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.

mercredi, 18 novembre 2015

The Terrorist Attacks in Paris: Lesson of Enantiodromia


The Terrorist Attacks in Paris: Lesson of Enantiodromia

By Alexander Dugin
Ex: http://katehon.com

A series of terrorist attacks in Paris that took place on Friday, November 13, 2015, can be, for many reasons, a point of reference of a new period of modern European history. Will it or will not is an open question, because it all depends on how these events will be interpreted by the French and European society, and what conclusions they will draw.

The development of events is well known: in different spots in Paris a well- organized and coordinated group of people shouting Islamic prayer formula (Allah Akbar etc.) started firing at civilians sitting in the bars and cafes that evening preparing to celebrate the weekend. In conjunction suicide bomber attacked the Paris stadium Stade de Paris when French and German teams were playing a football match. At the same time, a group of terrorists rushed to the concert hall Bataclan where a concert of American band Eagles of Death Metal should just begin, and started firing at the crowd, taking them all as hostages. As a result, about two hundred people were killed and many more sustained various injuries. Islamic State said to be responsible for the terrorist attacks.

Details and versions of the events will be continuously updated, but it is important not only to understand the distinction, but also to figure out the meaning of them.

"Islam" Society of the Spectacle: Welcome to our Horror-Show

The terrorist organization ISIS is different from other trends of modern Islamic fundamentalism not only by the activity scope and success in controlling the large territory of Iraq and Syria, by branched networks in other Islamic countries and the effective coordination, but first of all, by grotesque arrangement of actions usually of a terrorist nature. Its executions of hostages are always conducted by the ISIS members as a theatrical play: the victim wears the orange uniform, the executioners cutting the head off and scoffing at the body in front of camera. The professional operators work, precisely chosen lighting and well-directed heartbreaking scenes surpassing Hollywood movies like Hostel or forbidden snuff-video, where the violence is real. Christians are crucified in public. Ancient priceless monuments of archaic Middle East cultures which are very valuable for the whole civilization are mercilessly smashed. Homosexuals are dropped from roofs and their execution is carefully filmed. Captured women and girls are brutally raped and turned into slaves. Children from early ages are taught to cut throat of their teddy bears with a knife. Again, all that is filmed and methodically published in the Internet. The ISIS speakers add in their videos straight extreme threat to all their opponents, promising them to be killed, raped, dismembered, enslaved, humiliated and trampled, and their value to be turn to dust. All that is based on the classical Islamist ideas of extreme Salafi persuasion, but theology does not seem to ISIS as main aspect: there is something different than a classic Islamic fundamentalism; it is Islam society of the spectacle, disgusting Islamist snuff-show. No more boring preachers, raging Salafi theologians, only black bulldozer of entertainment industry fully adopted those models created by the modern Hollywood culture with dominating horror and hard porn with all the characteristics of reality shows.

It distinguishes the ISIS style. It is kind of post-modernism; it is postmodern fundamentalist terrorism. It has more common traits with the western visual culture rather than with the traditional religious societies that ISIS pretends to promote waging the war. Religion is an instrument, serving politics, and even more entertainment. The ISIS is first of all the show, the horrible show. It seems that it is what the Western countries really expected.

The recent terrorist attacks in Paris are fully arranged in this way. Friday the 13th is the common prejudice of modern Western culture; it is considered as ominous date, bearing bad luck. Made in the USA TV series about the maniac in a hockey mask Friday the 13th made this omen extremely notorious among the mass audience that even caused advent of a specific psychiatric diagnosis, more and more widespread, a phobia of Friday 13th. But the Friday the 13th is frightening only for Western people: Americans and Europeans. In Islamic culture, there is no similar legend. It is not without purpose that the date of the spectacular terrorist attacks was chosen like that, it fits perfectly into the strategy of the Society of the Spectacle. Do you want us to scare you? We do it for real. It is the logic of any horror film trying to pretend more real. It's hard to imagine something more real than terrorists covering their face, driving around the Paris streets on Friday 13, beginning their frivolous weekend, and shooting first got cafes and bars visitors. It is fictional maniac Jason Voorhees who has come to you, the man who drowned in the Crystal Lake camp. Maniac drowned man who adopted Salafism.


What did the ISIS want to say? The same thing as at the previous grotesque actions. And what exactly? The same thing that the whole Society of Spectacle wants to say: the postmodern has no more sense, there are only feelings, and if the society is provoked only by the most strong, rough and radical feelings as animal fear, terror of imminent death, sudden fall in the situation of ultimate humiliation and helplessness, etc., so much the worse for them: nothing personal, just show business. Bloody? So what else have them to do, if all the softer feelings do not touch anybody more?

How do the bloody PR and perverse snuff relate to Islam? Practically in no way. The terrorist attack in Paris has no hint of the religious conflict or of the clash of civilizations. The ISIS is such a Islam as Freddy Krueger or Jeepers Creeper. It is pure made in Hollywood with perfect style, a horror reality show of the new generation.

Enantiodromia of the Middle East

Paris nightmare, however, is inscribed in the geopolitical frame of reference, since it is an episode of the events that happen in the Middle East. There is a continuing bloody chaos, launched with the support of the United States and Europe (including France) to overthrow the established regimes of the past decade. The overthrow and the resulting civil war, which formally comes under the slogan of "deepening democracy" according to American plan of Greater Middle East, were openly announced by Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, in Tel Aviv in 2006. It began with the 2010 Arab Spring and continuing now. During that processes lunched by the Americans, sometimes accompanied by direct invasion of the US or the NATO forces in the Arab World, a series of bloody political and religious conflicts began in different countries: Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, etc. In this complex regional game the United States, however, did not place a bet on the liberal-democratic forces that didn’t even exist in the region, but Islamic fundamentalists that the CIA and other US intelligence agencies (in particular, the DIA) had been working closely since the days of the Cold War when they were used to fight pro-Soviet socialist or secular-nationalist regimes and parties (such as the Baath Party ruled before the start of the latest developments in Iraq, Libya and Syria just where now bloody wars flared up). The Islam fundamentalism has its main centers in Saudi Arabia and Qatar where the ruling powers are in general pro-American, practicing an extreme (Salafi) version of fundamentalist (Sunni) Islam. Similar forces are very strong in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Washington, therefore, uses Islamic fundamentalism for its own interests for deepening democracy (that shows a serious conceptual contradictions, which, however, in the postmodern era can be ignored) and makes its weak-willed (and sometimes it seems that the weak-minded) European "partners"(vassals) to do the same way. But even with all the logical inconsistencies of such a policy, it is clear that the purpose of the United States can’t be putting in head of the Arab and even the whole Islamic world t radical Islamists. So here is an postmodernism effect in the Middle East geopolitics: the Americans, on the one hand, supporting and arming Islamic extremists to make then destroying the existing system of government, on the other hand, actively demonized them, representing them as "the devil creatures" and the sinister caricature (as the ISIS PR-company). Such a strategy can be called "enantiodromia" when simultaneously two active and intensive process of opposite direction are running out. The US base and the tools in the Middle East are things that they describe as "pure evil."

The question arises: why is it done? What is the ultimate American goal? It has the most important sense for suffering from the terrorist attack Paris, at least for the few people in France and in modern Europe who still have an ability to think rationally and sensibly. Now they are being killed mercilessly and ruthlessly on their own territory. May we ask why? What’s the reason?

There is no evident answer. The rational analysis leads inexorably to the conclusion that Washington, persistently and consistently using its own geopolitical enantiodromia, has no positive goal. The regimes which were overthrown with the support of Americans, had no threat to the United States in general and used to agree with Washington more or less. There was no urgent need to destroy them in such a way. Especially when Assad’s Syria or Gaddafi's Libya were much closer socially, culturally and valuably to the United States and Europe than the extremist Salafis. One fact must be recognized: the United States does not have no positive goal, and no longer is able to offer anything to the world where they are still the main pole and the center of power, its begins to export chaos, massacres and civil war as a goal itself. They are not interested in what will happen in future, but what is happening now. This means that they are satisfied with the process enantiodromia that they do not seek to overcome the contradiction, but are ready to aggravate it, make the chaos as natural environment. And in this environment, being normal, it is possible to put certain local tactical goals, objectives, etc. As Trotskyists were taught about the "permanent revolution", the modern strategy of Washington adopted the concept of "permanent chaos." There is no goal to win in the new war (sometimes called "hybrid"). The process of providing it is the goal.


The US fight against the ISIS the same way as it is fights for it and together with it. Russia still follows “outdated” ideas: either one or another, either for or against. It explains Russian policy in Syria. It is there to defeat its enemy. Moscow does not understand or does not accept enantiodromia. Russia is clearly lags in the postmodernism, cleaving to the classical logic, including the war and politics logic.
Europe, including France, is in an intermediate position of American geopolitics of Middle East chaos. On the one hand, Washington obliges Europe to follow its politics (enantiodromia), on the other hand, the example of Russia, following a more classical models of logic, sobering and returns minds of European leaders to the usual questions of goals, means, cause, effect, the balance of power, interests and, finally, values.

The terrorist attack in Paris on November 13, 2015, is the moment of a sharp aggravation of contradictions. The Frenchmen faced the challenged that they can’t fight under existing Atlantic enantiodromia, at the same time, they can’t even describe it equally in term of polite correctness. It means that the attack is not the last one. Paris will not be able to respond to it equally because it is not able to understand it equally, even to describe it equally.

So ISIS rules. After all, anyone can’t and doesn’t want to stop him. So it will go on, the Society of the Spectacle has its own logic, the perverse logic of grotesque entertainment.

Domestic politics in France is dealing with the same postmodern enantiodromia as with geopolitics in the Middle East. Only this time it is also an ideological dimension associated with the ideas of liberalism.

Free actions of the ISIS terrorists, committed the attack on Friday 13 in Paris, is connected largely to the situation that had formed in French society because of mass immigration, consisting of the people from the Middle East and Maghreb (mostly Muslims) and now “the ninth wave” of refugees, rapidly leaving the most bloody zones (Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc.). The ISIS PR-campaign adds fuel to the fire, as not all Muslims find something good in the parody on extremist sect, nothing more than a serial killer, however everyone knows hypnotic Stockholm syndrome when hostages sincerely stand up for terrorists. Allowing immigrants to freely enter the territory of France and found there their social enclaves (often having nothing to do with the lifestyle and values of native French) requires the ideology of liberalism, "human rights", "civil society" which is the ruling and the official ideology of modern society, no less than Communism in the Soviet Union. So while maintaining the status quo of liberal democracy (that no one in whole Europe won’t give up and don’t even think to do it) the growth of immigration and the expansion of Islam cultural centers is guaranteed. In addition to it, native Europeans (especially the French), under the ruling liberalism, have no right to assert its own identity and to demand respect for European values from immigrants (today it is equal to the "fascism") the assimilation of immigrants into European society is simply excluded at the very beginning. The European society in terms of liberalism has purely negative identity: modern Europe doesn’t want to have anything with the old Europe, Christianity, nations, estates, patriarchy, traditional morality, etc. In contrast, the "European" is declared everything that most separates itself from its roots.

Against the backdrop of not only weakening but even forbidden for ideological reasons European identity immigration (mainly Islamic) is automatically create their own policies and religious and value of the program. The program can’t be organic and historical continuity, because Islam came in modern Europe artificially and from different regions often with very different ethnic, cultural and religious traditions. So Islamic immigrants are almost doomed to arrange an ersatz ideology not Islamic, but Islamist, not traditional, but modern and even postmodern, not natural, but artificial. Thus, the Islam Society of the Spectacle with the dominance of liberal ideology in Europe is practically inevitable, and it can only become stronger. It is guaranteed: the number of immigrants will only grow, European identity will only become weaker, and the increase of post-modern Islamism will accelerate.

The Paris attacks were simply impossible without already formed stable Islamist environment in France, funded long before the current wave of refugees. Of course, among the refugees ISIS activists could arrive to the country, and it is possible that they were the direct participants of the attacks. But the breeding ground for it was prepared much earlier, in the first of all ideologically. Liberalism, encouraging immigration (it is openly stated by George Soros, one of the most consistent follower of liberalism and scale practician) and consistently blurring European identity (under the pretext of "anti-fascism"), has created all the necessary conditions.

Is it realistic to expect that after the massacre in Paris, the situation will change? To make it happen, the French authorities should seriously reconsider their attitude to the main ideology: only it will provide the basis for regulation of the migration and consolidation of the French. But it is simply impossible. Neither Hollande nor the main political forces of France, except openly illiberal National Front of Marine Le Pen, will give up the liberal ideology under any circumstances. So until the final collapse of liberalism in Europe, all the processes that led to the attacks will continue to grow. The risks won’t reduce, but will rise.

European liberalism will inevitably lead to the same situation as in the Middle East. The US is learning to live in conditions of controlled moderated chaos. It is not enough to have a loyal to the US leader in every country. It calls for the “deepening of democracy." It is enantiodromic claim. But it seems now to be addressed to Europe too. Since liberals are guaranteed to be in power in Europe, it is guaranteed to have the growth of immigration and the escalation of ethnic and cultural conflicts. It is also guaranteed to have the rise of terrorism and the popularity of the postmodern ISIS. In the end, we have a civil war in Europe, preparing now actively. The terrorist attacks in Paris shows how it will happen. Bashar Assad rightly noted that the French experiences of November 15, 2015, are the same events that the Syrians are going through in recent years, only in a much larger scale. On Friday 13 we saw a rehearsal of the European future: the French celebrating and drinking in bars at the weekend and armed group of Islamic terrorists having no control over them shooting people. And no one will draw any conclusions, and will even dare to describe the situation properly. In this case, those who are represented today as a group of maniacs, Islamist version of Freddy Krueger, tomorrow will become European moderate opposition and fighters for the minorities’ rights for democracy. It is possible that they will have in their hands whole European regions, and perhaps the entire countries, if political correct Europeans continue to drink cocktails, go to the stadiums and to concerts of heavy metal bands. The heaviest of the metals is a bullet, flying from the scene instead of loud voices of American degenerates under the cry of "Allah Akbar!" The hardest ever.

Giving up the liberalism or face same problems

What lesson can we get out of this tragedy?

1. We are living in the decisive moment when Western civilization is approaching its end. Such terroristic acts as that of Paris 13.11 show it clearly and unmistakably. The West we knew doesn’t exist any longer. Can’t exist any longer. One upon a time there was a certain West. With patriarchic heroic values, Christian identity, deep and exquisite culture with Greek-Roman roots. The West of God, man and nature. There is nothing like that in sight. The ruins. The weak and poisonous liberal civilization based on self-indulgence and at the same time on self-hatred. With no identity but purely negative one. Peopled by humans egoistic and ashamed of themselves. It can have the future. In front of brutal post-modern ISIS-fighters it can’t affirm anything, can’t oppose anything, can’t suggest anything. The West can’t be any longer Western. It is loosing itself. It is drowning. France is not worse place. All the rest of the Europe and USA themselves go the same way. The West is afraid. Not of ISIS, of itself, of its void, of its nihilism. If the West survive it will be no the same West we knew. Or it will change into a clone of the Middle East in blood in fire with no way out, or into the totalitarian system obsessed with the security. ISIS is not real danger it is rather symptom of utter decay. The worms can’t cause the death. They come when it is all over. If you deny That Who has risen from the dead and has saved the other, the death is the real end. So it is the dooms day.

2. Those who understand the gravity of situation should run and seek the salvation. There are few places in the world that try to escape from the nihilism of Modernity in its final turn. The blamed and permanently criticized Russia is one of such places. Russia is far from being ideal or optimal country. There are many failures and weal point. But she hold still. She doesn’t accept the full portion of poison. She refuses to suicide herself as the West does. So she resist. Russian conservatism beware Russians from falling in the same trap: when you are attacked and murdered in your home and obliged to smile and keep silence. Hillary Clinton confessed that USA have conceived ISIS but ISIS has evaded and went mad. The West experiment with suicide forms. It will continue. Russia and some other countries fight to live and survive the inevitable End of the West. So Russia is open as Arch to all. She loves Europe. Not of today. The other Europe. Original one. Christian, Roman, Greek. Traditional Europe peopled by Europeans. As before, as always. In the ancient times Russia was shield of Europe. Now the roles have changed. The Europe is rather shield of Russia. But this time the shield is not so good. The invasion comes. Russia needs Europe and wish it were a good shield. So there are at least some common interests if not common values. Russia would be happy to save Europe. Without it is quite impossible. I don’t judge if it is still possible with. But nevertheless we all need the common front. We need fight to the End and with the End.

3. European elites will extract no conclusions of the Paris 13.11 shooting and bombing. More immigrants, more liberalism, more love parades and gender politics. More tolerance. More liberalism. That will be answer. Such elites are completely mad. If Europe want be saved it needs new ones. Now it is time to seriously fight for Tradition, for Christ, for Identity, for restoration of Sovereignty lost. The mad liberal elites are much more fearsome and dangerous than ISIS. With the firm will there is no problem to win the ISIS and stop the aggression and occupation of Europe. But the problem is ISIS is the creation of the liberal elite. Partly of USA geopolitical strategy partly of the natural void. The liberalism is the name of the Death. Dawn with it and there will be may be the chance. With it – no chances at all.

lundi, 16 novembre 2015

Allemagne et Turquie: deux dangers pour l’Europe


Allemagne et Turquie: deux dangers pour l’Europe

par Guillaume Faye

Ex: http://www.gfaye.com

Avec la ”crise des migrants et réfugiés”, qui ne fait que commencer et qui est une invasion migratoire d’une ampleur inouïe dont plusieurs nations européennes peuvent ne jamais se relever, deux pays constituent, par leur politique, des dangers pour les peuples européens : l’Allemagne d’Angela Merkel et la Turquie de R.T. Erdogan. L’Allemagne parce qu’elle favorise l’invasion par la pompe aspirante, la Turquie parce qu’elle la provoque par la pompe propulsive.

Pauvre Allemagne schizophrène…

Il y a quelque chose de suicidaire dans l’ ”âme allemande”, qui est la part d’ombre du génie allemand. Une propension à l’absolu, à l’exaltation extrémiste : du bellicisme et du racisme fous des IIe et IIIe Reich à l’immigrationisme forcené du gouvernement actuel de Berlin, on remarque une même psychologie autodestructrice. Par l’ancien militarisme expansionniste comme par l’humanitarisme inconditionnel, la mentalité politique allemande (est-ce l’héritage du romantisme allemand ?) semble brouillée avec la raison et adepte de l’ubris, y compris dans sa version masochiste.

Première puissance économique de l’UE, l’Allemagne d’Angela Merkel exerce de fait une domination douce sur l’ensemble de l’Europe, sans avoir besoin de force militaire. La nullité du président français Hollande (elle le roule dans la farine en permanence) est une chance pour elle. Le contrepoids ne peut pas venir des Britanniques, qui se désintéressent de l’Europe continentale. Le souvenir affreux des réfugiés allemands de la Seconde guerre mondiale a peut-être joué un rôle. Politicienne et tacticienne, Angela Merkel ne possède aucune conscience nationale allemande ni européenne. Cette femme n’est pas respectable parce que la duplicité est sa règle. Elle est franche comme un âne qui recule.

Devant l’énorme flux des ”réfugiés”, elle assure que l’Allemagne peut en accueillir 800.000, provoquant ainsi un catastrophique appel d’air. La chancelière s’est précipitée à Ankara (est allée à Canossa) pour supplier le gouvernement turc d’essayer de stopper un peu les flux de ”réfugiés” et d’ouvrir des camps d’hébergement sur son territoire. Cerise sur le gâteau : elle a proposé de l’argent aux Turcs, sans demander leur avis aux autres pays européens, ce qui prouve que le gouvernement allemand fait peu de cas de l’avis de ses partenaires. 


Et c’est là où le président Erdogan, avec son sans-gêne et son cynisme habituel a proposé son marché de dupes. Sans même faire la moindre promesse à Mme Merkel (qu’il méprise comme une faible femelle en bon musulman machiste), il a exigé en contrepartie qu’on reprenne immédiatement les négociations d’adhésion de la Turquie à l’UE. et qu’on supprime tout visa pour l’entrée des ressortissants turcs dans l’Union. Mme Merkel a aussitôt cédé. François d’Orcival commente : «  on échangerait donc 2 millions de réfugiés contre 79 millions de Turcs ! Là, on tombe sur la tête ». (Valeurs actuelles, 22–28/10/2015). Et Ivan Rioufol remarque  dans Le Figaro qu’on « essaie d’éteindre un incendie avec de l’essence ». M. Erdogan ne souhaite nullement éteindre l’incendie, mais le propager.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan est un ennemi majeur

Qui est M. Erdogan et que cherche-t-il ? D’abord Premier ministre puis maintenant président de la Turquie, il représente l’AKP, le parti ”islamique modéré”. En réalité, c’est un faux nez islamiste et les Européens sont tombés dans le piège. Et la stratégie menée est d’une redoutable habileté, machiavélienne. M. Erdogan est un fanatique islamiste dissimulé qui se rêve comme un néo-sultan ottoman conquérant. Sa haine de l’Europe est ancrée dans son idéologie. Son objectif, son programme, peuvent ainsi se résumer:

1) Éradiquer les Kurdes.

2) Réislamiser la Turquie (les ” Turcs noirs” anatoliens contre les ”Turcs blancs” laïcs).

3) Établir en Turquie une dictature sultanique présidentielle à son profit. 3) Conquérir l’Europe (reprise de la conquête ottomane) par le biais de l’immigration musulmane et par l’entrée de la Turquie dans l’UE.

Renforcé par sa victoire aux dernières élections, le néo-sultan Erdogan, qui instaure peu à peu un régime islamo-totalitaire soft, aide en sourdine Dae’ch et toutes les milices islamistes. Il veut en prendre le contrôle. Son but est de faire entrer en Europe des millions de ”réfugiés” musulmans pour saper l’identité de cette dernière, l’investir de l’intérieur. Erdogan veut rétablir, sous une autre forme, l’Empire Ottoman version 2.0 : c’est-à-dire prendre la tête de l’islam radical pour dominer l’Afrique du Nord et l’Europe. Il entend annihiler l’héritage de Mustapha Kemal Ataturk qui voulait désislamiser et européaniser la Turquie. Pour l’instant son entreprise progresse selon ses plans.

R. T. Erdogan est un chef d’État fort perspicace, avec une vision stratégique à long terme. C’est un véritable homme d’État, bien supérieur aux dirigeants européens, actuels comme Mme Merkel ou M. Hollande, qui ne sont que des politiciens. Le seul qui puisse se comparer à Erdogan est Wladimir Poutine. C’est la raison pour laquelle Erdogan est un véritable ennemi et Poutine un véritable ami.   

La Turquie abrite 2 millions de réfugiés venus de Syrie et d’Irak. Erdogan demande 7 milliards d’euros d’aide. Autrement, il menace de lâcher ces ”réfugiés”, à 95% musulmans, sur l’Europe, qui s’ajouteront aux autres. Avec une agressive impudence (pourquoi se gêner ?) Erdogan mène un double jeu avec l’OTAN, dont la Turquie est membre. Le gouvernement américain laisse faire : Washington joue la carte de l’affaiblissement de l’Europe par l’immigration et l’islamisation, ce qui ne déplaît pas à Obama, calculateur roué et islamo–compatible.

Débordée et impuissante, l’Europe se tourne vers la Turquie pour réguler et freiner les flux de réfugiés. À Bruxelles, Erdogan a réitéré devant la Commission son chantage, ce piège qu’il nous tend : il promet d’endiguer le flux des migrants (il ne tiendra évidemment pas parole) en échange d’une reprise des négociations d’adhésion, une libre circulation des Turcs dans l’espace Schengen et un accroissement des aides financières. Le culot paye face aux faibles.    


Agent de l’invasion musulmane de l’Europe, Erdogan possède deux forces et deux faiblesses : il est d’abord fort de la mollesse pathologique de l’UE mais aussi –il faut le reconnaître – de l’exploitation qu’il fait de sa relative réussite socio-économique. Son premier handicap est son comportement de satrape autoritariste, pas exempt de corruption et de folie des grandeurs ; le second est qu’Erdogan, par sa politique islamiste risque de faire éclater la société turque et prend un énorme risque.

Leçons à en tirer

La Turquie est en proie à une tension croissante : la laïcité et les valeurs européennes affrontent l’obscurantisme islamique en pleine croissance, à quoi s’ajoute la révolte kurde, qui prend doucement des allures sanglantes de guerre civile. La Turquie est un pays ethniquement double, ambivalent, ce qui ne simplifie pas les choses. Angela Merkel est considérée par Erdogan comme une idiote utile. En bon islamiste, il méprise les femmes politiques, ainsi qu’ un pays dirigé par une ”maman”. Pas très viril. Et il méprise aussi une Union européenne sans colonne vertébrale, un énorme mollusque.

D’autre part, n’oublions la très trouble alliance historique germano-turque, contre les puissances occidentales et la Russie au cours des deux dernières guerres mondiales – surtout la Première. La présence massive d’immigrés turcs en Allemagne doit être prise en compte, qui s’accompagne d’une certaine soumission du gouvernement allemand : Erdogan, avec son impudence habituelle (provocation calculée) avait accusé les Allemands d’une sorte de ”racisme” en voulant assimiler et germaniser les immigrés turcs ! Les Turcs possèderaient une sorte de droit à conquérir l’Allemagne, tout en se prétendant des victimes. C’est un classique.

Il faut noter aussi, ce qui est cohérent, la brouille de la Turquie d’Erdogan avec Israël, jadis pays allié et aujourd’hui ennemi. Le néo-sultan, qui veut mobiliser le monde musulman dans son projet de renaissance ottomane, doit logiquement désigner Israël comme puissance hostile. Encore un problème de plus pour les dirigeants allemands, échaudés par toute forme d’antisémitisme et qui se sont toujours montrés pro-israéliens… Nous nageons dans un océan de contradictions où le comique rejoint le tragique.

En déclin démographique dramatique, l’Allemagne – enfin, son oligarchie – essaie d’attirer de la main d’œuvre à tout prix. Politique à courte vue, contrairement à ce que pratique le Japon. D’autre part, culpabilisés par le souvenir cauchemardesque du IIIe Reich, les dirigeants allemands veulent se donner une image de petits saints : ouverture, accueil, charité, solidarité. D’un extrême à l’autre.

Autant il est complètement stupide et injuste de critiquer l’Allemagne pour sa réussite et son hégémonie économiques – c’est de la jalousie, le pire des sentiments, et c’est aussi fuir nos propres responsabilités – autant il est pertinent d’affirmer que la politique étrangère allemande a toujours, depuis 1870, été catastrophique pour l’Europe. La naïveté pacifiste et laxiste de la politique allemande actuelle contraste avec le bellicisme de l’Allemagne de jadis. Les deux attitudes sont aussi dommageables pour le reste de l’Europe.

Quant à la France, la seule qui pourrait faire contrepoids à l’Allemagne, elle n’a plus de politique étrangère ; on ne peut même pas dire que la France soit à la remorque des USA ; elle est comme une caravane sans tracteur. Depuis le début de la présidence Hollande, la politique étrangère française est indéterminée, erratique, illisible, tant vis-à-vis du Moyen-Orient que de la Russie. Marine Le Pen a traité, au Parlement européen, M. Hollande de vice-chancelier de Mme Merkel –les deux étant présents, ce qui fut un grand moment. Mais cette saillie est en dessous de la vérité : M. Hollande n’est ni le vice–chancelier de Mme Merkel, ni le président de la République française. Il est toujours le Premier secrétaire du Parti socialiste, installé gratuitement et par erreur à l’Hôtel Élysée cinq étoiles et qui entend y rester cinq ans de plus. Nous sommes embarqués sur un bateau ivre.

samedi, 14 novembre 2015

Vanguardism: Hope for the Future


Hope for the Future

Editor’s Note:

The following text is the transcript by V. S. of Jonathan Bowden’s London Forum lecture in London on December 3, 2011. I want to thank Michèle Renouf and Jez Turner for making the recording available.   

This is a very difficult topic to speak about because it appears to be a depressing and pessimistic era where most of the storm and stress and most of the Zeitgeist, or spirit of the age, seems to be against us. There’s also a preponderance for people on the Right politically to have metaphysically conservative views, which means they’re often pessimistic; they’re often loyal to Spengler’s idea in the 1920s and 1930s that “optimism is a form of cowardice” and in relation to that sort of idea the notion that one should be optimistic about the future is difficult to sustain. But given that the past speech was rather sort of statistical and slightly morbid in tone, my job is not to put a reverse spin on it, but at least to attempt to generate some optimistic energy.

There are more of us than ever before, but it’s always a question of quality as against quantity in this life, because what I am going to propose is that instead of looking at demographic and quantity-based analyses, quantitative ways of looking at things, let’s look at qualitative ways of looking at things. Let’s look at quality. Let’s look at elitism. Let’s look at the fact that all groups need a vanguard.

I remember once a Times journalist asked me a very long time ago in relation to an event called the Le Pen Dinner, which is now 20 years old and more, he said, “What’s your view of all this stuff about revisionism?” This was in the hotel in Knightsbridge/Kensington where Le Pen and his guests were situated. He said, “What’s your view of all that?” He said, “Is it all true or, contrariwise, is it all false?” And I said, thinking of some famous murder trial of the time, I used the example of the Wests, Frederick and Rosemary now, but of course this particular discussion predated that. I said, “Well, that trial . . . Is everything that occurred in that court case all true or all false?” He said, “Well, hold on a minute! Some of it is bound to be true and some of it is bound to be false.” And I said, “Well, absolutely. That will go for revisionism as much as anything else.”

All that revisionism is, is the ultimate defense of a particular vanguard at a particular time who believe that they are fighting for Western civilization. All elites and vanguard minorities are is the radical consciousness of their own group. Just as people like Louis Farrakhan were mentioned earlier on, who is the leader of a sect called the Black Muslims, and just as they are in some respects totally unrepresentative of a lot of African-American opinion, they nevertheless represent an ultimate redoubt, an ultimate salient, or a bridgehead from which their population can go forth and from which it can gain energy and succor and that’s the way you have to look at these things.

People need ultimate resources. They need absolutists, and they need semi-fundamentalists who will stand up for them at least in a conceptual way. Even if they can’t stand up for themselves, don’t want to, or wouldn’t even know how to. The point of radicals, particularly radicals who deal with the politics of identity in any shape or form, is to provide that elite, is to provide that vanguard.

You all know the technology of a bullet. A bullet is very significant in the impact it can have on a wall or a piece of wood or per force the human body, but if a bullet is perforated in the top or has mercury injected into the top and is sealed in again it becomes a far more devastating weapon. It becomes what is known as a dum-dum bullet.

Now, if a vanguard is to have the effect of such retreated bullets so that conceptually and actually the energy and vigor of debate is transformed by the use of such a vanguard and its terminology, it has to be aware of where it’s coming from, what its tradition is, where it’s going to, and what it represents at a particular time. Just because most of the politics of this era seems to running well and truly against us does not mean that the situation is hopeless, because situations are never hopeless. Groups that have been done down or perceive that they’ve been done down by history have undergone worse traumas than we are undergoing at the present time.

The danger of the ideology of the victim, which I don’t really subscribe to except as a tactic on occasion, is that you begin to think like a victim, and you begin to act like a victim. Many of our people now are almost asking for a whipping, asking for a collective beating, asking to be forgiven for the past, asking to be forgiven for sins and crimes of the past which they never committed, which they’re hardly aware of, which can be reconstrued as episodes of heroic cruelty or glorious vanguardism that don’t even need to be apologized for in the past or in the present.


There’s a degree to which I personally think that the doctrine of vanguardism is the way out of the dilemma that we face. All Communist movements believe that the proletariat needed to be saved from itself. They believe that the masses were degraded by feudalism and by capitalism. They believe that only an elite or a vanguard party could raise the masses up to socialism as the inverse of the capitalism they wish to replace. All Communist movements that flourished in Western and other societies throughout most of the late 19th and 20th centuries based themselves upon the vanguard principle. These movements were tiny. Smaller than the number of people gathered in this room in central West London tonight by a long way.

I’ve got a book about literature on my desk at the moment. In order to tabulate historical reliefs for literary points, they give the listing of events for particular years and in one particular year – I’m not sure, it might be 1912 – it talks about the Bolshevik and Menshevik split. It might have been in that year; it might have been in another year. That split happened in London. It happened in a pub in London, and all Bolsheviki and Mensheviki means is “majority” and “minority.” There was a split between the two of them, and you can imagine them all with their beards and so on haranguing each other and debating about whether there should be an instantaneous rising in Russia or whether they should wait for the historical process to take its course, because Russia was not yet a capitalist society with a bourgeois class that could be overthrown and so on. The majority of Londoners even from the ethnic groups that a significant proportion of those Communists were drawn from would regard all that as idiocy and lunacy just as the bulk of White people today regard a significant amount of what we say as lunacy.

All people who have a vanguard, an elitist mentality, are regarded as partly mad by their own groups, because the majority of people do not want to know. The majority of people wish to live their own life in their own way, and they only look at these broader questions when life impinges upon them and comes upon them, and the hand of life grasps them by the collar and they really cannot do any other thing but notice what is in front of them.

Many of the reasons our people do not seem to have a sense of solidarity amongst themselves in relation to the degree that some other groups could be said to have is because a significant number of them have never been kicked, have never felt what it is as a group to be disprivileged in a society. Unfortunately, in certain areas of British and continental life now and North American life that process for some, and certainly not at the top or middle of the society, is beginning. They’re beginning to realize what it is like to be a minority or what it is like to be culturally disprivileged or what it is like to be dispossessed in a way.

That spirit will grow, but it will only feed into consciousness in a number of select minds, because the bulk of people are not drawn to be in a vanguard formulation. People will only listen to a vanguard when they are desperate. They will only listen to a vanguard when they think there is no other hope. They would love for many of the problems of contemporary Britain, many of which revolve around the processes of immigration, to be solved, but they would love to have nothing to do with it themselves and they would love if somebody came forward magically without trouble and without fuss to deal with it on their behalf. They want no unpleasantness and they want no nastiness, particularly in their own name. But at the same time if anybody does things of any sort that could be ascribed to that they would run away and hide initially, be privately pleased, condemn the people who did it, support the people who are against them, and yet at the same time have a secret smirk and smile on their face about the whole thing. And they would do all of that simultaneously and that’s what people are like and that’s what our own people are like up to a point and that’s the funk and the state of internal confusion and bemusement that our people are in because every time they turn on the box in the corner it says that everything is marvelous and it’s all for the best and that there’s no need to worry and that we’re all sleep-walking towards victory.

I read Nineteen Eighty-Four again recently. It’s been a good quarter of a century since I read that book, and it’s a remarkably prescient work in every sense. Of course, it’s a social democratic criticism of Stalinist authoritarianism, but in actual fact Orwell’s idea that everyone polices their thoughts before they speak, they even police the idea of their thoughts before they speak, is very germane to the present hour.

I was with a relative of mine many years ago and we were in a wood near Liverpool on our own and he looked behind him before he made a politically incorrect remark. Because he was worried! He was worried to be alone in a wood with someone else.

And if you remember, in the second section of Nineteen Eighty-Four, Julia and Winston have their rather tawdry affair, it has to be said in a way, against the party. Sex is rebellion against the puritanism of newspeak and all that. They go into the middle of a wood and they go into a middle of a clearing of saplings in order to get down to it and the reason that they do that is firstly, of course, it’s not in an urban area and therefore there are no telescreens. These televisions that can look both ways with the secret police and thought police behind them. And on the other hand, there are no microphones, because wherever there isn’t a telescreen you can never vouchsafe that there isn’t a microphone in that particular novel listening to you.

People are policed now by political correctness, which they adhere to and which they go along with and which they profess to love whilst at the same time hating and despising looking over their shoulder as they refute it and rebut it in the context of their own life. Because that is what the majority is always like. The majority is confused and inane and believes in the last thing that’s ever said to them. Of course, in all societies you have a hierarchy of knowledge and understanding. Probably about 40% of people are quite politically proficient, know what’s what, know to a certain degree, have a cynical regard for the system as it is, at least a compos mentis about the sort of culture and society we are living in. But a good 60% are not.

There’s a famous story about a Labour member of Parliament who went to a constituent’s door. He was Dennis Potter, the playwright that later emerged on the BBC, and he was a Labour candidate in his earlier vintage. He knocked on the door, and the woman and husband would come to the door, and the woman would say, “What are you going to do about immigration? As a Labour candidate, as our candidate, as the candidate who will speak the truth to us unlike the Tories . . .” Not understanding, of course, that Labour is a center Left party that believes in mass migration as a doctrine of law and morality and whose Nationality Act of 1948 began the modern day process of complete societal transformation because, as Attlee said at the time, “If the races of this world were mixed together there will be no more war,” and that is an ideology which many of the old Labourites believed in body and soul from the anti-colonial movement from which they came. But the bulk of Labour voters thought Labour stood for something very different from that. They thought Labour stood for them and for their family and for their extended family, and people who were like the people who lived on the posher estate down the way voted for another party. That’s what they thought.

But Potter had to answer this woman and her husband because they stood before him. He said, “Well, what do you mean? Labour is in favor of fairness for all.” A politician’s answer, of course, even on the doorstep. She said, “Oh, there’s too many, and they’re taking over the center of town, and I don’t feel safe anymore, and things have changed out of all recognition, and some of what that chap Enoch Powell says – I don’t like him, because he’s a Tory – but at the same time it’s got some truth to it.” All the time Potter was wanting to reply . . . He was wanting to reply that “you’re a bigot,” “I don’t want your vote,” “Even if you are prepared to give it to me under other circumstances where you said you repudiated what you’ve just said.” And all the time his agent was kicking him, was kicking the back of his heels saying, “Come on. There’s plenty of other doors. There’s plenty more to do, Dennis. There’s plenty to get the sort of red ribbon vote out. Let’s leave them to themselves. They’ll probably vote Labour anyway.” As indeed they will.

He kept kicking him and so on, and in the end Potter said, “Labour is for fairness for all, but of course we will listen to your concerns, Madame.” As he was turning away, the agent said, “And what will it be then?” to the husband, who had obviously not really gotten a word in beforehand. And the husband said, “Oh yeah, we’ll vote Labour as normal, because you listen to what we say.” And they’re not alone, because there are millions like that. Millions and millions like that. “Politicians will sort it out.” “Politicians left to themselves will do something to make sure that things won’t get as bad as they could be.”

The other thing you often hear about is death. People say, “It’s not going to happen while I’m around therefore I don’t need to bother about it.” I’ve had lots of people say to me, “Oh, it’s 40 to 50 years off. Who knows what will happen? I can’t do anything. You can’t do anything. So, what’s the point? In any case, I’ll be dead by then anyway or gaga or very elderly.” And so on. You hear that again and again, because of course what you have in modern Western societies is the extreme powerlessness of the individual. Apart from maybe in consumption and expenditure of cash, the average individual feels totally cut off from the external society. It’s what I call deep privatization.

Privatization in the 1980s and the 1990s meant the dispersal of public utilities and was a sort of Thatcherite and neo-liberal ideology, but privatization has actually gone much deeper than that. It’s the view that each is out for himself and society hardly exists beyond the confines of one’s own family, one’s own extended family, and people one happens to know. People feel not just sort of deracinated, but de-popularized and de-democratized, if there are such terms. People are, in an extraordinary sense, alone. Alone with the television, alone with the telescreen, which when they flip from channel to channel tells them all the time that everything is perfect and there are only nasty-minded people who will stir things up as vanguards and various forms of extremism.

Extremism, of course, is something always to be rejected, but I think extremism is necessary. I think it’s socially and mathematically necessary, because there has to be a logic to the logic of logic. There has to be something which takes the argument out to the furthest point on the circle. In maths, if you have a curve, you have a line that penetrates it at the furthest extent, and I believe that there has to be a logic that in the realms of sanity and in the realms of what’s possible bisects the line at the most radical point, and that’s what the people in this room are. That’s what vanguard forms of identity amount to. They are the most radical manifestation of the implicit sense of becoming and belonging and identitarian man and womanhood of the ordinary people in one’s own group, and you have to manifest that, and you have to represent it, and only by doing so can you have a certain effect, because you do have an effect by virtue of existing.

There are many other groups on this planet who always ask the question when anything happens, “Is it good for us?” “Is it good for us, or is it bad for the others?” But most people think actually, “Is it good for us?” Far more people, even of a vanguard or elitist temperament, are prone to say, “Is it good for us?” rather than “Is it bad for the others?” because, contrary to liberals who always think that positions of identity are based on the idea of doing others down, principles of identity are usually based on boosting or, to use an ugly contemporary phrase, bigging up one’s own group. People actually think more positively about themselves before they get into negativity about others, contrary to the view that politics of identity is all about negativity towards others and as long as you can suppress that through political correctness everyone can live happily in a multi-cult, multi-identity firmament or melting pot.

I think the point to make about vanguardism is whenever anything happens, people in other groups and people in other vanguards and liberal humanists in our own group, because as the previous speaker said quite truthfully, it is indigenous liberals who are our real enemy . . . Indigenous liberals are always the enemy. Liberalism within ourselves is always the enemy. It exists even in people who regard themselves as radical, to a certain extent.

We’ve had liberalism in an uninterrupted way for centuries. Russia has never known a liberal regime, and whether one likes it or not the politics of contemporary Russia have a lot to do with the fact that they’ve never known a period of liberalism. You could argue that since the restoration of the monarchy in the 1600s, we’ve known nothing but various forms of liberalism, most of which linked to various elements of the Protestant religion during that time. But until about the 1950s or 1960s most forms of Protestantism retained residual illiberal and patriotic ideas, as for a period they did in a very sectarian way in Northern Ireland.

So, all views have their liberal side. Even hardliners have their liberal side which they have to guard against by chipping away at them. Liberalism also feeds on indifference. Indifference to the future and indifference to the generations that are coming in the future.


But vanguardism is something different, because it lives for the virility of what might be in the future. Make no bones about it, what vanguard Caucasians think about their future is watched and is listened to by liberals and by all the other groups. So, the idea that what we do and what we say and what we think has no relevance or no purport is not true. What is true is the competition between groups is part of the stuff of life. Contemporary society is based upon the formulation that that is not the case, and because it is the case, nature will trump all of the liberal arguments. The problem is that if it doesn’t take a political form nature’s trumping of liberalism will be a very painful process to live through, a very painful process for ourselves, for everybody, and for all other persons in other groups. That is why we have to continue with putting forward percussively the politics of identity from our own standpoint.

Let’s take something in the news at the moment. There’s a large cranking up and there’s a building up of energy for an attack on Iran. At the moment, it appears to be small. It appears to be a cloud smaller than a man’s hand. The United Nations has reported that Iran is building a nuclear weapon. The United Nations has reported that their nuclear technology is of dual use, but all nuclear technology is of dual use. When we developed a nuclear weapon the Americans were staunchly opposed to us possessing it, because they wished to live in a unipolar world where only one power had that particular device. Of course, all other major nations were working on these devices. I believe 34 other countries are developing some sort of nuclear program at the present time, including Saudi Arabia, because they fear that Iran is doing so because they’re nearby.

But let’s look at it in another way. Is it in our interest that Iran is attacked? Is it in our interest that Iran is attacked? And the answer has to be that it is not in our interest, and it is not in our interest because they are not natural friends of ours, not natural enemies of ours. They exist in a different part of the world, though we exist in a post-imperial situation now. We do not wish to be dragged willy-nilly into yet further wars after Iraq and Afghanistan at America and Israel’s behest. As soon as one factors into the question vanguardism and group identity it becomes quite clear that The Times and The Economist and all of these neo-liberal and neo-conservative journals pushing for an attack upon Iran that is not in our interest, and other groups can figure what goes on in the world directly as whether it’s in their interests or not. In a confused way, our people aren’t bothered whether Iran’s attacked or not. Our people sit there watching the TV and think, “If the Israelis do it, well . . . I don’t know what I think really. Somebody down at the pub said it was a good idea. I’ve got no idea myself. Can they refuel their jets without American help? They’ll need American help. If the Americans asked us to help, will that drag us into it?” Most of our people would probably consider, “Is there a danger of backwash of Islamist radicalism against us because we’ve aligned against Muslim nations elsewhere on Earth?” which is not a stupid thing to think actually and is probably one of the more credible middle-ranging opinions that people as they sit in front of the television would come out with.

But if our people began to think more in terms of an identitarian prospect they would nevertheless come to the conclusion that it’s not in our interest to attack Iran, and that’s just one issue out of an enormous number that could be preconfigured. Is it in our interest to help bail out the Euro? Is it in our interest to engage in yet more wars with the United States of America? Is it in our interest to have American bases on our own soil? Is it in our own interest to endlessly have a cultural of Marxian deconstruction over all of our media in comparison to what pre-existed the relatively social conservatism of the 1950s?

If you slot in all of these ideas, which the mass of people are completely unconcerned about, and yet asked an identity-related question you come up with the answer that it is not in our interests.

Then you have to switch the questions around. Are there certain things which are in our interests rather than against our interests at a particular moment in time? Is it in our interest for a significant proportion of our media to be owned by foreigners? Probably not. Is it in our interest for a considerable part of our media to be owned by pornographers? Probably not. Is it in our interest for much of our banking and for much of our media to be totally international and to have no national specificity at all? Probably not. Is it in our interests that so many of our politicians are part of a jet-set international and humanist class that sees Britain as a puddle to their own self and corporate advancement? No, it’s not. As soon as you factor into all of these questions vanguard and elitist propositions on behalf of a group you come up with an interconnected series of answers about what’s in your interests and what’s not.


When Tony Blair went to war over Iraq, he said it was in our interest to hug America close and he was part of an ideology called “Hug Them Close.” This is the idea that you never allow, particularly if you’re a social democrat in a British context on the right of the Labour Party, any space at all between what you and what American foreign policy wants at any particular time even if privately you don’t agree with a lot of it. You still, in a gangster-like way, go along with it.

But is it in our interest to behave in that manner? When we tried to act independently in what may well have been a folly-laden enterprise which was the Suez operation in 1956, America slapped us down! Smacked us in the face and square in the chops! And we had no particular answer either. When a run on the pound was engineered by the United States in order to humiliate this country and show it the error of its ways in going for some unilateral action with the French and the Israelis but not at the behest of American power as it manifested at that particular moment, we were shown what was what. It’s interesting to note that amongst the extraordinary moralism that is part of contemporary culture where obscure Olympics are remembered and Manchester United’s victories in the ‘60s are remembered and various other events are churned over by the media, Suez is never dwelt on. Suez is never mentioned. Fifty years on from Suez receives this much attention, and the reason it does receive no attention is because it was a rank humiliation for the then ruling class in this country who learned some very salient post-war lessons, and that was that you heel to the United States like an aggressive bulldog and basically never venture to do anything without their recognizance.

Part of the multi-ethnic reconfiguration of these islands is American by proxy, because everything that happens there happens here with a slight time lapse because we have modeled ourselves upon their model of near-open borders and fiscal and capitalist movement of money all over the world whereby Communist China now controls large sections of the debt mountain that holds up the United States and where two systems that could be said to be at war with each other ideologically – ultra-capitalist America and post-Communist China – actually have each other in a handshake as well as around the throat because they now rely on each other to prop each other up in the chaotic world system that has now evolved.

The Euro is in desperate trouble, and the Chinese were asked last month to help bail the Euro out, and they refused. And quite rightly they refused, because it’s not in China’s interest to bail out the European economies unless they are reduced to an African level where they can buy country by country! As you know, China is buying up Africa. They basically say to the Black Africans in the sub-Sahara, “Unlike the Whites and unlike the Arabs, we have never oppressed you. Let us buy your country!” And they’re swarming Africa. Eventually there will be, and there are partly, Chinese cities in Africa. It’s not a stupid idea. They will begin running the bureaucracies, they will end up with their own demographic change, and with a smile on their face as they do it they will take that continent. There’s a new scramble for Africa, and it is not Europeans who are doing it. Our time over there, when South Africa went, is gone. The problem is not the dispossession of our colonial elites of the past, but the dispossession of our communities at home in the future and in the present.

But my view is that as long as there is a vanguard to put forward the proposition of an exclusiveness for ourselves, there will always be hope, and that is independent of political parties. Political parties come and go. I believe a new one will be reconfigured in the next 18 months to 2 years on the basis of all the splitting which has gone on at the present time. I believe that a new political party is the way forward, but our own people won’t vote for it. Not in sufficient numbers, because they’re afraid, and because they’re in a funk, and because they would like something to happen but are frightened of the consequences and think that even to mention these things isn’t nice. Only a vanguard can mention these sorts of issues, because only a vanguard is unafraid to deal with the thought of not being nice. These ideas afflict and paralyze our people to a degree which is quite extraordinary.

Probably, viewed systematically, more pressure has to be put for there to be more of a radical response. Such pressure is always possible. Economic collapse is always possible. New wars and disturbances are always possible. But one thing we may have to get used to is the idea that as a group and as an ethnicity we exist in Europe and North America and Australasia and also all over the world. There are plenty of other groups who see themselves as transnational groups, who see their destiny all over the world. They see their destiny in vanguard terms. They see their destiny as having a core group within their own selves that can come back from anything genetically and in other ways. Not only do they ask the question when it is asked of them, “Is it good for me or is it bad for me or my group?” They also are prepared to cleave to their own group in times of trouble.

Certain groups have preserved themselves 60-70% and more genetically since the ancient world and they have done so by a culture of coherence and identity which crosses national borders and which understands that if a group is to survive it may need to adopt some radical measures which involve rolling with the blows.

English and British people exist all over the world. We exist all over the world. All over Europe, all over North America, all over Australasia, in quite a few of the countries of Latin America, in most of the ex-colonies. English is the language of the world. It’s the lingua franca of modernity or post-modernity. We have given the world a great lot, and this is just to refract our own identity through the national consciousness of one particular people who are actually a part of it. So, I think that the worst thing that can be uttered at this time is despair, because there are more than enough of us to provide the vanguard which is necessary. The trick is to link the vanguard to the popular will and to find a way to link the vanguard to the popular will.

So far, organizationally, in the post-Second World War world there has been a failure to link the vanguard to the popular will and that has occurred in all the societies of Western and Central Europe and has occurred even in the post-Communist Eastern European societies where it did appear that such a thing was on the cards immediately after Communism collapsed. It’s also true to say that Communism inoculated these populations against the worst and the most noxious forms of liberalism.


The New Right writer, Tomislav Sunić, who lived under Communism and was imprisoned by it in Croatia with other members of his family, once said that “Communism rots the body, but liberalism rots the soul,” and there is a strong degree of truth to that remark, because liberalism attacks on the internal front, on the front of values and identity. It’s why the majority of our people refute their vanguardistic yearnings and callings.

Most people, particularly teenage boys, have a sort of yearning for vanguardism when they’re early in life, and then they forget it as they get older, and it becomes smeared and smudged over by various forms of liberal orthodoxy. They start either not voting or they vote for one of the prescribed parties: Conservative and Unionist, Liberal Democrat, and Labour. As long as you remain in that area you’re pretty safe in this country job-wise, career-wise, patrimonially-wise, in terms of reputation, in terms of bourgeois reputation in particular. If you step outside of those boundaries, and it’s quite a wide boundary . . . Liberals would say, “Look, we’ve given you as wide a space as almost anywhere in the world where you can cavort and make hay and make political pronouncements. Why do you need to go outside that? Why do you need to go out into these extremist and unheralded furrows and sort of support things which are counter-cultural and anti-system?” And the reason that one would choose to do so is because they are not in the interests of the group from which one originates. That’s the only reason that one would choose to do so.

The only reason for vanguardism is for the elite to protect the mass and seek to bring it forward in history, because the mass can never act for itself.

In Orwell’s novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, which I mentioned at the end, Winston and Julia fail in their rebellion, feeble though it was, against the all-powerful party, and Orwell wants them to be seen to fail at the end of the novel. But hope lies in the proles, if you remember. Hope lies in the thick-set woman with the laundry basket who’s singing a song, “It was only a hopeless fancy.” Do you remember that? “It was only a hopeless fancy,” as she puts the diapers on the line she’s singing “it was only a hopeless fancy,” which is a prolefeed song given to them by the Ministry of Propaganda in that particular society.

My view is that the future always allies with the elite not with the mass. The future allies with those that will mold the mass and that will prepare for its energization when a moment comes. That’s why my message is one not of despair but of hope for the future, because as long as indigenous, nationally-conscious, ethnically aware, racially aware, inegalitarian, elitist, and other values and views are put forth in a coherent way, in a sane way, and in an educated way — because people expect views to be put forward in such a way — as long as that happens there is always hope for the future, because people will align in extremis with their own defense mechanism, and they will align with the people who have put forward the defensive barrister’s case, which can become offensive as well as defensive in a particular political and social moment.

My view is that as long as there is a continuous effort to put forward the elitist agenda of our own group in the sense that a proportion of people are prepared to place upon their own shoulders the burden of the moral leadership of their own group . . . That’s what the Black Muslims do. What the Black Muslims in the United States do is they put themselves forward in the most radical way possible. The bulk of American Blacks have no interest in Islam at all and are Christian and often deeply so and will only vote for Christian politicians. Yet their most radical vanguard group has adopted Islam, and they have done so because in their own way of looking at things they consider it to be a less White, a less Western formulation which is more in keeping with their own sense of their own self, their own strength, their own determinancy.

A similar phenomenon can be found among so-called White extremists where many evince pagan and other views, because they basically want a viewpoint which to their point of view is totally cardinal and it relates to themselves and to no one else. But that’s fine, because all those views do is sustain the strength of the vanguard. That’s why people adopt radical metaphysical views about which many people in this room would argue among themselves. But that’s not the point. They’re the fuel. They’re the food. They’re the element that keeps people staunch, because it’s difficult amongst the withering condescension of a liberal society to maintain an elitist identity politics. It’s not straightforward, it’s not easy, and therefore you need to draw upon certain strengths which are theoretical and which are metaphysical and which are emotional as much as anything else because one’s tie to one’s own group has an emotional pull just as one’s tie to a regiment if one’s a soldier has an emotional pull.

That emotional pull is extremely important. The theories are there for the upper part of consciousness and the upper part of the mind. They’re also to keep people subtle and to keep people clever and to keep people alert, because if there is such a crisis that our people feel they cannot survive they will turn to not us, but to people like us. They always have and they always will.

The crisis in our own hearts and minds is the addiction of our people to liberal answers whilst they remain in zones of economic comfort. That is the problem. Of course, there are all sorts of our people who are not in zones of economic comfort at all, but the problem is that many of them are so degraded by the consequences of life and exist day-to-day they have no concern with more general and with more theoretical and with sociological changes. They’re concerned with this luncheon voucher, this meal tomorrow, this is it to the NHS. They’re concerned with what is fundamentally before them at any particular time.

The people you always want in a society are the ones who have something to lose and the ones who are feeling that they are losing it. This enormous middle which extends from the middle of the middle class to the middle of the working class essentially, the heart of the society. Those are the people who have enough of a stake and they are frightened to lose it and at the moment they cleave to liberalism, because they feel that things are not irretrievably and atrociously so bad that they need to call upon elites or vanguards or forms of identity politics to save them. It’s our job to keep pushing the message that they need to turn to their more radical proponents in order to be saved. All that can really be done at this time is to continue to push that message. Organizations will come and go, but ideas remain if not eternal then semi-eternal, and all that we have to do is keep pushing the message of our own self-belief, of our own form of identity, of our own unique position in history, of our own unique cultural achievements, of the barriers that exist to our own advancement which are in ourselves. Although individuals could be harmed by other groups, the real cause of harm to ourselves is ourselves, our own queasiness, our own moderation, our own love of reasonableness, our own love of seeing the other man’s point of view.

All that political correctness is in some respects is a growing out of Protestant/liberal apologetics that we want to hear the other man’s point of view, that we don’t wish to be rude, that we don’t wish to be unfair, that we don’t wish to be insulting. And these things have been erected into a big engine, into a big destructive virus that can be used against us to such a degree now that people fear. People fear opening their own mouths. Everything can be said. Everything can be said. But it can only be said in an abstract and intellectual level, because if you say things at a more guttural or a more primal or a more unindividuated level, you will be arrested immediately under all of the acts which have been passed. If you put things at a high enough level, if you put things at the level of a university Right-wing seminar basically, no one can touch you. No one can touch you on Earth irrespective of all the laws that have been passed. The only exception would be some of the revisionist legislation in Europe in relation to particular statements and that applies just to certain European nation-states and not others. But broadly speaking, you cannot be touched. But this means you are speaking at an abstract level which only alienates you further from the masses, which is done deliberately for that effect.

But also remember everyone knows what you’re saying. Everyone knows what is being said, because things are digested at different levels and people absorb things sensually, intellectually, emotionally, psychologically, through the hands, through the heart, through the eye, through the fist. They sense it and hear it at different levels and everybody understands what is being said even if it’s implicit.

Ours is an implicit group. The English are, in part, shy and restrained and even slightly socially awkward. That’s why theater is so important in our history, because it gives an alternative space to be others and to be exuberant and to be passionate and to be bombastic and virile, things which are not seemingly part of the national characteristic as is. But everyone understands what is being said. Everyone understands what is happening in this society. Everyone understands the transformation that is being wrought, and everyone understands, or almost everyone understands, the choices that may have to be made in the future.

It’s quite clear that at the present time people are not going to vote for a vanguard party, and there isn’t one. But that doesn’t mean that a vanguard party shouldn’t exist. My view is that a vanguard party should exist and will have to be rebuilt for the moment when such a thing may occur, but the real point is the fact that such a vanguard exists.

Menachem Begin once said that all you needed was 200 men. For Zionism to be established in Palestine, all you needed was 200 men who are prepared to act selflessly in the national and ethnic cause and in a religious cause, although his movement was not an explicitly religious one. You don’t need many people. When the politics of mass and individual identity come up, you don’t need an enormous army of people. What you need is those who have the courage and the will to speak at a particular time and those who keep the mental continuity of that tradition going over time. Because everyone notices what we say even if it’s kept from the masses. Everyone notices what the politics of identity amounts to.


Periodically there’s always a program on the BBC about the far Right of some salacious sort. It’s always there. It needs to be there! It’s a compulsive need. Why does it need to be there? Because liberals need to scratch. They need to find their opposite half, they need to find their other side, their shadow, their darkness. They need to stare into the pit of darkness. That’s what they need! Their love with this sinister, other side that they project onto.

In Freudian psychoanalysis, there is the idea of projection. Now, let’s not get into whether that’s a true theory or not, but it’s an interesting idea that people who don’t like something about themselves project their own nastiness and their own fear and fervor onto others, and that is in some ways what liberals do with people who have, let’s call it, nationalistic opinions in Western societies. They are the product of a sort of secular demonization, aren’t they, really? Because the elite that speaks for their own group is treated as the secular equivalent of Satanism virtually, certainly by many forms of popular media. That’s not an untruthful or particularly biased statement. I think it’s just a factual one. Certainly at the level of propaganda it’s a factual one. At the level of academic reportage, it’s not and a more realistic view is taken. But at the level of tabloid media and general media, the demonization is very strong and the demonization has worked, which is why people will not vote in enormous numbers for parties of extraordinary reasonableness. All of the populist parties have fallen over themselves to be as moderate and as acclimatizing as possible in this era. They’ve given away almost 70% of the core ultra views that manifest in these particular views and yet still people will not vote for them in a majority way and that is because the demonization, along with the apathy and the intent of liberalism have all worked.

But demonization has a point of crescendo. The demonization builds and builds and builds until it gets so out of kilter with reality that people shrug it aside as if it’s of no importance and then it can be a form of virility and it can become a form of power and it can become a form of importance.

In Northern Ireland at the moment, the Catholic group is proud to vote for Sinn Féin. Almost everybody. The moderate nationalist party now — nationalist in the context of that society, don’t forget — is dying. The SDLP is an elderly party of trade union activists which is dying.

There is a degree to which we have to understand that in our politics all is open, and anything can happen, and the future is ours if we want it to be and that the point of the elitist view that I’m putting forward is that the absence of despair is always necessary for our way of thinking and our way of looking at things. I ask you not to despair. I ask you to look to the future and to the present and to the past. I ask you to remain in faith with vanguardistic and elitist views. I ask you to remain faithful to unpopular views at the present time because they will become majority views instantaneously at a particular moment if the society should ever break and turn our way. All that can be done is to sustain ideas. One man alone in a room with a computer, a typewriter as it was, can change the world. A few people alone in a room, if they cleave to an idea whose time has come, can still change the world.

There are more of us than ever before. Our people are probably dumbed down to an incredible degree, but more are capable of being better educated than ever before. We’re stronger and fitter than ever before.

In the Boer War, when the slums of England were opened two-thirds of those that came forward were rattled and riddled with rickets and disease and couldn’t fight and wouldn’t fight because they physically couldn’t fight. Churchill once said, “What’s the use of having an empire if you can’t flush your own toilet?” One of his rare radical social statements, and there’s a degree of truth in all of that.

So, I would ask the people in this room to understand they are part of a tradition of non-surrender, a tradition of ultimate resource, a tradition that says “never say die,” a tradition that is the epitome of military life but in another area theoretically and politically and actuarily. One can never take one’s identity from one. One exists for a purpose. Liberals believe life has no purpose, but life has a purpose, and life’s purpose is to go forward and confront that which is before you. What is before us is cultural dispossession unless we are prepared to do something about it. What we can do about it will depend on the circumstances, but what we can do is to remain loyal to our own sense of identity, to our own sense of becoming, to our own sense of what we may be in the future.

Most people are truly afraid. They’re afraid to open their own mouths in relation to any of these issues. We must not fear. We must understand that that degree of fear needs to be conquered in ourselves as it will be conquered in others.

Only when the time comes will we be looked to if we remain loyal to our vision of ourselves. We know who we are, we don’t know yet where we are going, but we will always exist and we must always maximize the maximum potential of our existence.

There’s a book on the side of this room called March of the Titans, which in its way hopes to adumbrate all that we have achieved. Our quadrant of mankind has achieved an enormous amount through elite individuals who replicate back onto the majority the success of their own group in architecture, in law, in art, in scholasticism, in morals, in economics, in military affairs, in technology elsewhere but also in political leadership, also in military courage, also in vanguardism and elitism.

The present political class has betrayed us, but that doesn’t mean that political classes can be done away with. It just means they need to be replaced with people who are better and stronger and more willful and more in tune with the internal vibrations and sense of solemnity of their own group.

I ask you to put your hands together for Britain, for Europe, for Indo-European civilization, for our nation of ourselves, and for an undying and unquenchable fire that can never be put out because it never knows what it is to be extinguished.

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/11/vanguardism-hope-for-the-future/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: https://secure.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Helios.jpg

vendredi, 13 novembre 2015

Jonathan Bowden: Gabriele d'Annunzio


Gabriele D’Annunzio

Editor’s Note:

The following text is the transcript by V. S. of Jonathan Bowden’s New Right lecture in London on January 21, 2012. I want to thank Michèle Renouf for making the recording available.   

Gabriele D’Annunzio had basically two careers, one of which was as a writer and literati and the other was as a politician and a national figure. If you look him up on Wikipedia there’s a strange incident which occurred in 1922 when D’Annunzio was pushed out of a window several floors up in a particular dwelling and was badly injured and semi-crippled for a while. Of course, this was during a crucial period in Italian politics because Mussolini emerged as leader of the country and was made prime minister after the March on Rome under a still monarchical system and absorbed and swallowed up all other Italian parties to form the Fascist state in Italy that lasted right until the end of the Second World War.

D’Annunzio as a figure was involved in the Romantic and Decadent movement in Italian literature. He wrote a large number of plays, quite a large number of operas, a large number of novels, and some short story collections. He was too controversial to ever be awarded something like the Nobel Prize, but at the beginning of Italy’s 20th century period he was one of the most popular people in Italy. Almost everyone had an opinion about him and almost everyone had heard of him.

His work combines various pagan, vitalist, and Nietzschean forces, and he was heavily influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche and his philosophy. Some of his works were banned on grounds of public morals both in translation abroad and in Italy per se. The Flame of Life was one of his more ecstatic and Byronic celebrations of life. The Triumph of Death was another of his works, and The Maidens of the Rocks was another one, and a poem called Halcyon which was part of an interconnected series of poems five in number. He was going to write a larger collection than this, but those were the ones that got done. Also, he celebrates the Renaissance period and the period of Italian greatness when Italian civilization became synonymous with Western civilization and indeed looked to put its stamp upon world civilization.

So, D’Annunzio brought together a wide number of strands which supervened in Italian politics and culture since the unification of Italy under Garibaldi in the 19th century. Like Germany, Italy was unified as a modern European nation-state quite late in the day, and a triumphant sense of national vanguardism, identity, and pressure and force was always part of D’Annunzio’s ideology.

Superficially, it seems strange that you have artists of extreme individuality like Maurice Barrès in France in the 1890s who wrote a book called The Cult of the Self (Le Culte du Moi) along Nietzschean and Stirnerite lines and professed a very extreme individuality who were also ardent nationalists. This is because this cult of the heroic individual and this cult of the masculinist and this cult of the superman and the cult of the pagan individual that D. H. Lawrence’s novels in English literature could be said to be part and parcel of at least at one degree went hand in glove with the belief in national renaissance and national glory. The great individual was seen as the prototype of the great man of the nation and was seen as a national leader in embryo whether or not the work took on any political coloration at all. So, what appears to be a collective doctrine and what appears to be an individualistic doctrine marry up and come together and cohere in various creative ways and this was part of the creative tension of the late 19th century.

D’Annunzio is a 19th-century figure who explodes into the 20th century by virtue of mechanized politics. Debts and the pursuit of various people to whom he owed money because of his extraordinarily lavish and aristocratic lifestyle led D’Annunzio to live in France at the time of the outbreak of the Great War, but he soon hurried back to Italy in order to demand his entry into the Great War on the Allied or Western or Tripartite side. Of course, in the Great War, Italy fought with the Western allies, with France, with Russia and Britain against Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Ottoman or Turkish Empire in the convulsive conflict which people who lived through it thought would be the war to end all wars.


D’Annunzio had an extraordinary war. He joined up when he was around 50 years of age and gravitated towards the more aristocratic arm of the three that were then available. It’s noticeable that the war in the air attracted a debonair, an individualistic, and an aristocratic penchant. Figures as diverse as Goering in the German air force and Moseley in the British air force and D’Annunzio in the Italian air force all fought a war that in its way had little to do with the extraordinarily mechanized armies that were fighting on the ground.

You had this strange differentiation between massive armies and fortifications of steel with tunnels turning the surface of the Earth like the surface of the moon down on the ground until tanks were developed that could cut through the sterile nature of the attrition of the front – a very static form of warfare from 1915 until the war’s end in 1918 – and yet above it you had this freedom of combat, this freedom in the air with biplanes which were stretched together from canvas and wood and wire and were extraordinarily flimsy by modern standards, without parachutes for the most part, and where the men used to often fire guns and pistols at each other before machine guns were actually fixed to the wings so they can actually fly on each other in flight.

There was a cult of chivalry on all sides in the air which really didn’t superintend on the massive forces that were arrayed against each other on the ground, and this enabled a spiritual dimension to the war in the air that was commented upon by many of the men who fought at that level. This in turn reflected the sort of joie de vivre and the belief in danger and force that aligned D’Annunzio with the futurist movement of Marinetti and with many anti-bourgeois currents in cultural and aesthetic life at the time.

As the 19th century drew to a close there came a large range of thinkers and writers such as Maurice Barrès in France, such as D’Annunzio and Marinetti in Italy who were appalled by the sterility of late 19th-century life and yearned for the conflicts which would engulf Europe and the world in the next century. You have a situation where each era – such as the one we’re in in the moment – precedes what is coming with all sorts of conflicted and heterogeneous ideologies which only become clear once you’ve actually lived through the subsequent period. Between about 1880 and 1910 an enormous ferment of opinion with men as voluble as Stalin and Hitler being in café society parts of Europe planning what was to come or what they might be alleged to be part of at certain distant times. Men often dismissed as cranks and dreamers and wayfaring utopians on the margins of things who were destined later on to leap to the center of European culture and expectancy.

There’s a great story that the French writer Jean Cocteau says about Lenin. He met the man at a party in a house in France in 1910, and the man was sitting in the house. In other words, he was looking after it while someone was away. And Cocteau said to his friends, “And who are you?” and the man said, rather portentously, “Men call me Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov. I am known as Lenin. I am plotting the destruction of the Russian Czarist regime, and I am going to wipe out the entire ruling class in Russia and install a proletarian dictatorship.” Straight out without any intermission! And they all said, “Well, that’s very interesting! One applauds you, monsieur!” He said, “What are you doing at the moment?” And he said, “I edit a small journal called Iskra, The Spark, which is the beginning of the ferment of the revolutionary energies which are coming to Russia and eventually the world!” And they thought, “Well, this is interesting!” You know. How many subscribers had Iskra had at that moment? 400? 40? 4? And yet, of course, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov would emerge from the chaos of post-revolutionary Russia, as Russia struggled from its defeat by the Germans in the First World War, to become the leader of the world’s first and most toxic revolutionary state. Nothing is predictable in this life.

When the German high command sealed the Bolshevik leadership, including Vladimir Ilyich, in a train and sent it through their occupied territories into Greater Russia in the hope that it would just create more chaos and foment more distress, they had no idea that this tiny, little faction would seize maybe 11-12% of parliamentary votes and would then take over a weakened state with a small paramilitary force. Because the Bolshevik Revolution was in no sense a social revolution as its proselytizers claimed for upwards of half a century afterwards. It was an armed coup by the armed wing of a tiny political party.

There’s a famous story that Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin all slept in one room with newspaper on the floor the day after the revolution, and Lenin said, “Comrades! A very important thing has happened! We have been in power for one day!” And the amount of Russia that they controlled, of course, was extraordinarily small.


So, one has to realize that this ferment of ideas, Right, Left, and center, religious, aesthetic, and otherwise, occurred between 1880 and the beginning of the period that led up to the Great War and out of which most of the modern ideologies of the first half to first three quarters of the 20th century emerged.

D’Annunzio largely created Italian Fascism. Nearly everything that came out of the movement led by Mussolini at a later date originated with him and his ideas. The idea of the man alone, set above the people who is yet one of them, the idea of a squad of Arditi, people who are passionate and fanatical and frenzied with a stiff-arm Roman salute who are dressed in black and who are an audience for the leader, as well as security for the leader, as well as a prop to make sure particularly the masses and crowd when they are listening to the leader go along with what the leader is saying, as well as a sort of nationalist chorus . . . All of these ideas come from D’Annunzio and his period of forced occupation and Italianization of the port of Fiume.

So, there’s a degree to which this possible assassination attempt against D’Annunzio in 1922 which puts him out of commission for a certain period was in its way emblematic of the fact that he was a key player in Italian politics. He was the only rival for the leadership of what became known as the extreme Right with Mussolini. Certain Fascists at times looked to D’Annunzio when the fortunes of their own movement dipped.

It’s noticeable that during the occupation of Fiume, which we’ll come onto a bit later in this talk, D’Annunzio thought that there should be a march on Rome and rushed to align himself with the Fascists and other forces of renewal and nationalistic frenzy in Italian life after Italy’s victory as part of the winning side during the Great War. That march never happened, but of course was to happen later when Mussolini and other leaders had engaged in deals with the existing Italian establishment. The Mussolinian march on power was a coup with the favor of the state it was taking over rather than a coup against the nature of the state which was hostile to what was coming. So, in a way, the Italian march was leaning on a door that was already open and only forces like Italian Communism and so on, which are outside the circle of the state and its reference to political resources, opposed what the Mussolinians then did.

There is this view that Mussolini and the Fascist movement regularized and slightly de-romanticized the heroic conspectus of what D’Annunzio stood for. D’Annunzio was an artist and when Fiume, which is part of Croatia, was taken over by his militia between 1,000 and 3,000 strong in the early 1920s, because it had an Italian majority and he wished to secure it for Italy in relation to the post-Great War dispensation, he made music the foundation-stone of the City-State of Fiume. There’s a degree to which this is part of the extreme rhetoricism and aestheticism that D’Annunzio was into. This is not practical politics to make music your cardinal state virtue and to create idealized state assemblies with a minimum of chatter, because D’Annunzio believed not in parliamentary democracy but in a form of civics whereby each participant of the nation was represented. That’s why in Fiume he begins the prospect of a corporate state, and he begins an assembly or a vouchsafe body for farmers, for workers, for employers, for the clergy, for industrialists, and so on in a manner that Mussolini would later take over because most of what the Mussolinians did was actually pre-ordained for them by D’Annunzio’s moral and aesthetic coup d’état.

D’Annunzio believed that life should be brief and hectic and as heroic as possible and that the Italians should be based upon the principles of the ancient Roman Empire and of the Renaissance. In other words, he quested through the Italian period of phases of thousands of years of culture for the highest possible spots upon which to base Italy in the 20th century. At his funeral which occurred in 1938, Mussolini declared that Italy will indeed rise to the heights of which he wished and D’Annunzio always wanted Italy to be on the winning side and to be a major player in international and European events.

The truth of the matter, of course, is that Italy for most of its 20th-century existence has not been a minor player, but has not been amongst the major players, has been amongst the second-tier powers of Europe in all reality, and there’s a degree to which many Italian military adventures which were initiated by Mussolini fell back on German tutelage and support when they run into difficulties, although those imperial adventures in Ethiopia and elsewhere were supported by D’Annunzio, who became very close to the regime when he realized that they wished to set up a neo-Italian empire along Romanist lines.

D’Annunzio also supported Mussolini leaving the League of Nations, and he believed oppressed Italians who lived outside of Italy proper should be included, in an irredentist way, in Italy proper. Irredentism is the idea that if you have people of your own nationality who live outside the area of the nation-state you should incorporate them in one way or another, by conquering intermediate territory or by agglomerating them back into a larger federation. This is the idea of having a greater country: Britain and the Greater Britain, Italy and the Greater Italy, Russia and the Greater Russia, and so forth.

There’s a degree to which D’Annunzio aligned himself with the forces of conceptual modernism without being a modernist himself. In a literary and linguist way, he was very much a Romantic of the 19th-century vogue, but his sensibility was extraordinarily modern.

In contemporary Italian literature, there is no easy and defined position about D’Annunzio. One would have thought that a man who died in 1938 and his political career was over by 1922 to all effects would be historical now. D’Annunzio is still a live topic in Italy and is still controversial not least because of the sort of Byronic “sexism” of his novels, poetry, and plays, a screen play in one case and librettos for various operas. Also the fact that he’s such a precursor of Italian Fascism to the degree that he is regarded as the first Duce, the first leader, the first fascistic leader of any prominence that Italy had before Mussolini that his reputation is still extremely divisive in Italian letters. Most of the center and Left when D’Annunzio’s name is mentioned in Italy today still go, “Ahhhh nooo!” If you can imagine a sort of fascistic D. H. Lawrence who later had Moseley’s career up to a point, that’s the nearest you get to a British example of a man like D’Annunzio. Lawrence, of course, would have a completely different reputation had he endorsed the politics of Nazi Germany in the way that he sort of endorsed, slightly, the politics of fascistic Italy. In some ways, Lawrence, who was sort of made into a cult by the Cambridge literary criticism of F. R. Leavis in Britain and I. A. Richards in the United States post-Second World War, would never have preceded to those heights had he endorsed certain political causes of the ’30s and ’40s. So, in a sense, his early death was fortuitous in terms of his post-war reputation.

Robinson Jeffers, the American poet and fellow pagan with whom Lawrence communicated during his life quite manfully, fell into desuetude after the Second World War for, not advocating pro-Axis sympathy as a neutralist America, but by advocating isolationism. Isolationism is, of course, an ultra-nationalist position in American life. The belief that America should not involve itself in the teeming wars of the 20th century, what Harry Elmer Barnes calls perpetual war for perpetual peace, but that America should retreat to its own borders and not concern itself with events outside America, occasionally looking outside to the Caribbean and Latin America. But Lawrence would have gone the same way as Jeffers had he had a career like D’Annunzio and had he endorsed some of the positions that D’Annunzio did.

D’Annunzio’s position on Fascism outside of Italy was more contradictory because he was a nationalist first and last and ultimately it was Italy’s destiny that concerned him not that of other countries. He was in favor of leaving the United Nations, but rather like Charles Maurras in France he was a nationalist in some ways more than a Fascist and his nationalism was proto-fascistic even though he provided much of the aesthetic coloring for what later came in the Italian political dictatorship.

dannarticle_inset_galassi-1.jpgD’Annunzio was a man of great individual courage — it has to be said — and combined the ferocity of the warrior and the sensibility of the artist. One of his most famous individual coups was this 700-mile round trip in an airplane to drop pamphlets of a sort of pro-Western/pro-Italian type on Vienna, which is still remembered to this day. Another of his feats was attacking various German boats with small little motor-powered launchers, something that prefigures a lot of modern warfare where great, large hulking liners and aircraft carriers can be disabled by small boats that speed around them. The principle of guerrilla type or asymmetric warfare whereby much larger entities can be hamstrung by their smaller, Lilliputian equivalents or rivals. Again, this sort of special forces warfare in a way, whether in the air or on the sea, was part and parcel of D’Annunzio’s aesthetic and ethic of life.

It’s noticeable that in modern warfare the notion of individualistic courage never goes away, but war is so much reduced to the big battalions, so much reduced to raw firepower, and so much reduced to the expenditure of force between massive units that are industrially arranged against each other that individual combat often becomes slightly meaningless. But it gravitates to certain areas: the sniper, the elite boatman or frogman, the elite warrior in the air becomes the equivalent of the lone warrior loyal to sort of ideologies of warriorship in previous civilizations and you can see this in the way that these men think about themselves and think about their own missions.

In a previous talk to a gathering such as this, I spoke about Yukio Mishima and the ideology of the samurai based upon the cult of bushidō in Japan. This is the idea of almost an aesthetic martial elitism who sees itself both in artistic and religious terms and yet is also a morality for killing. All of these things are provided for in one package. A man like D’Annunzio did incarnate many of these values in a purely Western and Southern European sense.

D’Annunzio’s war record was such that he won most of the medals, including the gold medal, the equivalent to the Victoria Cross, and he won silver crosses which are a slightly lesser medal and a bronze cross. He was also awarded other medals including a British military cross, because of course he was fighting on the British and Allied side in the First World War.

One of his points that was made by Mussolini and other Italian nationalists was that Italy did not get from the First World War the post-war dispensation which they expected. This is true of almost everybody essentially, but it’s certainly true that Italy was thrust back into the pack of secondary powers by the major victors in the First World War: Britain, the United States, and France. Their role in the post-war peace, which of course was a highly torturous and afflictive peace upon the defeated Germany, was to have major repercussions on the decades that followed. That peace had little to do with what Italy wanted. One of the reasons for the occupation of what later became part of Yugoslavia by paramilitary Italian arms led by D’Annunzio was his dissatisfaction with Italy’s role at the table after the Great War.

His belief in “One Italy” and “Italy Forever” and “where an Italian felt injustice, Italy must be there to protect them,” this belief that caused thousands of men to rise up and come to D’Annunzio’s banner . . . When he began this assault on Fiume he had about 300 men with him. By the time it was over he had about 3,000.

On the internet you can see in 1921 enormous crowds within the city, almost everyone in the city is there cheering on D’Annunzio, who engaged in this increasing rhetoric from the balcony. Indeed, the Mussolinian stage scene whereby the dictator figure, or dictator manqué in this case, addresses the masses who look up to a balcony is all constructed and lit up by stage lights and that sort of thing is all part and parcel of D’Annunzionian theater. D’Annunzio would always ask the crowd rhetorical questions: “Do you love Italy?” And there’s this response, “Yes!” And then there will be another response from D’Annunzio and then another response. If somebody gives a contrary sort of response in the crowd, because these are enormous mass meetings which are difficult to control, he has squads of men dressed in black positioned in the crowd who can sort various malefactors out. This combination of support with a degree of psychological bullying is all part of the festival of nationalistic spirit that somebody like D’Annunzio believes in building almost as a theatrical event where you let the crowd down over time by stoking them up into more and more responses and you allow moments where the crowd just bellows and howls in response until they are replete and exhausted and the man strides back to the edge of the balcony to begin a speech. All of these are things that Mussolini would later develop. So, D’Annunzio in a sense provides a theatrical package for what becomes Italian and Southern European radical nationalism at a later time.

He didn’t live to see the full extent of Italian Fascism, but he had to be kept sweet by the Mussolinian government. Mussolini was once asked by a fellow Fascist leader in Italy what he thought of D’Annunzio and why he behaved in relation to him in the way that he did and he said, “When you have a rotten tooth there are two solutions. You either pull it out violently or you pack it with gold, and I have decided on the secondary option with D’Annunzio.” So, D’Annunzio was given a large amount of money by the Italian state to swear off political involvement after 1922, something that makes the possible assassination of him, attempted assassination, in 1922 rather interesting and mysterious. No one knows whether that was an attempted assassination or not. It’s quite obscure in the historical literature, but it certainly put D’Annunzio back and it put him out of commission for the entire period that the Mussolinians marched to power quite literally.

Later on, he would awarded the leadership of the equivalent of the Society of Arts; he would be awarded a state bursary which paid for a collected edition of his works that was printed and published by the Italian state itself and was available in all libraries and schools and universities; he was awarded numerous medals and forms of honor; his house was turned into a museum which still exists and is one of the major tourist sites in contemporary Italy where planes that he flew in the Great War are restored and can be looked at, boats which he used in the Great War are restored and can be looked at, as well as a library, a military research institute, and all sorts of photographs from the period. There is a large mausoleum to him, which is a contemporary Italian monument of significance. He’s compared in some ways to Garibaldi, the figure in the 19th century with his Redshirt movement that helped unite Italy as a warring, patchwork quilt of a nationality into one overall nation-state along modern lines.

D’Annunzio is one of these synthetic and syncretic figures who combine in themselves several different lives: lover, soldier, aesthete, political warrior, writer, artist. He combined four or five lives in one particular lifespan and brought together all sorts of confluences in the Italian politics of his day.

When he was elected to the senate as an independently-minded conservative at the end of the 19th century, he had no real sectarian politics at all except a belief in conservatism and revolution as he described it. He later moved across the parliament floor to join the Left in a particular vote that broke a deadlock in Italian politics of the time and was regarded as the creation of a new synthesis where part of the Right joined the Left and then split off again to form a different part of the Right or could at least be said to be a precursor of those same developments.

Mussolini, of course, was sat with the socialists and was a socialist deputy and was part of the bloc that favored nationalists rather than international solutions as part of Italian socialism. This is why during the First World War or the run-up to it the Axis within Italy which favored Italy’s involvement in the war against strong pacifists and internationalist currents that wanted to keep Italy out of the European conflagration lost out and one of the key proponents were the Futurists, D’Annunzians, and proto-Fascists from the bosom of the Italian Socialist Party, who combined a degree of nationalism with quite straight-forward Italian social democracy of the period.

D’Annunzio married and had, I think, three children, but was well known for a very torrid love life consisting of a great string of mistresses. He had dalliances with two extraordinarily notorious Italian actresses, both of whom he wrote plays for and operettas. He was well regarded as a sort of bon viveur and a figure about whom myths constellate. Even to this day D’Annunzio is regarded as a cad and egotist and a scoundrel in many circles because that is how he presented himself and the male ego in his literary works.

How original D’Annunzio was is difficult to quantify. His philosophical debt is to Nietzsche, his literary debt is to the Italian literary tradition which essentially goes back to the Renaissance. His great use of style – he was one of the greatest stylists of the modern Italian language – has made sure that his books are in print to this day, but he still remains a controversial figure because of the politics with which he was associated.

How far and aesthetically motivated his desire for dictatorship could work in practice and would not implode because of impracticality is a moot point, but D’Annunzio certainly gave a brio to early Italian experimental and Right-wing politics. He gave a poetic license to authoritarianism which helped make Southern European Fascism extraordinarily culturally interesting long into the Mussolinian regime. It is interesting to notice how many intellectuals and artists aligned with the movement in Italy and made peace with its government.

Also, the use of oppression, which is very light-handed in Italy was part and parcel of this doctrine of brio and of ubiquitousness and the use of style. In some ways it was a very style-conscious regime, an exercise in theater. Many of the post-war historians of Fascist Italy talk about it as being a sort of theatrical society with Mussolini as almost a political actor in some respects. This is very much in the D’Annunzionian tradition which he laid down at Fiume.


Fiume. They conquered this city which is part of Croatia but had an Italian majority at that time. The Italian governor refused to fire on D’Annunzio and his paramilitaries when they entered the city. They took it over and created a sort of corporate state within the state, heralding its creation as a city-state. They said it left the League of Nations, which they refused to recognize because Italians were being exploited by the remit of the League of Nations, the forerunner of the United Nations. They created this sort of aesthetic, fascistic junta that was part theater, part hyper-reality, and part just a governing civic administration with a military arm. Gradually, the forces of reaction, as D’Annunzio would have called them, attempted to call Fiume to account. The Allies chafed against its continued existence as an independent military satellite and city-state. Italian nationalists and others may have flocked to it, including Leftists like anarchists and syndicalists who admired D’Annunzio’s brio and sort of cult of machismo and Italian irregular adventurism which has a medieval tradition, certainly an antique Italian tradition with many admirers from across the spectrum. Yet in the end the Italian state was forced to take action and fired on Fiume, and Italian naval vessels shelled the city. There was a declaration of war, somewhat absurdly, against Italy by D’Annunzio where 3,000 men took on a nation-state that could put tens of thousands of men in boats and planes into play.

Eventually, of course, when the shelling became too bad he said that he could not allow the aesthetic construction of the city to be damaged and so he handed it over to prior Italian power and an international settlement, which involved Yugoslav control eventually coming in.

But Fiume represented a direct incursion of fantasy into political life because there is a degree to which D’Annunzio combined elements of performance art in his political vocabulary. There’s no doubt that he thought of politics as a form of theater, particularly for the masses, and this is because he was an elitist, because as an elitist he partly despised the masses except as the voluntarist agents of national consciousness. He theatricalized politics in order to give them entertainment without allowing them any particular say in what should be done. This idea of politics as performance art with the masses onstage but as an audience, an audience that responded and yet was not in charge, because there’s nothing democratic about D’Annunzio from his individualistic egotism as an artist all the way through to his sort of quasi-dictatorship of Fiume. He represented a particularly pure synthesis and the violence that was used and so on was largely rhetorical, largely staged, largely a performance, partly a sort of theater piece.

In post-modernism, there’s this idea that artists crash cars, burn buildings, and exhibit what they’ve done in gallery spaces and that sort of thing as an attempt at an incursion of reality into the artistic space. D’Annunzio did it the other way around. There was an incursion not of reality into the artistic space, but of artistry into the political space and he went seamlessly from writing these novels of male chauvinism and excess and erotic predatoriness and Italianate brio to running a city-state almost without running any sort of marked gap between the two moments. In the chaotic situation of post-Great War Italy and its environs, he found a template upon which his dreams – his critics would say his bombastic dreams – could be lived out and there is a sort of dreamer of the day to D’Annunzio, but he was also quite hard-headed and practical and most of his political exercises in chauvinism came off unlike many dreams that remain in the scrap-heap of political alternative.

So, in a sense, D’Annunzio’s greatest novel was the creation of what became the Italian Fascist state, which until it was defeated externally and internally was one of the most stable societies modern Europe has seen.

This belief in a nation’s ability to renew itself by bringing various tendencies that are abroad within it together and synthesizing them through the will of one man who must be a visionary of one sort or another is part and parcel of D’Annunzio’s legacy. It’s why he can’t just settle down and be an artist. It’s why, indeed, his post-war Italian reputation is so mixed, because he can’t be divorced from the politician and the statesman that he indeed was.

It’s interesting to think how the world would have developed if European nationalities would have increasingly fallen under the sway of these cross-bred artistic, hybridized figures. Nearly all far Right, and some far Left, leaders have these sorts of characteristics: extreme individuality, colorful backgrounds in the past, a sort of anti-bourgeois sentiment, a refusal to live a conventional life completely, the belief in new forms, and the construction of new forms of modernity almost in a haphazard and experimental way. These people only get their chance during war, economic breakdown, chaos, and revolutionary change when everything comes up for grabs and there is a new dispensation abroad. But it is noticeable that these people do get their chance when these events occur.

It’s also noticeable that the post-war period, very much in Western Europe at any rate, is dominated by two factors. One is the Cold War, which congeals the continent into two rival blocs under partial American domination in the Western sector and direct Soviet domination, of course, of the Eastern bloc, but the second is a fear of contamination through change which is underpinned by the desire to keep market economies functioning at a tolerable level of sufficiency. It’s quite obvious that there is a terror abroad in the Western liberal landscape about what would occur if there is an economic collapse. Not just a slow-down, not just a depression or recession or series of recessions that ends in a Japanese-like depression which can go on for 20 years where you don’t grow at all, zero growth, but something much more devastating than that. An actual crack and crash in the system itself. Because with mass democracy there is no knowing what sorts of demagogues and what sorts of visionaries people might start voting for in small or larger numbers when such a crash occurs and when they literally can’t pay their bills and so D’Annunzio came out of an era of chronic instability and fashioned that instability to his own liking and making, because Fiume was the prototype for a state.

Indeed, in ancient Southern Europe, the city-state was the forerunner of the nation-state. He was attempting to do with an Athens or a Sparta of his own imagination and will and intellect what later became Mussolinian Italy on a nation-wide scale and if Italy had succeeded in carving out an empire for itself in North Africa and further afield in modernity it would have been the basis for an Italian empire because the nature of these things is to expand. That kind of power always chafes against the possibility of restriction and unless it comes up against a greater external force it will always chafe against it in an attempt to push it back and gain greater suzerainty thereby. That’s inevitable. Even under mercantilist pressure, the British Empire adopted that sort of course for many centuries until, if you like, the stabilization of the 20th century and the loss of empire in mid-century.

So, what we’ll see if there are enormous economic crashes in the near to distant future the sort of politics that D’Annunzio represented come back. No one knows what form it will take because things never repeat themselves. They only seem to, because the syntheses that are created are always new and always original. But this crossover between theater, literature, lived demagoguery, the martial and martinet spirit and the spirit of the lone adventurer, the spirit of the marauder, the spirit of the armed troubadour is very much a part and parcel of what D’Annunzio stood for. His present notoriety in contemporary Italy is because he is a man of so many parts and such a threatening overall presence – threatening in the sense that Italian Fascism, although much more integrated into the historical story than fascisms elsewhere, is still very much a devilish shadow cast over the post-Italian polity that all are aware of and yet few dare to speak of with any courage or glory.

D’Annunzio believed that courage and glory and heroic belief in national affirmation were the very principles of life. His example, so out of kilter with contemporary reality, is interesting and refreshing. D’Annunzio is like a sort of Julius Caesar crossed with Jack London. There’s a strange amalgam of tendencies living out of one man and it is remarkable that he could bring that union or fusion with such panache and charisma. Probably it was the military career that he had during the Great War that enabled him to step out of the literary study and into the statesman’s counting house, onto the statesman’s balcony. Without that experience in the Great War I doubt he would have had the following to achieve that. But D’Annunzio represents this strange amalgam in European man of the restless adventurer and the poet, of the dreamer and the activist, of the stoic and the fanatic.

The city-state that he created at Fiume provided for religious toleration and atheism, because of course as a Nietzschean D’Annunzio was an atheist and was not religiously motivated even though the paganism of his literature harks back to the neo-pagans of the Renaissance and to the Roman Empire of antiquity.

The real source of origin for D’Annunzio’s moral equipment has to be ancient Rome and as I look about me in this society there are an enormous number of novels, aren’t there, devoted to ancient Rome? Quite populist, mainstream fare. And it’s quite clear that there is a fascination with Europe’s past and with its authoritarian, bellicose, adventurist, and escapist past and possibly through the mirror image of intermediaries like D’Annunzio there may be a link to a new and more invigorating Europe of adventure and of skill and of destiny and of the will of the desperado and of the man who will never take no for an answer and of the man who would chant these slogans that Achilles uses in Homeric epics to the crowd and hear the Arditi chant them back again and that these are echoes which you can still hear and are still not entirely dormant in Europe at the present time as the Balkan Wars of the 1990s proved in their bloody way. There’s a degree to which these prior giants of Europe are sleeping but are not at rest and there is always the fear in contemporary liberal establishments that these figures and the forces that they represented will be catalyzed yet again in the future by new visionaries and by new leaders and by new literati and by new sources of inspiration who combine the individual and the collective, combine the national and the quietude of the man alone and combine the Renaissance and the ancient world in a new pedigree of what it means to be a man, what it means to be an European and what it means to have a destiny in the modern world.

D’Annunzio preconfigured much of European history until at least the late 1940s, which bearing in mind that he was born towards the middle of the 19th century was quite an achievement. It is not to say that figures who are alive now are not in themselves creating the synthesis for forces that will emerge in the next 50 years.

Thank you very much!

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

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/11/gabriele-dannunzio-3/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: https://secure.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Enrico_Marchiani_Ritratto_di_Gabriele_dAnnunzio_in_uniforme_da_Ardito._Olio_su_tela.jpg

mercredi, 11 novembre 2015

Jean Haudry: Aux sources de notre identité

Jean Haudry:

"Aux sources de notre identité : les racines Indo-Européennes"

Conférence de Jean Haudry "Aux sources de notre identité : les racines Indo-Européennes", organisée par le Cercle Afl Okkat le 07 octobre 2015 à Strasbourg.

Présentation :

L’Europe, confrontée à des défis sans précédent qui menacent de bouleverser irrévocablement son paysage ethnique et culturel, se cherche un destin et s’interroge sur son identité.

L’Europe, ce n’est ni Lampedusa, ni Bruxelles : il ne s’agit ni d’un espace aux frontières fluctuantes, ouvert à tous vents et porteur d’un système de valeurs abstraites et universelles, ni d’un espace économique voué à s’étendre au-delà de l’Atlantique, au mépris des réalités géopolitiques.

L’Europe, c’est d’abord un ensemble de peuples héritiers d’une très ancienne culture commune, vieille de plusieurs millénaires, qui s’est déployée à partir de son foyer originel jusqu’aux confins de l’Asie. De cette matrice, à laquelle les spécialistes ont donné le nom de culture « indo-européenne », sont notamment issues les langues et les civilisations grecques, latines, celtiques, germaniques, baltes et slaves.

Prendre conscience de la richesse de cet héritage commun constitue plus que jamais pour les Européens enracinés un enjeu majeur : « qui contrôle le passé, contrôle le présent », affirmait George Orwell. C’est aussi la raison pour laquelle certains idéologues, s’appuyant sur une argumentation pseudo-scientifique pour promouvoir l’idée de culture « métisse », prétendent littéralement « déconstruire » notre passé en refusant à notre civilisation toute origine spécifiquement européenne.

Ces attaques en règle contre notre « longue mémoire », récemment renouvelées avec l’appui des media, ne résistent cependant pas à un examen scientifique sérieux, prenant en compte les données de la linguistique, de la mythologie comparée, de l’archéologie et de la génétique des populations.

Soucieux de contribuer à la nécessaire ré-information sur ce sujet essentiel, le cercle Afl Okkat fait appel à un éminent spécialiste, le professeur Jean Haudry.

Normalien, agrégé de grammaire, professeur émérite de l'Université Lyon III, ancien doyen de la faculté des lettres, ancien directeur d’étude à l'École Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Jean Haudry est l’auteur de nombreuses études sur la linguistique et la civilisation indo-européennes (notamment deux manuels parus dans la collection « Que sais-je ? »). Il prépare actuellement un « Dictionnaire de la tradition européenne ».

jeudi, 05 novembre 2015

Toutes les vidéos de Guillaume Faye:


Toutes les vidéos de Guillaume Faye:



13:00 Publié dans Nouvelle Droite | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : guillaume faye, nouvelle droite | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

mercredi, 04 novembre 2015

LIMITE: Une revue quelque peu limitée


LIMITE: Une revue quelque peu limitée



limi108-55d72edfbe727.jpgLe politiste Gaël Brustier a-t-il raison de définir le large mouvement de protestation contre le « mariage pour tous » comme la manifestation d’un « Mai 68 conservateur » (Éditions du Cerf, 2014) ? Quand on en observe attentivement les différentes composantes, on ne peut qu’être frappé par sa grande hétérogénéité. Si le groupe appelé Sens commun se fourvoie maintenant chez Les Républicains (l’ex-UMP) et que La Manif pour Tous se contente des seuls sujets sociétaux, d’où ce silence éloquent sur le travail dominical bientôt obligatoire et l’invasion migratoire en cours, Le Printemps français, longtemps en pointe contre le pouvoir en place, s’est volatilisé. Quant aux Veilleurs qui exprimaient leur désapprobation par l’immobilité et la déclamation face aux « forces du désordre » des passages entiers extraits des œuvres de Péguy et de Bernanos, ils ne soutiennent plus le siège devant quelques ministères. Ils misent dorénavant sur un périodique qui se veut d’écologie intégrale : la revue Limite.


Lancée suite à la parution de l’essai de Gaultier Bès, Nos limites, puis de l’encyclique pontificale du « pape » conciliaire Bergoglio, Laudato Si’, cette nouvelle revue conteste l’ensemble des structures libérales-libertaires et progressistes. Issue de la rencontre entre la génération des Veilleurs et celle, plus ancienne, qui anima dans les années 1990 la revue souverainiste – royaliste Immédiatement, Limite se positionne sur le créneau chrétien bioconservateur. Par ce titre significatif, la rédaction juge que « notre écologie ne peut qu’être intégrale : indissolublement sociale et environnementale, éthique et politique » contre les ravages de la société technicienne (selon l’expression d’une de leurs références, le penseur protestant Jacques Ellul). Ainsi souhaite-t-elle concilier une « certaine décroissance matérielle » et « un renouveau spirituel radical ». Limite se veut par ailleurs non libérale. Non libérale et pas anti-libérale parce que certains de ses rédacteurs comme Eugènie Bastié publient de temps en temps dans Le Figaro où sévit le dénommé Ivan Rioufol qui se félicitait, le 26 avril 2013, que « les jeunes Européens se disent fidèles […] à la famille, au couple, à la propriété, mais ils soutiennent aussi l’initiative privée, le libre marché, la globalisation. Conservateurs et libéraux, ils sont une aubaine pour la France ». Bigre !



Gaultier Bès


Une revue ambiguë


Lecture achevée, un réel sentiment d’ambiguïté perdure. Outre les habituelles tentatives de disculper le christianisme et par-delà lui, le monothéisme, de ses lourdes responsabilités dans la crise écologique, un vrai flou politique persiste du fait de l’absence de maturité du bioconservatisme chrétien. Sur le site de la revue, revuelimite.fr, Falk Van Gaver met en ligne un vibrant « Redécouvrons la théologie de la libération » ! Attendons-nous qu’un article avance que le Che Guevara était un authentique éco-guerrier…


Qualifié de « Michéa britannique », Phillip Blond se proclame « Red Tory » (conservateur rouge) qui « exclut à la fois le monopole du marché et celui de l’État ». Il conseilla David Cameron en 2010, celui-là même qui a fait adopter le mariage gay, réduit les aides fiscales aux familles nombreuses et restreint tous les jours un peu plus les libertés publiques sous couvert de lutter contre les islamistes. L’intéressant entretien avec cet héritier du distributionnisme de G.K. Chesterton et Hilaire Belloc s’inscrit dans la veine de deux autres contributions qui saluent la Commune de Paris de 1871 et en appelle à un christianisme social plus offensif. Limite aura-t-elle cependant l’audace de redécouvrir et d’actualiser les travaux des non-conformistes des années 1930, à part les figures obligées du « personnalisme gascon », Jacques Ellul et Bernard Charbonneau ? Il faut le souhaiter si la rédaction se donne l’ambition d’occuper et de tenir la ligne de crête des idées.


Bien plus grave constitue « Regards sur la condition des migrants », un article de Pierre Jova. La duplicité du bioconservatisme chrétien y est manifeste en suggérant une « tierce voie » à la fois hostile aux sans-frontiéristes et aux « idolâtres […] de la “ remigration ” ». Cette « tierce voie » impliquerait l’évangélisation des envahisseurs ! Une scandaleuse prise de position guère surprenante. Dans Marianne (du 23 au 29 octobre 2015), Jean-Claude Jaillette trace le portrait de Marion Maréchal – Le Pen qui correspond assez bien à ce bioconservatisme en formation. L’article cite un certain Benoît Sévilla, responsable des Veilleurs à Versailles : « Une nouvelle ligne de fracture apparaît. Ultra-conservateurs sur les questions de société et d’accord avec le FN, nous sommes en désaccord avec eux sur la question des migrants. » Que les Veilleurs de la préfecture des Yvelines offrent donc leur loft à leurs chers clandestins ! Seraient-ils donc des No Border en puissance, croyants en plus ?


Un accueil criminel


Une fois encore, un mauvais esprit versaillais sur l’Hexagone. L’Église et le christianisme contemporain des années 2010 démontrent leur nocivité en prônant « la charité inconditionnelle envers les migrants ». Pierre Jova affirme tranquillement que « pour annoncer le Christ aux migrants, il faut être au clair avec notre propre identité. Une identité vivante, et non figée, tenue pour acquise. L’Europe est chrétienne parce qu’elle fut forgée par des gens qui croyaient en Dieu, et non dans les “ valeurs ” chrétiennes ». Pas exempt de contradictions, Pierre Jova propose le co-développement. Se détournerait-il de l’après-développement prescrit en son temps par l’économiste François Partant ? Avec « La décroissance rend-elle obsolète le clivage gauche – droite ? », mis en ligne le 16 septembre 2015, Kévin Victoire considère que seule « la revue Limite constitue un exemple (le seul ?) de tentative de dépassement des vieux clivages. Ici, pas de paganisme, ni d’ethno-différentialisme ». À tort, mais cohérent de la part de militants chrétiens qui œuvrent à la décadence européenne.


Le « Grand Remplacement » en cours est de nature démographique et ethnique. Il ne fait que se superposer à un autre Grand Remplacement, beaucoup plus ancien, réalisé il y a environ 2000 ans : le spiricide chrétien à l’encontre des paganismes euro-boréens dont la vision du monde était profondément écologique et qui posait des distinctions entre leurs membres et leurs éventuels hôtes (hostis). La revue Limite n’a pas encore atteint ce limes fondamental. Dommage pour elle !


Georges Feltin-Tracol


Limite. Revue d’écologie intégrale, n° 1, septembre 2015, « Décroissez et multipliez-vous ! », 96 p., 12 €.



Article printed from Europe Maxima: http://www.europemaxima.com


URL to article: http://www.europemaxima.com/?p=4569


vendredi, 30 octobre 2015

Le fascisme : un « étymon spirituel » à découvrir ?


Le fascisme: un «étymon spirituel» à découvrir?

Sur le dernier ouvrage de Philippe Baillet

par Daniel COLOGNE


Note de la rédaction: Daniel Cologne rend ici hommage à Philippe Baillet qu'il a côtoyé notamment au "Cercle Culture & Liberté", structure qui a précédé la création de la revue évolienne "Totalité" (1977), dirigée ultérieurement par Georges Gondinet. Philippe Baillet, traducteur de Julius Evola, a été par la suite secrétaire de rédaction de "Nouvelle école", avant d'être évincé par le directeur de cette publication, qui pratiquait là son sport favori. L'intérêt du nouveau livre de Baillet réside surtout dans le fait qu'il rend hommage à Giorgio Locchi et poursuit la quête de ce dernier qui a donné à la "nouvelle droite" ses impulsions majeures avant d'être évincé de manière particulièrement inélégante par ce même directeur. 


* * *


Parmi les rencontres que j’ai faites durant ma période parisienne (1977 – 1983), celle de Philippe Baillet fut pour moi une des plus enrichissantes.


Co-fondateur de la revue Totalité, Baillet est l’un des principales artisans de la réception de l’œuvre de Julius Evola dans les pays francophones.


Sa maîtrise de l’italien lui permet de lire dans le texte original et de traduire avec fidélité de nombreux auteurs transalpins, dont l’énumération impressionne au chapitre 2 de la première partie de l’ouvrage ici recensé : Le Parti de la Vie. Clercs et guerriers d’Europe et d’Asie.


Il s’agit d’un recueil de textes initialement parus dans divers périodiques, dont Rivarol et Écrits de Paris, où j’ai moi-même collaboré entre 1977 et 1979.


Je reste reconnaissant à Philippe Baillet de m’avoir accordé son amical soutien, non exempt de critique toujours courtoisie, lors d’une conférence que j’ai prononcé en février 1979 au Cercle Péguy de Lyon. Dans la salle, il y avait une charmante et prometteuse étudiante nommée Chantal Delsol. Cette soirée rhodanienne demeure parmi les plus beaux souvenirs de mon séjour dans l’Hexagone.


L’émotion nostalgique s’efface devant la rigueur comptable de l’index, où Evola est cité douze fois, Guénon apparaît à trois reprises et Coomaraswamy ne récolte qu’une seule mention, en note infra-paginale.


Revenu à Nietzsche « comme référence essentielle » après « un très long détour (p. 15) » par le « traditionalisme intégral » des trois penseurs susdits, Baillet semble toutefois toujours considérer Evola comme inspirateur incontournable dans la perspective de La Désintégration du Système.


L’ouvrage de Giorgio Freda était abondamment commenté vers 1975 dans les milieux nationalistes-révolutionnaires. Il ne contenait rien d’original. Tout y était originel. Présents dans la préface du livre de Freda, les deux adjectifs s’opposent aussi dans la conclusion du recueil de Baillet.


Celui-ci évoque la haute figure de Lao-tseu : « Le vrai taoïste, lui, est insouciant de sa propre insouciance, qu’il ne donne pas en spectacle pour paraître “ original ”. Il est bien plutôt tourné vers l’originel (p. 233, c’est Baillet qui souligne). »


Quand on se rappelle que Révolte contre le monde moderne s’ouvre sur un extrait du Tao tö king, on peut conclure que l’ombre d’Evola plane sur ce florilège divisé en deux parties inégales, la première (six chapitres) relevant de la littérature et de l’histoire des idées, la seconde (deux chapitres) d’orientation plus nettement philosophique.


Le cloisonnement n’est toutefois pas étanche. L’auteur nous remet en mémoire l’œuvre littéraire de Mishima, extraordinaire en regard de sa courte existence : « Près de quarante romans, vingt recueils de nouvelles, dix-huit pièces de théâtre et quelques essais (p. 183). »


Parallèlement, quelques-uns des écrivains français analysés dans la première partie ont été attirés par l’Extrême-Orient. Même André Malraux, « un cabotin qui rêvait de s’inscrire dans la lignée des grands esthètes armés (p. 112) », connut une période japonisante, controversée, il est vrai. Rappelons aussi que La Condition humaine se passe en Chine.


En Chine : tel est précisément le titre d’un « ouvrage remarquable et devenu très rare (p. 79) » d’Abel Bonnard, dont Philippe Baillet se plaît à exhumer quelques brillantes phrases aux allures de maximes. « La Mort nous cache le regret de quitter le monde dans le bonheur de quitter les hommes (p. 108). »


Pierre Drieu connut aussi ce que le Belge Firmin Vandenbosch appelle « la tentation de l’Orient ». À l’auteur du Feu Follet, qui dirigea la Nouvelle revue Française sous l’Occupation, Baillet concède « l’élégance et l’honnêteté du désespoir ». Elles « forcent l’estime, voire l’admiration, que ne mérite sans doute pas l’œuvre, avec son ton trop souvent sentencieux, son style parfois médiocre, ses essais très inégaux, dans lesquels les meilleures intuitions s’arrêtent la plupart du temps au stade de l’esquisse (p. 111) ».


Étendues à Gabriele d’Annunzio et Ezra Pound, sommairement négatives en ce qui concerne Louis Aragon, les considérations d’ordre littéraire ne constituent pas l’essentiel du message délivré par Philippe Baillet.


Les amateurs de rapprochements inattendus goûteront celui effectué entre Nietzsche et Lao-tseu partageant « une vision biocentrique du monde (p. 202) ». Dans le cadre de cette étonnante parenté entre « deux univers de pensée » et en dépit de leur « éloignement racial, temporel, spatial et civilisationnel (p. 216) », Philippe Baillet redéfinit l’idée tant débattue de « volonté de puissance », « catégorie ontologique suprême (p. 218) », « sens originaire (p. 225) » non réductible au simple vitalisme bergsonien.


La « volonté de puissance » est synonyme de la « persévérance dans l’être ». Une filiation philosophique directe relie dès lors Nietzsche et Heidegger, et peut-être, en amont de l’histoire de la pensée européenne, le Wille zur Macht de Nietzsche et le conatus de Spinoza. En tout cas, la « volonté de puissance » s’affranchit de tout rapetissement tel que voudrait lui faire subir une certaine critique guénonienne en la confondant avec le jaillissement de « l’élan vital », avec « la création incessante d’imprévisible nouveauté », avec un vitalisme priapique et éjaculatoire.


Ailleurs dans l’ouvrage, certains guénoniens sont implicitement ciblés dans la mesure où ils jugent toute révolution anti-moderne impossible en raison des conditions cosmiques défavorables. Ce point de vue revient à catamorphoser le « traditionalisme intégral » en un mythe démobilisateur. L’Histoire n’est pas un progrès linéaire, mais elle n’est pas davantage une décadence unidirectionnelle. Comme le répétait souvent notre regretté ami Dominique Venner, elle a sa part d’imprévu, même si une véritable « astrologie mondiale », apte à saisir la respiration du mouvement historique, pourrait y introduire une frange de prévisibilité.


En l’occurrence, l’important est de ne pas « déserter la lutte pour la défense de la cité en raison du dégoût que celle-ci nous inspire (p. 104) ». Il ne faut pas « attendre que tout s’arrange grâce à la divine Providence (p. 105) », par une sorte de retournement automatique inscrit dans la marbre de la fatalité, par une espèce de choc en retour ou d’effet boomerang contre la pesanteur plurimillénaire de l’Âge Sombre (Kali Yuga).


À défaut de compter sur une improbable metanoïa de ce type, vers où convient-il de tourner le regard d’une espérance en une « régénération de l’Histoire (p. 133) », face au « mouvement irréversible » (François Hollande) que veut lui imprimer le finalisme égalitaire ?


Ce n’est ni du Front national ni des divers partis « populistes » européens qu’il faut attendre une salutaire réaction contre ceux qui souhaitent suspendre le vol du temps, non pas comme Lamartine sur les rives romantiques du lac du Bourget, mais au bord du bourbier social-démocrate perçu comme « horizon indépassable ».


Je partage totalement le point de vue qu’exprime Baillet dans les lignes qui suivent et dans son jugement sur le parti lepéniste.


« Je tiens évidemment pour acquis que les lecteurs auxquels je m’adresse ne nourrissent pas l’illusion de penser que les différents mouvements “ populistes ” qui engrangent des succès électoraux dans l’Europe d’aujourd’hui sont une résurgence du phénomène fasciste (p. 161). »


Quant au Front national, il « entretient désormais le comble de la confusion » en se présentant comme « le défenseur par excellence du républicanisme et du laïcisme (p. 101) ».


Philippe Baillet nous invite à rechercher « l’essence du fascisme », selon l’expression de Giorgio Locchi, dont une conférence est retranscrite (pp. 164 à 182) entre les deux parties du livre. Il s’agit en quelque sorte de trouver pour le fascisme l’équivalent de ce que le grand critique littéraire allemand Leo Spitzer, fondateur de la stylistique, veut faire surgir dans sa lecture des écrivains : un « étymon spirituel ».


Philippe Baillet s’interroge à propos d’un « nouveau regard (p. 21) » que la science et la recherche universitaires semblent porter, depuis quelque temps, sur le national-socialisme.


Johann Chapoutot affirme que le national-socialisme est porteur d’une Kulturkritik « prolixe et plus argumentée qu’on ne le dit (p. 22) ».


Plusieurs expéditions scientifiques en Amazonie, au Libéria et au Tibet, la reconversion de Leni Riefenstahl comme cinéaste du Sud-Soudan : voilà autant de faits avérés qui plaident en faveur d’une ouverture du nazisme au monde non européen. Ces réalités « sont encore largement méconnues dans nos propres rangs, quand elles ne sont pas purement et simplement ignorées (p. 247) ».


En revanche, on ne peut que constater l’hostilité de « beaucoup de hauts responsables nationaux-socialistes […] à la postérité d’Abraham, aux serviteurs de la Loi, de la Croix et du Livre, bref à tout l’univers mental du “ sémitisme ” au sens le plus large (p. 29) ».


Dans le sillage de Giorgio Locchi, Philippe Baillet diagnostique une « tendance époquale (p. 136) » dont nous subissons les effets pernicieux depuis deux millénaires : un sémitisme lato sensu, un judéo-christiano-islamisme, auquel doit s’opposer une « tendance époquale » surhumaniste.


Vie2.jpgRespectivement consacrés à Renzo de Felice et Giorgio Locchi, les chapitres 1 et 6 de la première partie posent les questions les plus fondamentales pour notre famille de pensée. Jusqu’où faire remonter la recherche de notre « moment zéro » (François Bousquet) ? Les étapes de la « tendance époquale » surhumaniste se succèdent-elles de manière continue ? Le fascisme lato sensu (dont le national-socialisme est provisoirement la forme la plus achevée) a-t-il été « prématuré (p. 142) », comme le laissent supposer certains passagers de Nietzsche prophétisant un interrègne nihiliste de deux siècles ?


Selon Locchi et Baillet, le « phénomène fasciste » de nature « transnationale et transpolitique (p. 136) » prend racine dans « la seconde moitié du XIXe siècle (p. 137) ». Baillet précise dès sa préface : « la grande réaction antirationaliste de la fin du XIXe siècle (p. 12) » marque l’origine du fascisme en tant qu’essence apte à « détrôner le cogito (p. 221) », cette formule finale soulignant la remarquable cohérence de l’auteur.


Mais pourquoi ne pas remonter encore plus loin, par exemple jusqu’à cet équivoque XVIIIe siècle qui préoccupe Renzo De Felice avant qu’il se spécialise dans la période mussolinienne ?


Car le siècle des prétendues « Lumières » et de l’Aufklarung ne fut pas seulement celui des philosophes néo-cartésiens instaurant « pour la première fois une culture de masse (p. 146) ». Il fut aussi celui des « illuminés » dont le « mysticisme révolutionnaire (p. 44) » fournit à l’historien l’occasion de réhabiliter « la dignité historiographique de l’irrationnel (p. 47) ». Le propos de De Felice est « d’insérer le “ fait mystique ” dans l’histoire, alors même que, selon lui, des tentatives dans ce sens n’ont été faites que par l’histoire littéraire à propos du Sturm und Drang et du romantisme (p. 44) ». Je rejoins Philippe Baillet dans son appel à compulser plus systématiquement les revues culturelles gravitant dans l’orbite du fascisme (allemand en l’occurrence) pour dévoiler certaines facettes d’un “ sens originaire ” ou d’un “ étymon spirituel ” chez Klinger, Lenz, Schiller, Herder, Hölderlin et Novalis, disait un jour Robert Steuckers cité en page 155. À titre anecdotique, je signale qu’un des plus brillants germanistes que j’ai croisés à l’Université libre de Bruxelles était d’origine togolaise et faisait une thèse de doctorat sur le Sturm und Drang.


Sur la « Révolution conservatrice », c’est bien entendu le travail de rassemblement d’Alain de Benoist (cité pages 134 et 155) qu’il faut saluer, tout en insistant sur un thème commun à Locchi et Baillet : la parfaite continuité de ce mouvement et du national-socialisme, même si certains « révolutionnaires-conservateurs (comme Armin Mohler, par exemple) ont « tenté de tourner les difficultés liées à cet incommode voisinage (p. 149) ».


Sous la forme du national-socialisme, la « tendance époquale surhumaniste » a-t-elle émergé trop tôt ? On peut le penser dans la mesure où la « tendance époquale » opposée, de nature « sémitique », n’était pas encore en état d’épuisement. Elle refait surface aujourd’hui dans « le panislamisme radicalisé », ses « formes exacerbées de ressentiment culturel » et sa « haine raciale patente (p. 161) ».


Le seul passage du livre de Baillet qui puisse laisser le lecteur sur sa faim est celui où l’islamisme est ainsi réduit à l’influence de facteurs psychologiques. Je conseille la lecture de l’analyse plus fine de François Bousquet, cité plus haut, dans la revue Éléments (n° 156, pp. 22 à 24).


Selon Bousquet, toute religion est coextensive d’un devenir historico-culturel et un exemple éloquent en est fourni par le Christianisme, qui peut être « interprété comme une métamorphose complexe de l’ancestrale religion païenne (p. 137) ». En l’occurrence, Baillet fait écho aux idées de Wagner, l’un des pôles de la « tendance époquale surhumaniste » (l’autre pôle étant évidemment Nietzsche).


Mais la mondialisation post-moderne favorise, par une sorte de mutation génétique, l’émergence de religions d’un type nouveau qui, à l’instar des « frères ennemis » de l’évangélisme et du salafisme, aspirent à renouer avec leur « moment zéro », leur origine immaculée, leur paléo-tradition non encore entachée par les vicissitudes de l’Histoire et les contraintes de ce que Charles Péguy appelle la nécessaire « racination » du spirituel dans le charnel.


À la lumière de l’article de Bousquet, le « panislamisme radicalisé » apparaît motivé par quelque chose de bien plus essentiel que la « haine » et le « ressentiment ».


Par ailleurs, une question mérite d’être posée : la recherche d’une essence fasciste « transpolitique » et « transnationale » (adjectif également utilisé par Bousquet dans son examen des « religions mutantes ») n’est-elle pas assimilable à la quête du « moment zéro », hors sol, hors temps et antérieur à toute « racination » ?


Rechercher l’essence du fascisme revient à découvrir son arché (le principe, l’origine) sans perdre de vue sa coextensivité à une genosis (le devenir).


C’est à dessein que j’emploie les termes inauguraux de l’Ancien Testament, car je ne suis convaincu, ni de la corrélation du « sémitisme » et de l’égalitarisme, ni de la désignation des monothéismes sémitiques comme ennemi global et principal.


Le mépris des Juifs pour les goyim, l’hostilité des Chrétiens envers les mécréants, l’aversion de l’Islam pour les infidèles sont analogues au dédain que peuvent ressentir les disciples de Nietzsche face aux « derniers hommes » qui se regardent en clignant de l’œil et se flattent d’avoir inventé le bonheur.


D’autre part, plutôt que « désigner l’ennemi », ne faut-il pas prioritairement identifier celui qui nous désigne comme ennemi ? À mes yeux, il ne fait pas de doute que c’est le laïcisme stupidement revendiqué par le Front national.


Quelle que soit l’étymologie basse-latine (laicus, commun, ordinaire) ou grecque (laos, le peuple, dont le pluriel laoi signifie « les soldats »), le laïcisme est à la fois égalitaire et profanateur.


D’un côté, il réduit les êtres humains à ce qu’ils ont de plus ordinaire en commun. De l’autre, il déclare une guerre permanente à tout ce qui relève du spirituel, du métaphysique, du cosmologique et du sacré.


René Guénon a très bien vu que l’égalitarisme ne serait qu’une première étape de la modernité. Dans un second temps sont appelées à émerger une « contre-hiérarchie » et une « parodie » de spiritualité. S’il faut éviter les pièges de l’apolitisme et du fatalisme tendus par certains guénoniens, il convient tout autant de garder en mémoire le message d’un maître à penser dont le diagnostic de « chaos social », entre autres analyses prémonitoires, se révèle d’une brûlante actualité.


Le mérite de Philippe Baillet est de dire clairement les choses : une révolution anti-moderne ne peut qu’être synonyme de rétablissement des valeurs d’ordre, d’hiérarchie et d’autorité. Je demeure réservé quant à l’adjectif « surhumaniste », trop nettement corollaire de la référence nietzschéenne, alors que la quête du « sens originaire » de la contre-modernité peut nous faire remonter au moins jusqu’au pré-romantisme, pour nous en tenir à l’aire culturelle allemande.


Nous autres révoltés contre le monde moderne devons poursuivre le combat contre la « tendance époquale » égalitaire qui est loin d’être épuisée. Mais il nous incombe aussi de nous préparer à l’affrontement décisif entre, d’une part l’élite « transnationale » de clercs et de guerriers tels que nous les présente Philippe Baillet, et d’autres part « l’hyper-classe mondialiste » (Pierre Le Vigan), dont il est encore aujourd’hui difficile de cerner les contours, mais qui incarnera davantage l’aspect profanateur du laïcisme que sa facette égalitaire, si tant est qu’il faille diviser l’action anti-traditionnelle en deux étapes successives. Égalitarisme et « contre-hiérarchie » apparaissent plutôt comme des phénomènes simultanés, dès qu’on y regarde d’un peu plus près.


Cet enchevêtrement complexe d’influences négatives rend d’autant plus urgente la tâche de redéfinir un fascisme essentialisé, capable de riposter aux formules lapidaires et diffamatoires – comme « l’islamo-fascisme » de Manuel Valls – qui visent à confondre dans la même brutalité tous les ennemis du Nouvel Ordre Mondial.


Mais une essence ne persévère dans l’Être que sous les conditions historiques, culturelles, géographiques, voire ethniques d’une substance qui, dans le livre de Philippe Baillet, hormis les pénétrantes ouvertures vers l’Extrême-Asie, épouse un vaste courant germanique continu : le Sturm und Drang, Nietzsche, Wagner, la « Révolution conservatrice » et le national-socialisme.


L’« étymon spirituel » de Leo Spitzer ne perdure qu’en s’incarnant dans « une race, un milieu, un moment », selon la formule d’Hippolyte Taine, qui fut également un grand critique littéraire.


À notre époque de désinformation calomnieuse, Philippe Baillet a le courage d’écrire que le national-socialisme est « la seule forme historique de révolte anti-égalitariste que le monde moderne ait connue (p. 15) ».


Le cadre limité de la présente recension ne permet pas de mettre au jour toute la richesse du livre de Philippe Baillet.


Il faudrait s’attarder davantage sur le chapitre consacré à Bernard Faÿ, dont l’itinéraire « conduit de l’avant-garde artistique et littéraire au pétainisme, des sympathies initiales pour Roosevelt à la collaboration avec des responsables de la SS dans le cadre du combat anti-maçonnique, d’un cosmopolitisme snob à la passion du redressement national (p. 116) ».


Il conviendrait de commenter plus en détail les pages remarquables qu’inspire à Philippe Baillet la lecture d’Abel Bonnard, pour qui « l’ordre est le nom social de la beauté (p. 92) ».


« Face à l’uniformisation croissante des modes de vie et des cultures, face à la laideur moderne qui s’étend partout, le clerc authentique est appelé à témoigner pour les valeurs de l’esprit, d’abord en se faisant le chantre de l’ordre et de la civilisation (p. 78) ».


Baillet décèle chez Bonnard un « penchant pour la poésie de l’ordre, que résumait si bien, au Japon, l’alliance du tranchant du sabre et de la pureté du chrysanthème dans l’âme du guerrier (p. 93) ».


La « ligne de force générale » que l’auteur a vu émerger, au fur et à mesure de la relecture et de la ré-écriture augmentée de ses articles initiaux, mériterait d’être approfondie.


Cette « ligne de force » ne renvoie « jamais, fondamentalement, à un discours, une spéculation, des concepts, des idéologies, une dialectique, mais à leurs opposés : un mythe, une vision du monde, des images, une esthétique (p. 12) ».


Ce culte de la Beauté, qui n’est pas sans rappeler la poésie d’Émile Verhaeren, pourtant compagnon de route du socialisme, cette nécessité de percevoir le Beau même « dans ce qui peut être tragique (p. 19) », cet esthétisme se combine à un « conservatisme vital (p. 199) », à une vigoureuse dénonciation du « caractère absolument suicidaire de toutes les idéologies prétendant faire abstraction des lois de la vie au profit d’un monde artificiel entièrement recomposé dans une perspective où l’homme est la mesure de toutes choses (p. 20) ».


La célèbre proposition de Protagoras fut vivement critiquée par Platon, dont La République et Les Lois figurent, comme le De Monarchia de Dante ou l’Arthashâstra indien, parmi les grands textes « qui ignorent superbement les anti-principes démocratiques (p. 85) ».


C’est également à ces sources antiques et médiévales que doivent s’abreuver tous les non-conformistes désireux de penser « par delà les clichés (p. 117) », de dépasser les clivages manichéens et de partir en quête d’une fascisme essentialisé, coextensif d’un mouvement historique bien plus ample que celui amorcé par les prétendues « Lumières ».


Philippe Baillet nous offre une chatoyante galerie de portraits de clercs et de guerriers dans un livre réunissant la cohésion de la pensée, la brillance de l’écriture et la magistrale organisation du savoir.


L’auteur a choisi de nous dévoiler le « versant ensoleillé (p. 24) » de la montagne au sommet de laquelle, sur un équivoque et périlleux chemin de crête, le fascisme a proposé un parcours politique et un itinéraire métapolitique.


Les voyageurs de haute altitude s’exposent fatalement à des chutes au fond du précipice, dans l’abîme de l’autre versant.


Philippe Baillet ne se voile pas la face lorsqu’il stigmatise, par exemple, « le traitement réservé aux prisonniers russes (p. 28) » par les nazis dans les territoires de l’Est occupés.


La caste médiatique aujourd’hui dominante aurait certes préféré d’autres illustrations des excès meurtriers où le fascisme allemand a basculé.


Mais ce livre ne s’adresse pas à cette caste experte en victimisation préférentielle.


Il interpelle plutôt tous les membres de notre famille de pensée conscients de ne pouvoir se permettre l’économie d’une étape intellectuelle en compagnie des régimes et mouvements anti-égalitaires du XXe siècle.


Daniel Cologne


• Philippe Baillet, Le Parti de la Vie. Clercs et guerriers d’Europe et d’Asie, Akribeia, Saint-Genis-Laval, 2015, 243 p., 22 € (à commander à Akribeia, 45/3, route de Vourles, 69230 Saint-Genis-Laval).

Article printed from Europe Maxima: http://www.europemaxima.com

URL to article: http://www.europemaxima.com/?p=4563

PhB_1.JPGLe Parti de la vie


Clercs et guerriers d’Europe et d’Asie

Philippe Baillet

Le « parti de la vie » est constitué de tous ceux en qui sont encore présents et actifs les éléments originaires du réel occultés par la modernité : la voix de la race et du sang, les instincts élémentaires de légitime défense et de protection des siens, la solidarité ethnoraciale, la grande sagesse impersonnelle du corps, le sens de la beauté conforme aux types. Qu’il s’agisse de réalités méconnues du régime national-socialiste ou de l’anti-intellectualisme fasciste, de l’ordre en tant que « nom social de la beauté » chez Abel Bonnard ou de Giorgio Locchi insistant sur le caractère nécessairement « mythique » du discours surhumaniste, de l’intimité possible de la chair avec les idées selon Mishima ou de la nature « biocentrique » de la vision taoïste du monde, etc. – tout ici renvoie à une esthétique incarnée, radicalement étrangère à la postérité d’Abraham, aux serviteurs de la Loi, de la Croix et du Livre, aux « Trois Imposteurs » (Moïse, Jésus, Mahomet). Apparemment inactuel, ce livre explore donc avec rigueur le « versant ensoleillé » d’une Cause diffamée, enracinant ainsi les convictions dans la dynamique même des lois de la vie.

Contient un texte inédit en français de Giorgio Locchi.


248 p.

Pour commander:


lundi, 26 octobre 2015

La schizophrénie de l’idéologie française sur l’identité de la France


La schizophrénie de l’idéologie française sur l’identité de la France
Guillaume Faye*
Ex: http://metamag.fr & http://www.gfaye.com
L’idéal de De Gaulle, auquel s’est référée Nadine Morano, selon lequel la France est un «  pays de race blanche, de religion chrétienne et de culture gréco-latine » – et qui doit le rester –, expliquait, selon Alain Peyrefitte, que le général ait abandonné  l’Algérie. Il ne voulait pas que des millions de musulmans, en forte progression démographique, deviennent français. Pour eux, il ne ne croyait nullement à la moindre ”intégration” ou ”assimilation” possibles. Ce réalisme s’associait à la crainte que « Colombey–les–deux–églises ne devienne Colombey–les–deux–mosquées ».  Malheureusement, De Gaulle n’avait pas prévu l’immigration de masse autorisée par le laxisme de ses successeurs.
colombey-les-deux-églises.jpgDe Gaulle, en réalité, personnage ambigu influencé par Maurras, le néo-monarchiste, et par Barrès, l’aède de l’enracinement charnel  de la France, se démarquait de l’idéologie française universaliste issue de la Révolution. L’idéologie républicaniste des conventionnels de 1792, aux accents cosmopolites mystiques, leur faisait dire : « tout homme a deux patries, la sienne et la France ».  Mais on était dans la pure gratuité de l’utopie idéologique, puisqu’il n’y avait pas d’immigration. On pouvait raconter ce qu’on voulait.

Mais, par la suite, le virus idéologique s’est activé : l’Empire colonial français a rapidement caressé l’idée d’une possible France multiethnique, cosmopolite, mondiale, en rivalité avec les autres puissances européennes. En dépit de terribles contradictions idéologiques de la gauche républicaine au pouvoir, par exemple Jules Ferry qui en appelait au « devoir des races supérieures de civiliser les races inférieures ».
D’ailleurs, pendant toute la IIIe République, l’entreprise coloniale a été combattue par une partie de la droite nationaliste au nom d’une conception ethniciste et non pas universaliste de la Nation. On se souvient du slogan : « plutôt la Corrèze que le Zambèze ». De Gaulle héritera en partie de cette vision des choses. Par la suite, l’appel à des troupes ”indigènes” (on dirait aujourd’hui ”allogènes” !), issues des colonies, pendant les deux Guerres mondiales – engagés contre d’autres Européens – a considérablement renforcé la conception cosmopolite et multiethnique de la nation française.

L’idéologie française de la nation, héritée de la Révolution, s’avère donc à la fois antinationale et antifrançaise, au sens ethnique, par l’introduction du concept d’ ”assimilation”, supposé possible avec tout le monde et n’importe qui. Et surtout à l’intérieur même de l’Hexagone ! Alors qu’à l’époque, l’ ”Empire français”, géographiquement mondial, n’envisageait pas l’immigration en métropole. Cette vision abstraite se heurte aujourd’hui à la violence des faits. Cette schizophrénie française se formule ainsi : la France se pense, depuis deux cent ans, – à travers la majorité de sa classe intellectuelle – comme un idéal universel et moral (comme une sorte d’Eglise catholique laïque), alors que l’opinion populaire vit la France comme une patrie charnelle.  
Une schizophrénie voisine s’est manifestée en URSS, aux Etats-Unis et pour la construction européenne. En URSS, on observait la césure et la confusion (surtout pendant la dernière guerre) entre le combat communiste de la ”patrie des travailleurs” contre le nazisme, combat internationaliste par essence, et la résistance armée de la ”patrie russe” contre l’Allemagne. Aux USA, l’opposition est toujours très vive entre ceux qui considèrent le pays comme une ”société” multiraciale ouverte à toutes les immigrations et ceux (à l’image du think-tank American Renaissance) qui voient le melting pot américain comme une stricte union de populations d’origine européenne et les Etats-Unis comme une nation blanche.

Le même quiproquo se remarque à propos de l’Union européenne : super-État impérial et fédéral ethniquement européen et souverain dans l’idéal d’une minorité d’ ”européistes” adeptes d’un patriotisme européen, mais dans les faits, un ”machin” bureaucratique et sans frontières sans aucun souci de l’identité européenne. Insurmontable contradiction. (Les maux attribués à l’Union européenne en tant qu’institution, y compris la soumission volontaire aux USA, ne sont pas imputables à l’UE comme telle mais aux gouvernements européens eux-mêmes

Le sang et le sol : problème central 

Le catéchisme officiel des bien-pensants est parfaitement représenté par le dernier essai de l’intellectuel de cour Roger-Pol Droit, auteur de l’essai Qu’est-ce qui nous unit ? (Plon). Il tente de définir dans une gymnastique intellectuelle scolaire et convenue la nature des liens empathiques humains, nationaux, familiaux, personnels, etc. Pour lui, tout ce qui est mémoriel, biologique, identitaire ne vaut rien. Seul compte, dans la nation, l’Idée désincarnée. Il entend éviter « les pièges du terroir et de l’identité ». On reconnaît là l’idéologie cosmopolite officielle, qui dénie aux Français et autres Européens toutes racines revendiquées, toute  identité ethnique, mais en revanche applaudit et protège celles des autres, surtout des intouchables immigrés.

M. Droit formule le dogme de cette manière : «  l’Histoire nous apprend que les identités sont du côté du devenir, pas de l’être. Ce qui fait liens entre humains, ce ne sont jamais ni le sang ni le sol ». Si, justement ! C’est d’abord le sang et le sol qui forment l’identité et la cohésion de la France et des autres nations. Le ”sang”, c’est-à-dire la lignée des ancêtres communs au même peuple, héritier de la même histoire, de la même civiltà (terme italien difficilement traduisible qui signifie à la fois ”culture” et ”civilisation”, héritage et construction partagés par un même peuple) ; le ”sol”, c’est-à-dire la terre léguée et configurée par l’Histoire, le territoire à défendre dans ses frontières protégées. Roger–Paul Droit ajoute une autre ineptie, issue du catéchisme libertaire et mercantile : « Qu’est-ce qui nous unit ? Il est possible de répondre : nos échanges ». La nation réduite au statut de supermarché : passeport assuré pour sa désagrégation, voire pour la guerre civile…
Éric Zemmour  a éreinté ce prêchi-prêcha dans une chronique du Figaro (24/09/2015) intitulée "Nous ne sommes pas ce que vous croyez". Il écrit : «  Mais comment devenir français si personne ne donne le modèle de l’être ? Et quel est ce « devenir » français si l’ « être » français a été englouti ? Si on prend un couteau tricolore et que l’on remplace la lame et le manche, qu’est-ce qui reste de la France sinon le nom sur l’étiquette ? Avec l’identité française, Roger-Paul Droit fait le même pari que les partisans de la théorie du genre avec le sexe ».
R-P. Droit recopie la thèse erronée de Renan, selon laquelle la Nation est un ”projet” plus qu’une appartenance. Sauf qu’à son époque, Renan parlait de manière abstraite, dans le vide, vu que l’immigration colonisatrice n’existait pas…. De plus, cette idée est stupide : un projet national, un avenir commun ne peuvent se fonder que sur une appartenance commune héritée d’une histoire passée et d’une parenté partagée. Il n’existe aucun avenir, aucun projet possible avec des populations  immigrées, majoritairement musulmanes et globalement hostiles, ancrées dans une autre longue histoire, antagoniste de la nôtre. Il en a été de tout temps ainsi dans l’histoire de tous les peuples.

Qu’est-ce que la nation ?  Qu’est-ce que la patrie ?

Une nation est d’abord une réalité ethnique avant d’être une réalité politique. L’étymologie de nation (natio, en latin, du verbe nascere, ”naître”) renvoie à la terre de naissance, la terre-mère, celle des ancêtres. Elle a donc une dimension d’enracinement biologique, historique, géographique et culturel – mais non pas idéologique. Sa traduction en grec – ancien et moderne – est d’ailleurs ethnos, ce qui se réfère à un apparentement dans une mémoire et une lignée, et ce qui suppose une homogénéité. C’est pourquoi une trop grande immigration détruit une nation en abrogeant son caractère ethnique et donc sa cohérence et son empathie naturelle.

aristote21.jpgAristote, à ce propos, estimait qu’une Cité (polis) doit être ethniquement homogène, ce qui est le fondement de la paix civile, de la connivence des valeurs (philia). Autrement, explique-t-il, une Cité rendue hétérogène par l’immigration étrangère est vouée à la dictature – pour établir de force la cohésion – ou à la guerre civile endémique. Si la notion de patrie (enracinée et ethnique) connaît un tel désaveu, la responsabilité en incombe en partie à l’Allemagne nazie qui a extrémisé les principes nationaux et ethniques en les défigurant dans une ubris criminelle. Le nazisme a dévoyé,  neutralisé, diabolisé l’idée de nationalisme en Europe.

La responsabilité intellectuelle en incombe à Herder et à Fichte, deux philosophes allemands du début du XIXe siècle, qui ont largement inspiré le pangermanisme belliciste, catastrophique pour l’Europe, de l’empereur Wilhelm II et de Hitler. Fichte dans son célèbre Discours à la nation allemande (1807), non dépourvu de paranoïa, développe l’idée que le peuple allemand est intrinsèquement supérieur à tous les autres peuples européens parce qu’il a échappé à la romanisation et qu’il possède seul une ”âme culturelle” originelle. Cette thèse absurde, issue d’une frustration face à la France napoléonienne et d’un complexe allemand d’infériorité – transformé en complexe de supériorité schizophrénique– a donné lieu au nationalisme allemand des deux guerres mondiales, qui, par son extrémisme, a diabolisé et détruit tout sentiment ethno-national non seulement en Allemagne mais dans les autres pays européens, dont la France  (Le IIIe Reich et son souvenir, son ubris, ses crimes et sa défaite ont provoqué chez le peuple allemand une implosion, une délégitimation  de toute idée nationale et patriotique).

Cependant la fameuse ”crise des migrants réfugiés” (pseudo réfugiés à 90%), qui n’est que l’aggravation spectaculaire du processus d’immigration invasive et colonisatrice, ressuscite ce sentiment ethno-national chez les classes populaires européennes, sentiment totalement absent chez les dirigeants, uniquement préoccupés d’affairisme politicien. Cette situation peut déboucher sur un incendie incontrôlé.

Qu’elle soit française ou étendue à une ”nation européenne”,  ou appliquée à Israël et à bien d’autres, l’idée de nation suppose quatre ingrédients : 
1) une homogénéité ethnique et culturelle globale où les différences sont bien moindres que les ressemblances (ce qui en exclut totalement les musulmans, appartenant à leur umma) ; 
2) le sentiment d’appartenance à une patrie commune enracinée dans l’histoire, formant en gros un même peuple qui se définit et se perçoit comme différent des autres et se sentant potentiellement opposé à eux (Carl Schmitt et Julien Freund ont bien montré que toute identité ethnique ou politique ne peut se construire que contre un ennemi. Le positif interagit avec le négatif. On peut le déplorer, mais la psychologie humaine est ainsi faite)  ; 
3) l’existence de frontières parfaitement définies et protégées ; 
4) la réalité d’un État, fédéral ou centralisé, peu importe, souverain et indépendant, qui protège et assure la préférence nationale, notion centrale qui discrimine légalement l’étranger par rapport au citoyen.
L’idée ”européenne” des dirigeants actuels, même fédéraliste, ne vise absolument pas ce modèle (supra)national qu’on pourrait appeler les Etats-Unis d’Europe. Elle recherche l’abolition des fondements ethno-nationaux des peuples européens et, plus grave, l’abolition de l’européanité elle-même.
Objectif implicite : déconstruire l’identité de la France et des nations européennes

En effet, la conception officielle de la nation française, abstraite et désincarnée, intellectuelle, non-ethnique, a été reprise et aggravée dans la construction européenne, comme l’a vu Philippe de Villiers. L’Union européenne, qui vise à détruire l’Europe des nations souveraines, n’a même pas la prétention d’être une entité fédérale et supranationale (une ”super nation”) mais s’avère être une anti-nation, une construction fondamentalement anti-européenne, aux sens ethnique, historique et politique. Un ”machin”, ouvert comme un moulin, avec, pour seule règle, l’idéologie des Droits de l’homme et du libre-échangisme tempéré par une bureaucratie privilégiée. Voici un mélange comique d’ultra-libéralisme et de soviétisme mou, l’union de la carpe et du lapin,  un ensemble flou, déraciné, aux frontières poreuses ; son idéal minimaliste est apolitique et anhistorique (droits de l’homme, consumérisme, etc.), incapable de susciter l’enthousiasme des peuples et apte seulement à favoriser des flux migratoires incontrôlés et à obéir à tous les désidératas de Washington.

L’idéologie dominante et la classe politique ont une conception libertaire de la nation (issue du libéralisme philosophique – à ne pas confondre avec le libéralisme économique) qui ramène cette dernière à un agrégat d’individus sans enracinement. Conception exprimée par l’inénarrable Alain Juppé: «  la nation, ce sont des hommes et des femmes qui veulent vivre ensemble » (Grand Jury RTL–Le Figaro, 4 octobre 2015). Aucune mention d’une histoire, d’une culture, d’une appartenance, d’une identité communes. Cette vision de la nation en détruit la substance même en la ravalant au rang de ”société”, ensemble flou sans passé et sans avenir. Un grand Club Med. Face à l’islam fanatique et conquérant, c’est désopilant.

hollande-la-france-morte1.jpgDécryptons cette déclaration très idéologique (et indigne) de François Hollande lors d’une visite à l’École des Chartes, temple de la tradition française de l’enseignement gréco-latin que Mme Vallaud-Belkacem est en train de saborder : « La France n’est pas une identité figée dans le marbre, elle n’est pas une nostalgie qu’il faudrait conserver, un corps vieilli avec un sourire fatigué. La France est une espérance ». Puis, après cette insulte voilée à la patrie française (”vieillie et fatiguée”)  le petit président politicien fit l’apologie d’un « portrait de la France dans sa diversité », ce qui, en langue de bois signifie qu’il faut imposer aux Français historiques de souche l’apport massif de populations étrangères. C’est la théorie du lobby socialiste Terra Nova, à visées électoralistes, en faveur de la ”nouvelle France” (la France 2.0), celle de la ”diversité”. Malheureusement, une large partie de ces ”nouveaux Français” issus de l’immigration n’en ont (pardonnez-moi d’utiliser exceptionnellement le bas argot) strictement rien à foutre de la France, de son identité, de son histoire, de son avenir. Ils ne se reconnaissent pas en elle, ils sont d’accord pour la détruire. Détruire la France (et les peuples européens) au nom même d’une ”certaine idée” de la France et de l’Europe, tel est le projet orwellien (par inversion sémantique) de l’oligarchie et de leurs alliés. 
Abordons maintenant un point capital, lié à Éric Zemmour. Ce dernier, par ses livres et sa présence médiatique – et malgré les intimidations par censures, procès, etc. – est devenu un défenseur emblématique du patriotisme français et de l’identité française. Or, il est Juif. Ce qui semble poser un problème aux clercs de l’idéologie dominante. Léa Salamé (cf. autre article de ce blog) dans l’émission de Ruquier (FR 2) On n’est pas couché s’était étonnée qu’un Juif (apostrophe : « vous, le Juif… ») puisse professer de telles idées patriotiques. 
Guy Bedos sur France 5, début octobre 2015, a commis le même lapsus : « Zemmour est juif. C’est un drôle de Juif…Il est devenu plus français que les Français ». Le comique bourgeois d’extrême gauche à bout de souffle révèle deux choses par cette saillie : d’abord un antisémitisme de gauche (un Juif ne peut pas  prétendre être un vrai Français et vice–versa, ce qui nous ramène à l’idéologie de Vichy dont le régime était peuplé de socialistes et…de communistes) ; ensuite une francophobie évidente : le Français de souche, le ”franchouillard ” des classes populaires, est méprisable par essence.
L’indispensable unité ethnique, facteur de paix

L’historien et sociologue Georges Bensoussan – aujourd’hui très mal vu, comme Finkielkraut, par le clergé intello-médiatique –  explique que désormais en France cohabitent sur le même territoire comme ”deux nations”, deux populations antagonistes. Elles ne partagent absolument pas les mêmes valeurs, la même culture, les mêmes comportements et moeurs, ni les mêmes projets. Une de ces populations, en forte croissance, d’origine immigrée récente, est de plus en plus islamisée et ne se sent absolument pas appartenir à la ”nation France” traditionnelle ; au contraire, elle lui manifeste une hostilité croissante. Elle se réclame à la fois de sa nationalité d’origine et de l’umma musulmane supranationale. L’équation est insoluble.
Le déni de ce phénomène central par l’intellocratie et les dirigeants politiques, attachés au dogme utopique et angélique de l’ ”intégration”, de l’ ”assimilation” ou de l’ ”inclusion” par une cohabitation pacifique de communautés inconciliables, ressemble aux techniques des médecins du XVIIe siècle (relire Molière) qui tuaient les malades en prétendant les guérir.

L’idéologie française officielle et ”républicaine” de la Nation est contredite par l’histoire de France elle-même. La France intellectuelle se pense comme une idée (lourde erreur, énorme prétention) mais la France populaire se vit comme une patrie charnelle.  Le « vivre ensemble », monstrueux néologisme de la novlangue de bois, se terminera dans la guerre. On ne peut vivre ensemble qu’avec ses proches, pas avec ceux qui vous désignent comme ennemis.
Contrairement aux mensonges de l’idéologie officielle, la France, comme les autres pays d’Europe, a toujours été globalement homogène ethniquement jusqu’au XXe siècle, à la fin duquel a commencé une immigration massive extra-européenne, en grande partie musulmane. Ce phénomène historique est le plus important et le plus grave vécu par les Européens depuis le début du Moyen–Âge, bien plus que toutes les guerres, crises économiques et épidémies. Parce qu’il risque de signer notre acte de décès.
Toute l’histoire démontre (et le Proche-Orient en est l’éclatante démonstration) que la diversité ethnique sur un même territoire ou sous une même autorité politique est, la plupart du temps, ingérable et débouche sur le chaos, fruit d’une impossible cohabitation. On commence à le ressentir en Europe. Plus que jamais, le bon sens, l’expérience quotidienne populaire, les leçons de l’histoire s’opposent aux délires idéologiques et aux calculs politiciens de l’oligarchie. Reprenons Aristote : chacun chez soi, dans ses frontières. Ce qui ne remet pas en cause la notion d’Humanité mais rappelle qu’elle est faite de peuples différents et (souvent) hostiles et ne constitue pas un magma anthropologique.  C’est la loi de la vie. La paix entre les êtres humains est proportionnelle à la méfiance et aux barrières qu’ils dressent entre eux.  Si vis pacem, para bellum.
* Source 


Leidt de digitale economie tot een catastrofe?


Leidt de digitale economie tot een catastrofe?

Guillaume Faye

Ex: http://www.solidarisme.be

Joseph Schumpeter toonde met zijn theorie van de “creatieve vernietiging” aan dat technologische innovaties méér banen schiepen dan ze vernietigden. Dat was het geval voor de industriële revoluties van het midden van de 19de eeuw tot op vandaag. Maar met de digitale economie (ook wel de “uberisering van de economie” genoemd) is dat misschien gedaan. We riskeren er veel meer banen door vernietigd te zien worden dan er geschapen worden. Pierre Bellanger was met zijn essay La souveraineté numérique (zie het vorige artikel op deze blog) een van de eersten om op die uitdaging te wijzen. Vandaag maken echter steeds meer economen zich zorgen; de digitale platformen op smartphones, tablets of computers dematerialiseren heel wat diensten die door bedrijven geleverd worden en brengen zo die laatste in gevaar. Ze vernietigen immers veel meer banen dan dat ze er voortbrengen.

De valstrik van de krab met zijn twee scharen

Nemen we het voorbeeld van Airbnb (een kamerverhuurdienst van particulier tot particulier, in 2008 opgericht en vandaag beursgenoteerd) dat het hotelwezen beconcurreert met een beurswaardering die veel hoger is. Laurent Gey merkt op in Epoch Times (5-11/10/2015): “Airbnb stelt slechts 600 mensen ter wereld te werk, de hotelgroep Accor 180 000. Een verschil van 300 keer minder personeel voor een omzet die veel groter is: economisch gezien, een droom. Over ‘t geheel genomen, een ramp.

De dienstensectoren die naast het hotelwezen bedreigd worden zijn niet te tellen: restaurants, leveringen, reisagentschappen en vastgoedkantoren, autoverhuurbedrijven, allerlei klein- en grootdistributie, vaklui en diensten aan huis, het bankwezen, verzekeringen enz. Om nog te zwijgen van de post, de sectoren van het uitgeversbedrijf (geschreven pers en boeken … ) en de audiovisuele media (radio, tv, muziek- en filmuitgevers), die op termijn bedreigd worden, niet met verdwijning, maar wel met gedwongen afslanking. Daartegen wegen de banen en rijkdommen in de digitale economie niet op.

Het aantal banen dat door een digitaal platform wordt voortgebracht is meer dan 100(!) keer lager dan dat van een reële onderneming, terwijl de kosten ervan tien keer minder zijn door de outsourcing van diensten naar particulieren of zelfstandigen: gedaan met bedrijfsruimten, onderhoudskosten, vergoedingen voor talloze werknemers, sociale of fiscale lasten enz.

We lopen het risico getuige te zijn van een pervers economisch fenomeen, een verpaupering die de “valstrik van de krab met zijn twee scharen” kan worden genoemd. De schaar van de toeleveringszijde vernietigt de werkgelegenheid en de schaar van de afnemerszijde vernietigt de sociale en fiscale inkomsten van de staat, die de oude ondernemingen in verval ziet raken en van de opbrengsten uit de digitale sector verstoken blijft. Dat zou dus door méér directe belastingen moeten worden gecompenseerd. Het is een vicieuze cirkel, waarop we later nog zullen terugkomen. De keuze voor micro-economische winsten op zeer korte termijn zou zo een macro-economisch verlies op lange termijn kunnen uitlokken, trapsgewijs en volgens een meetkundige reeks.

Het huidige bedrijfsmodel, dat relatief log en star is, wordt overhoopgehaald door de digitalisering. Zowel op het vlak van de klassieke bezoldiging als dat van het belastingwezen. Dat “technologische nomadisme” brengt een omwenteling teweeg en fascineert, maar draagt ook een onvoorzien gevaar in zich: het vermindert het aantal banen en het weefsel van ondernemingen die belastingen betalen.

Internationaal kantoor voor strategisch advies Roland Berger voorspelt dat de komende tien jaar drie miljoen banen in West-Europa zullen verdwijnen (verband tussen schepping en vernietiging) als gevolg van de nieuwe technologieën: “zeker, de digitalisering van de economie opent perspectieven voor de creatie van banen. Men weet ook dat digitale ondernemingen de meest dynamische groei hebben. Maar de nieuwe banen zullen niet de oude banen vervangen: noch in termen van vereiste bekwaamheidsgraad, noch in termen van positie in de waardeketen of van geografische spreiding”. Het is de vicieuze cirkel van onvoldoende marginale nuttigheid.

De vicieuze cirkel van de digitale economie

Die vicieuze cirkel is als volgt samen te vatten: de nieuwe digitale economie kan de spreekwoordelijke tak afzagen waarop ze zelf zit. Die tak is de koopkracht die afhankelijk is van de werkgelegenheidsgraad en de sociale en fiscale inkomsten die door bedrijven en huishoudens worden voortgebracht. Anders gezegd: als de digitale economie samenlevingen verarmt door de oude sectoren te snel droog te leggen, dan zal ze haar eigen klanten verliezen en wegkwijnen. Het risico bestaat immers dat de marginale kost van de digitale economie hoger uitvalt dan het marginale nut. Simpel gezegd: de digitale economie kost meer dan dat ze opbrengt.

De nieuwe economie voedt namelijk de illusie van kosteloosheid en low cost (goedkoopheid) bij miljoenen consumenten. In werkelijkheid is ze vrij duur en fragiel, en wel om drie redenen:

1) de digitale uitrusting is duur voor de consumerende huishoudens: op vlak van de aankoop van verschillende eindtoestellen (smartphones, tablets, computers, met internet verbonden voorwerpen enz.), de voortdurende vernieuwing van die laatste en de vrij prijzige abonnementen bij operatoren (waarvan de gehanteerde tarieven weinig transparant zijn). Hetzelfde geldt voor de globale kost van informatica in bedrijven.

2) de “netwerksoftware” (of “résogiciels”, een neologisme van Pierre Bellanger), de werking van het gedematerialiseerde internet – met zijn cloud (“wolk”) die door de reusachtige servers van big data (grote hoeveelheden gegevens) wordt mogelijk gemaakt – en alle eindtoestellen met beeldschermen veronderstellen een enorm “onzichtbaar” elektriciteitsverbruik.

3) De digitale economie ziet drie verontrustende factoren onophoudelijk toenemen: er is de onveiligheid veroorzaakt door internetpiraterij en cybercriminaliteit, onveiligheid die exponentieel toeneemt; verder is er de kwetsbaarheid door het permanente risico van bugs (pannes en disfuncties), maar ook door de complexiteit van een zeer gesofisticeerd wereldwijd netwerk, dat zowel van levensbelang is als overgeleverd is aan de genade van massale ongelukken zonder dat er vangnetten zijn (gebrek aan robuustheid); ten slotte de grenzen aan de taken die door buitensporige informatisering en systematische digitalisering kunnen worden gefaciliteerd. Dat laatste punt is belangrijk en betreft de concrete sociologie, die uitgaat van dagelijkse ervaringen op microniveau.

Steeds meer stemmen merken inderdaad op dat bedrijven, besturen en particulieren tijd en geld verliezen ten opzichte van de traditionele technieken doordat ze uitsluitend gebruik maken van digitale middelen en gedematerialiseerde e-tools. Twee voorbeelden: u boekt en regelt een reis via internet zonder dat er een agentschap bij komt kijken. De reële financiële besparing die u daarmee gaat doen zal miniem en illusoir zijn vergeleken met de tijd die u voor uw magische scherm zult hebben doorgebracht (de “fantoomarbeid”) en de betrouwbaarheid van uw boeking zal vrij laag zijn. Een tweede geval, dat ik persoonlijk heb meegemaakt: in de geschreven of audiovisuele media hebben internet en de massale toevlucht tot digitale middelen (dematerialisering van het informatieverkeer) niet geleid tot een substantiële verbetering van de prestaties (snelheid, gebruiksvriendelijkheid, kosten). Integendeel: de problemen die zich voordoen, overstijgen de marginale nuttigheid van de veronderstelde voordelen. De geboekte “vooruitgang” is niet vanzelfsprekend. Hij is psychologisch, niet concreet.

Die feiten worden op dit ogenblik zorgvuldig weggemoffeld omdat we ons bevinden in een fase van enthousiaste fascinatie voor het digitale, het internet enz. Voor de “nieuwigheid”. Beetje bij beetje zullen we merken dat we te ver zijn gegaan.

De zeepbel van het digitale/internet kan leeglopen … of uit elkaar spatten

Tegenwoordig wordt er in Frankrijk (waar de Senaat zich beraadt over een wetsvoorstel) en andere landen over nagedacht om webwinkels en samenwerkingsplatformen vrij sterk te belasten om hun groei te beperken en verlies van fiscale inkomsten goed te maken. Het probleem is dat die oplossing (altijd die Franse obsessie met belastingen en taksen) geen enkel effect zal hebben op de grond van het fenomeen.

Het “internet van de energie”, dat wordt aangeprezen door de Amerikaanse economische goeroe Jeremy Rifkin (auteur van De derde industriële revolutie. Naar een transformatie van economie en samenleving, 2012), doet ons dromen van een intelligent en interactief netwerk dat onder andere huishoudelijke toestellen, personenwagens en openbaar vervoer met elkaar verbindt, en dat geacht wordt enorme hoeveelheden energie te besparen. Helaas! De regio Nord-Pas-de-Calais, die het experiment wou uitproberen, heeft berekend dat de prijs torenhoog is voor een onzekere uitkomst. Het stadsbestuur van Parijs is ook op zijn stappen teruggekeerd. De impasse is het lot van elke utopie. Het gaat er niet om domweg het internet en de digitale economie af te wijzen, maar wel om ze te herzien. En op te houden met de verafgoding van economie en techniek. De fascinatie voor technologie is even inefficiënt als de groene hang naar het verleden.

De buitensporige informatisering en digitalisering zijn zeepbellen die onvermijdelijk gaan leeglopen als ballonnen of, tragischer, plots ontploffen als bommen. De vergelijkingen met het verleden zijn interessant: in de jaren ’60 geloofde men dat de mens tientallen bases op de maan zou hebben vanaf het jaar 2000, mijnen inbegrepen. Waar zijn ze? Laten we ons ervoor hoeden om sciencefiction toe te passen op de economie. 80% van de technisch-economische prognoses tijdens de laatste 150 jaar zijn verkeerd gebleken. De toekomst is nooit zoals men hem droomt of voorspelt. We tasten in het duister. In de internationale beurshandel wijzen de flitstransacties met computer-algoritmes op een ander gevaar: de ontkoppeling met de reële economie. Daar toont de buitensporige informatisering zich opnieuw van haar kwetsbaarste kant. Zo ook fantaseert men over het 3D-printen (zoals over “hernieuwbare energieën”): opgelet voor technologische illusies.

Welke toekomst voor de digitale economie? Onduidelijk

Het zou natuurlijk ondoordacht zijn de digitale economie op zich te veroordelen. Ze zal haar plaats hebben, maar niet overheersen. Ze zal een ernstige terugval kennen in het komende decennium, omdat de toename van haar marginale kosten (in directe financiële termen of als externaliteiten) – beetje bij beetje de globale voordelen overstijgen. Laten we zeggen dat de neerwaarts gaande curve van de voordelen weldra zal kruisen met de opwaartse gaande curve van de nadelen. Onder meer door het probleem van banen- en dus koopkrachtvernietiging (het aantal vernietigde banen is groter dan het aantal nieuwe banen dat ze met zich meebrengt); en door overdrijving van de verhouding tussen geleverde diensten en opportuniteitskosten, die omstreeks 2010 een daling is beginnen te vertonen.

Er zit dus waarschijnlijk een inkrimping van de digitale economie op wereldschaal aan te komen: ze zal zich aanpassen in een grootteorde van 35% binnen 10 jaar. Met een daling van de markt (vraag), omdat de consumenten stilaan beseffen dat de investeringen niet opwegen tegen de prestaties. De volledig digitale wereld die sommige goeroes prediken, lijkt sterk op de Hollywood-romantiek van de jaren zestig, de ruimtevaartdroom van een mensheid die zich in het zonnestelsel gaat vestigen.

De utopie botst altijd op de menselijke natuur van de economische verhoudingen. Kortom, de voordelen maximaliseren, de gebreken minimaliseren, de kosten optimaliseren volgens een proces van zelfaanpassing dat zich in enkele decennia voordoet. Schakel uw smartphone, tablet of computer niet uit, ze zijn nuttig. Maar verafgoodt u ze ook niet. Er zal een “post-digitaal tijdperk” zijn of veeleer een “alter-digitaal tijdperk”. Aan elk monopolie komt een einde. Na elke droom volgt het ontwaken.

Bron: Gfaye.com


mercredi, 21 octobre 2015

Notre sélection quotidienne sur google+ : à ne pas manquer!


Notre sélection quotidienne sur google+ : à ne pas manquer!



Alès - Nimes, samedi 31 octobre : réunion avec Philippe Milliau

Alès - Nimes, samedi 31 octobre : réunion avec Philippe Milliau


mardi, 20 octobre 2015

XXe Table Ronde de Terre & Peuple

TP-EOlhkWUAAXK5t.jpg large.jpg

lundi, 19 octobre 2015

Jean-Yves Le Gallou à Lyon!



dimanche, 18 octobre 2015

Le nouveau numéro du magazine Terre et peuple est sorti

Le nouveau numéro du magazine Terre et peuple est sorti


En savoir plus cliquez ici

Terre et peuple organisera sa prochaine table ronde le dimanche 29 novembre à Rungis


vendredi, 16 octobre 2015

Daniel Friberg on the Swedish New Right


Counter-Currents Radio
Daniel Friberg on the Swedish New Right

To listen in a player, click here.

To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as” or “save target as.”

To subscribe to our podcasts, click here



Greg Johnson talks to Daniel Friberg, CEO of Arktos Media and Wiking Mineral, a co-founder of the Swedish metapolitical think tank Motpol, and the author of a new book out in Swedish and English, The Real Right Returns: A Handbook for the True Opposition (London: Arktos, 2015).

Topics include:

  • No, his name does not echo
  • How he became a nationalist
  • The ethnic situation in Sweden today
  • How he discovered the New Right
  • The importance of metapolitics
  • The puerile rhetoric of revolution on the Right
  • Real (ethnic) nationalism vs. civic and cultural nationalism
  • Nationalism in Sweden today
  • The fallacy of accelerationism
  • Media witch hunts in Sweden and how to counter them
  • Why nationalists should not expect gender parity in our movement
  • The biological reason why men fight and take risks and women do not
  • Friberg’s metapolitical dictionary
  • The importance of Guillaume Faye’s concept of “archeofuturism”
  • Enough gloom and doom on the Right; why we will win
  • The need for a concrete vision of the world we are going to create
  • The intellectual and political adventure of the Right


jeudi, 15 octobre 2015

Jonathan Bowden Interview with Tom Sunic (Voice of Reason Radio)


Jonathan Bowden

Interview with Tom Sunic

(Voice of Reason Radio)

mercredi, 14 octobre 2015

Robert Steuckers: Eurasianismul și Revoluția Conservatoare


L'ouvrage est disponible sur le site des éditions du Lore : Editions du Lore

Robert Steuckers: Eurasianismul și Revoluția Conservatoare

Ex: http://www.estica.eu

Troy Southgate: Când şi de ce v-aţi decis să vă implicaţi în politică?

Robert Steuckers: Niciodată n-am fost implicat în politică şi nici membru al vreunui partid politic. Sunt un cetăţean interesat de teme politice, dar nu în modul obtuz şi trivial, iar cât priveşte posibilitatea participării în alegeri pentru un consiliu local sau pentru a deveni membru al Parlamentului, nici nu intră în discuţie.

Pentru mine “politica” înseamnă menţinerea unor continuităţi sau, dacă preferaţi, a unor tradiţii. Însă este vorba despre acele tradiţii care sunt înrădăcinate în istoria reală a comunităţilor umane particulare. Am început să citesc cărţi istorice şi politice la vârsta de 14 ani şi asta a dus la o respingere a ideologiilor universal acceptate şi a non-valorilor.

De la vârsta de 15 ani, cu ajutorul unui profesor de istorie, un anume domn Kennof, am realizat că oamenii ar trebui să cunoască principalele trenduri istorice şi să utilizeze constant atlasele istorice (am început să le colectez încă de atunci) pentru a înţelege într-o clipită principalele forţe care animă scena politică într-un anumit moment. Hărţile sunt foarte importante pentru politică la nivel înalt (diplomaţia, spre exemplu).

Principala idee pe care am descoperit-o la această tânără vârstă a fost că toate ideologiile, gândurile sau schemele care doresc să scape de trecut, să taie legăturile oamenilor cu propria continuitate istorică, sunt fundamental greşite. Drept consecinţă, toate acţiunile politice ar trebui să ţintească spre prezervarea şi întărirea continuităţilor istorice şi politice chiar dacă acţiunile futuristice (pro-active) sunt adesea necesare pentru a salva comunitatea de la repetiţia sterilă de obiceiuri și cutume perimate.

Discursurile majorităţii ideologiilor, incluzând expresii variate ale aşa numitei extreme dreapta, sunt în ochii mei artificiale în Occident, aşa cum comunismul a fost o abstracţie în faţa întregii istorii ruseşti în Est sau o abstracţie distructivă la adresa pattern-urilor istorice autentice ale popoarelor est-europene căzute sub dominaţia Sovietică după 1945. Ruptura continuităţilor sau repetiţia “formelor” moarte ale trecutului a condus la confuzia politico-ideologică pe care o cunoaştem în prezent, unde conservatorii nu mai sunt conservatori, socialiştii nu mai sunt socialişti ș.a.m.d.

Ideile politice fundamentale sunt mai bine slujite în opinia mea de către “Ordine” decât de către partidele politice. Ordinele asigură o educaţie continuă a afiliaților şi întăresc noţiunea de datorie. Ele  se opun ambiţiilor mărunte ale simplilor politicieni. Astfel de Ordine sunt Ordinele Cavalereşti din Evul Mediu sau ale Renaşterii europene, noţiunea de fatwa în lumea islamică persană precum şi experimente ulterioare, inclusiv în secolul al XX-lea (Legiunea Arhanghelului Mihail în România, Verdinaso în Flandra etc.).

Troy Southgate: Vă rog explicaţi ce vreţi să spuneţi prin termenul “Revoluţia Conservatoare” şi, dacă este posibil, oferiţi-ne o schiţă a principalilor săi ideologi.

Robert Steuckers: Când expresia “Revoluţia Conservatoare” este utilizată în Europa, este folosită în sensul dat de către Armin Mohler în faimoasa lui carte Die Konservative Revolution in Deutschland, 1918-1932. Mohler a enumerat o lista lungă de autori care au respins pseudo-valorile anului 1789 (respinse de Edmund Burke drept simple “schiţe”), a accentuat rolul germanic-ului în evoluţia gândirii europene şi a fost influenţat de Nietzsche. Mohler a evitat, spre exemplu, “conservatorii” puri religioşi, fie aceştia catolici sau protestanţi.

Pentru Mohler principala trăsătură a “Revoluţiei Conservatoare” este o viziune non-lineară a istoriei. Însă acesta nu preia pur şi simplu viziunea ciclică a tradiţionalismului. După Nietzsche, Mohler a crezut într-o concepţie sferică a istoriei. Ce înseamnă asta? Înseamnă că istoria nu este nici o simplă repetiţie a aceloraşi pattern-uri la intervale regulate, nici un traseu linear ce conduce către fericire – către sfârşitul istoriei, către un Paradis pe Pământ, către mulțumire etc. – ci o sferă care poate merge (sau poate fi împinsă) în orice direcţie corespunzător impulsurilor pe care le primeşte de la personalităţi puternice şi carismatice. Astfel de personalităţi carismatice îndoaie cursul istoriei către căi particulare, căi care nu au fost anterior prevăzute de către nicio providenţă.

Mohler, în acest sens, nu crede niciodată în reţete sau doctrine politice universale ci numai în tendinţe particulare şi personale. Precum Jünger, acesta doreşte să lupte împotriva a tot ce este “general” şi să susţină tot ce este “particular”. În plus, Mohler şi-a exprimat propria viziune a particularităţilor dinamice utilizând terminologia oarecum ciudată a “nominalismului”. Pentru el, “nominalismul” a fost într-adevăr cuvântul care a exprimat cel mai bine voinţa personalităţilor puternice de a desena pentru ei înşişi şi pentru propriii adepţi un drum original şi nemaivăzut prin jungla existenţei.

Principalele figuri ale mişcării au fost Spengler, Moeller van den Bruck şi Ernst Jünger (precum şi fratele acestuia Friedrich-Georg). Putem adăuga acestui triumvirat pe Ludwig Klages şi Ernst Niekisch. Carl Schmitt, ca şi avocat catolic şi constituţionalist, reprezintă un alt aspect important al aşa-numitei “Revoluţii Conservatoare”.

Spengler rămâne autorul unei fresce strălucitoare a lumii civilizate care l-a inspirat pe filosoful britanic Arnold Toynbee. Spengler a vorbit despre Europa ca civilizaţie faustiană, cel mai bine exprimată de catedralele gotice, de interacţiunea luminii şi culorilor în lucrările pe sticlă, de cerul furtunos cu nori albi şi gri în majoritatea picturilor germane, engleze şi olandeze. Această civilizaţie este o aspiraţie a sufletului uman către lumină şi către auto-angajare.

O altă idee importantă a lui Spengler este aceea a “pseudo-morfozei”: o civilizaţie nu dispare niciodată complet după decadenţă sau cucerire violentă. Elementele acesteia trec în noua civilizaţie care îi ia locul şi o ghidează în direcţia originară.

Moeller van den Bruck a fost primul traducător german al lui Dostoievski. Acesta a fost profund influenţat de jurnalul lui Dostoievski, conţinând câteva judecăţi severe la adresa Vestului. În contextul Germaniei de după 1918, Moeller van den Bruck a susţinut, bazându-se pe argumentele lui Dostoievski, o alianţă germano-ruso împotriva Vestului.

Cum a putut respectabilul gentleman german, cu o imensă cultură a artei, să pledeze în favoarea unei alianţe cu bolşevicii? Argumentele sale au fost după cum urmează: în întreaga tradiţie diplomatică a secolului XIX, Rusia a fost considerată un scut de reacţie împotriva tuturor repercusiunilor Revoluţiei Franceze, a gândirii şi mentalității revoluționare. Dostoievski, fost revoluţionar rus care a admis mai târziu că opţiunile sale revoluționare au fost greşite şi simple schiţe, a considerat mai mult sau mai puţin că misiunea Rusiei în lume era să elimine din Europa ideile de la 1789.

Pentru Moeller van den Bruck, Revoluţia din Octombrie a anului 1917 în Rusia a fost doar o schimbare a mantiei ideologice, Rusia rămânând, în ciuda discursului bolşevic, antidotul la adresa gândirii liberale a Vestului. Deci Germania înfrântă ar fi trebuit să se alăture acestei fortăreţe de anti-revoluționarism pentru a se opune Vestului, care în ochii lui Moeller van den Bruck este încarnarea liberalismului. Liberalismul, afirmă Moeller van den Bruck, este întotdeauna boala terminală a unui popor. După câteva decenii de liberalism, un popor intră, inevitabil, într-o fază terminală de decadenţă.

Calea urmată de Ernst Jünger este destul de cunoscută tuturor. Acesta a început ca un tânăr şi înflăcărat soldat în Primul Război Mondial, părăsind tranşeele fără nicio armă, doar cu o grenadă sub braţ, purtată cu eleganță, precum bastonul unui tipic ofiţer britanic. Pentru Ernst Jünger, Primul Război Mondial a fost sfârşitul lumii burgheze a secolului XIX şi a “Belle Epoque,” unde toată lumea trebuia să fie “aşa cum ar trebui să fie”, adică să se comporte conform normelor prestabilite de falși profesori sau preoţi, la fel cum toţi astăzi trebuie să ne conformăm comportamental autoproclamatei reguli a “corectitudinii politice”.

Sub “furtunile de oţel” soldatul îşi poate declara lipsa de însemnătate, fragila lui fiinţă biologică, însă această stare nu poate conduce, în ochii săi, către un pesimism inept, către frică şi disperare. Experimentând cel mai crud destin în tranşee şi sub tirul miilor de focuri de artilerie, zguduind pământul, reducând totul la “elementar”, infanteristul a cunoscut cel mai bine dintre toți oamenii crudul destin uman. Toată artificialitatea vieţii civilizaţiei urbane se dovedea a fi falsă în ochii acestora.

După Primul Război Mondial, Ernst Jünger şi fratele său Friedrich-Georg au devenit cei mai buni jurnalişti şi scriitori naţional-revoluţionari.

Ernst a devenit un soi de observator pe alocuri cinic, detașat, ironic şi seren al umanităţii şi faptelor vieţii. În timpul unui raid de bombardament asupra unei suburbii pariziene, unde fabricile produceau materiale de război pentru armata germană în timpul celui de-al Doilea Război Mondial, Ernst Jünger a fost terifiat de traseul direct şi nenatural în aer al fortăreţelor americane zburătoare. Liniaritatea direcţiei avioanelor în aer deasupra Parisului exprimă negarea tuturor curbelor şi sinuozităţilor vieţii organice. Războiul modern implică distrugerea acelor spirale şi serpentine organice. Ernst Jünger şi-a început cariera de scriitor fiind un apologet al războiului. După ce a observat liniile impecabile trasate de bombardierele B-17 americane, a devenit complet dezgustat de lipsa de cavalerism a modul pur tehnic de conducere a unui război.

După al Doilea Război Mondial, fratele său, Friedrich-Georg, a scris prima lucrare teoretică ce a dus la dezvoltarea noii gândiri germane critice şi ecologice, Die Perfektion der Technik (Perfecțiunea tehnicii). Principala idee a acestei cărţi, din punctul meu de vedere, este critica “conectivităţii”. Lumea modernă este un proces ce încearcă să conecteze comunităţile umane şi indivizii la suprastructuri. Acest proces de conectare distruge principiul libertăţii. Eşti un muncitor încătuşat şi sărac dacă eşti “conectat” la o structură mare, chiar dacă câştigi 3000 lire sterline sau mai mult într-o lună. Eşti un om liber dacă eşti complet deconectat de la uriaşele turnuri de metal. Într-un anume fel, Friedrich-Georg a dezvoltat teoria pe care Kerouac a experimentat-o în mod ateoretic alegând să renunţe la viaţa modernă şi să călătorească, devenind un cântăreţ vagabond.

Ludwig Klages a fost un alt filosof al vieţii organice împotriva gândirii abstracte. Pentru el, principala dihotomie a fost între Viaţă şi Spirit (Leben und Geist). Viaţa este distrusă de spiritul abstract. Klages s-a născut în Nordul Germaniei, dar s-a mutat ca şi student la München, unde şi-a petrecut timpul liber în localuri din Schwabing, cartierul unde artiştii şi poeţii se întâlneau (şi încă se întâlnesc și astăzi). A devenit prieten cu poetul Stefan Georg şi student al uneia dintre cele mai originale figuri din Schwabing, filosoful Alfred Schuler, care se credea o reîncarnare a unui colonist roman antic în Rhineland-ul German.

Schuler avea un simț autentic al teatrului. Se deghiza în toga unui împărat roman, îl admira pe Nero şi organiza piese ce reaminteau publicului lumea antică greacă sau romană. Însă dincolo de fantezia vie, Schuler a dobândit o importanţă cardinală în filosofie accentuând spre exemplu ideea de “Entlichtung”, adică dispariţia graduală a Luminii din timpurile cetăților antice ale Greciei și Italiei romane. Nu există progres în istorie: dimpotrivă, Lumina dispare, precum şi libertatea cetăţeanului de a-şi modela propriul destin.

Hannah Arendt şi Walter Benjamin, în partea stângă sau conservator-liberală, au fost inspiraţi de această idee şi au adaptat-o pentru audienţe diferite. Lumea modernă este lumea întunericului complet, cu speranţe mici de regăsire a perioadei de “iluminare”, asta dacă personalităţi carismatice precum Nero, dedicat artei şi stilului de viaţă dionisian, nu ar fixa o nouă eră a splendorii, care nu ar rezista decât pe binecuvântata perioadă a unei primăveri.

Klages a dezvoltat ideile lui Schuler, care niciodată n-a scris o carte de sine stătătoare, după ce acesta a murit în 1923 datorită unei operaţii prost pregătită. Klages, înainte de Primul Război Mondial, a pronunţat un discurs faimos pe dealurile Horer Meisnerr din centrul Germaniei, în faţa unei adunări a mișcărilor de tineret (Wandervogel). Acest discurs a purtat titlul de “Om şi Pământ” şi poate fi considerat primul manifest organic privind ecologia, cu un background filosofic clar şi inteligibil, dar şi solid.

Carl Schmitt şi-a începutat cariera de profesor de drept în 1912 şi a trăit până la venerabila vârstă de 97 de ani. A scris ultimul eseu la 91 de ani. Nu pot enumera toate punctele importante din opera lui în cadrul acestui interviu. Vom rezuma afirmând că Schmitt a dezvoltat două idei principale, şi anume ideea deciziei în viaţa politică şi ideea de “Mare Spaţiu.”

Arta politicilor modelatoare sau a politicii bune rezidă în decizii, nu în discuţie. Liderul trebuie să decidă pentru a putea conduce, a proteja şi a dezvolta comunitatea politică de care răspunde. Decizia nu înseamnă dictatură aşa cum mulţi liberali afirmă în prezent în era “corectitudinii politice”. Dimpotrivă: personalizarea puterii este mai democratică în sensul că regele, împăratul sau liderul carismatic este întotdeauna un muritor. Sistemul pe care îl impune nu este etern, din moment ce el, conducătorul, este pieritor ca orice fiinţă umană. Un sistem nomocratic, dimpotrivă, tinde spre existenţa eternă, chiar dacă evenimentele curente şi inovaţiile contrazic normele sau principiile.

Al doilea mare subiect în lucrările lui Schmitt este ideea de Mare Spaţiu European (Grossraum). Intervenţia puterilor “din-afara-spaţiului” ar trebui să fie prevenită în cadrul acestui Mare Spaţiu. Schmitt a dorit să aplice Europei acelaşi principiu care l-a animat pe preşedintele american Monroe. America pentru americani. Ok, a spus Schmitt, dar lăsați-ne să aplicăm și “Europa pentru europeni”. Schmitt poate fi comparat cu “continentaliștii” nord-americani care au criticat intervenţia lui Roosevelt în Europa şi Asia. America Latină de asemenea şi-a dezvoltat idei continentale similare, la fel şi imperialiştii japonezi. Schmitt a conferit acestei idei de “Mare Spaţiu” un puternic fundament juridic.

Ernst Niekisch este o figură fascinantă în sensul că şi-a început cariera ca şi lider comunist al “Consiliului Republicii Bavareze” în 1918-1919, care a fost strivită de Grupurile pentru Libertate ale lui von Epp, von Lettow-Vorbeck etc. Desigur, Niekisch a fost dezamăgit de absenţa unei viziuni istorice în trioul bolşevic din München-ul revoluționar (Lewin, Leviné, Axelrod).

Niekisch a dezvoltat o viziune eurasiatică, bazată pe o alianţă între Uniunea Sovietică, Germania, India şi China. Figura ideală care ar fi trebuit să reprezinte motorul uman al acestei alianţe este cea a ţăranului, adversarul burgheziei Vestului. O anume paralelă cu Mao Zedong este evidentă aici. În jurnalele editate de Niekisch, descoperim toate tentativele germane de a susţine mişcări anti-britanice sau anti-franceze în imperiile coloniale sau în Europa (Irlanda împotriva Angliei, Flandra împotriva Belgiei francofone, naţionalişti indieni împotriva Angliei etc.).

Sper că am explicat principalele trenduri ale aşa-zisei revoluţii conservatoare în Germania între 1918 şi 1933. Fie ca cei care cunosc această mişcare multistratificată de idei să ierte introducerea schematică.

RC-V-06717049.gifTroy Southgate: Aveţi un “unghi spiritual”?

Robert Steuckers: Răspunzând acestei întrebări risc să devin prea succint. În grupul de prieteni care au schimbat idei politice şi culturale la sfârşitul anilor 70, ne-am concentrat desigur asupra lucrării lui Evola, Revoltă împotriva lumii moderne. Unii dintre noi au respins total înclinaţiile spirituale, pentru că duceau către speculaţii sterile: ei preferau să citească Popper, Lorenz etc. Am acceptat multe din criticile lor şi îmi displac încă speculaţiile evoliene, invocând o lume spirituală a Tradiţiilor dincolo de orice realitate. Lumea reală este considerată o simplă trivialitate. Însă acesta este desigur un cult al Tradiţiilor în principal susţinut de tineri care “se simt inconfortabili în propria piele”, plastic vorbind. Visul de a trăi viaţa precum fiinţele din poveşti este o formă de refuz al acceptării realităţii.

În capitolul 7 al Revoltei împotriva lumii moderne, Evola, dimpotrivă, a accentuat importanța lui “numena”, forţele ce acţionează în interiorul lucrurilor, fenomenelor naturale sau puterilor. Mitologia romană iniţială a pus accentul mai mult pe numena decât pe divinităţile personalizate. Această subliniere este a mea. Dincolo de oameni şi de divinităţile religiilor uzuale (fie ele păgâne sau creştine), există forţe active şi omul ar trebui să fie în concordanţă cu acestea pentru a reuşi în acţiunile pământeşti.

Orientarea mea religioasă/spirituală este mai degrabă mistică decât dogmatică, în sensul că tradiţia mistică a Flandrei şi Rhineland (Ruusbroec, Meister Eckhart), dar şi tradiţia mistică a lui Ibn Arabî în zona musulmană sau Sohrawardî din lumea persană, admiră şi venerează întreaga splendoare a Vieţii şi a Lumii. În aceste tradiţii, nu există o dihotomie clară între dumnezeiesc, sacru şi divin, pe de o parte, şi lumesc, profan şi simplu, pe de altă parte. Tradiţia mistică înseamnă omni-compenetrarea şi sinergia tuturor forţelor existente în lume.

Troy Southgate: Vă rog explicaţi cititorilor noştri de ce conferiţi o astfel de importanță conceptelor precum geopolitică şi Eurasianism.

Robert Steuckers: Geopolitica este un amestec de istorie şi geografie. Cu alte cuvinte, un amestec al timpului şi spaţiului. Geopolitica este un set de discipline (nu o singură disciplină) ce conduce către o bună guvernare a timpului şi spaţiului. Geopolitica este un mix al istoriei şi geografiei. Nicio putere serioasă nu poate rezista fără continuitate, fie ea instituţională sau istorică. Nicio putere serioasă nu poate supravieţui fără dominaţia şi supunerea spaţiului şi pământului.

Toate imperiile tradiţionale au organizat la început teritoriul construind drumuri (Roma) sau stăpânind marile râuri (Egipt, Mesopotamia, China), apoi au reușit să acceadă la o istorie îndelungată, în sensul continuităţii, prin emergenţa ştiinţelor practice (astronomie, meteorologie, geografie, matematici), sub protecţia armatelor bine structurate cu coduri ale onoarei, în mod exemplar în Persia, locul de naștere al cavalerismului.

Imperiul Roman, primul imperiu pe pământ european, s-a concentrat asupra Mării Mediterane. Sfântul Imperiu Roman al Naţiunii Germane nu a putut găsi un nucleu mai potrivit şi mai coordonat decât Mediterana. Căile navigabile ale Europei Centrale duc către Marea Nordului, Marea Baltică sau Marea Neagră, dar fără nicio legătură între ele. Aceasta este adevărata tragedie a istoriei germane şi europene. Ţara a fost ruptă între forţe centrifugale. Împăratul Frederick II Hohenstaufen a încercat să restaureze tărâmul mediteranean, cu Sicilia drept piesă geografică centrală.

Încercarea acestuia a fost un tragic eșec. Doar acum emergenţa unei noi forme imperiale (chiar şi sub ideologie modernă) este posibilă în Europa: după deschiderea canalului dintre sistemul Rin-Main şi sistemul Dunării. Există acum o singură cale navigabilă între Marea Nordului, incluzând sistemul Tamisei din Anglia, şi Marea Neagră, permițând forţelor economice şi culturale ale Europei Centrale să atingă toate ţărmurile Marii Negre şi ţările caucaziene.

Cei care au o bună memorie istorică, care nu sunt orbiţi de schemele ideologice uzuale ale modernismului, îşi vor aminti de rolul ţărmurilor Mării Negre în istoria spirituală a Europei: în Crimeea, multe tradiţii străvechi, fie ele păgâne sau bizantine, au fost păstrate în grote de către călugări. Influenţa Persiei, în special valorile cavaleriei celei mai vechi din lume (zoroastriene), ar fi putut influenţa dezvoltarea unor forţe spirituale similare în Centrul şi Vestul Europei. Fără aceste influenţe, Europa este mutilată spiritual.

În consecinţă, zona mediteraneană, Rinul (de asemenea cuplat la Rhone) şi Dunărea, râurile ruseşti, Marea Neagră şi Caucazul ar trebui să constituie o singură zonă de civilizaţie, apărată de forţe militare unificate, bazate pe spiritualitatea moştenită din Persia Antică. Asta înseamnă, în opinia mea, Eurasia. Poziţia mea este un pic diferită de cea a lui Dughin însă cele două nu sunt incompatibile.

Când otomanii au deţinut controlul complet asupra peninsulei balcanice în secolul XV, drumurile terestre au fost tăiate pentru toţi Europenii. În plus, cu ajutorul hoinarilor maritimi din Nordul Africii adunaţi de turcul Babarossa stabilit în Alger, Mediterana a fost închisă pentru expensiunea comercială paşnică europeană spre India şi China. Lumea musulmană a funcţionat ca un zăvor pentru a opri Europa şi Moscova, nucleul viitorului Imperiu Rus.

Europenii şi ruşii şi-au unit eforturile pentru a distruge zăvorul otoman. Portughezii, spaniolii, englezii şi olandezii au explorat rutele maritime şi au ocolit Africa şi Asia, distrugând prima oară regatul marocan, care extrăgea aur din minele subtropicale din Africa de Vest, având pretenţia de a-şi construi o armată cu care să cucerească Peninsula Iberică încă odată. Debarcând în Vestul Africii, portughezii au obţinut aur mult mai uşor pentru sine iar regatul marocan a fost redus la o simplă superputere reziduală. Portughezii au navigat de-a lungul continentului african şi au intrat în Oceanul Indian, eludând zăvorul otoman definitiv şi dând pentru prima dată o dimensiune eurasiană reală istoriei europene.

În acelaşi timp, Rusia a respins atacurile tătarilor, a cucerit oraşul Kazan şi a distrus legăturile tătare cu lumea musulmană. Acesta a fost punctul de pornire al unei perspective geopolitice eurasiatice a Rusiei continentale.

Scopul strategiei globale americane, dezvoltat de un om precum Zbigniew Brzezinski, este să recreeze artificial acest zăvor musulam prin susţinerea militarismului turcesc şi panturanismul. Din această perspectivă, americanii susţin tacit şi încă în secret revendicările Marocului asupra Insulelor Canare şi se folosesc de Pakistan pentru a preveni orice legătură terestră între India şi Rusia. De aici şi dubla necesitate actuală a Rusiei și Europei de a-şi reaminti contra-strategia elaborată de TOŢI Europenii în secolul XV şi XVI.

Istoria europeană întotdeauna a fost concepută ca o sumă de viziuni naţionaliste mărunte. Este timpul să reconsiderăm istoria europeană punând accentul pe alianţele comune şi pe convergenţe. Acţiunile maritime portugheze şi cele terestre ruseşti sunt astfel de convergențe şi reprezintă natural Eurasia. Bătălia de la Lepanto, unde flotele veneţiene, genoveze şi spaniole şi-au unit forţele în efortul comun de a stăpâni Estul mediteranean sub comanda lui Don Juan de Austria, este de asemenea un model istoric asupra căruia trebuie să medităm şi de care să ne amintim.

Însă cea mai importantă alianţă eurasiatică a fost fără îndoială Sfânta Alianţă condusă de Eugen de Savoya la sfârşitul secolului XVII, care i-a forţat pe otomani să retrocedeze 400.000 km pătraţi de pământ în Balcani şi Sudul Rusiei. Această victorie a permis țarilor ruşi ai secolului XVIII, în special Ecaterinei a II-a, să câştige din nou bătălii decisive.

Eurasianismul meu (şi desigur întreaga mea gândire geopolitică) este un răspuns clar la strategia lui Brzezinski şi este adânc înrădăcinată în istoria europeană. Sub nicio formă nu trebuie comparată cu naivităţile unor pseudo naţional-revoluționari drogaţi sau cu schemele estetice ale aşa-numiţilor filosofi ai noii drepte. În plus, o ultimă remarcă privind geopolitica şi eurasianismul: principalele mele surse de inspiraţie sunt englezeşti. Mă refer la atlasele istorice ale lui Colin McEvedy, cărţile lui Peter Hopkirk privind serviciul secret în Caucaz, în Asia Centrală, de-a lungul Drumului Mătăsii şi în Tibet, reflecţiile lui Sir Arnold Toynbee în cele 12 volume ale A Study of History.

Troy Southgate: Care este viziunea dumneavoastră asupra Statului? Este într-adevăr esenţial să avem un sistem sau o infrastructură ca instrumente de organizare socio-politică, sau credeţi că o formă descentralizată de tribalism şi identitate etnică reprezintă o soluţie mai bună?

Robert Steuckers: Întrebarea dumneavoastră necesită o carte întreagă pentru a i se răspunde corespunzător și complet. În primul rând, aş spune că este imposibil să ai o viziunea asupra Statului, pentru că sunt multe forme statale pe glob. Fac desigur distincția între un stat, care reprezintă un veritabil şi eficient instrument de promovare a voinţei poporului şi de asemenea protecție pentru propriii cetăţeni împotriva tuturor relelor, fie acestea instrumentate de inamici externi, interni sau naturali (calamităţi, inundaţii, foamete etc.).

Statul ar trebui de asemenea proiectat pentru o singură populaţie trăind pe un teritoriu propriu. Sunt critic, desigur, cu privire la toate acele state create artificial precum cele impuse drept aşa-numite modele universale. Astfel de state sunt simple mașini create pentru exploatarea sau distrugerea unei populaţii pentru o anumită oligarhie sau stăpâni externi. O organizare a popoarelor conform criteriilor etnice ar putea reprezenta o soluţie ideală, însă, din păcate, aşa cum ne demonstrează evenimentele din Balcani, declinul şi fluxul de populaţii în istoria Europei, Africii sau Asiei a răspândit adesea grupurile etnice dincolo de graniţele naturale sau le-au reținut în teritorii anterior controlate de alţii. În astfel de situaţii nu pot fi constituite state omogene. Acesta este izvorul multor tragedii, în special în Europa Centrală şi de Est. Prin urmare, singura perspectivă posibilă astăzi este concepția în termeni de Civilizaţii, aşa cum arată Samuel Huntington în faimoasele sale articole şi carte, The Clash of Civilizations, prima oară scrisă în 1993.

Troy Southgate: În 1986, aţi afirmat că “ a Treia Cale există în Europa la nivel teoretic. Ceea ce îi lipseşte este militanţii.” [“Europa: O Nouă Perspectivă” în The Scorpion, Issue #9, p.6] Situaţia se prezintă aceeaşi sau lucrurile s-au schimbat?

Robert Steuckers: Într-adevăr, situaţia este neschimbată. Sau chiar s-a degradat pentru că, avansând în vârstă, afirm că educaţia clasică este pe cale de dispariţie. Modul nostru de gândire este oarecum spenglerian, de vreme ce se referă la întreaga istorie a omenirii.

Guy Debord, liderul mișcării situaționiste franceze de la sfârşitul anilor `50 până în anii `80, a putut observa şi deplânge faptul că “societatea spectacolului” sau “societatea de scenă” are că principal scop distrugerea întregii gândiri şi a concepțiilor în termeni de istorie şi înlocuirea acestora cu scheme construite şi artificiale sau cu simple minciuni. Eradicarea perspectivelor istorice în minţile copiilor, studenţilor şi cetăţenilor, prin acțiunea dizolvantă a mass-mediei, este o mare manipulare, conducându-ne spre o lume orwelliană lipsită de memorie. Într-o astfel de situaţie, noi toţi riscăm izolarea. Nu există trupe noi de voluntari care să preia lupta.

Troy Southgate: În final, vorbiţi-ne despre implicarea dumneavoastră cu Synergies şi planurile dumneavoastră pe termen lung privind viitorul.

Robert Steuckers: “Synergies” a fost creat pentru a aduna oamenii, în special pe aceia care publică reviste, pentru a răspândi mai repede mesajele autorilor noştri. Însă cunoaşterea limbilor trece de asemenea printr-un eşec. Fiind poliglot, după cum bine ştiţi, am fost întotdeauna uimit de repetiţia aceloraşi argumente la nivelul naţional al fiecărui stat. Marc Lüdders de la Synergon-Germany este de aceeaşi părere cu mine. Este păcat că, spre exemplu, munca uriaşă depusă în Italia nu este cunoscută în Franţa sau Germania. Şi viceversa. Pe scurt: principala mea dorinţă este să văd un asemenea schimb de texte realizat într-o manieră rapidă în următorii 20 de ani.

Traducere: Ovidiu Preda

Sursa: https://neweuropeanconservative.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/interview-with-steuckers/

L’économie numérique mène-t–elle à la catastrophe?


L’économie numérique mène-t–elle à la catastrophe?

Joseph Schumpeter dans sa théorie de la « destruction créatrice » relevait que les innovations technologiques créaient plus d’emplois qu’elles n’en détruisaient. Ce fut le cas des révolutions industrielles du milieu du XIXe siècle à aujourd’hui. Mais avec l’économie numérique (appelée aussi ”ubérisation de l’économie” ou ”économie digitale”), c’est peut-être fini : nous risquons de voir détruire beaucoup plus d’emplois qu’il n’en sera créé. Pierre Bellanger dans son essai La Souveraineté numérique (voir article précédent de ce blog) fut le premier à pointer ce défi. Mais aujourd’hui de plus en plus d’économistes sont très inquiets : les plateformes numériques sur terminaux smartphones, tablettes ou PC, en dématérialisant les services vendus par les entreprises mettent ces dernières en danger. En abolissant beaucoup plus d’emplois qu’ils n’en génèrent. 

Le piège des deux pinces du crabe

Prenons le cas d’ Airbnb (service de location de chambres de particulier à particulier, créé en 2008 et aujourd’hui coté en bourse) qui concurrence l’hôtellerie avec une valorisation boursière bien supérieure. Laurent Gey remarque (Epoch Times, 5–11/10/2015) : « Airbnb emploie seulement 600 personnes dans le monde quand le groupe Accor en emploie 180.000. Un différentiel de 300 fois moins de ressources humaines pour un chiffre d’affaires plus important : économiquement, c’est un rêve. Globalement, c’est une catastrophe ».   

Les secteurs de services menacés, outre l’hôtellerie, sont innombrables : restauration, livraisons, voyagistes et agences immobilières, locations de voitures, petits et grands commerces de distribution de toute nature, artisans et services à domicile,  secteur bancaire, assurances, etc Sans parler du courrier, des secteurs de l’édition (presse écrite et livres…) et de la diffusion vidéo-acoustique (radios, TV, éditeurs musicaux et vidéo) menacés à terme, non pas de disparition mais d’amaigrissement forcé que ne compenseront pas des créations d’emplois et de richesses dans le digital.

Le nombre d’emplois générés par une plateforme numérique est plus de 100 fois ( !) inférieur à celui d’une entreprise réelle avec des coûts dix fois moindres du fait de l’externalisation des services vers des particuliers ou des indépendants : finis les locaux, les frais d’entretien, les salaires de nombreux employés et les taxes sociales ou fiscales, etc. 

On risque alors d’assister à un phénomène économique pervers de paupérisation qu’on pourrait appeler le ”piège des deux pinces du crabe”. La pince amont écrase la création d’emplois et la pince aval écrase les revenus socio-fiscaux des États, du fait de la décrépitude des anciennes entreprises et de l’absence de recettes en provenance du secteur numérique. Il faudrait donc compenser par une fiscalité directe accrue.  C’est un cercle vicieux sur lequel nous reviendrons plus bas. Ce choix de gains microéconomiques à très court terme pourrait provoquer  une perte macroéconomique à long terme, en cascade et en progression géométrique.

Le modèle d’entreprise actuel, relativement lourd et rigide, est bousculé par le numérique. Aussi bien sur le plan du salariat classique que sur celui de la fiscalité. Ce ”nomadisme technologique”, qui révolutionne le travail et peut fasciner, est néanmoins porteur d’une menace imprévue : diminuer les emplois et le tissu des entreprises fiscalement contributrices.   

Le cabinet Roland Berger (conseil international en stratégie) prévoit que d’ici dix ans trois millions de postes de travail seront supprimés (rapport entre créations et destructions)  en Europe de l’Ouest du fait des nouvelles technologies : « certes, la digitalisation de l’économie ouvre de nouvelles perspectives de création d’emplois. On sait également que les entreprises digitales connaissent la croissance la plus dynamique. Mais les emplois créés ne se substitueront pas aux emplois détruits, ni en termes de niveau de compétence requis, ni en termes de position sur la chaine de valeur, ni en termes de répartition géographique ». C’est le cercle vicieux de l’utilité marginale insuffisante.  

Le cercle vicieux de l’économie numérique

Ce cercle vicieux se résume ainsi : la nouvelle économie numérique peut scier la branche sur laquelle elle est assise ; cette branche est le pouvoir de consommation, qui dépend du niveau d’emploi et des recettes socio-fiscales générées par les entreprises et les ménages. Autrement dit, si elle paupérise les sociétés en asséchant trop vite les anciens secteurs, l’économie numérique perdra ses propres clients et dépérira. Parce que son coût marginal risque d’être supérieur à son utilité marginale. Autrement dit, en langage simple, elle coûte plus cher qu’elle ne rapporte.   


En effet la nouvelle économie numérique donne l’illusion de la gratuité et du low cost (bon marché) pour des millions de consommateurs. En réalité elle est assez coûteuse et fragile, pour trois raisons :

1) L’équipement numérique est cher pour les ménages consommateurs en matière d’acquisition de terminaux multiples  (smartphones, tablettes, PC, objets connectés, etc.), de renouvellement constant de ces derniers et d’abonnements assez  lourds auprès des opérateurs, dont la transparence tarifaire est douteuse. Idem pour le coût de l’informatique globale dans les entreprises.

2) En terme énergétique, au niveau mondial, les ”résogiciels” (néologisme de Pierre Bellanger), le fonctionnement d’Internet dématérialisé, avec le cloud (”nuage”) grâce à de gigantesques centres de stockage de big data (méga données), et celui de tous les terminaux à écrans supposent une énorme consommation électrique ”invisible”.

3) L’économie numérique et digitale voit sans cesse augmenter trois facteurs préoccupants : d’une part l’insécurité due aux piratages et à la cybercriminalité, en hausse exponentielle ; puis la fragilité due aux risques permanents de bugs (pannes et dysfonctionnements) mais aussi à la complexité d’un réseau mondial très sophistiqué, à la fois devenu vital et à la merci d’accidents massifs sans filets de secours (manque de robustesse) ;  enfin les limites à la facilitation des tâches  offerte par l’informatisation excessive et la numérisation systématique. Ce dernier point est important et relève de la sociologie concrète, fondée sur de micro-expériences quotidiennes.

En effet, de plus en plus de voix s’élèvent, pour remarquer que les entreprises, les administrations comme les particuliers perdent du temps et de l’argent par un recours exclusif au numérique et aux e-moyens dématérialisés, par rapport aux techniques traditionnelles. Deux exemples : vous réservez et organisez vos vacances par Internet sans passer par une agence. L’économie financière, réelle, que vous allez faire sera minime et illusoire en regard du temps que vous aurez passé devant votre écran magique (le ”travail fantôme”) et la fiabilité de votre réservation sera assez mauvaise. Second cas, que j’ai personnellement vécu : dans les médias écrits ou audiovisuels, Internet et le recours massif au numérique (dématérialisation des échanges) n’a pas amené d’amélioration substantielle des performances (rapidité, facilité, coûts). Au contraire : les problèmes posés dépassent en utilité marginale les avantages supposés. Le ”progrès” réalisé n’est pas évident. Il est psychologique, pas concret.       

Ces réalités sont pour l’instant soigneusement cachées parce que nous sommes dans une phase de fascination enthousiaste pour le numérique, Internet, etc.  Pour la ”nouveauté”. Mais, peu à peu,  nous verrons que nous avons été trop loin.

La bulle numérique/Internet peut se dégonfler…ou éclater

Actuellement, en France et ailleurs,  on songe (une proposition de loi est en cours au Sénat) à taxer assez fortement les sites d’e–commerce et les plateformes collaboratives pour limiter leur croissance et rétablir un manque à gagner fiscal, en terme de coûts d’opportunité marginaux comparatifs. Le problème, c’est que cette solution (toujours cette manie française des impôts et des taxes) n’aura aucun effet sur le fond du phénomène. 

L’ ”Internet de l’énergie” préconisée par l’économiste gourou américain Jeremy Rifkin (auteur de La Troisième Révolution industrielle, Les liens qui libèrent, 2012) où les appareils domestiques,  les véhicules privés et les transports publics, etc. sont connectés à un réseau intelligent et interactif est censé créer d’énormes économies d’énergie, fait rêver. Malheureusement, la Région Nord–Pas–de–Calais qui voulait tenter l’expérience a chiffré son coût comme faramineux pour un résultat aléatoire. La Mairie  de Paris a reculé, elle aussi. C’est l’impasse, destin de toutes les utopies. Il ne s’agit pas, stupidement, de refuser Internet et l’économie numérique, mais de les recadrer. Et de cesser d’en faire des divinités techno-économiques. La fascination technologique est aussi inopérante que le passéisme des écologistes.  

L’informatisation et la numérisation excessives sont des bulles qui vont nécessairement se dégonfler comme des baudruches, ou, plus tragiquement, éclater d’un coup, comme des bombes. Les comparaisons  avec le passé sont intéressantes : dans les années 60, on croyait qu’il y aurait des dizaines de bases humaines sur la Lune dès l’an 2000, avec des extractions minières. Où sont-elles ? Méfions-nous de la science-fiction appliquée à l’économie. 80% des prévisions techno-économiques sont fausses depuis 150 ans. Le futur n’est jamais tel qu’on le rêve ou qu’on le prévoit. Nous sommes dans le brouillard. Dans les domaines boursiers internationaux, les transactions immédiates, fondées sur des algorithmes dématérialisés, constituent un autre danger : la déconnection avec  l’économie réelle. Là encore, l’informatisation à outrance est très fragilisante. De même, on fantasme sur l’ ”impression 3D” (comme sur les ”énergies renouvelables”) : attention aux chimères technologiques.

Quel avenir pour l’économie numérique ? Pas clair. 

Il serait évidemment inconsidéré de la condamner. Elle aura sa place, mais elle ne dominera pas. Elle va connaître une sévère régression dans la décennie à venir parce que la progression de ses coûts marginaux – en termes financiers directs ou de déséconomies externes– surpasse peu à peu ses avantages globaux. Disons que la courbe trigonométrique des avantages, devenant descendante, va bientôt croiser celle, ascendante, des désavantages.  Notamment à cause du problème de la destruction d’emplois (et donc de pouvoir d’achat) plus forte que la création induite ; et de l’exagération du rapport services rendus/ coûts d’opportunité, en baisse tendancielle depuis 2010 environ.

Nous allons donc probablement connaître une rétraction de l’économie numérique au niveau mondial, son réajustement de l’ordre de 35% environ d’ici 10 ans. Avec une baisse du marché (demande) parce que les consommateurs prennent peu à peu conscience du déficit investissements/prestations. Le tout-numérique que prêchent les gourous, ressemble fort au romantisme hollywoodien des années soixante, le rêve spatial d’installation de l’humanité dans le système solaire.

L’utopie  se heurte toujours à la nature humaine des rapports économiques. C’est-à-dire : maximiser les avantages, minimiser les inconvénients, optimiser les coûts, selon un processus d’auto-ajustement qui se produit en quelques décennies. Ne débranchez pas votre smartphone, votre tablette ou votre PC, ils sont utiles. Mais ne les prenez pas pour des divinités. Il y aura un ”after numérique” ou plutôt un ”alter numérique”. Tout monopole est condamné. À tout rêve succède le réveil.  


dimanche, 11 octobre 2015

La politique russe est la seule intelligente


La politique russe est la seule intelligente

par Guillaume Faye

Ex: http://www.gfaye.com

La politique étrangère de Vladimir Poutine, appliquée par Sergueï Lavrov (ministre des Affaires étrangères de la F.R.), est la seule à être constante et cohérente. Elle contraste avec les choix occidentaux. Dans l’actuel chaos guerrier du Moyen-Orient, face à la barbarie islamique, la Russie mène une politique fondée sur trois axes : 1) l’élimination du ”califat” totalitaire de l’EI Dae’ch qui exporte le terrorisme et le djihad partout dans le monde ; 2) le rétablissement d’un État syrien sur de nouvelles bases ; 3) la protection des chrétiens d’Orient, ou ce qu’il en reste. La différence fondamentale entre la politique de Vladimir Poutine et celle de ses homologues occidentaux est qu’elle possède un axe et un projet. 

Washington est plus anti-russe qu’anti-islamiste…

L’arrivée de militaires et de matériels russes en Syrie et les interventions aériennes de Moscou suscitent l’ « inquiétude » des Etats-Unis. À juste titre, les Russes (comme des membres de l’état-major français) mettent en doute l’efficacité et surtout les objectifs de la coalition menée par Washington contre Dae’ch. Le Pentagone ne fournit volontairement aucun renseignement fiable à ses alliés pour les frappes aériennes (au point que la France a dû décider, après une nouvelle volte-face, de faire des vols de reconnaissance au dessus de la Syrie et d’aller y faire des bombardements, par ailleurs désordonnés et inutiles), des gesticulations qui n’ont aucune efficacité, comme le confirment les conquêtes territoriales de l’État islamique. Tout se passe comme si les Américains, sous la direction d’un Obama qui joue un double jeu, ne voulaient pas réellement détruire Dae’ch.

Disons les choses comme elles sont : Washington et le Pentagone, dans cette stratégie catastrophique dont ils ont le secret depuis longtemps dans la région, veulent d’abord éliminer le régime de Bachar el-Assad allié des Russes. La stratégie anti-russe et anti-Poutine (et non pas anti islamiste) prime sur toutes les autres, comme on l’a vu en Ukraine. Il s’agit d’expulser les Russes de Syrie et notamment de leur base navale de Tartous, la seule qu’ils possèdent en Méditerranée, ce qui est inadmissible pour les gouvernants américains.

Le Pentagone a dépensé 500 millions de dollars pour former des troupes syriennes ”alternatives”, rebelles luttant contre Bachar el-Assad : ce fut un fiasco total. Les armes US et les combattants sont passés aux islamistes ! L’échec, l’impuissance et l’improvisation des Occidentaux au Proche-Orient contraste avec l’efficacité de l’engagement russe. Poutine s’est engouffré dans la brèche de ce désordre américano-occidental. La présence russe en Syrie date des années 60.

Les chancelleries occidentales accusent le Kremlin de n’avoir comme seul objectif que le sauvetage du régime d’Assad en frappant les ”rebelles” et non pas de vouloir éradiquer Dae’ch. C’est stupide car l’aviation de Moscou frappe aussi Dae’ch qui a, ne l’oublions pas, incorporé dans ses rangs des milliers de musulmans caucasiens russes qui constituent un danger terroriste pour la Russie. Et surtout, lesdits ”rebelles” (Front Al-Nosra, proche d’Al-Qaida ou l’organisation Ahrar Al-Sham) que ciblent Moscou sont des milices terroristes islamiques au même titre que Dae’ch, qui ont – scandale international soigneusement dissimulé – été armées, entrainées, financées par la CIA ! 

Voilà pourquoi l’influent sénateur russophobe John Mac Cain s’est montré furieux contre les « provocations de Poutine » qui osait bombarder les protégés de Washington. Il faut retourner l’argument et dire : la ”coalition” aérienne  dirigée par les USA depuis une base de l’US Air Force près de Doha, au Qatar, n’a pas pour but principal la destruction de L’EI Dae’ch mais l’éradication du régime de Bachar el-Assad. Projet partagé par l’inconsistant M. Hollande. Ce qui aboutirait automatiquement à la création d’un État islamique fanatique en Syrie, d’où disparaitraient les derniers chrétiens.  

Objectifs géostratégiques de la Russie

Quels sont les objectifs de Moscou ? Le premier est la destruction de l’État islamique Dae’ch, d’autant que ce dernier incorpore des contingents caucasiens très nombreux qui peuvent revenir frapper la Russie. Le second est de contester la catastrophique hégémonie unilatérale américaine (déclinante) qui viole les règles de l’ONU sous prétexte de bons sentiments. Le troisième est de rétablir un monde multipolaire respectueux du droit international dans lequel la Russie retrouverait sa place de grande puissance mais non pas de puissance hégémonique, (leader of the world) ce qui a toujours été impossible dans l’histoire de l’humanité. Ce que les stratèges de Washington n’ont jamais compris. 

En proposant à la tribune de l’ONU une coalition mondiale contre Dae’ch, seule solution viable, Vladimir Poutine a été accusé par l’administration US et par tous les lobbies russophobes français et occidentaux de soutenir le ”criminel de guerre” Bachar el-Assad et de vouloir implanter un impérialisme russe au Levant. On a aussi accusé Poutine d’être un tyran qui soutiendrait un de ses amis tyran, Assad. Ces arguments relèvent d’une russophobie obsessionnelle, inopérante en politique. 

Les Russes ont bien joué contre les Américains, ce qui rend furieux ces derniers, dont la stratégie est versatile et impuissante. D’abord en 2013, en proposant et en initiant la destruction des armes chimiques de Bachar el-Assad, la diplomatie russe a tué dans l’œuf les promesses de bombardement des présidents Obama et Hollande. Moscou a démontré au monde que Washington avait perdu la main : importante revanche sur l’humiliation des années 90 Eltsine post-communistes. En renforçant sa présence militaire en Syrie et en proposant d’organiser une coalition contre Dae’ch, la Russie de Poutine humilie les USA et leur coupe l’herbe sous le pied. ”La Russie est de retour” : ce message de Poutine est d’autant plus crédible que les hôtes de la Maison Blanche, de la famille Bush à Obama (et bien avant…) n’ont jamais été capables de jouer leur rôle imaginaire de ”gendarmes du monde”. Ils ont créé le désordre à chacune de leurs interventions. On le voit dans la dramatique situation de l’Afghanistan et de l’Irak aujourd’hui.

Poutine dans les pas de Churchill et de De Gaulle?

La politique étrangère russe vise au contraire à réinstaurer une stabilité géopolitique mondiale. Le gouvernement chancelant de Bachar el–Assad n’est pas une solution à terme. Mais éliminer d’un coup cet autocrate, comme on l’a fait avec Ben Ali, Kadhafi, Saddam Hussein et Moubarak  reviendrait à augmenter encore le chaos actuel et le djihad mondial. La solution, comme l’a dit Poutine, est d’abord de battre militairement et d’éradiquer Dae’ch et ses alliés (éteindre l’incendie) et ensuite de résoudre le problème du régime syrien.

Dans son discours à l’ONU, Vladimir Poutine a comparé la lutte contre la barbarie de Dae’ch à la coalition contre Hitler. Ni Churchill ni De Gaulle n’aimaient l’autocrate communiste Staline, mais ils furent obligés de s’allier avec lui pour combattre le nazisme, l’ennemi principal. M. Poutine fait le même raisonnement avec le régime syrien : il faut d’abord abattre Dae’ch avec l’aide de Bachar el-Assad, et ensuite, on discutera.

Les frappes aériennes russes depuis le 29 septembre (Moscou a positionné 28 chasseurs-bombardiers Sukhoï) visent les milices islamistes et Dae’ch qui menacent Damas et la zone côtière syrienne où est la base navale de Tartous. Les Russes ont parfaitement compris que si Damas et cette zone tombaient aux mains des islamistes, ce serait une énorme catastrophe géopolitique, la Syrie devenant alors leur butin. Immédiatement beaucoup de médias et de gouvernements occidentaux ont accusé les Russes de ne chercher qu’à protéger le régime d’Assad contre les ”rebelles”, prétendus ”démocratiques” et de pas frapper Dae’ch. C’est un mensonge : les milices ”rebelles” (armées et financées par les gouvernements occidentaux, voir plus haut) et Dae’ch sont objectivement complices. Les Russes ne visent qu’à empêcher la pieuvre islamiste (Dae’ch et les ”rebelles”) de s’emparer du cœur de la Syrie.     

Ivan Rioufol  souligne «  le choix des États–Unis et de la France de rallier la Russie à reculons pour affronter l’EI en Syrie par des raids aériens » (Le Figaro, 02/10/2015). Il ajoute : « le retour en force de Vladimir Poutine, imperméable aux subtilités du ”soft power ”, signe l’échec de la stratégie de Barack Obama et de François Hollande. Leur humiliation se devine dans la mise en scène de leur défiance sur l’efficacité des premières frappes de Moscou. Cette réaction, puérile, est celle des leaders occidentaux ayant perdu la face pour s’être montrés incapables de désigner l’islamisme comme leur ennemi prioritaire. Non seulement le Syrien Bachar el-Assad, bête noire d’Obama et Hollande, est consolidé, mais c’est l’ancien ”kagébiste” qui prend la tête de la lutte contre le totalitarisme et de la défense des chrétiens d’Orient. Les démocraties sont à la remorque ». C’est le moins qu’on puisse dire…

Ancienne membre du Conseil de sécurité national américain et responsable de la stratégie au ”Center for a New American Security”, Mme Julianne Smith, qui exprime la position officielle de Washington, a déclaré le 1er octobre que « la Russie ne résoudra pas le conflit en Syrie ». CQFD. Elle reflète la frustration américaine devant le retour en force de Moscou dans le concert international mais elle avoue aussi une volte-face de la diplomatie américaine – et de la diplomatie française qui lui obéit : «  il faut laisser Assad en place pour le moment, le temps qu’on se mette d’accord sur la suite et une sortie de pouvoir honorable pour lui ». Autrement dit : les Russes avaient raison. Intéressant de l’avouer…     

Indispensable alliance avec la Russie

Les frappes aériennes françaises en Syrie, soi-disant ”indépendantes” des Américains”, contre des ”camps d’entrainement de terroristes djihadistes” de Dae’ch au nom d’une ”légitime défense” n’auront aucune efficacité militaire. C’est une gesticulation  de M. Hollande, à usage électoral interne. Il veut se vendre (marketing politicien) en vue de la prochaine élection présidentielle de 2017 comme ”petit De Gaulle”. C’est assez pathétique…Il n’est pris au sérieux ni par les Américains ni par les Russes.  

Comme l’écrit Frédéric Pons (Valeurs actuelles, 01–07/10/2015) : « Au Moyen-Orient, l’Amérique avance en tête du cortège des ”aveugles”. Sa responsabilité dans le chaos actuel est écrasante. Elle fit naître les Talibans, Al-Qaïda et détruisit tant de pays, de la Libye à l’Irak, aidée par ses alliés soumis jusqu’à l’absurde. En Syrie, notre ennemi est–il Assad ou les islamistes ? » Bon sens.


Jean-Pierre Chevènement l’a reconnu : « l’élimination d’Assad ouvrirait les portes de Damas à Dae’ch ». Avec lucidité, d’accord avec les analyses de Poutine et de Lavrov, Chevènement estime que les frappes de la ”coalition internationale” dirigées par les É-U sont inopérantes et que les ”alliés” modérés n’existent pas. Les Russes sont les seuls à avoir compris le problème en bombardant à la fois l’ ”Armée de la conquête”, al-Nosra (émanation d’Al-Qaida) et l’EI Dae’ch, trois têtes de la même structure islamiste terroriste.  

Pour éradiquer efficacement Dae’ch, il faudrait, évidemment, dans l’absolu, s’allier aux Russes et leur donner des gages, c’est-à-dire lever les sanctions absurdes contre la Russie, prises sur ordres américains. Renaud Girard suggère  (Le Figaro, 22/09/2015) : « suivons la politique de nos intérêts et suspendons les sanctions commerciales contre la Russie. Faisons-le, sans demander leur avis aux Américains. Attendons de recueillir les fruits d’un geste diplomatique aussi fort que celui d’une suspension unilatérale des sanctions. […] A-t-on imposé la moindre sanction à l’Amérique pour avoir envahi illégalement l’Irak, en mars 2003 ? » Vœux pieux. MM. Hollande et Fabius qui ont fait le choix de l’obéissance à l’Otan, à l’UE et aux USA, ignorent que les alliances franco-russes ont toujours été égalitaires et que les alliances avec les USA (politiques, militaires, commerciales) ont toujours été d’allégeance. Les gouvernants européens sont les seuls responsables de leur double soumission à Washington (1) et à l’islam invasif, deux forces conjointes.

La Russie, relevée, régénérée, redevenue grâce à M. Poutine une puissance internationale et non plus régionale – en dépit de ses faiblesses économiques volontairement accentuées par les sanctions occidentales bien peu légales – s’impose comme une force de stabilité. Les accords de Minsk (sur la question ukrainienne) ont été parfaitement respectés par Moscou. Bien sûr, la Russie n’est pas parfaite. Mais qui l’est ? Et de quel droit nous mêlons-nous de son niveau de ”démocratie” et de ”droit-de-l’hommisme” intérieurs alors que nous tolérons tout, y compris l’esclavagisme, dans les monarchies autocratiques de la péninsule arabique ? La Russie est une grande puissance qui est notre premier allié naturel. La considérer comme un ennemi potentiel, un danger, une menace est une erreur d’analyse extrêmement grave.


(1) Mes critiques n’ont jamais visé les Américains en tant que tels, comme nation, mais la politique étrangère de l’oligarchie de Washington qui, depuis le début de ce siècle, est d’abord nuisible aux USA eux-mêmes.   

Articles connexes:

samedi, 03 octobre 2015

Metapolitik und Parteipolitik

Thor v. Waldstein

Metapolitik und Parteipolitik

Am 13. und 14. Juni 2015 fand in Schnellroda der II. Staatspolitische Kongreß statt. Rechtsanwalt und Autor Dr. Dr. Thor v. Waldstein hielt den Festvortrag anläßlich des 15jährigen Bestehens des Instituts für Staatspolitik (IfS). Thema: die Frage nach der Trennung zwischen »Metapolitik und Parteipolitik«.

Weitere Informationen im Netz unter: http://staatspolitik.de

jeudi, 01 octobre 2015

Carlo Costamagna: un illustre sconosciuto del ‘900 da riscoprire


Carlo Costamagna: un illustre sconosciuto del ‘900 da riscoprire

In attesa della conferenza di sabato 3 Ottobre , presso la libreria di Raido, scopriamo la figura e il pensiero di Carlo Costamagna, tramite anche l’ausilio dell’ultimo  libro scritto da Rodolfo Sideri
L’Umanesimo nazionale di Carlo Costamagna

a cura della Redazione

Ex: http://www.azionetradizionale.com

In un’epoca di “democrazia liquida”, di sovranità limitata e quant’altro, parlare del pensiero politico di Carlo Costamagna significa entrare a gamba tesa sulle categorie moderne del politico. Ed è proprio questo il merito di Carlo Costamagna: oggettivizzare in forma giuridica e politica quella “rivolta contro il mondo moderno” che rischia, altrimenti, di essere un’inattuabile visione del mondo.

E’ questo, perciò, il merito dell’ultimo libro di Rodolfo Sideri – “L’Umanesimo nazionale di Carlo Costamagna”  che riscopre questo illustre sconosciuto del ‘900, e riporta alla luce pagine importantissime della sua troppo poco nota opera. Opera riedita in minima parte, ma comunque fondamentale e da conoscere.

Tutta l’opera di Costamagna parte da un quesito: avrebbe potuto, il Fascismo, sorto grazie agli irripetibile eventi della Prima Guerra Mondiale, superare le contingenze temporali che lo avevano informato per divenire dottrina a-temporale dello Stato? E’ per questo che Costamagna cerca di definire la “dottrina fascista dello Stato”. Infatti, non è di “scienza” bensì di “dottrina” che devesi parlare nei confronti dello Stato. Lo Stato non è mera organizzazione politica: è “ordine” che contiene la diseguaglianza intrinseca di chi lo compone. E’ “ordine” poichè fondato su di una visione superiore: non un contratto sociale, semmai, reciproca subordinazione ad una volontà superiore e formatrice.

“Fascismo” è per Costamagna perciò un movimento “restauratore” della vera Idea di Stato (e di Uomo). Per questo Costamagna si batte in seno al Fascismo cercando spazio e consenso alle sue idee. Idee radicali, forse troppo per un movimento rivoluzionario divenuto prima regime e poi, in alcuni casi, burocrazia statolatrica. Costamagna propugna idee che lo rendono antipatico a chi aveva fatto carriera col Fascismo: invoca la formazione di una élite che vada al comando, integralmente fascista; invoca la funzione temporanea dello stesso “duce”, subordinata all’affermazione del vero Stato, secondo il leitmotiv diffuso fra i fascisti più intrepidi: “Deve essere Mussolini a servire il Fascismo, e non il Fascismo servire Mussolini

Lo Stato è realtà a sè, non è un “fatto giuridico”. E’ realtà irriducibile. Ed in Costamagna la concezione dello Stato diventa tutt’uno con quella dell’uomo: perché a quell’uomo avente dimensione spirituale ed integrale non potrà che corrispondere uno stato analogo.

Costamagna afferma, di conseguenza, la superiorità dello Stato su tutto: nazione, popolo, diritto stesso. Lo Stato è autosufficiente, è principio generatore. Si oppone così alla visione contrattualistica che pone l’individuo, ed il razionalismo, a fondamento dello Stato. E’ la riaffermazione totale del principio virile ed aristocratico della politica. La grande politica, potremmo dire.

Costamagna si schiera contro l’illuminismo, il liberalismo ed il positivismo in genere. E va oltre. La sua acuta analisi lo porta a comprendere che è proprio nella frattura, già segnalata da Evola e Guenon, determinata dal razionalismo e poi proseguita con Umanesimo e Rinascimento, che stanno i motivi della decadenza attuale.

Le pagine di Costamagna sulla sovranità sono una anticipazione beffarda al triste destino delle nazioni europee post-1945. Il vero Stato o è sovrano o non è. E’ uno schiavo eunuco, lo stato senza vera sovranità.

La questione del “bene comune” invece – un vero e proprio mantra del liberalismo e dell’individualismo moderno – secondo Costamagna si può risolvere solo alla luce di un’esperienza e d’una visione spirituale. Dove, però, per bene comune si intende un bene “politico”, e non misurabile secondo i criteri edonistici della felicità o, peggio, quelli economicistici della ricchezza.

Non è questa la sede per affrontare la biografia politica di Costamagna, che meriterebbe dei capitoli a parte che neanche il libro di Sideri, nella sua economia complessiva, può affrontare se non di sfuggita. Molto ci sarebbe da dire in merito al capitolo del rapporto con Gentile ed Evola. Rispetto al primo, non possiamo che ribadire e sottoscrivere le posizioni di Costamagna contro quell’idealismo liberale di Gentile che nulla aveva a che realmente spartire con il Fascismo. Ricordiamo di sfuggita che solo per un limite del Fascismo, che non seppe o non volle essere coerente con le sue premesse rivoluzionarie, non si apportò nella cultura politica quella spinta radicale che invece uomini come Costamagna, ardentemente fascisti – della “prima ora”, a differenza di Gentile – invocavano a gran voce. Gentile dagli anni ‘30, cioè dopo il consolidamento istituzionale del Fascismo, non ebbe vita facile, bersagliato com’era dall’eterogeneo mondo degli anti-idealisti fascisti.

Quanto al rapporto con Evola, parlano abbastanza le collaborazioni alla rivista di Costamagna “Lo Stato”. Inoltre, un capitolo a parte, pressoché sconosciuto, meriterebbe il progetto che nel secondo dopoguerra avrebbe visto Evola, su incarico di Berlino, costituire delle “uova del drago” a Roma all’indomani della conquista alleata. A tale progetto Costamagna avrebbe partecipato attivamente ma, altro non è dato sapere.

Capitolo a parte, su cui si sofferma Sideri, è dedicato ai rapporti fra Costamagna e la Rivoluzione Conservatrice germanica (austriaca e tedesca), nei rapporti con Spann e Schmitt in particolare. L’economia dell’opera non ha consentito di approfondirli ma, pure, Sideri sottolinea alcuni aspetti di convergenza e di divergenza che ci fanno dire come Costamagna abbia superato (positivamente) alcuni limiti di entrambi i filoni. Anche sul grandissimo Carl Schmitt, Costamagna infatti segna il punto, soprattutto circa le differenti vedute in merito al cosiddetto Führerprinzip.

Non male per un illustre sconosciuto


mercredi, 30 septembre 2015

The Paranoid German Mind: Counting Down to the Next War


The Paranoid German Mind:

Counting Down to the Next War

Tom Sunic, Ph.D.

Ex: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net

Having lost, during and after World War II, over 9 million of its soldiers and civilians, Germany has had to wallow in expiation and self-abnegation.  Its present grotesque multicultural policy of Willkomenskultur (“welcoming culture” toward non-European migrants), openly heralded by Chancellor Angela Merkel and her government, is the direct result of the lost war. Germany’s role of an exemplary host country for millions of non-European migrants has been a major linchpin of its legal system over the last 70 years —  and by default for present day Central European countries subject today to floods of non-European migrants. The countries that were most loyal to National Socialist Germany in World War II, the contemporary Hungary, Croatia and to some extent Slovakia and Baltic countries further north, have similar self-denying dilemmas — due, on one  hand, to their historically friendly pro-German ties, and on the other, due to the obligatory rituals of antifascist mea culpas, as demanded by Brussels and Washington bureaucrats.  I have put together for TOO some excerpts from the chapter “Brainwashing the Germans” from my book Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age, 2007 (foreword by Kevin MacDonald) (The second edition of this book is to be published by Washington  Summit Publishers). I guess some of those lines below might shed some light into extremely serious political developments in Europe today.

  *   *   *

In the aftermath of World War II, the role of Frankfurt School “scholars,” many of whom were of Jewish extraction, was decisive in shaping the new European cultural scene.  Scores of American left-leaning psychoanalysts — under the auspices of the Truman government — swarmed over Germany in an attempt to rectify not just the German mind but also to change the brains of all Europeans.  But there were also a considerable number of WASP Puritan-minded scholars and military men active in post-war Germany, such as Major Robert A. General McClure, the poet Archibald MacLeish, the political scientist Harold Laswell, the jurist Robert Jackson and the philosopher John Dewey, who had envisaged copying the American way of democracy into the European public scene.

As a result of Frankfurt School re-educational efforts in war-ravaged Germany, thousands of book titles from the fields of genetics and anthropology were removed from library shelves and thousands of museum artifacts were, if not destroyed by the preceding Allied fire-bombing, shipped to the USA and the Soviet Union. Particularly severe was the Allied treatment of German teachers and academics, wrote Caspar von Schrenck-Notzing, a prominent postwar conservative German scholar in his book on the post-WWII brainwashing of the German people. In his seminal book Schrenck-Notzing  writes that the Western occupying authorities considered that the best approach in curing the defeated Germany was by treating Germans as a nation of “clinical patients” in need of a hefty dose of liberal and socialist therapy.  Since National Socialist Germany had a significant support among German teachers and university professors, it was to be expected that the US re-educational authorities would start screening German intellectuals, writers, journalists and film makers first.

Having destroyed dozens of major libraries in Germany, with millions of volumes gone up in flames, the Allied occupying powers resorted to improvising measures in order to give some semblance of normalcy to what was later to become “democratic Germany.”

During the post-WWII vetting of well-known figures from the German world of literature and science, thousands of German intellectuals were obliged to fill out forms known in at the time as “Der Fragebogen” (The Questionnaire).  In his satirical novel under the same name and translated into English as The Questionnaire, German novelist and a former conservative revolutionary militant, Ernst von Salomon, describes American “new pedagogues” extorting confessions from the German captives, who were subsequently either intellectually silenced or dispatched to the gallows. Schrenck-Notzing  provides his readers with a glimpse of the mindset of the Allied educators showing the very great influence of the Frankfurt School:

Whoever wishes to combat fascism must start from the premises that the central breeding ground for the reactionary person is represented by his family.  Given that the authoritarian society reproduces itself in the structure of the individual through his authoritarian family, it follows that political reaction will defend the authoritarian family as the basis for its state, itsculture and its civilization. (my  emphasis)

From Ethno-Nationalism to National-Masochism

Much later,  Patrick J. Buchanan, in a similar vein, in his The Death of the West  also notes that Frankfurt School intellectuals in postwar Germany, having been bankrolled by the American military authorities, succeeded in labeling National Socialist sympathizers as “mentally sick,” a term which would later have a lasting impact on political vocabulary and the future development of “political correctness”  in Europe and America.  Political prejudice, notably, a sense of authority and the resentment of Jews, were categorized as “mental illnesses” rooted in traditional European child-rearing. The ideology of antifascism became by the late twentieth century a form of “negative legitimacy” for Germany and the entire West.  It implicitly suggested that if there was no “fascist threat,” the West could not exist in its present form.

Later on, German political elites went a step further. In order to show to their American sponsors their new democratic credentials and their philo-Semitic attitudes, in the early 1960’s they introduced legislation forbidding any historical revisionism of World War II and any critical study of mass immigration into Western Europe, including any study of negative socio-economic consequences of multiculturalism and multiracialism.

As of today the German Criminal Code appears in its substance more repressive than the former Soviet Criminal Code.  Day after day Germany has to prove to the world that it can perform self-educational tasks better than its former American tutor.  It must show signs of being the most servile disciple of the American hegemon, given that the “transformation of the German mind (was) the main home work of the military regime.” 

In addition to standard German media vilification of local “trouble-makers” — i.e. “right -wingers” —  Germany also requires from its civil servants obedience to constitutional commands and not necessarily their loyalty to the people or to the state of Germany. This is pursuant to Article 33, Paragraph 5, of its Basic Law.  ]) The German legal scholar Josef Schüsselburner,Germany’s observes that the powerful agency designed for the supervision of the Constitution (the famed “Office for the Protection of the Constitution” [Verfassungsschutz]) is “basically an internal secret service with seventeen branch agencies (one on the level of the federation and sixteen others for each constituent federal state).  In the last analysis, this boils down to saying that only the internal secret service is competent to declare a person an internal enemy of the state.

Given that all signs of German nationalism, let alone White racialism, are reprimanded in Germany on the grounds of their real or purported unconstitutional and undemocratic character, the only patriotism allowed in Germany is “constitutional patriotism” — Germany is de jure a  proposition nation:  “The German people had to adapt itself to the Constitution, instead of adapting the Constitution to the German people,” writes the German legal scholar, Günther Maschke. German constitutionalism, continuesSchüsselburner, has become “a civil religion,” whereby “multiculturalism has replaced the Germans by the citizens who do not regard Germany as their homeland, but as an imaginary “Basic Law country.”   As a result of this new civil religion, Germany, along with other European countries, has now evolved into a “secular theocracy.”

Similar to Communism, historical truth in Western Europe is not established by an open academic debate but by state legislation. In addition, German scientists whose expertise is the study of genetically induced social behavior, or who lay emphasis on the role of IQ in human achievement or behavior, and who downplay the importance of education or  environment — are branded as “racists.“

When Muslim Arabs or Islamists residing in Germany and elsewhere in Europe are involved in violent street riots, the German authorities do tolerate to some extent name calling and the sporadic usage of some anti-Arab or anti-Turkish jokes by local autochthonous (native) Germans. Moreover, a Muslim resident living in Germany can also legally and temporarily get away with some minor anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli remark—which a White German Gentile cannot dream of.  By contrast, a non-Jewish German average citizen, let alone a scholar, cannot even dream about making a joke about Jews or Muslims—for fear of being labeled by dreaded words of “anti-Semitism” or “racism.”

Tom Sunic is author (www.tomsunic.com)

mardi, 29 septembre 2015

Comprendre l'Islam, entretien avec Guillaume Faye pour son nouveau livre

Comprendre l'Islam, entretien avec Guillaume Faye pour son nouveau livre


05:41 L'islamisme véritable nature de l'Islam ?
08:40 Possibilité d'islamisation massive de la France et de l'Europe dans l'avenir ?
10:50 l'invasion des Francs et Wisigoths est-elle comparable à celle des musulmans ?
14:54 L'idéologie égalitariste est-elle responsable ?
19:16 Quelle est l'origine de DAESH et peuvent t-ils avoir des combattants sur le sol français dans l'avenir ?

Invitation to Become Who We Are

Invitation to Become Who We Are

Washington, DC

Registration: http://NPIEvents.com
Eventbrite: http://becomewhoweare.eventbrite.com