat om enkel en alleen te teren op zijn eigen mogelijkheden. Het kan niet langer alleen maar vechten onder het banier van het Orthodoxe Christendom. Het opnieuw invoeren van of het vertrouwen op de marxistische doctrine is evenmin een optie, aangezien het marxisme zelf één van de hoofdwortels van de destructieve ideeën van de postmoderniteit vormt.

Rusland is vandaag slechts één van de vele deelnemers aan deze globale strijd, en het kan deze strijd niet alleeen aan. We moeten alle krachten die zich tegen de westerse normen en het daarmee verbonden economische systeem verzetten, verenigen. We moeten derhalve allianties smeden met alle linkse sociale en politieke bewegingen die het status quo van het liberale kapitalisme in vraag stellen. We moeten tevens allianties smeden met alle identitaire krachten in eender welke cultuur die de globalisering om culturele redenen verwerpen. Vanuit dit standpunt moeten islamitische bewegingen, hindoebewegingen, of nationalistische bewegingen uit de hele wereld als bondgenoten aanzien worden. Hindoes, boeddhisten, christenen, en heidense identitairen in Europa, Amerika of Latijns-Amerika, of andere cultuurtypes, moeten samen één front vormen. De idee hierachter is dat ze allemaal aan één zeel moeten trekken tégen de ene vijand en het ene kwaad, en vóór een veelheid van concepten van wat goed is.

Waar we tegen zijn, zal ons verenigen, en waar we voor zijn, verdeelt ons. Daarom moeten we de nadruk leggen op wat we bestrijden. De gezamenlijke vijand verenigt ons, terwijl de positieve waarden, die elk van ons verdedigt, ons verdelen.  Daarom moeten we strategische allianties aangaan om de huidige wereldorde omver te werpen, wier kern kan omschreven worden als een mix van mensenrechten, anti-hiërarchisch sentiment, en politieke correctheid – alles wat het gezicht van het Beest, de anti-Christ of, in een andere context, de Kali-Yuga uitmaakt.

Hoe past traditionalistische spiritualiteit in de Eurazische agenda?

Er bestaan geseculariseerde culturen, maar in hun kern blijft de geest van de Traditie, religieus of anderssoortig, bestaan. Door de veelheid, de pluraliteit, en het polycentrisme van culturen te verdedigen, doen we een beroep op de principes van hun essentie, die we enkel in de spirituele tradities kunnen vinden. Maar wij proberen deze houding te koppelen aan de nood aan sociale gerechtigheid en aan de vrijheid om maatschappijen van elkaar te laten verschillen in de hoop op betere politieke regimes. De idee hierachter is het koppelen van de geest van de Traditie aan de eis van sociale gerechtigheid. En wij willen ons niet tegen deze sociale krachten keren, omdat dát precies de strategie van de hegemoniale macht is: links en rechts verdelen, culturen verdelen, etnische groepen verdelen, Oost en West, moslims en christenen verdelen. We roepen rechts en links op zich te verenigen, en zich niet af te zetten tegen traditionalisme en spiritualiteit, tegen sociale gerechtigheid en tegen sociaal dynamisme. We staan dus rechts noch links. Wij zijn tegen de liberale postmoderniteit. Het is onze bedoeling om alle fronten te verenigen en onze tegenstanders niet toe te laten ons te verdelen. Blijven we verdeeld, dan kunnen ze ons makkelijk beheersen. Verenigen we ons, dan is hun rijk onmiddellijk uit. Dat is onze globale strategie. En wanneer we de spirituele traditie met sociale gerechtigheid verbinden, dan slaat de paniek de liberalen onmiddellijk om het hart. Daar zijn ze onnoemelijk bang voor.

Welke spirituele traditie zou iemand die zich wenst in te zetten voor de Eurazische strijd moeten volgen, en vormt dit een essentieel element?

Men moet ernaar streven om een levend onderdeel van de maatschappij te worden waarin men leeft, en de traditie volgen die daar toonaangevend is. Ikzelf ben bijvoorbeeld Russisch-Orthodox. Dat is mijn traditie. In andere omstandigheden kunnen sommige individuen evenwel een ander spiritueel pad kiezen. Wat belangrijk is, is dat men wortels heeft. Er bestaat geen universeel antwoord. Indien iemand deze spirituele basis verwaarloost, maar zich toch wil inschakelen in de strijd, is het goed mogelijk dat hij of zij gaandeweg een diepere betekenis vindt. Het is onze overtuiging dat onze vijand dieper wortelt dan in het zuiver menselijke. Het Kwaad ligt dieper dan de mensheid, hebzucht of uitbuiting. Zij die aan de zijde van het Kwaad vechten, zijn zij die geen spirituele basis hebben. Zij die zich tegen die basis verzetten, kunnen haar in de strijd tegenkomen. Of misschien niet. Het blijft een open vraag – er bestaat geen verplichting. Het valt aan te raden, maar het is geen noodzakelijke voorwaarde.

Wat vindt u van Europees Nieuw-Rechts en Julius Evola? En, meer bepaald, van hun beider afkeer van het Christendom?

Het is aan de Europeanen om te beslissen welke soort spiritualiteit zij willen doen herleven. Voor ons, Russen, is dat het Orthodoxe Christendom. Wij beschouwen onze traditie als authentiek.  Wij beschouwen onze traditie als een voortzetting van de vroegere, voorchristelijke tradities van Rusland, zoals die tot uiting komen in onze verering van heiligen en iconen, naast andere aspecten. Daarom is er geen tegenstelling tussen onze eerdere en latere tradities. Evola keert zich af van de christelijke traditie van het Westen. Wat interessant is, is zijn kritiek op de desacralisering van het westerse christendom. Dit strookt precies met de orthodoxe kritiek op het westerse christendom. Het is duidelijk dat de secularizering van het westerse christendom de mensheid liberalisme oplevert. De secularizering van de orthodoxe religie geeft ons communisme. Individualisme staat tegenover collectivisme. Voor ons ligt het probleem niet aan het christendom zelf, zoals in het Westen. Evola ondernam een poging om de Traditie te herstellen. Nieuw-Rechts tracht eveneens de westerse traditie te herstellen, wat heel goed is. Maar als Russisch-Orthodoxe kan ik niet beslissen welk pad Europa moet volgen, aangezien we verschillende waardensystemen hebben. Wij willen de Europeanen niet vertellen wat ze moeten doen, en we willen niet dat de Europeanen dat met ons doen. Als Eurazisten aanvaarden we elke oplossing. Aangezien Evola Europeaan was, kon hij discussiëren en voorstellen doen over de juiste oplossing voor Europa. Éénieder van ons kan slechts zijn of haar persoonlijke mening formuleren. Maar ik ben wel tot de conclusie gekomen dat we meer gemeen hebben met Nieuw-Rechts dan met de katholieken. Ik deel veel visies van Alain de Benoist. Ik beschouw hem als de grootste intellectueel in het Europa van vandaag. Dat is niet het geval voor de moderne katholieken. Zij willen Rusland bekeren, en dat botst met onze plannen. Nieuw-Rechts wil het Europese heidendom niet opleggen aan anderen. Ik beschouw Evola ook als een meester en als een symbolische figuur van de eindrevolte en de grootse wederopleving, net zoals Guénon. In mijn ogen zijn deze beide heren de essentie van de Westerse traditie in deze donkere tijd.

Eerder zei u dat Eurazisten zouden moeten samenwerken met bepaalde jihadistische groepen. Maar deze hebben de neiging om universalistisch te zijn, en hun doel is het opleggen van de islamitische wet aan de hele wereld. Wat zijn de toekomstkansen van een dergelijke coalitie?

Jihadi’s zijn universalisten, net zoals seculiere westerlingen die globalizering nastreven. Maar zij zijn niet identiek, want het westerse project probeert alle anderen te domineren en zijn hegemonie overal op te leggen. Het valt ons elke dag direct aan via de globale media, via modeverschijnselen, door voorbeelden te stellen voor de jeugd, enzovoort. We worden ondergedompeld in deze globale culturele hegemonie. Het salafistisch universalisme is een soort marginaal alternatief. Men mag hen niet over dezelfde kam scheren als zij die streven naar globalisering. Zij vechten ook tegen onze vijand. Wij willen van geen enkele universalistische stroming weten, maar er zijn universalisten die ons vandaag aanvallen en winnen, en er zijn ook nonconformistische universalisten die de hegemonie van het Westen, de liberale universalisten, bevechten, en derhalve hic et nunc tactische bondgenoten zijn.  Vooraleer hun project van een wereldomvattende islamitische staat kan worden gerealiseerd, zullen we nog vele veldslagen en conflicten uitvechten. En de globale liberale dominantie is een feit. Daarom roepen we iedereen op om samen met ons te strijden tegen deze hegemonie, dit status quo. Ik heb het liever over de realiteit van vandaag, dan over wat de toekomst zou kunnen brengen. Iedereen die zich kant tegen liberale hegemonie is nu onze medestander. Dat heeft niets vandoen met moraliteit, wel met strategie. Carl Schmitt zei ooit dat politiek begint met het onderscheid tussen vrienden en vijanden. Er bestaan geen eeuwige vrienden en geen eeuwige vijanden. Wij vechten tegen de bestaande universele hegemonie. Iedereen vecht daartegen voor zijn of haar eigen waardensysteem.

Om de samenhang te bewaren moeten we ook werk maken van een verlenging, verbreding, en van een bredere alliantie. Ik loop niet hoog op met de salafisten. Het zou veel beter zijn om samen te werken met traditionele Sufi’s, bijvoorbeeld. Maar ik werk liever samen met de salafisten tegen een gemeenschappelijke vijand dan energie te verspillen door hen te bevechten en de grotere berdreiging te negeren.

Wie voor de globale liberale hegemonie is, is de vijand. Wie ertegen is, is een vriend. De eerste is geneigd om deze hegemonie te aanvaarden; de andere revolteert.

Wat is, in het licht van de recente gebeurtenissen in Libië, uw persoonlijke opvatting over Khaddafi?

President Medvedev beging een ware misdaad tegen Khaddafi en hielp mee met het in de stijgers zetten van een hele reeks interventies in de Arabische wereld. Dit was een echte misdaad, begaan door onze President. Aan zijn handen kleeft bloed. Hij is een collaborateur van het Westen. De verantwoordelijkheid voor de misdaad - die de moord op Khaddafi effectief was - ligt gedeeltelijk bij hem. Wij Eurazisten verdedigden Khaddafi, niet omdat we fans of supporters van hem of zijn Groene Boekje waren, maar om principiële redenen. Achter de opstand in Libië ging westerse hegemonie schuil, en die legde een bloedige chaos op. Toen Khaddafi viel, werd de westerse hegemonie sterker. Dat was onze nederlaag. Maar niet de eindnederlaag. Deze oorlog kent vele fasen. We verloren een veldslag, maar niet de oorlog. En misschien ontstaat er wel iets nieuws in Libië, want de situatie is momenteel heel onstabiel. Zo versterkte de Irakoorlog bijvoorbeeld de invloed van Iran in de regio, in tegenstelling tot wat de westerse hegemonisten oorspronkelijk hadden uitgestippeld.

Gezien de situatie in Syrië momenteel, herhaalt het scenario zichzelf. Al is het wel zo dat, met Poetin terug aan de macht, de situatie er veel beter voor staat. Hij is op zijn minst consequent in zijn steun aan President al-Assad. Mogelijk is dit niet voldoende om een westerse interventie in Syrië af te houden. Ik pleit ervoor dat Rusland zijn bondgenoot daadkrachtiger zou steunen met wapens, financiële middelen, enzovoort. De val van Libië was een nederlaag voor Rusland. De val van Syrië zou opnieuw een mislukking zijn.

Wat denkt u van Vladimir Poetin, en hoe is uw verstandhouding met hem?

Hij was veel beter dan Jeltsin. Hij redde Rusland in de jaren ’90 van de volledige ineenstorting. Rusland stond op de rand van de catastrofe. Vóór de komst van Poetin hadden liberalen westerse stijl het voor het zeggen in de Russische politiek. Poetin herstelde de soevereiniteit van de Russische staat. Daarom werd ik een aanhanger van hem. Maar na 2003 zette Poetin zijn patriotische, Eurazische hervormingen stop, schoof hij de ontwikkeling van een echte nationale strategie opzij, en begon met het accomoderen van de economische liberalen die van Rusland een deel van het globaliseringsproject wilden maken. Daardoor verloor hij aan legitimiteit, en werd ik steeds kritischer ten opzichte van hem. In bepaalde gevallen werkte ik samen met mensen uit zijn entourage om hem te steunen in bepaalde beleidsdomeinen, en in andere domeinen stond ik lijnrecht tegenover hem. Toen Medvedev werd uitverkoren als zijn opvolger was dat een catastrofe, omdat de mensen rond hem allemaal liberalen waren. Ik was tegen Medvedev. Ik kantte me tegen hem, deels vanuit een Eurazistisch standpunt. Nu komt Poetin terug. Alle liberalen zijn tegen hem, en alle prowesterse krachten zijn tegen hem. Maar hijzelf heeft zijn houding tegenover hen nog niet verduidelijkt. Maar hij moet absoluut de steun van het Russische volk opnieuw verwerven. Anders kan hij onmogelijk verder doen. Hij bevindt zich in een kritische situatie, al lijkt hij dat niet te vatten. Hij twijfelt nog om de patriotische kant te kiezen. Hij denkt nog steun te kunnen vinden bij de liberalen, wat volkomen verkeerd is. Ik sta tegenwoordig minder kritisch tegenover hem dan vroeger, maar ik denk dat hij zich in een lastig parket bevindt. Indien hij verder aarzelt, zal hij mislukken. Ik heb recent een boek gepubliceerd, Putin Versus Putin, want zijn grootste vijand is hijzelf. Omdat hij twijfelt, verliest hij steeds meer de steun van het volk. Het Russische volk voelt zich bedrogen door hem. Hij is zoiets als een autoritaire leider zonder autoritair charisma. Ik heb in bepaalde gevallen met hem samengewerkt, maar heb mij ook tegen hem gekant in andere gevallen. Ik heb contact met hem. Maar er cirkelen zovele krachten rond hem. De liberalen en de Russische patrioten rondom hem zijn niet bepaald briljant te noemen, op intellectueel vlak. Daarom kan hij enkel vertrouwen op zichzef en zijn intuïtie. Maar intuïtie mag niet de enige bron van politieke beleidskeuzes en strategie zijn. Indien hij terug aan de macht komt zal hij gedwongen worden om terug te keren naar zijn vroeger antiwesters beleid, omdat onze maatschappij van nature antiwesters is. Rusland heeft een lange traditie van opstand tegen vreemde indringers en van hulp aan anderen die tegen onrechtvaardigheid strijden, en het Russische volk ziet de wereld door deze lens. Het zal geen genoegen nemen met een leider die bestuurt zonder rekening te houden met deze traditie.

Bron: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/07/interview-with-alexander-dugin/.

 

dimanche, 11 novembre 2012

Le mariage et les enfants, des biens de consommation ?

Enfants-dhonneur.jpg

Le mariage et les enfants, des biens de consommation ?

par Dominique VENNER

À l’origine, tout le monde pensait que le projet de loi sur le mariage des homosexuels était l’un des attrape-nigauds (en termes crus, attrape-couillons) par lesquels les politiciens amusent la galerie, faute de pouvoir agir sur les vrais dossiers. Et puis, très vite, on a compris que derrière l’attrape-nigauds s’était glissé l’un de ces projets très réels par lesquels les fanatiques de la déconstruction veulent détruire un peu plus les fondements qui continuent de structurer les sociétés européennes aussi malades soient-elles.
La question posée ne concerne nullement la tolérance ou le respect à l’égard de particularités sentimentales ou sexuelles minoritaires. L’homosexualité n’est pas une nouveauté historique. Il serait facile de dénombrer d’illustres personnages, rois, reines ou grands seigneurs des temps anciens qui préféraient la fréquentation intime du même sexe, et dont les chroniques anciennes se sont parfois moquées.
La vie privée est l’affaire de chacun et, tant que les préférences particulières ne dégénèrent pas en manifestations provocantes et en prosélytisme outrancier, il n’y a rien à objecter. Le respect du secret de la « privacy », comme disent les Anglais, s’impose. En France, par la création du « pacte civil de solidarité et de concubinage » (pacs), la loi a créé un cadre légal permettant à deux personnes du même sexe (ou de sexe différent) de vivre ensemble avec une série d’avantages sociaux ou fiscaux. Il s’agit d’une consécration sociale du désir d’amour ou d’affection.
Le mariage est autre chose. Il ne se rapporte pas à l’amour, même quand il en est la conséquence. Le mariage est l’union entre un homme et une femme en vue de la procréation. Si l’on enlève la différence de sexe et la procréation, il ne reste rien, sauf l’amour qui peut s’évaporer.
À la différence du pacs, le mariage est une institution et pas un simple contrat. L’institution du mariage est définie par un ensemble de droits et de devoirs réciproques non seulement entre les époux, mais envers les enfants à naître. La cité (autrement dit la loi et ses représentants) intervient pour célébrer solennellement le mariage (devant le maire), estimant qu’elle en a besoin dans l’intérêt général. Jusqu’à maintenant, aucune société n’a jamais pensé avoir besoin de couples homosexuels pour se perpétuer.
Insistons sur ce point, le mariage n’est pas une célébration de l’amour. Le mariage est une institution fondée sur la filiation et la parenté, même si les circonstances, parfois, ne permettent pas la venue d’enfants. La présomption de paternité est son nœud fondateur. Nos contemporains, comme voici 3000 ans les héros de l’Iliade (Achille, fils de Pélée, Ulysse fils de Laerte, etc.) continuent de se penser comme fils ou filles de ceux dont ils sont nés. Et peu importe la bonne ou la mauvaise entente entre les générations. La rupture de filiation est toujours un drame. Pour les enfants nés hors mariage, les recherches en paternité ne se rapportent pas qu’à d’éventuels héritages, mais à un besoin impérieux de savoir d’où l’on vient, de qui l’on est l’enfant.
Il faut aussi parler de l’adoption qui est toujours un risque et une souffrance. Certains couples homosexuels exigent de pouvoir adopter un enfant, un peu comme on achète un chien, un chat ou un instrument sexuel. Pour le moment, la loi nie l’analogie entre l’adoption par un couple homosexuel et par un couple formé d’un homme et d’une femme unis par le mariage. Elle estime à bon droit qu’un enfant, pour son équilibre ultérieur, a besoin d’un père et d’une mère. C’est donc l’intérêt de l’enfant qui est pris en compte et non les lubies ou les désirs de jouissance de certains adultes.
En clair, il serait destructeur de changer la définition de la filiation et de la famille pour répondre aux attentes égoïstes de couples homosexuels très minoritaires. Ceux-là ont droit au respect de leurs différences, pour autant qu’ils ne détruisent pas une institution qui a été conçue dans l’intérêt des enfants. Si l’on admet le « mariage pour tous », pourquoi ne pas l’étendre à sa guenon ou à son chien préféré, à son frère ou à sa sœur, à son père ou à sa mère ? Pourquoi ne pas prévoir le mariage d’une femme avec deux ou trois hommes ? Toutes ces extravagances, on peut s’y adonner plus ou moins discrètement hors mariage. La seule question, finalement, consiste à se souvenir que le mariage n’est pas un bien de consommation ouvert à toutes les fantaisies.
Il est vrai qu’intervient en force la mode du gender, la « théorie des genres » (gender studies) venue des Etats-Unis et enseignée désormais dans les programme scolaires du second degré. Cette mode prétend que l’identité sexuelle est le résultat d’une construction sociale. Simone de Beauvoir écrivait déjà dans Le Deuxième Sexe, « on ne nait pas femme, on le devient ». Elle s’inspirait de la théorie de Sartre selon qui l’identité se réduit au regard que les autres portent sur nous. C’était idiot, mais nouveau, donc intéressant et « vendeur ». Les théoriciens des gender studies sont des féministes extrémistes et des homosexuels qui entendent justifier leurs particularités en niant qu’il y ait des femmes et des hommes – et sans doute aussi qu’il y ait des biches et des cerfs, des brebis et des béliers… (1) Comme cette fraction de la population dispose d’un haut pouvoir d’achat, son influence sur les décideurs de la « pub » est considérable. D’autant que leurs lubies relayées par les médias favorisent les nouveautés et les modes dont se nourrit le système marchand (2). Il est évident que pour ces toqués dorés sur tranche, le modèle familial fondé sur l’hétérogénéité des sexes et sur les enfants, n’est aussi qu’un « conditionnement social » qu’il faut éliminer. Ce sera plus difficile qu’ils ne l’imaginent.
 

Dominique Venner

 Notes

  1.  J’ai publié dans La Nouvelle Revues d’Histoire n° 30 (dossier Les femmes et le pouvoir), p. 40, un florilège des élucubrations de Mme Françoise Héritier, professeur honoraire au Collège de France, pour qui les différences physiques entre les hommes et les femmes, viendraient de la domination exercée par les mâles sur les femelles durant les millénaires du Paléolithique, les messieurs se réservant la nourriture carnée, alors qu’il imposaient aux dames d’être végétariennes… comme Hitler. Lumineux, non ?
  2. Réflexion sur le système marchand développée dans mon livre Le Choc de l’Histoire (Via Romana, 2011).

vendredi, 09 novembre 2012

Elementos n°34 y n°35

ELEMENTOS Nº 34. EL PROBLEMA DE LA TÉCNICA EN LOS AUTORES KR (vol. I)

 
Enlace Revista electrónica

Enlace Revista documento pdf

SUMARIO.-

La pregunta sobre la Técnica en los revolucionario-conservadores, 
por Sebastian J. Lorenz
 
Mesianismo tecnológico Ilusiones y desencanto,
por Horacio Cagni
 
El hombre entre el nihilismo de la técnica y la responsabilidad ético-política,
por Franco Volpi
 
La Edad de la Técnica: reflexiones sobre Heidegger, Jünger y Schmitt,
por José Luis Villacañas Berlanga
 
Heidegger y el problema de la técnica,
por Felipe Boburg
 
Ortega y Gasset, meditador de la técnica,
por José María Atencia Páez
 
Jünger: Antropología de la Técnica
por Patricia Bernal Maz
 
Técnica y Naturaleza humana según Arnold Gehlen, 
por Amán Rosales Rodríguez
 
 
 
Enlace Revista Electrónica

Enlace Revista documento pdf

SUMARIO.-


El origen histórico del problema técnico,
por Eduardo Arroyo
 
Tecnología, Utopía y Cultura,                                  
por Germán Doig Klinge
 
La Técnica como lugar hermeneutico privilegiado: Ortega y Heidegger,
 por Antonio López Peláez
 
 
Nihilismo y técnica, 
por José Luis Molinuevo
 
¿Ecología o Tecnocracia? El conservadurismo en la modernidad,  
por Michael Grossheim
 
Por una ontología de la técnica. Dominio de la naturaleza y naturaleza del dominio en Julius Evola,  
por Giovanni Monastra
 
Heidegger y la Técnica,  
por Eugenio Gil
 
El hombre y la técnica, de Spengler, 
por Carlos E. Luján Andrade
 
La Perfección de la Técnica: Friedrich-Georg Jünger,  
por Robert Steuckers
 
Carl Schmitt: Topología de la Técnica, 
por Enrique Ocaña
 
Arnold Gehlen: la condición del hombre en la era de la Técnica, 
por José Javier Esparza
 
La técnica, devoradora de hombres, 
por Ernst Niekisch
 
 

jeudi, 01 novembre 2012

Pierre Vial: Face à la crise, une autre Europe

 

6 JNI Vial Pierre.jpg

samedi, 27 octobre 2012

Terre & Peuple n°53

 DOCUME~1.JPG

Terre & Peuple n°53

 

Le numéro 53 de la revue est centré sur ‘le Nouveau Moyen Âge’, celui que nous nous préparons à aborder.

 

L’éditorial de Pierre Vial, intitulé ‘Boomerang’, évoque le drame qu’a vécu le conseiller général des Pays de Loire Djamel Gharbi.  Tunisien d’origine, il passait ses vacances dans le pays de ses ancêtres avec sa femme et sa fille de 12 ans. Ils ont été attaqués et violentés par une bande de salafistes qui jugeaient leur tenue indécente. La presse a bien dû en parler et citer la vertueuse indignation du ministre Fabius. Dans le même registre, le ministre de l’Intérieur Manuel Vals a fait un « déplacement structurant » à Amiens dévastée par les dernières émeutes ethniques. Pour lui, tout ça c’est la faute à la crise. Voilà qui annonce encore un petit effort pour mieux saupoudrer les zones.

 

Pierre Vial tresse une couronne de fraternelles immortelles à Alain de Benoist à l’occasion du dernier livre de celui-ci, ‘Mémoire vive’. Cela vient heureusement compenser la recension vitriolée qu’en a donnée Rivarol.

 

L’Ambassadeur Perrin découvre les dessous véritables de la ‘poignée de main de Montoire’, que les bien-pensants ont outrageusement exploitée pour torpiller le Maréchal Pétain. Il révèle qu’il y a eu deux Montoire, un avant et un après la rencontre Hitler-Franco.

 

Pierre Vial, médiéviste spécialiste du Temple, règle magistralement le compte des clichés idéologiques qui visent à faire du moyen âge un simple intermède (d’un millénaire !) d’obscure barbarie entre l’Âge d’Or de l’antiquité gréco-romaine et les lumières retrouvées de la Renaissance, voie royale vers les Lumières modernes de la révolution libérale. Plutôt que faire débuter le moyen âge en 476 à la fin de l’Empire romain d’Occident, pour le terminer en 1492 à la fin de la Reconquista, il propose les dates de 410 et 1453 : la prise de Rome par les Wisigoths et celle de Constantinople par les Turcs. Il tord le cou à la légende noire mise en place à la Révolution. Elle se devait de diaboliser la féodalité comme le mal absolu : les seigneurs vivaient de brigandage et leurs plaisirs étaient barbares. De grands historiens, tel Georges Duby, ont bien remis les pendules à l’heure. Michel Pastoureaux également, pour qui on vivait mieux, et plus longtemps, sous saint Louis que sous Louis XIV.  Pour Pierre Vial, dans les temps incertains aujourd’hui imminents, les valeurs du moyen âge, tant de virilité guerrière et de loyauté fidèle, du suzerain comme du vassal, que de solidarité vécue autant que des familles et des clans, des métiers et des compagnonnages, des ordres monastiques et chevaleresques, ces valeurs là devraient être aujourd’hui les modèles dont s’inspirer pour notre survie.

 

Evoquant la remise en forme actuelle de l’armée russe, Alain Cagnat dresse d’abord un tableau apocalyptique de la dislocation de l’ex-Armée rouge. Après les révélations humiliantes d’une série de dysfonctionnements, qui s’étaient manifestés déjà lors de ses interventions contre les soulèvements hongrois (1956) et tchèque (1968), et la morne retraite de l’Afghanistan (1989), elle avait été démembrée entre les anciennes républiques de l’Union. Commence alors le calvaire des soldats qui ne sont plus payés ni équipés : certaines unités de garnisons sibériennes abandonnées sont mortes de faim ! Les désertions sont alors légion et la corruption (des officiers sont allés jusqu’à vendre du combustible nucléaire) est banale. C’est dans ces conditions qu’Eltsine lance dans la guerre en Tchétchénie 38.000 soldats et 800 blindés. Un régiment entier va être taillé en pièce par 5.000 Tchétchènes et Elstsine va être contraint à demander un cessez-le-feu infamant. C’est de cette situation que Poutine va hériter, au moment où le terrorisme frappe Moscou. Il parviendra, dans la seconde guerre de Tchétchénie, à rendre son honneur à l’armée russe. L’essai sera même glorieusement transformé lorsqu’il écrase ensuite l’attaque de l’Ossétie du Sud par une Georgie soutenue par les occidentaux.

 

Alain Cagnat encore esquisse un pittoresque portrait des haredim, les tenants d’un judaïsme ultra-orthodoxe, dont font partie les hassidim (voir le personnage du Rabbi Jacob de Gérard Oury). Les haredim sont des opposants farouche du sionisme. Pour eux, la shoah est la punition du ciel pour ceux qui ont entrepris par la force la conquête d’Israël, alors qu’elle ne doit être l’œuvre que du seul Messie au jour du Jugement.

 

Pour Claude Valsardieu, c’est 1905 la date charnière entre les temps anciens et une ère nouvelle qui va associer des chimères, chimères politique (le communisme de Lénine), physique (l’espace-temps d’Einstein) et esthétique (l’art abstrait de Picasso). Et il énumère toute une théorie de faits de ce moment de l’histoire, fort convaincants à cet égard.  Entre autres la conclusion cette année là de l’Entente cordiale, déterminante pour la guerre à mener à l’Allemagne ; c’est aussi le moment de l’écrasement des Boers (28.000 civils morts, dont 22.000 enfants, dans les premiers camps de concentration de l’histoire ; celui de la guerre russo-japonaise, avec la pulvérisation de la flotte russe ; c’est le moment de la découverte des pétroles de la Caspienne et du Kouristan iranien ; c’est la naissance du mouvement ‘Jeunes Turcs’ d’Enver Pacha, qui va bientôt contraindre le Sultan à abdiquer ; c’est le percement de l’Isthme de Panama ; c’est la mise en place des premiers empires industriels modernes (Rockfeller et sa Standard Oil et Henry Ford et ses automobiles) ; c’est le moment où les Etats-Unis sont prêts à reprendre la relève de l’Empire britannique pour encercler les puissances du continent et les empêcher de s’entendre ; c’est la date de la première révolution russe, matée par Stolypine ; en France, c’est le temps où l’armée est démoralisée par l’Affaire Dreyfus et par son épuration par les laïcs fanatiques, après l’abolition du Concordat. C’est aussi l’époque où l’avion des frères Wright décolle de quelques mètres, où Méliès développe le premier cinématographe et où sont reçues les premières émission de radiophonie.

 

Observant que, même dans notre famille, les créateurs d’art sont devenus rares et qu’Ezra Pound proclamait que l’art lui aussi exige un effort, François Desnoyers nous en console en évoquant le Russe Andreï Biély (1880-1934), ‘le poète métaphysique de l’horreur’. Le premier roman de Biély, ‘La Colombe d’argent’ (éd. L’Âge d’homme) est une satire fulgurante d’une Russie profondément païenne. Cette première œuvre sert d’utile introduction à sa poésie. Pour Biély, les malheurs de la ‘culture aryenne’ viennent de ce qu’elle trahit son origine hindoue. Lorsqu’il découvre Rudolf Steiner, c’est le choc : il devient avec sa femme, une fille de Tourguéniev, un membre actif de la communauté steinérienne qui va construire le temple Goetheanum.

 

André Lama commente la réédition (éd. Dualpha) de ses deux volumes ‘Des dieux et des empereurs’ sous un nouveau titre ‘Causes ethniques de la chute de l’empire romain’. A la question de savoir qui est l’empereur qui a ses préférence, il répond qu’il convient de distinguer les périodes, très différentes, de l’empire, mais désigne quand même Aurélien comme l’un des plus valeureux.

 

Sandra décrit par le détail les dolmens découverts en 1961 en Franche-Comté, dans les bois de Buisseret en Haute-Saône. Leur mobilier funéraire est conservé au Musée de Besançon. Elle en profite pour préciser que la Bretagne n’a pas le monopole de ce genre de mégalithes, qui sont répandus dans toute la France et au-delà, notamment en Wallonie, à Wéris où notre ami Gérald a organisé une de ses récentes randonnées d’explorations historiques.