|Diego Fusaro con il suo libro su Marx|
|Il Palazzo della civiltà italiana o della civiltà del lavoro,
comunemente noto come «colosseo quadrato» (Eur, Roma)
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.
par Yann-Ber Tillenon
Dans l’amour de la France, pour sa Renaissance grâce à une République Fédérale Française, exemplaire pour l’Europe, en faveur du ré enracinement de ses peuples.
À ceux qui s’étonnent de me voir rencontrer des hommes du monde politique et artistique opposés et adversaires idéologiques, de l'extrême gauche à l'extrême droite dans la société française, et de ne pas être assez sectaire je répondrai, en français pour les « Bretons »… que le meilleur moyen d’être quoi que ce soit , c’est de le pratiquer. Le meilleur moyen d’être fédéraliste c’est de pratiquer soi-même le fédéralisme dans sa vie et dans la société française centraliste, dualiste, manichéenne, dont fait partie la Bretagne. En se changeant soi-même ont peut changer une petite partie de la société dans laquelle nous sommes, puisqu’on est dedans, et proposer autre chose !...
Rencontrer, fréquenter les différences, les opposés, est une bonne attitude de fédéraliste non pas "centraliste", mais "centriste" comme je le suis moi-même et comme nous le sommes tous à Kêrvreizh crée en 1938 par le fédéraliste Yann Fouéré !... C'est la base politique" brezhon", "emsavel" de "Breizh" depuis deux siècles, et non pas de "Bretagne", société francisée, contaminée par le dualisme jacobin. Le fédéralisme "brezhon" c'est l'un ET l'autre et non pas l'un OU l'autre des Bretons, ces Français malades, hémiplégiques déracinés, décentrés d'eux-mêmes, donc « désaxés », hypertrophiés du cerveau gauche ou du cerveau droit !...
La véritable Métaphysique celtique, européenne, comporte une multitude de points de vue. Ils rendent compte de tous les aspects sous lesquels on peut envisager la Vérité. Elle ne saurait donc être contenue dans les limites d’un « système » du « Prêt à penser » d'un gouvernement unique à pensée unique, dans une langue unique, une culture unique pour un pouvoir unique de la dictature du « politiquement correct », sans " dérapages" hérétiques, héritée du monothéisme chrétien à vérité unique !.... C'est toujours le mystère d’une polarité qui constitue à la fois une bi-unité et une alternance rythmique.
Elle se laisse déchiffrer dans les différentes illustrations mythologiques, religieuses et philosophiques. Certaines de ces polarités tendent à s’annuler , comme dit Mircéa Eliade dans une “coincidentia oppositorum” . C'est-à-dire dans une UNITÉ-TOTALITÉ-PARADOXALE”. C'est notre tradition pré-chrétienne polythéiste, non dualiste conservée dans le catholicisme romain traditionnel.. Ce sont ces situations existentielles paradoxales (comme la simultané du jour et de la nuit, du visible et de l’invisible, du bien et du mal etc...) que la logique rationnelle jacobine française et occidentale en général, héritée du judéo-christianisme, a du mal à vivre.
Elle a donc préféré les considérer comme des oppositions irréductibles. Le choix de la raison comme unique voie de connaissance, a éloigné l‘homme européen du paradoxe présocratique. L’incapacité de vivre des situations existentielles fédéralistes paradoxales a été engendrée par la perte de la vision indo-européenne traditionnelle. C'est ce qui lui a fait rechercher des idéologies rassurantes, uniformisantes où il est assisté, rassuré et protégé. Ceci au détriment de sa combativité individuelle, et de sa capacité à résister à la souffrance.
C'est pourquoi l'excès de raison a rendu sa nature européenne fragile et a fait naître l’idéologie bourgeoise dans l' actuel État providence centraliste qui a détruit la France. Le résultat est là …. Transcender les polarités, c'est s’installer au coeur des couples de contraires. Ce qui implique de ne pas séparer l'un de l'autre, ni de choisir définitivement l'un OU l'autre. C’est la “recherche du centre fédérateur”. du FÉDÉRALISME, au dessus du ‘Droite-Gauche », du nationalisme ou du socialisme.
La conscience est alors libre de se placer dans un “tiers-inclus”, au sein de I'”unité-totalité-paradoxale” du peuple global. Il s’agit donc, grâce à la "Coincidentia oppositorum", de voir la vie toujours de l’intérieur, du centre de soi-même et non pas de sont pied gauche ou de son pied droit… En effet, pour la vision traditionnelle, la conscience ne se situe pas dehors, à l’extérieur de soi-même et des choses, À GAUCHE OU À DROITE, comme en France aujourd’hui, mais au dedans de nous et des choses. Nos égarements ne font que signaler notre “excentricité” de “désaxé”...
C’est-à-dire notre perte du centre, de notre centre. Cette quête du centre est généralement appelée "voie ésotérique" ou “voie du dedans” par la tradition indo-européenne qui est la notre... Ainsi, souvent, les militants bretonnants francisés reproduisent l'idéologie française "gauche-droite"… Ils restent des "Bretons' c'est-à-dire des Français formattés comme les autres , bien que connaissant souvent le « brezhoneg » en plus du français!!!... Être « Brezhon », « Emsaver » de « Breizh » et non plus « Breton » de « Bretagne » est, avant tout, en plus de la formation en « brezhoneg », un changement de soi-même, une attitude philosophique européenne nouvelle, concrète, pratique, et non pas simplement idéologique française jacobine.
By Organon tou Ontos
The following amplifies the concept of ur-fascism advanced by Umberto Eco .
Ur-fascism is both unity and multiplicity, like life itself: Unity in its embodiment of a single phenomenon and multiplicity because of the diversity and disparity within that phenomenon. “Ur” means primal or primordial: For example, in the form of Heidegger’s “ur-grund” (“primal ground”) or ur-volk (“primeval people”) as well as Goethe’s “ur-phenomenon” (“archetypal pattern”). “Fascism” comes from the Latin, fasces, meaning “bundle”: politically, a people unified. Ur-fascism is the primordial wellspring of all fascist aspirations and movements. This has many roots: Nation, race, ethnicity, heritage, lineage, culture, tradition, language, history, ideals, aims, and values. When a group has emerged, organically and historically, with its own identity, fate, and interests, a people has come into existence.
A people that is integrated genealogically, linguistically, and institutionally at the highest level forms a nation. At higher levels, peoples may be fused together under empires. At lower levels, a people could comprise a family, community, or local state.
Ur-fascism is the primordial foundation of all fascist movements and governments, historically or potentially, that unify peoples at distinct levels. Another term for “people” is the modern English “folk” and the German “Volk.” The former comes from the Old English “folc,” meaning “common people.” “Folk” was diffused through the introduction of the compound “folklore” by antiquarian and demographer, William Thoms. Peoples are distinct and diverse entities, reflected in the history of fascism. Ur-fascism is the primordial origination in archetypal organic patterns, residing in all living things, of a fascistic impulse toward a primeval will to life that has exhibited itself historically in many political, social, and institutional morphologies, ultimately as the differentiation and coagulation of diverse tendencies, traits, and movements.
Ur-fascism metaphysically privileges the people. It accentuates the disparity of interests between peoples, while Marxism emphasizes the disparity of interests between classes. A people is prior to its classes, metaphysically, and its interests take precedence over its classes, ethically.
The founder and leader of the Iron Guard of Romania, Corneliu Codreanu, held that “A people becomes aware of its existence when it becomes aware of its entirety, not only of its component parts and their individual interests.” Ur-fascism grounds the interests of a people or community above that of the individuals and classes that belong to it. As such, it transcends revolutionary socialism and reactionary conservatism. The interests of the community in its entirety take precedence over the interests of individuals and classes that belong to it. Nonetheless, ur-fascism is both revolutionary and conservative: revolutionary in its readiness to overturn structures that are toxic to the life of a people, and once conservative in its insistence on retaining and preserving what is vital to a given people.
On the basis of a view of society as a social organism that is organized, directed, and governed by a vital social organ in the form of the state, Giovanni Gentile maintained that the state “interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of people.”
Ur-fascism does not eventuate in the elimination of social classes, hierarchy, or inequality, but rather folds these in to the service of a people as a whole. In a developing plant or animal, cells undergo differentiation and become structurally and functionally suited to certain roles. The Marxist aspiration to end inequality and ultimately dissolve hierarchy is as futile as a revolt among the cells of an organism that is organically suited and required for the weal of the organism as a whole. Equality among an organism’s cells would mean death for the organism. This does not mean that injustice should not be addressed, and inequality and hierarchy are not ends in and of themselves. Neither the aristocratic nor proletarian socialist solution is desirable. Inequality and hierarchy exist to elevate the community as a whole, not any one part of it.
Ur-fascism forms the primeval basis of the fascistic political response and will to life of a people as a whole, rather than any segment within it. If authentic in its embryonic and developmental forms, it will grow to maturity and enable a whole people to persist over time.
A genuine fascist movement or government first exists (a) in embryo, as a nascent political organism or coalescent forces in a government and (b) reaches mature development, around it a variety of explicit aims and goals are embellished and solidified as policies.
In embryonic form, fascist movements and governments originate as phenomena that arise from within a community. According to Umberto Eco, this embryonic form may arise as one, two, or several of the phenomena below, at once or else separately, in orderly or disorderly succession. Ur-fascism is the organic origination of a fascistic movement or government. Just as complex organisms arise from but one, two, or but a few cells, so too does an authentic fascist movement or government. Only one or handful of the phenomena below is necessary, as “it is enough the one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.” At the national or local level, as nascent movements or existing governments, fascism may initially take the form of, grow from within, or else be signaled and distinguished by:
The emergence of embryonic fascist movements or nascent fascist governments entails that one, two, or more of the above phenomena have clustered together to form a nucleus, which grows and develops. Ultimately, various policies, plans, and position coagulate around the nucleus. Historically, there were many such policies, plans, and positions. In many cases, they were extensions of the unique vision of the movement or government and the people or nation in question. Whether or not such policies were successful is a different matter, but metaphysically, a fascist movement or government has come to maturity when it has progressed from an embryonic stage in which a nucleus is formed to one in which that nucleus has several different policies clustered around it. These will vary among regimes, but they often include:
Eco only discusses the embryonic phase, since his analysis is concerned to explain how fascist movements and nascent fascist governments may emerge. In that sense, his analysis forms a kind of preventative diagnosis, as he aims to show how fascism can be identified before it is allowed to develop into a concrete fascist government.
I have developed his view into a two tiered system, with the embryonic phase representing Eco’s own analysis, and forming the basis for the initial, prenatal phase of fascist development, originating in one, two, or more of the traits I list, each of which is reworded from Eco’s traits; and the developmentally mature stage of fascism, whereby different policies cluster or coagulate around the nucleus that formed in the embryonic stage. Fascism can arise in many ways, and develop many policies.
It is not the case that fascism is a strictly national phenomenon. Instead, it is a way of life that is rooted in organic, synergistic impulse. It can emerge at low societal levels, including the local community (“local fascism”), or else at much higher levels, including the nation.
Moreover, as a response to problems in nations and the decline of communities, fascism has exhibited great historical diversity. Franco’s Spain eschewed expansion, but the pursuit of fresh living space was an important factor in German fascist policy. Italian fascism, however, stressed the pursuit of vital space, which was principally cultural and spiritual, while Mosley’s British Union advocated isolationism and protectionism. And while racial policy was central to German and Norwegian fascism, it was not a central component of Italian Fascism until after 1938, and was never a formulaic component of Portuguese or Spanish fascism. Following World War II, Perón’s Argentina allowed different parties. Catholic conservatism was a significant factor in Spain, while Quisling’s National Gathering looked back to its pagan roots.
Ur-fascism is a family of living worldviews, including past, concrete fascist movements and all possible future movements, and rooting the possibility of fascism in a plurality of different grounds. All movements spring from local conditions and native aspirations.
Understanding ur-fascism as a unique instance of family resemblance also allows us a resource by which to articulate aspects of the decline of European nations and Western Civilization in general. Ur-fascism views different forms of fascism as springing from a common pool of possible sources, and the traits which associate to form the nuclei of fascist movements and regimes have causal relationships with each other. The deconstruction of the West proceeds largely by attacking several of the traits that comprise the core of different fascist worldviews. For example, “antifa,” Leftists, and anti-nationalist advocates attack the traditional family, which is related to if not causally congruent with others traits in the first list. In other words, attacking any of the traits in the list of embryonic traits will likely impinge on several other traits.
Seventy years of consistent deconstruction of the West has largely been predicated on attacks on these features. It follows that any authentic efforts to salvage the nations of the West will require rehabilitating the aims, values, and aspirations of authentic fascism.
In this fashion, my construal of ur-fascism forms a form of prescriptive diagnosis, in contrast to Eco’s preventative diagnosis. If the traits of embryonic fascism bear causal relations of this sort, then nationalists aspiring to save their communities should upheld most of them.
Ur-fascism is a unified family of distinct fascist worldviews, forming a primordial wellspring out of which different fascist movements, historically, have emerged. Its embryonic traits personify primeval biological tendencies that have deep roots in evolutionary history. As an authentic prescription of political mobility, it hearkens back to organic permutations in the history of life that have been exhibited by organismal forms, populations, and lineages. Novel biological forms emerge in the history of life, and exhibit themselves in distinct groups and lineages, arising from underlying mechanisms that work to ensure the persistence of these groups and lineages. The primacy of community over individual is an expression of an integrative tendency in the history of life that is responsible for the diversity of life, and grounds the diversity of fascism.
It is through this conception that we can grasp Eco’s claim that ur-fascism is “primitive”: fascism is a human political system that is deeply rooted in primeval, pervasive biological impulses and patterns that lead to the emergence of distinct communities.
Understood in this way, Eco’s characterization of ur-fascism as “eternal fascism” is transparent: while fascism always manifests in certain places and times, it can always come back again in unexpected guises and different forms; it can never truly, entirely be eradicated.
1. Wiktionary defines “ur” as proto-, primitive, original. There have been several other explicit uses; Goethe employs “ur-sprung” (“origin”) in his Ueber den Ursprung der Sprache.
2. Stephen Fischer-Galati, Man, State, and Society in East European History (Pall Mall, 1971), quoted on p. 329.
See also the author’s blog: http://ur-fascism.blogspot.com 
Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com
URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/10/ur-fascism/
URLs in this post:
 Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Umberto-Eco.-007.jpg
 advanced by Umberto Eco: http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html
 The: http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/reading/germany/mussolini.htm
 http://ur-fascism.blogspot.com: http://ur-fascism.blogspot.com
|Diego Fusaro con il suo libro su Marx|
|Il Palazzo della civiltà italiana o della civiltà del lavoro,
comunemente noto come «colosseo quadrato» (Eur, Roma)
LE REEL, MATRICE DE L’ANALYSE GÉOPOLITIQUE
Plaidoyer pour l’histoire et la géographie
Op het moment dat Charles Michel voor de camera's bevestigt dat er een regeerakkoord is, stelde professor-emeritus politologie Wilfried Dewachter een paar honderd meter verderop in het Vlaams Parlement zijn boek over de Belgische particratie voor. Met onderbouwde argumenten en grondige kennis van 30 jaar politiek reilen en zeilen noemt hij die particratie een regelrechte schande.
Verontwaardiging en ergernis, maar ook geloof in wat democratie kan en moet zijn. Dat zijn de motieven die Wilfried Dewachter, hebben aangezet tot het schrijven van zijn boek over De trukendoos van de Belgische particratie. Een Europese schande (Pelckmans, 285 blz.). De emeritus-hoogleraar, dertig, veertig jaar al bevoorrechte getuige van de politieke gang van zaken in ons land, had liever een heel ander soort bestel gezien, dat ons behoed had voor de situatie waarin we nu bijna zonder het te weten verzeild zijn geraakt. Alhoewel, indicatoren van de politieke decadentie zijn er te over. De doorsnee-burger wéét dat onze parlementaire democratie niet werkt, dat de staatshervorming, hoewel nog in de steigers, een misbaksel is. Hij keert zich af van de vriendjespolitiek en de partijpolitieke benoemingen (tenzij hij tot de groeiende groep begunstigden behoort). Hij kijkt weg wanneer hij iets verneemt van de vleespotten waaraan de Parteiangehörigen zich gretig te goed doen. De gemiddelde Vlaming brengt braaf zijn stem uit, ziet mensen aan de macht komen voor wie hij niet gekozen heeft, of zelfs niet kón kiezen, hoort beloften die niet worden gehouden. De onverschilligheid waarin dit resulteert is groot en een droevige zaak. De antipolitieke sentimenten zijn ook niet ongevaarlijk.
Partijen en particratie
Maar zie, daar is dit boek waarin Wilfried Dewachter een diagnose brengt en remedies aanreikt, vooral door te verwijzen naar buitenlandse voorbeelden.
De politieke partijen hebben zich de macht toegeëigend. Al beroepen ze zich graag op de Belgische grondwet, voor hen is die inderdaad niet meer dan het ‘vodje papier’ waarover Leo Tindemans het destijds had toen hij het ontslag van zijn regering indiende. Artikel 42 van de grondwet luidt dat de leden van beide Kamers de Natie vertegenwoordigen en niet enkel degenen die hen hebben verkozen. Dat klopt niet echt. Voortaan lezen we beter: ‘De leden van beide Kamers vertegenwoordigen enkel de partijleiders die hen hebben laten verkiezen tot zogenaamde parlementsleden, door ze in nuttige volgorde op hun kandidatenlijsten te plaatsen. Zij volgen de steminstructies van hun leiders getrouw op , binnen hun taalgroep. Hun mandaat reikt niet tot in de andere taalgroep.’
Al zegt de grondwet over de partijen helemaal niets, ze bestáán, ze zijn nuttig en nodig in een goed functionerende democratie. Maar dat een democratie zichzelf kan vernietigen wist Jean-Luc Dehaene al. Partijen willen steeds meer macht, tot ze het eindpunt bereikt hebben en de democratie uitschakelen, of haar reduceren tot een leeg, hooguit symbolisch ritueel. In plaats van een middel, zijn de partijen volop bezig een doel op zich te worden, gebrand op macht, inkomen en status, op MIS : een herhaaldelijk in dit boek terugkerend letterwoord. Ze hebben de macht vrijwel helemaal naar zich toegetrokken. De democratie is een particratie geworden.
De laatste beslissende aanslag op onze toch al amechtige democratie gebeurde tersluiks, ‘en stoemelings’ in de marge van de onderhandelingen over de Zesde Staatshervorming. ‘Met acht mensen hebben we de staatshervorming onderhandeld. In het parlement voerde iedereen nadien een show op’, dixit de toenmalige sp.a-voorzitster. Een onthutsende en cynische mededeling, schijnbaar argeloos gedebiteerd door Caroline Gennez.
Free, fair & frequent elections: dat kennen we hier niet
Zo werd en petit comité niet de Senaat, maar werden wél de Senaatsverkiezingen afgeschaft. De Hoge Vergadering is een machteloze praatbarak. Men had daarom, zo pleit Dewachter, beter de 40 (tot 2010 bovendien rechtstreeks verkozen!) senatoren naar de Kamer overgeheveld, te meer omdat een eenkamerstelsel performanter zou zijn dan een tweekamerstelsel. Maar daar hadden Di Rupo en zijn zeven kompanen geen oren naar. De rechtstreekse verkiezing van de senatoren werd afgeschaft omdat die te duidelijk de echte wil van de kiezer aan het licht bracht, die zo in zekere mate richting gaf aan de regeringsvorming. Als men de score van 25 mei van Bart De Wever in de kieskring Antwerpen extrapoleert naar heel Vlaanderen zou hij uitgekomen zijn op zo’n 950.000 stemmen, ‘wat zelfs door een kloeke particratie niet kan worden opzij geschoven’. Afschaffen dus die handel!
Voorts werden alle verkiezingen (op die voor gemeente- en provincieraden na) op één hoop gegooid, iets waarvoor de federale legislatuur diende verlengd tot vijf jaar. Volgens Dewachter komt dit neer op ‘de versterking van de houdgreep van de traditionele macht op de gewesten en de gemeenschappen.’
Er volgde ook een reeks ‘niet-beslissingen’ : er komt geen federale kieskring, de stemplicht blijft behouden (inclusief de boetes voor wie niet opdaagt) en ook zullen in een parlement verkozen ministers zich als vanouds kunnen laten vervangen door ‘tijdelijke’ opvolgers, in plaats van door de kandidaat die na hem/haar het hoogste stemmenaantal binnenhaalde.
Dit alles gebeurde zonder voorafgaand referendum, zonder een andere verkiezing. Terwijl toch deze aspecten van de staatshervorming de democratische mogelijkheden van de kiezers afbouwen. Ongelooflijk dat men dit zo maar liet gebeuren.
Door het afzien van een federale kieskring ‘verschrompelt’ het Belgisch federalisme of wat daarvoor moet doorgaan tot een provinciaal systeem met 10 + 1 kieskringen.
Deze wetswijzigingen en niet-beslissingen, stelt Dewachter, waren helemaal niet nodig voor de zesde staatshervorming, Integendeel, ze werken de overdracht van middelen en bevoegdheden zelfs tegen. ‘Sterker nog: deze maatregelen houden het federalisme onder controle van de particratie.’
Daarom was de stembusgang van 25 mei 2014, de ‘moeder van alle verkiezingen’ àlles, behalve een feest van de democratie, al hebben we toen in totaal zes parlementen ‘verkozen’. Maar neem nou nog maar alleen de federale Kamer. Hoeveel van de 150 vertegenwoordigers heeft u er kunnen kiezen? Afhankelijk van de provincie waren dat er hooguit een goede 20. De 63 Franstalige Kamerleden heeft u alleszins niet verkozen, net zomin als onze Waalse landgenoten ook maar iets te zeggen hadden over de Vlaamse kandidaten. Meer nog, als een verkozene geroepen wordt tot andere verantwoordelijkheden, versta: een ministerpost of zo, dan laat hij zijn zetel nog steeds aan de opvolger. De verkiezingen zijn ook al voor de helft beslist (wie mag kandideren en op welke plaats krijgt hij/zij op de lijst, op welke financiële steun kan hij rekenen, in ruil waarvoor ?) nog voordat de kiezers één stembiljet in handen krijgen.
Die kiezer brengt dus zijn stem uit (op straf van boete !, dat terwijl haast alle landen de stemplicht allang hebben afgeschaft), maar dat is niet meer dan een rituele handeling. ‘Les électeurs s’expriment, et puis on ferme la porte’, dan is de particratie aan zet, dat is al jaren zo, al mislukt dat soms wel eens. Tenminste één Franstalige partij heeft het ‘Nooit met de N-VA’ achteraf moeten inslikken. Als negatie van de wil van de kiezer kon die oekaze in elk geval tellen.
We zijn al van in 1978 een confederatie !
De ene kieskring werd al in 1978 gesaboteerd door de Franstalige partijen die het initiatief namen tot afsplitsing van de unitaire partijen. Van dan af zijn de Franstalige partijen de bescherming van de minderheid uit de eerste staatshervorming van 1970 gaan misbruiken als veto’s (de ‘wetten met bijzondere meerderheid in elke taalgroep’) met politieke verlamming als gevolg. Dewachter spreekt van de vierendeling van het parlement, waardoor het door toedoen van de particratie monddood wordt gemaakt. Want in een extreem geval zou 17 % van de stemmen (ongeveer PS + cdH) in het federaal parlement volstaan om de meerderheid van 83% te blokkeren. Met deze ‘bijzondere wetten’ is een nieuwe Belgische grondwet geschreven (er is ook al herhaaldelijk gebruik van gemaakt): ‘deze van de onveranderlijkheid, van de eeuwige veto-capaciteit’ (…). ‘Niet de NVA splitst het land,’ zo stelt Dewachter, ‘maar lang geleden scheurden de Franstalige partijen het al in tweeën, bij hun (1) afscheuring van de nationale partij , en (2) hun misbruik van de minderheidsbepalingen van 1970 als veto’s’. Natuurlijk, wanneer dat de PS zo uitkomt wordt gedreigd met een ‘institutionele atoombom’. Een voorbeeld hiervan is de overheveling in 1991 van de controle over de wapenuitvoer, een federale bevoegdheid, naar beide gewesten, zonder boe of ba opgelegd door de Franstalige socialisten. Zo confederaal hebben de Vlamingen het tot nu toe nooit gespeeld.
‘België’, aldus Dewachter, ‘is verworden tot een non state, tot een anarchie, in de betekenis van afwezigheid van doorslaggevend beleid.’
De ene kieskring is belangrijk en wenselijk. Maar is hij ook mogelijk ?
We hádden tot 1970 al een federale kieskring. Bedoeld wordt: een nationale kiesinzet met dezelfde keuzemogelijkheden voor alle 7 miljoen Belgische kiezers. Dat veronderstelt dat alle kandidaten zich presenteren voor de hele kieskring, dat alle kiezers dezelfde keuze hebben tussen de programma’s die de partijen via deze kandidaten voorstellen en tussen de mogelijke oplossingen. De stem van elke kiezer dient even zwaar te wegen. Op die manier kunnen de burgers rechtstreeks hun regering verkiezen, bijvoorbeeld naar analogie met de Franse presidentsverkiezingen. In een eerste ronde stellen de partijen hun kandidaat-premier voor. In de tweede ronde komen de twee kandidaten die de meeste stemmen kregen tegen elkaar uit. Vóór de tweede ronde werken die een voorstel tot federale regering uit met haar programma. Eén van beiden behaalt de absolute meerderheid en is vrijwel onmiddellijk klaar om te besturen. De kiezer voelt zich op die manier direct bij de keuze betrokken en kan de regering als ze hem tegenvalt bij een volgende verkiezing doen vallen. Dat gebeurt in heel wat landen min of meer zo. Na een stembusgang duurt het in het Verenigd Koninkrijk hooguit een dag of twee voor de nieuwe regering aantreedt.
Deze gang van zaken is natuurlijk te onvoorspelbaar voor de particraten. Die hebben dan ook de mogelijkheid tot vorming van de ene kieskring zonder meer afgeschaft. Maar op het Vlaamse en het Waalse niveau ligt dat anders. ‘De deelstaten krijgen de morele opdracht om de democratie in België nog enigszins te redden, indien België binnen het Europese beschavingspatroon nog wil kunnen functioneren.’ Dit is voor de Vlaams regering en het Vlaams Parlement een uitdaging van jewelste. Toch zou het niet voor het eerst zijn dat beslissingen worden genomen tegen de grondwet in. Dat deed Albert I toen hij het algemeen enkelvoudig stemrecht invoerde. Dat deed België toen het volwaardig en stichtend lid werd van NAVO en EGKS. Dat deed ook Achiel Van Acker, die zijn kolenslag won door stakingen te breken en krijgsgevangenen in de steenkoolputten te laten afdalen, en die via besluitwetten de sociale zekerheid liet uitbouwen. En waar hadden Wilfried Martens en Jean-Luc Dehaene in de jaren ‘80 gestaan zonder ‘bijzondere machtsbesluiten’ ?
Laten we hopen dat de hoofdarchitect van onze nieuwe regeringen, onmiddellijk na zijn terugkeer uit Shanghai dit – overigens uiterst leesbare – boek ter hand neemt, of tenminste één van zijn naaste medewerkers opdraagt het grondig door te nemen.
Il più interessante dei nuovi filosofi italiani legge Marx & Schmitt e appoggia Putin perché riavvicina l’Europa alle radici della sua cultura giuridica e politica.
Diego Fusaro (Torino, 1983) è il più interessante tra i filosofi italiani di giovane generazione. Sua è una rilettura del pensiero di Marx al di là di ogni vecchia scolastica o tentativo di “rottamazione” (Bentornato Marx! il titolo del suo libro). Tra le sue opere ricordiamo anche “Minima Mercatalia. Filosofia e capitalismo” e il recente “Idealismo e Prassi. Fichte, Marx, Gentile”. Fusaro è stato allievo del grande (e misconosciuto) Costanzo Preve e proprio Preve gli ha trasmesso l’interesse per la Russia. Costanzo Preve – ci dice Fusaro – scrisse un saggio intitolato “Russia, non deluderci!”.
In che senso?
Preve si aspettava che la Russia potesse opporsi allo strapotere del capitalismo americano e alle sue pulsioni imperialiste, e dunque garantire l’esistenza di un mondo multipolare. Se la Russia non delude in questa sua missione naturale, essa svolge una funzione fondamentale anzitutto per noi Europei.
La Russia di Putin a differenza della vecchia URSS non esprime una radicale alternativa “di sistema” al mondo liberalcapitalista.
Vero, ma dal punto di vista geopolitico la Russia rappresenta pur sempre un freno all’agire di una super-potenza che ormai tende a sconfinare nella pre-potenza. Il mondo post-1989 è esattamente questo, la tendenza americana a dominare il mondo in forma unipolare.
Nel parlare del necessario “multipolarismo” lei fa riferimento a Kant.
Sì, in un mio scritto: Minima Mercatalia. Filosofia e capitalismo. Kant diceva, nel 1795, che per garantire una stabile pace è meglio che vi sia una pluralità di Stati (diremmo noi: meglio più blocchi, anche contrapposti) che una Monarchia Universale. Oggi la “monarchia universale” è quella dello “one way”, del pensiero unico americano che mira ad annullare ogni diritto alla differenza e ogni modo alternativo di abitare il mondo che non sia quello americano.
Oggi la Russia tende a scontrarsi con l’Occidente sul tema dei valori e dei cosiddetti diritti individuali.
Quella dei diritti individuali è una vera e propria ideologia, nel senso deteriore del termine. Tale ideologia afferma i diritti di un individuo astratto, mentre i veri diritti sono quelli dell’individuo all’interno della comunità. Individuo e comunità esistono reciprocamente mediati, non ha senso pensarli astrattamente, come fa l’ideologia dei diritti civili, la quale è poi un alibi per non parlare dei diritti sociali.
Diritti individuali magari bilanciati anche con i doveri, come diceva Mazzini.
Certamente. Mi rifiuto poi di pensare che matrimoni gay, adozioni gay e eutanasia rappresentino i simboli della massima emancipazione possibile. È una presa in giro, anzitutto per i precari e per i disoccupati. I diritti devono essere anzitutto diritti sociali: quelli che garantiscono una sopravvivenza dignitosa dell’individuo all’interno della sua comunità, permettendogli di potersi pienamente esprimere in tutte le sue potenzialità.
Putin si appella a quel diritto naturale che affonda le sue radici nel grande pensiero europeo: lo stoicismo, i padri della chiesa.
In tempi più recenti possiamo ricordare Grozio e Pudendorf come alfieri di questa concezione. Se Mosca oggi ci aiuta a riavvicinarci a questi temi, allora è davvero auspicabile che essa sia forte e ci sia vicina. Infatti, appare evidente come la Russia, anche per via della sua straordinaria cultura, rappresenti una realtà molto più affine allo spirito europeo di quanto non sia l’America, che è invece il regno della tecnica (Heiddeger) e del capitale smisurato (Marx).
Dunque l’Europa dovrebbe staccarsi dall’America, e dovrebbe schierarsi nel blocco euroasiatico. Impresa utopica… se pensiamo alla presenza delle basi militari USA in Italia, a ben sessant’anni dalla fine dei nazifascismi e a vent’anni dalla fine del comunismo. L’Italia è oggi una colonia statunitense, anche se nessuno lo dice.
In campo economico e sociale sembra che l’“utopia si stia realizzando: flussi di studenti, di merci, di turisti. Interscambio energetico e tecnologico. Anche per questo forse si producono “crisi” … per suscitare un nuovo clima da guerra fredda e impedire la piena integrazione.
Gli Americani devono necessariamente dividere gli Europei per conservare il lorodominio unipolare. Dividere per comandare meglio. Le basi americane che costellano vergognosamente il territorio europeo servono esattamente a mantenere in uno stato di perenne subalternità militare, geopolitica e culturale gli Europei.
C’è anche un ritardo della cultura europea o perlomeno di quella italiana nel capire i cambiamenti epocali in atto.
Dopo il 1989 si è verificata una ondata penosa di riflussi e pentimenti. In questo scenario si inserisce la vicenda tragicomica della sinistra italiana e di quello che, con Preve, chiamo l’orrido serpentone metamorfico PCI-PDS-DS-PD: dal grande Antonio Gramsci a Matteo Renzi. Ormai da venti anni, senza alcun infingimento, la sinistra sta dalla parte del capitalismo, delle grandi banche e dei bombardamenti “umanitari”. Per questo io non sono di sinistra: se la sinistra smette di interessarsi a Marx e Gramsci, occorre smettere di interessarsi alla sinistra.
Se la sinistra ha assunto questa posizione è stato appunto in nome della nuova Ideologia dei Diritti umani
Affermava Carl Schmitt : l’ ideologia diritti umani è utile per creare un fronte unito contro chi viene individuato come “non umano”. Contro un nemico che viene dipinto come un mostro, ogni strumento di annientamento è lecito: si pensi agli strumenti utilizzati contro Saddam Hussein, contro Gheddafi. Si deve sempre inventare un nuovo Hitler in modo da legittimare la nuova Hiroshima: dove c’è il dittatore sanguinario, lì deve esserci il bombardamento etico. È il canovaccio della commedia che, sempre uguale, viene impiegato per dare conto di quanto accade sullo scacchiere geopolitico dopo il 1989: il popolo compattamente unito contro il dittatore sanguinario (nuovo Hitler!), il silenzio colpevole dell’Occidente, i dissidenti “buoni”, cui è riservato il diritto di parola, e, dulcis in fundo, l’intervento armato delle forze occidentali che donano la libertà al popolo e abbattono il dittatore mostrando con orgoglio al mondo intero il suo cadavere (Saddam Hussein nel 2006, Gheddafi nel 2011, ecc.). Farebbero lo stesso contro Putin…
… se Giuseppe Stalin non avesse innalzato attorno alla Russia una palizzata di bombe atomiche.
Esatto, proprio per questo è opportuno che Putin conservi il primato militare come arma di dissuasione: per poter svolgere una civile funzione di freno alla super-potenza americana. Per questo, l’immagine simbolo di questi anni è quella che vede contrapposti Obama che dice: “Yes, we can” e Putin che idealmente gli risponde: “no, you can’t!”. Frenare gli Americani significa frenare la loro convinzione di essere degli eletti, di avere una special mission, che consisterebbe nell’esportare la democrazia, come si esportano merci, a colpi di embarghi o di bombardamenti. Sulla scia di questa convinzione è stata dichiarata una guerra mondiale a tutto il mondo che non si piega ai diktat e la guerra è stata portata di volta in volta in Irak, in Serbia, in Afghanistan, in Libia, attraverso la guerriglia in Siria. Solo la Russia resiste. È questa la “quarta guerra mondiale”. Essa, successiva alla terza (la “Guerra fredda”), è di ordine geopolitico e culturale ed è condotta dalla civiltà del dollaro contro the rest of the world, contro tutti i popoli e le nazioni che non siano disposti a sottomettersi al suo dominio, forma politica della conquista del mondo da parte della forma merce e della logica della reductio ad unum del globalitarismo,
Putin stesso viene definito come una sorta di despota asiatico antidemocratico… anche se le percentuali del consenso di cui gode, espresso in regolari elezioni, sono eclatanti.
Come dice Alain de Benoist, l’ideologia liberale occidentale è una “ideologie du meme”: riconosce e legittima solo ciò che percepisce come uniforme a sé stessa. E in nome di questo unilateralismo si glorificano anche fenomeni ridicoli come quello delle Pussy Riot, come espressioni di “dissidenza” e di “lotta per i diritti”! Il capitale odia tutto ciò che capitale non è, mira ad abbattere ogni limite, in modo da vedere ovunque sempre e solo la stessa cosa, cioè se stesso. Con le parole di Marx, “ogni limite è per il capitale un ostacolo che deve essere superato”.
Come considera la proposta formulata da Vladimir Putin di una “Europa unita da Lisbona a Vladivostok”?
È un concetto interessante. E’ necessario che l’asse dell’Europa si orienti altrove rispetto all’Occidente americanizzato. Ed è necessario immaginare una Europa più ampia dei confini imposti dalla UE: quella UE che rappresenta il trionfo dei principi di capitalismo speculativo di stampo occidentale. La UE è oggi la quintessenza dell’americanismo, del neoliberismo americano e della vergognosa rimozione dei diritti sociali. È, direbbe Gramsci, la “rivoluzione passiva” con cui, dopo il 1989, i dominanti hanno imposto il neoliberismo.
E come si definirebbe Diego Fusaro oggi?
Sono uno allievo indipendente di Hegel e Marx, Gentile e Gramsci, ma mi considero abbastanza isolato nel panorama culturale italiano, perché la sinistra in Italia è passata dalla lotta al capitale alla lotta per il capitale. I suoi nomi di spicco sono Fabio Fazio e la signora Dandini, Zagrebelsky e Rodotà. In questo senso, non ne faccio mistero, mi sento un dissidente e un ribelle, e propongo un pensiero in rivolta contro l’esistente. La sinistra oggi è contro la borghesia ma non contro il capitalismo globale: ma dal 1968 è il capitalismo stesso che lotta contro la borghesia, cioè contro quel mondo di valori (etica, religione, Stato, valori borghesi, ecc.) per loro stessa natura incompatibili con la mercificazione universale capitalistica. Per ciò, lottando contro la borghesia, dal 1968 ad oggi la sinistra lotta per il capitalismo. Io ritengo che si debba invece lottare contro il capitalismo e che sia ancora valido un ideale di emancipazione del genere umano inteso come un soggetto unitario (la razza umana), che esiste solo nella pluralità delle culture e delle lingue, delle tradizioni e dei costumi, ossia in quella pluralità che – diceva il filosofo Herder – è il modo di manifestarsi di Dio nella storia.
All’atto della sua prima elezione Obama veniva accolto – e non solo dalla sinistra – come una sorta di Messia. Vi è chi lo definì come “il Presidente di tutto il mondo libero”.
Quello fu un tipico caso di provincialismo italiano ed europeo: la festa per l’incoronazione dell’Imperatore Buono. Oggi i tempi sono cambiati, c’è piùdisincanto non solo verso Obama, ma anche verso la costruzione verticistica dell’Unione Europea. Mi pare che la Francia si sia rivelata “l’anello debole” della catena eurocratica. O meglio: il punto in cui la catena si può spezzare. Chi è contro il capitale, nel senso di Gramsci e di Marx, non può oggi non essere contro l’imperialismo americano, ma poi anche contro l’Europa dell’euro e della finanza, del precariato e del neoliberismo.
par Ivan Blot
Nous reproduisons ci-dessous un point de vue d'Ivan Blot, cueilli sur La voix de la Russie et consacré à la question du référendum comme outil démocratique. Président de l'association "Démocratie directe", l'auteur a récemment publié L'oligarchie au pouvoir (Economica, 2011), La démocratie directe (Economica, 2012), Les faux prophètes (Apopsix, 2013) et L'Europe colonisée (Apopsix, 2014).
Le référendum est l’outil démocratique par excellence. Mais il est comme la démocratie : il ne fonctionne pas dans n’importe quelles conditions. Déjà Aristote écrivait dans sa « Politique » que la démocratie ne fonctionnait que là où les classes moyennes sont nombreuses.
En effet, des classes moyennes de propriétaires, si possible formant des familles avec des enfants, représentent des hommes et des femmes qui ont des choses à perdre (leur patrimoine, les perspectives d’avenir de leurs enfants) et qui par conséquent ne se comporteront pas de façon irresponsable. C’est vrai aussi du référendum, l’instrument le plus démocratique pour légiférer puisque chaque citoyen pourra donner son avis à partir de sa condition concrète, de son « vécu existentiel » que le bureaucrate n’a pas, fut il brillant dans les études abstraites.
Les deux révolutions sanglantes qui ont marqué le monde, la révolution jacobine en France et la révolution bolchevique en Russie, sont parties de deux grandes villes aux populations pauvres fortement déracinées : Paris et Saint-Pétersbourg. A Saint-Pétersbourg, des centaines de milliers d’ouvriers vivaient seuls sans famille pour travailler dans des usines géantes. Les soldats et marins constituaient une population analogue, guerrière, masculine, prêts à tous les excès dès lors que la discipline de l’ancien régime s’était effondrée. Les Bleus en Vendée, les Rouges en Russie furent des armées efficaces mais brutales, souvent criminelles.
La démocratie comme le référendum exigent des citoyens enracinés dans des traditions morales éprouvées : c’est le cas en Suisse depuis le Moyen Âge.
Deux gouvernements viennent de donner des exemples de mauvaise gestion démocratique, certes de façon contrastée : l’Ukraine et le Royaume Uni.
En Ukraine, les populations russophones ont été détachées de la mère patrie par le hasard des frontières tracées par les Soviétiques, hasard devenu destin lorsque l’URSS a éclaté. Curieusement, l’Occident se fait une religion de respecter ces frontières issues de décisions d’un régime totalitaire sans la moindre consultation des populations concernées. Ces populations ont réclamé des référendums. Sauf en Crimée en raison de la protection russe, non seulement ces référendums n’ont pas eu lieu mais leurs partisans ont été déclarés « terroristes » par le gouvernement de Kiev. Et ce dernier s’est résolu à les ramener à la raison à coups de canons ! Où sont dans un tel cas les fameux droits de l’homme ? Ils sont piétinés dans l’indifférence du Conseil de l’Europe, notamment.
Au Royaume Uni, heureusement, la situation est moins tragique. Toutefois, les gouvernements successifs de Londres n’ont pas voulu prendre en compte le mécontentement de la population écossaise. Le résultat est clair : presque la moitié de la population écossaise veut désormais se séparer de l’Angleterre. 45% ont voté pour l’indépendance. Même si celle-ci n’est pas acquise, le problème va demeurer car ce chiffre pour la scission est considérable. Le Royaume Uni devrait réfléchir sur une solution fédérale. On notera qu’une fois de plus, le résultat du référendum est modéré puisque l’Ecosse ne prend pas son indépendance. Mais c’est un bon avertissement pour le gouvernement.
Cette gestion catastrophique (Ukraine) ou médiocre (Royaume Uni), ce déni de démocratie ou cette insuffisance de dialogue trouve son contre –exemple, celui de la Suisse. Tout le monde ou presque a oublié la crise séparatiste du Jura qui a secoué la Suisse dans les années 1970. Les francophones du Jura ne voulaient plus être gouvernés par les germanophones du canton de Berne. Ils formèrent une milice : les Béliers. Des attentats terroristes se multiplièrent (ce ne fut le cas ni en Ukraine ni en Ecosse). A coups de référendums on se mit à définir les frontières d’un nouveau canton. Une majorité se prononça pour la scission d’avec Berne en 1974 dans les trois districts du nord du Jura. On créa alors un nouvel Etat fédéré jurassien : le canton du Jura, et dans un référendum ultérieur au niveau national, ce nouveau canton fut accepté dans la confédération. Voilà une gestion de conflit ethnique et régional admirable dont personne ne parle jamais.
L’histoire est aujourd’hui ignorée de la plupart des hommes politiques qui n’ont de formation que juridique et un peu économique. Sait-on que dans les années 1930, un vrai parti nazi s’est développé en Suisse sur le modèle allemand. Il s’appelait le « National Front ». En Allemagne, grâce au régime dit « représentatif », Hitler avec moins de 40% des voix a pu prendre le pouvoir à la tête d’une coalition parlementaire. En Suisse, les nazis locaux voulaient transformer la Suisse en changeant la constitution par un référendum. Mais voilà : dans un référendum, il faut dépasser le chiffre des 50% et c’est impossible avec un programme extrémiste. Les nazis suisses ont perdu leur référendum et n’ont jamais pu prendre le pouvoir. La démocratie directe a protégé la démocratie à la différence de l’Allemagne et de l’Italie où les parlements ont voté les pleins pouvoirs aux dictateurs.
Si la population est composée de classes moyennes majoritaires, de familles et de petits propriétaires très nombreux, le référendum donne toujours des résultats raisonnables. Les citoyens collent à la réalité plus que les bureaucrates qui manipulent les parlementaires. On voit le résultat : les pays qui pratiquent fréquemment les référendums déclenchés par une pétition populaire sont prospères et connaissent dans l’ensemble la paix sociale : c’est la Suisse, le Liechtenstein, la côte ouest des Etats-Unis, et à un moindre degré l’Allemagne (référendums au niveau local et régional seulement) et l’Italie (référendums contre des lois mais pas pour en initier des nouvelles). Dans ces pays, la bureaucratie est moins forte et les impôts moins lourds (un tiers en moins d’après les études des professeurs Feld et Kirchgässner). L’endettement public est plus faible.
En France si l’on excepte les personnalités que furent le professeur Carré de Malberg, le résistant anti-nazi et juriste René Capitant et le général de Gaulle, le référendum est négligé par les gouvernants et les intellectuels. On parle de société bloquée ! C’est vrai mais pourquoi s’obstine-t-on à ignorer l’instrument le plus efficace pour sortir des blocages et faire des réformes : le référendum ?
Ivan Blot (La voix de la Russie, 22 septembre 2014)
Totalitarianism: A Specious Concept
By Dominique Venner
Translated by Giuliano Adriano Malvicini
The American historian George Mosse has pin-pointed the specious nature of the theory of totalitarianism: it “looks upon the world exclusively from a liberal point of view”. In other words, totalitarianism is a concept elaborated by liberal thought in order to present itself in a favorable light, contrasting itself to its various enemies, all of which are confused together in a single, unholy category, according to the binary opposition of “us and them.”
The theory of totalitarianism reveals the intensely ideological character of liberalism. It generalizes and reduces very different realities to a single category, hiding everything that distinguishes the different anti-liberal systems from each other. How can one compare the blank-slate, egalitarian, internationalist communist system, responsible for millions of deaths before the war, and elitist, nationalist Italian fascism, to which only about ten executions can be attributed during the same period?This immense quantitative difference corresponds to essential qualitative differences. What liberalism refers to with the blanket term “totalitarianism” includes distinct realities that have only superficial appearances in common (“the one-party state”). The liberal theory of totalitarianism utilises an ideological patchwork to justify itself negatively, by asserting its “moral” superiority. It is a kind of ideological sleight of hand that is devoid of scientific value.
In an interview dealing with this subject, Emilio Gentile – having defined himself as “a liberal critiquing the liberal historical interpretation of totalitarianism” – recognised that this interpretation involves three serious errors: “It first assimilates two very different things to each other, fascism and bolshevism. Furthermore, it considers rationality to be an exclusive attribute of liberalism, denying any form of rationality to the three anti-liberal experiments. Finally, the third error consists in transforming merely apparent similarities into essential similarities. In other words, one might consider fascism, bolshevism and nazism as three different trees with certain similarities, while liberal theory wants to make them into a single tree with three branches.”
This amounts to asserting that the use of the word “totalitarianism” as a generic, universal term is scientifically abusive. As soon as the concept indistinctly covers everything that is opposed to liberalism, only paying attention to this negative criterion, it is emptied of meaning. It can now be applied to anything: Islamism, various exotic tyrannies, and why not the Catholic church? This polemical device is as reductive as that used by the communists, when they wanted to reduce everything that opposed them to “capitalism” or “imperialism.”
1. We have already noted that beyond a few rare actions that can be imputed to the Italian secret service, the assassination of Matteotti and the street violence following the civil war of the twenties, and also excluding the war and colonizations, there were only nine political executions in fascist Italy from 1923 to 1940 (and seventeen others from then on until 1943). Cf. the American historian S. G. Payne (Franco José Antonio. El extrano caso del fascismo espanol, Planeta, Barcelona, 1997, p. 32).
2. A conversation between Emilio Gentile and Dominique Venner in La Nouvelle Revue d’Histoire, 16th issue, January-February 2005, pp. 23-26. On the same subject, I also refer the reader to my interview with Ernst Nolte (Éléments, issue 98, May 2000, pp. 18-21).
Source: Dominique Venner, Le Siècle de 1914: Utopies, guerres et révolutions en Europe au XXe siècle (Paris: Pygmalion, 2006).
Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com
URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/09/totalitarianism-a-specious-concept/
URLs in this post:
 Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/vennerstudy.jpg
 Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/mussolini-stalin-hitler-e1411246314185.jpg
An oxymoron? Bear with me….
Veale describes the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a period, mostly, of civilized warfare in Europe or regions influenced by European culture.
I will point out only once that the complete contrast to warfare as practiced today – and certainly since at least the Second World War – by the West when compared to this code; to make mention of this at each possible opportunity will only serve to double the length of this post. I hope even the most casual observer of today’s realities can see how far those in the several militaries of various western governments have fallen.
So, what is meant by “civilized warfare”?
…this code was based on one simple principle, namely that warfare should be the concern only of the armed combatants engaged. From this follows the corollary that non-combatants should be left entirely outside the scope of military operations.
…it necessarily followed that an enemy civilian did not forfeit his rights as a human being merely because the armed forces of his country were unable to defend him.
The sufferings of civilians must never be made a means by which the course of hostilities can be influenced – for example, when, in accordance with the common practice of barbarous warfare, a country is deliberately laid waste to induce its rulers to surrender.
…a combatant who surrenders ceases to be a combatant and reacquires the status of non-combatant….a combatant who has become incapacitated through wounds or disease ceases to be a combatant….
…a prisoner of war should be treated by his captors as a person under military discipline transferred by his capture from the command of his own countrymen to the command of his captors.
…the code was safeguarded by the knowledge that violation, even if profitable at the moment, would bring ultimate retribution and the weakening of the general security enjoyed by all.
Veale does not ignore the exceptions to this type of civilized warfare during this period; many of the violations were committed by the British – safe in the security that, due to their superiority at sea, repercussions on the homeland were unlikely. Veale also notes that this code did not mean that towns were off-limits, only that a direct military objective was necessary for the action to be justified.
As a counter-example, Veale offers France, Austria and Russia against Prussia during the Seven Years War; they could easily have overrun Prussia if barbarous methods were employed:
All that was necessary to bring about Frederick’s speedy downfall was to pour across the open and exposed frontiers of Prussia small units of Hungarian hussars and Russian Cossacks with instructions to destroy everything which could be destroyed by means of a torch or a charge of gunpowder. The Prussian army would have been helpless in the face of such tactics, designed to turn Prussia into a desert.
The term Veale uses to describe this aspect of the culture is chivalry:
“Chivalry had two outstanding marks,” says Professor R.B. Mowat, “two that were as its essence: it was Christian and it was military.”
I can see the steam coming out of Laurence Vance’s ears even now. But trust me, it will all come together into something meaningful.
Chivalry, as it ultimately developed, became a collective term embracing a code of conduct, manners, and etiquette, a system of ethics and a distinctive “Weltanschauung” (philosophy of life) as the Germans call it. For our purpose, its principal importance is that, when the code of chivalry was adopted as the code of the military caste in all the European states, it provided a common bond between them.
The soldiers fought as (relatively speaking) gentlemen, as opposed to the experience in war proceeding this chivalrous age:
Sadism could no longer masquerade as moral indignation….
I like that line….
As the subtitle of this book suggests, this was all to change in the first half of the twentieth century. Sadism put on its mask once again.
There were many aspects of this chivalrous nature evident during the Middle Ages:
…it can be said that the general acceptance of the ideals of chivalry had considerable influence on the conduct of warfare in the Middle Ages, although this influence was generally restricted in practice to dealings of the ruling classes with each other.
…the code of chivalry had been readily accepted throughout Europe because the ruling classes in all countries accepted the teaching of the Catholic Church and acknowledged the spiritual supremacy of the Pope.
As the wars in the Middle Ages were often conducted by and between the ruling classes, this distinction is of little consequence.
Civilians had little to fear from the dangers of war which were the concern only of professional soldiers.
This period of relative chivalry came to an end during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; Veale points to the invasion of Italy by Charles VIII of France in 1494 as marking the beginning of the end of this relatively “civilized” period. Italy was subject to foreign invaders – French, German, Swiss and Spanish, “who recognized no rules of warfare of any kind,” waging war “with the most primitive ferocity and resulting in enormous loss of life and causing irreparable damage.”
The development (or re-discovery) of chivalrous behavior and civilized warfare can be traced to another French king, Louis XIV – or, more precisely, coincident to his reign: “no traces of it can be detected at the beginning of his reign in 1643, and it appears fully established at his death in 1715. No credit for this development, however, can be attributed to Louis personally.”
On the contrary, one of the most deliberate and least excusable barbarities in European history was perpetrated by his armies as late as 1689 when the Palatinate was systematically devastated in order to create an Odlandsgürtel(waste-land-zone) along the French frontier.
In response to the capture by French forces of several German towns in the south and west, German princes mobilized the forces of northern Germany – in an attempt to recover what had been lost. Louis responded with his scorched-earth policy:
Realising that the war in Germany was not going to end quickly and that the Rhineland blitz would not be a brief and decisive parade of French glory, Louis XIV and Louvois resolved upon a scorched-earth policy in the Palatinate, Baden and Württemberg, intent on denying enemy troops local resources and prevent them invading French territory. By 20 December 1688 Louvois had selected all the cities, towns, villages and châteaux intended for destruction. On 2 March 1689 Count of Tessé torched Heidelberg; on 8 March Montclar levelled Mannheim. Oppenheim and Worms were finally destroyed on 31 May, followed by Speyer on 1 June, and Bingen on 4 June. In all, French troops burnt over 20 substantial towns as well as numerous villages.
Not very civilized.
The French general ordered to destroy Heidelburg reported to Louivois, the secretary of war, “I must represent to His Majesty the bad effect which such a desolation may make upon the world in respect to his glory and reputation.” Such a thought would not have occurred to a general during the Thirty Years War, when such devastation was considered normal.
Condemnation of the devastation of the Palatinate was, indeed, general…
So why does Veale point to Louis XIV? During this period, the ruling classes throughout Europe all became…French! They had “become linked by a similar outlook – by similar tastes, manners and standards – originating at the Court of Louis XIV.”
To be a European gentleman meant to be a French gentleman. The ruling classes of France, Germany, and Russia had more in common with each other than they did with their own countrymen.
From this it naturally followed that the officers of the various European armies, when they came in contact, should treat each other with elaborate courtesies in accordance with the manners of the time.
Veale offers several examples of such courtesies being extended: after the surrender of Lille by Marshal Bouffiers, by Frederick the Great toward the French engineer Gribeauval, by Admiral Keith toward Marshal Massena after the latter’s surrender at Genoa.
Veale contrasts these with the attitudes today:
Even if acts of courtesy took place in war to-day, the report of them would be suppressed for fear of outraging public opinion.
And public opinion means much in wars conducted by democracies; the other side must remain evil, such that the masses continue to support the fight. Who would extend courtesy to evil?
While such gentlemen-officers were duty bound to support any war policy initiated by the politicians, the manner in which the war was conducted rested solely on the shoulders of those same officers:
…the manner of conducting a war, whether just or unjust, was recognized to be the sole concern of the professional soldiers conducting it.
This code was respected in wars between European powers; it did not apply always and everywhere. For example, a British general, lent to the Chinese government in 1863, “[t]o his horror” witnessed the beheadings of a number of rebel leaders who had surrendered.
Then there was the matter of treatment of civilians and non-combatants:
Of more practical importance than the code of good manners which it imposed on the combatants was the security given to civilian life and property by the introduction of civilized methods of warfare.
No massacre of civilians; pillage replaced by requisition with payment. The Austrians and Germans were quite strict about ensuring this discipline, for example:
In the Prussian Army, the regulations against looting were so strict that, after the disaster at Jena in 1806, it is recorded that the retreating Prussians endured without fires the bitter cold of an October night in central Europe rather than seize civilian stores of wood which lay to hand but for which they were unable to pay.
Civilized warfare reached its peak in the last half of the eighteenth century. Veale notes a book by Emeric de Vattel of Switzerland, The Law of Nations, or the Principals of Natural Law as Applied to the Administration of National Affairs and of Sovereigns:
Not only does Vattel point out that, if barbarous methods of warfare are adopted, the enemy will do likewise, so that the only ultimate result will be to add to the horrors of war; not only does he argue that “harsh, disgraceful and unendurable peace terms” will only be fulfilled as long as the defeated enemy lacks the means to repudiate them; Vattel actually condemns the use by rulers at war of “offensive expressions indicating sentiments of hatred, animosity, and bitterness” since such expressions must ultimately stand in the way of a settlement on reasonable terms.
Vattel points out that war as a means to settle disputes “can only serve this purpose if, in the first place, it be conducted by methods which do not leave behind a legacy of hatred and bitterness…”
Vattel did not write something unknown to the military leaders and politicians of the time and place; this was their practice. Instead, he merely tried to boil these behaviors down to a concise code. He could not conceive of the possibility that Europe might once again turn to the code of slaughter that was evident during the Thirty Years War – Magdeburg of 1631 returning in the form of Dresden in 1945.
Yet, we know it did. In the next chapter, Veale begins to trace the history of this reversion, or – as he describes it – this “Advance to Barbarism.”
Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.
Dugin on the Subject of Politics
By Giuliano Adriano Malvicini
Dugin’s Social Constructionism
The claim that there is no biological basis for the concept of race, or that it is not useful in explaining contemporary reality, is of course patently false. But Dugin follows postmodern thinkers like Foucault and Althusser in arguing that not only race, but all political subjects are constructs.
Race is a product of society, rather than society a product of race. Man, he argues, exists as a subject only within the political realm. “What man is, is not derived from himself as an individual, but from politics. It is politics that defines the man. It is the political system that gives us our shape. Moreover, the political system has an intellectual and conceptual power, as well as transformative potential without limitations” (The Fourth Political Theory, p. 169). In other words, the subject does not create itself, nor is it a natural given like race or the individual. The subject is a construct, existing only within a political system.
It follows that ultimately, there is no master subject who creates or exercises conspiratorial control over the system. On the contrary: subjects exist only as functions, produced by subjectless political structures. As the political system changes, shifting from one historical paradigm to another — from traditional society to modern society, for example — it constructs the normative type of subjectivity it requires to function. “[T]he political concept of man is the concept of man as such, which is installed in us by the state or the political system. The political man is a particular means of correlating man with this state and political system. […] We believe we are causa sui, generated within ourselves, and only then do we find ourselves within the sphere of politics. In fact, it is politics that constitutes us. […] Man’s anthropological structure shifts when one political system changes to another” (The Fourth Political Theory, p. 169). In other words, the subject does not bring about a political paradigm shift on its own — it is the new paradigm that will call a new subject into being through a process of “interpellation.”
The study of the anthropological shift from the type of man belonging to traditional society to the type of man belonging to modern society leads to the relativization not only of modern man, but of modern rationality as such. This relativization of modernity is “postmodernity.” The modern idea of progress towards a humanity unified on the foundation of universal Reason is shown to be an illusion, and this implies that traditional societies are placed on the same level as modern society.
Dugin’s reasoning appears to be as follows: the subject cannot radically break through the system (carry out a revolution or “paradigm shift”) and go beyond it if it is itself a product of the system, and can only exist within the limits of that system. This was why class, race, and the individual, all of which are subjects constituted and defined within the horizon of modernity, failed to overcome the crisis and impasses of modernity. In other words, the subject would have to be grounded in a reference point outside of the political system, in order to have the leverage needed for any radical political agency. There would have to be a “radical subject,” and for Dugin the “radical subject” seems to be chaos . Chaos is freedom beyond its capture within the limits of the bourgeois or humanist conception of the individual. The shattering of the liberal individual is not the negation of freedom, but the revelation of the essence of freedom as anarchic, sovereign chaos, a chaos that will be mastered only through the emergence of a new kind of subject.
The political subject acts within the realm of politics, but must be founded in a realm beyond and before the political – in the case of modern, secular ideologies, the realm of nature. The subject of politics must transcend the sphere of politics in order to be able to master it, define it, and set its boundaries and goals. For example, liberal ideology posits the existence of the individual as a natural given, prior to the existence of the social order. Only in this way can it found the political order on the individual and its universal, natural rights.
Analogously, National Socialists view race as a biological given existing prior to and beyond the political, and the state as possessing meaning only insofar as it is an instrument through which a race is protected, preserved and its potentialities are actualized and enhanced. This means that for National Socialists, race transcends the political realm, subordinating it to itself. The political consciousness they strive to awaken others to is racial self-consciousness, much as Marxists attempt to awaken the proletariat to class consciousness.
For Marxists, the means of production transcend the political realm, forming its material basis and driving force. A class constitutes itself as a political subject by taking control of the means of production. Marx defined labor as “the metabolism of nature.”
“The definition of a historical subject is the fundamental basis for political ideology in general, and defines its structure” (The Fourth Political Theory, p. 38). For example: for nationalists, the real subjects of history are nations, viewed as a sort of supra-individuals with a will and a destiny of their own. History is the history of nations. Identity is primarily national, and the friend/enemy distinction (which is constitutive for the political) goes along national lines. For racism, on the other hand, the true subjects of history are the various races, locked in a Darwinian struggle for life. This view of history is determined by the modern concepts of biological evolution and progress. Identity is primarily racial, and the friend/enemy distinction goes along racial lines. For Marxism, the subjects of history are classes, again viewed as forms of collective subjectivity, and consequently, the whole of history was interpreted as the history of class struggle. Identity is class identity, and the friend/enemy distinction goes along class lines.
The political subject is also an historical subject. This means that each modern political ideology corresponds to a “grand narrative” — an over-arching interpretation — of history. History as a whole is viewed as created through the agency of a certain historical subject. It then becomes obvious that political ideologies are secular substitutes for a theological interpretation of history, and that the historical subjects posited by them are substitutes for divine Providence as the transcendent subject of history. As Carl Schmitt argued, all the fundamental concepts of politics are secularized theological concepts.
The place of the political subject — a kind of vacuum left by the withdrawal of God from the world and history — is the site of contestation between the various modern political ideologies. Each of them fought to occupy that vacant place with their own concept of the political subject. Each of them claimed to master the destructive and creative forces liberated by modernity, bringing modernity to its full actualization. Communism saw itself as the final, inevitable and culminating phase of modernity, towards which industrial capitalism had only paved the way. Liberalism views the progressive liberation of the individual, along with the processes of secularization, modernization, and globalization, as an historical necessity. Fascism saw itself as an avant-garde, revolutionary movement, dismissed liberal, bourgeois democracy as a doomed residue of the nineteenth century, and claimed that the organic state was the only adequate form through which the masses could be mobilized in modern societies. Both Italian Fascism and German National Socialism modernized and revolutionized their respective nations, and would not have been politically successful if they had not done so. Early Fascism was influenced by the avant-garde modernism of Futurism, which called for the nihilistic destruction of the past and unconditionally worshipped modern technology and “progress.” (This lead Evola to reject Futurism as a form of “Americanism.” Marinetti retorted that he had as little in common with Evola as with “an Eskimo.” Bizarrely — for someone who claims to be a traditionalist — Dugin views Futurism as one of the admirable elements of early Fascism that he wishes to recuperate.)
Each of these political systems, then, claimed that it was the most appropriate form for modern, technologically advanced society. This form corresponded to a certain figure or human type, an embodiment of a certain political project, the normative “man of the future”: be it homo sovieticus, the new Fascist man, the racially purified Aryan superman, or the enlightened, bourgeois individual. In other words, each of these ideologies or “political theories” posited a normative subject as the basis of its political vision and its interpretation of history. The transition into fully realized modernity was not only a political revolution, but also an anthropological revolution: the production of a “new man.”
According to Dugin, in the crisis of the end of modernity, not only race and class, but also the nation-state ceases to be an authentic political subject, even though he recognizes that the will to preserve national sovereignty is, in the current situation, a natural locus of resistance to globalism. The de-sovereignization of the nation is its de-subjectivization. After 1945, European nations ceased to be sovereign, independent historical actors, and effectively also ceased to exist as historical subjects with a real identity.
However, Dugin sees this de-sovereignization/de-subjectivization as inevitable, even inherent in the nature of the nation itself. He fully accepts the postmodern idea that the nation is an artificial, ideological, and political construct, an “imagined community” created as a means of unifying fragmented, modern societies. The nation is, in his view, merely a simulacrum, an artificial substitute for the lost totality of traditional society (presumably, he views race similarly, as being a modern simulacrum of the “ethnos”). Historically, its emergence corresponds to the precise moment when traditional society enters into crisis. It is a compromise, a transitional form, a ruse.
Moreover, he views the function of the nation as a device for facilitating the transition from pre-modern, traditional society to fully modern, liberal, civil society. As a result, it cannot constitute an enduring force of resistance to liberal globalization. He views the nation as a dispositive of power geared to producing a certain standardized, normative type of political subject: the bourgeois individual (citizen). In doing so, it destroys regional, organic, ethnic communities (for example, through the suppression of regional autonomy, traditions, and linguistic variation in Italy and France, and the imposition of a standardized national language) as well as liquidating the last residues of traditional elites (the aristocracy).
Thus, the concept of “ethno-nationalism” is, in his view, ultimately an absolute contradiction in terms: the nation is inherently “ethnocidal .” It destroys the ethnos and replaces it with a “demos.” Nationalism, according to Dugin, must be condemned not just because it has been the cause of pointless, destructive wars, but because the nation itself is inherently violent — violent in the sense that it is an arbitrary construct without any sacred, transcendent basis. Its violence is the violence of modernity itself. (Certainly, this is true of many nations, perhaps most notably of the nation of Israel, which is an entirely modern, artificial construction, as is perhaps the idea that Jews are a unified, homogeneous race or ethnic group.) Nothing, however, so far assures us that the idea of Eurasian empire dominated by Russia would be less artificial, violent or “ethnocidal.”
(The new European post-war order projected by the dominant faction of the Waffen SS was not based on the nation-state, but on a pan-European federation of culturally autonomous regions. Dugin fails to mention this fact, but his characterization of National Socialism is tendentious.)
In any case, the ultimate incompatibility of Eurasianism with ethno-nationalism is clear. David Beetschen of the Eurasianist artists’ association has given poetic expression to this incompatibility in the following (stirring!) lyrical effusion:
Have you dreamt of the eurasian parliament
for which all energy we have joyfully spent.
There isn’t any discriminatory segregation
in class, race, sex or in any form of a nation.
As for the fascist concept the organic state, based on Hegel’s philosophy of the state, Dugin does not discuss his reasons for rejecting it as a credible candidate for the political subject. In general, Dugin simply takes the defeat of both the second and third political theories as axiomatic, without providing much in the way of substantial argument for this. The third political theory simply does not exist after 1945. “Each and every declared fascist after 1945 is a simulacrum” (The Fourth Political Theory, p. 174). In his view, modernity has been fully actualized in liberal society, and consequently, the ideological contest of modernity is over.
This view is more credible with regard to communism than with regard to fascism. The death of communism was, as Dominique Venner has written, an “inglorious demise.” Its collapse was due to its own bureaucratic inertia and utter failure to effectively manage economic development. Fascism and National Socialism, on the other hand, were spectacularly successful as political experiments, and, perhaps for this very reason, had to be militarily destroyed by their international rivals.
Dugin clearly views the defeat of National Socialist Germany as a consequence of its anti-Russian and anti-communist policies. Since Dugin views both of these policies as connected with the infection of National Socialism by atlanticism and Anglo-Saxon, biological racism, he views the defeat of the third position as a consequence of ideological errors, and not simply as an historical contingency. Not only was Nazi Nordicism a vulgar, materialist misinterpretation of the traditional doctrine of the north as the pole of tradition, National Socialism was anti-communist and anti-Slavic because it was anti-Eastern, that is, pro-Western (modern).
Today, according to Eurasianists (who in this respect are inheritors of National Bolshevism), European nationalists are repeating the disastrous errors of the German National Socialists when they again oppose “the East” in the form of Islamisation. Generally, Eurasianists try to downplay the idea of a “clash of civilizations” or any claim that there is a sharp opposition between Islam and European civilization. They accuse nationalists who view Islam as incompatible with European values of confusing “Europe” with “the West.”
Any interpretation of European history that sees some enlightenment values as rooted in the European tradition itself — in classical Greece, for example — is accused of trying to legitimate “the West” by inventing historical precedents and falsifying the true European tradition, which is rooted in Eurasia and in no way opposed to Islam. This is undoubtedly consistent with a Traditionalist position, which only recognizes those elements of European civilization as valid that are derived from the unitary, universal Tradition, of which Islam is viewed as a part. However, the exclusivist claims of Islam, especially in its modern, radical form, are wholly non-Traditional.
Dugin sees the triumph of liberalism as a necessary, fatal triumph, in a sense. Liberalism has triumphed because it can legitimately lay claim to being the most successful actualization of the potentialities of modernity. Liberalism did indeed succeed in modernizing the West to a much greater degree than communism succeeded in modernizing the countries of the Eastern bloc, so much so that “the West,” and particularly the United States, is today more or less synonymous with modernity. In the decades after the second world war, capitalism, using economic means, modernized Western European societies to a degree undreamed of by fascism, making the third position ideologies seem archaic and obsolete by comparison. In a sense, liberalism is the origin of the other ideologies of modernity – both communism and fascism emerged as attempts to overcome liberalism, while mastering the forces liberated by modern industrial capitalism and technology. It has also outlived the adversaries it engendered.
Dugin Contra Nationalism
Why does Dugin reject nationalism? His negative view of nationalism differs to some extent from that of Evola, who saw it not only as destructive of the traditional European order, but also as leading towards modern collectivism (Dugin, on the contrary, sees collectivism as something positive). Does Dugin follow Heidegger in viewing nationalism as an “anthropologism” (cf. “Letter on Humanism”)? What Heidegger mean by this is that nationalism, like Marxism, places man, rather than Being, at the center of history. Nationalism is a “subjectivism,” in the sense that it views man as the subject of history. In this sense, nationalism is indeed a modern phenomenon, since modernity, for Heidegger, is essentially an epoch in the history of metaphysics that was initiated with Descartes’ cogito: with the rational subject as the secure foundation of philosophy and science. Descartes identifies the subject with reason (ratio). This became the metaphysical foundation for the Enlightenment and its anthropology.
However, Dugin does not, unlike Heidegger, reject subjectivism as such. On the contrary, the whole point of the fourth political theory is that it is the search for a new “political subject,” an alternative to the individual as a political subject.
Why does Dugin give Heidegger’s concept of “Dasein” the pivotal role in the “fourth political theory”? Heidegger elaborated his analysis of Dasein as an attempt to overcome the abstractions of the metaphysical concept of the subject. Hence, his “analytic of Dasein” offers the possibility of going beyond the modern political ideologies based on various interpretations of the subject. Dasein is beyond, or prior to, the subject-object split. Dasein is not the rational subject as the abstract basis of the concept of universal man. Dasein is the historical, spatio-temporal structure of concrete existence. The subject is outside of the world, relating to the world as a system of objects. Dasein is always already in the world, involved in it, struggling within it. The world, as Heidegger uses the term, is a totality of relations of meaning. Each thing refers to other things in a circuit of relations. Dasein’s relation to things is one of understanding and interpretation, not (primarily) one of objectification.
The subject is reason, that is, it is defined by its relation to an ultimate cause and foundation (Grund). Dasein is defined by its relation to finitude, death, and the abyss (Ab-grund). However, all this means that it is not clear how Dasein, which according to Heidegger is precisely not the subject, can be called “the subject” of the fourth political theory. Dasein is not a subject that arbitrarily imposes its will, creates itself from nothing or freely makes history. Instead, it is part of a cosmic process that transcends man and his agency. Man does not decide the history of Being. Heidegger is not interested in re-elaborating or modifying the concept of the subject, nor is he interested in returning man to “God and Tradition” in the sense of metaphysical foundations, but is trying to overcome metaphysics itself, that is, all thinking in terms of the Being of beings as a “foundation” (Grund). This also means that Heidegger is far from the metaphysical conceptions of Traditionalism.
If Dugin invokes Heidegger and the analytic of Dasein, we must assume that behind the critique of liberalism and the West, he is attempting a critique of modernity as such (identified with the West). Heidegger’s critique of modernity is linked to an attempt to overcome the philosophy of the subject. In Heidegger’s view, modernity, when the humanitarian masks of the Enlightenment fall off, is technological nihilism, and this nihilism is the fatal consequence of Western metaphysics. Western metaphysics, however, is the foundation of Western civilization as a whole.
Heidegger’s critique is not simply political. He is criticizing bolshevism, liberalism (which paved the way for bolshevism), and other modern ideologies for failing to understand not only their own essence, but the essence of modernity itself: technological nihilism. According to Heidegger, the emancipation of the subject (humanity interpreted as subject) is not the purpose of technological development. It is the other way around — the emancipation of the the subject is a means through which technology emancipates itself. Here, Heidegger’s interpretation of modern technology draws on Nietzsche’s concept of the Will to power. According to Nietzsche, the self is not the subject of the will to power, but is brought into being by the will to power. The last glimmers of transcendence are extinguished from the world so that technology can pursue, unobstructed and on a planetary scale, the endless, circular self-enhancement of its productive power, drawing everything into its vortex, with no ultimate goal or end other than power for its own sake. The West becomes “das Abendland,” the evening-land, the realm of the darkening of the divine, the withdrawal of the gods. Technology as “Ge-stell” is not mastered by man (the subject), but an impersonal destiny of Being itself. Man as a subject can never master technology, since the essence of technology as Gestell constitutes man as a subject. Technological development has no intrinsic, immanent limit, and no boundary can be arbitrarily set to it as long as thinking remains within the horizon of the philosophy of the subject (humanism) and of technological calculation (the final deviation of the Western logos). But as modern technology reaches the full actualization of its dominion, the subject that it once called into being enters into crisis, begins to “vanish.” It is liquidated in a system of purely functional relations without a center, without fixed norms or foundations. The essence of the subject reveals itself to be a kind of limit, which initially functioned as a necessary ground or condition, but now becomes only an obstacle to be overcome. For Heidegger, this crisis, this ultimate threshold of nihilism — brought about by technology itself — opens up the possibility of thinking the essence of man and Being in a much deeper dimension, beyond or before the subject. Instead of man as subject, Heidegger tries to think the historicity of Dasein. This is why the “inner truth” of National Socialism for him meant the confrontation between modern technology and historical man (that is, not man as subject).
For Heidegger, Western modernity and materialism are not, as traditionalists claim, the consequence of a fall from the normal, traditional society of medieval Europe. On the contrary, he views the transition from the Middle Ages to the modern age more as a development than as a radical break with the traditional past. For Heidegger, medieval scholasticism, with its misinterpretation of the Greek logos as “ratio” and its onto-theological synthesis of Greek philosophy with Christianity, prepared the way for Descartes’ rationalism. In a sense, Heidegger develops Nietzsche’s idea that nihilism is not so much a break with Christianity, but instead a revelation of the nihilistic essence of Christianity. As a Christian and a traditionalist, however, Dugin consistently avoids the anti-Christian aspect of Heidegger’s thought, without, however, being able to articulate a critique of it. For Heidegger, as for the majority of the conservative revolutionaries, the origin of modernity is Christian, or rather, it lies in the “onto-theological” synthesis of Christianity and Greek metaphysics. It is the Christian conception of the “sovereignty” of God with regard to the world as creation that is at the origin of the modern concept of the subject, just as the Christian notion of the free individual with a personal relation to God and the Christian concern with the salvation of the immortal soul of all individuals is the origin of modern mass individualism. It is God as the “highest being” — both causa sui and causa prima, the first cause, sovereign over all other beings and the “maker” of the world — that is at the origin of the sovereign subject whose relation to things is one of instrumental manipulation and objectification. Modern secular humanism is onto-theological: it has its origin not in Greek thought, but in the Christian interpretation of Greek thought.
We may add that the Evola of Revolt Against the Modern World also sees Christianity as a primary cause of the involution of the West. He does not view modernity as a fatality somehow inherent in the nature of the West. For Evola, the Western mode of spirituality, which is primarily an active rather than contemplative spirituality, was cut off from the dimension of transcendence by the Semitic, lunar, self-mortifying type of religiosity of Christianity, which ultimately lead to the Western drive to activity being deviated, finding an outlet only on a purely material and human plane.
In any case, whether from a Heideggerian or Traditionalist view, one may agree that race, insofar as it is conceived as a purely human, biological characteristic, is ultimately insufficient, or rather, that it is too narrowly anthropological, and must be integrated into a deeper conception. This is not the same as liquidating the concept of race. It does mean the rejection of certain narrow forms of racism, where the biological concept of race plays an analogous reductive role to the Marxist concept of a material base that determines the ideological superstructure (culture, mentality etc.) of a society.
Man is not the unconditioned, self-creating subject of modern metaphysics. Human existence is conditioned and finite — men are, as Jünger wrote, “sons of the earth.” Race is one of the earthly conditions of man’s existence. An historical world is not an unconditioned, arbitrary “construct.” There is, in Heidegger’s terms, an historical world is always founded through a struggle between world and earth — the world, an articulated, historical space of possibilities and decisions, and the conditions set by the un-objectified, elemental forces of the earth. Blood and soil are given the meaning of a destiny in an historical world (this is not at all the same as claiming that it is an arbitrary historical and social construct). For Heidegger, the limits set by the biological potentialities of human beings are not arbitrary historical creations — what is historical is the particular “figure” or constellation of relations that gives them meaning.
We can also note that the statistical concept of race referred to by race realists today is very different from National Socialist racial theories, which were based on the idea of racial purity. The modern concept of race is not on its own sufficient to non-reductively account for the specificity of our or other civilizations or cultures. The differences between the mentality of Americans of European descent, on the one hand, and the mentality of Europeans, on the other, underscores this clearly. However, it is more than obvious that race plays a role in shaping the general character of civilizations.
1. On the chaos star, see Wikipedia .
Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com
URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/09/dugin-on-the-subject-of-politics/
URLs in this post:
 Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Dugin-chaos-star-e1410484135489.jpg
 chaos: http://against-postmodern.org/dugin-necessity-metaphysics-chaos
 ethnocidal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdH6JgqNsPo
 Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_of_Chaos
Dugin Contra Liberalism
By Giuliano Adriano Malvicini
This is a beginning of a series of more or less self-contained articles on Alexander Dugin drawn from a larger text, “Race, ‘Ethnos,’ and the Fourth Political Theory.”
Alexander Dugin has designated “liberalism” as the enemy of the “fourth political theory.” Or rather, since the enemy can only be an actually existing group of people and not an idea or ideology, he has designated as the enemy all those are in favor of the global hegemony of liberalism (the hegemony of “the West” and “atlanticism”): “If you are in favor of global liberal hegemony, you are the enemy.”
What does Dugin mean by “liberalism”? Is it the ideology of the people referred to as “liberals” in America? Calling someone a “liberal” in Europe means something quite different from calling someone a “liberal” in the United States. “Liberals” in the United States are on the left: they vote for the Democratic party and are in favor a welfare state and a regulated economy. In Europe, they would be considered social democrats. Ideologically, they are egalitarians and tend to be critical of laissez-faire capitalism. They oppose “racism,” “sexism” and “homophobia” from an egalitarian point of view. They view prison sentences as therapeutic and socializing rather than as forms of punishment. They believe in “social justice” rather than justice through retribution. They believe that human beings are basically good and can be redeemed through “social work.” They believe in social conditioning rather than personal responsibility. They tend to be in favor of a strict separation of church and state, while at the same time advocating an egalitarian world-view that is essentially a form of secularized Christianity.
In Europe, “liberals” are on the right: they are generally opposed to the welfare state, in favor of free markets, the privatization of the infrastructure and a largely unregulated economy. Traditionally, they also support various conservative social policies, placing an emphasis on individual responsibility as the correlative of the notion of individual rights. In other words, liberalism is a bourgeois ideology, favoring a capitalist economy, based on the enlightenment concept of individual human rights.
Today, however, the polarity between left and right is becoming much less sharp, and is gradually being replaced by a general consensus. The social policies of European liberal parties often coincide with those associated with the post-1968, libertarian left. Liberal, pro-capitalist parties oppose “racism,” “sexism,” and “homophobia” from the point of view of individualist libertarianism. Everyone is supposed to be treated as an individual, in an unprejudiced” way. Forms of collective identity — national, religious or racial – are declared passé. National borders and ethnic communities, insofar as they limit the freedom of the individual, are to be abolished. The freedom of the individual must be defended as long as it does not interfere with the rights of other individuals. This is the liberalism that Dugin has designated as the enemy: globalist capitalism founded on the ideology of human rights. The fourth political theory is anti-capitalist, against globalism, and against the ideology of human rights.
Today, the common foundations and origins of the social democratic, egalitarian left and the bourgeois, liberal right in the enlightenment ideology of human rights has become clearer, as “the left” and “the right” become increasingly hard to distinguish from one another. Both left and right-wing mainstream parties today tend to favor multiculturalism, immigration, gay rights, and the separation of church and state. They share fundamental views about gender equality and sometimes drug liberalization. These policies are legitimized by the “right” from the point of view of individual rights, and by the “left” from the point of view of egalitarianism. Moreover, the middle-class leftist “revolutionaries” of the late ’60s and early ’70s have often made a transition from the communist left to the libertarian right, realizing that their adherence to the left was based on an ideological self-misunderstanding. They were essentially bourgeois, left libertarians who briefly mistook themselves for communist revolutionaries.
In other words, the differences between the left and the right in Europe today are only differences of interpretation of a single legacy: the enlightenment. It would more correct to talk about “liberal-egalitarian hegemony” rather than simply “liberal hegemony.” Both liberalism and egalitarianism are based on the ideology of human rights, but emphasize different aspects. Right-wing liberals emphasize the individual aspect of human rights. Leftist egalitarians emphasize the universal aspect of human rights. Both conceptions of humanity — universal man and individual man — are abstractions, that is, defined only in negative terms. Both universal man and individual man are defined as not belonging to a particular group or category (ethnic or otherwise). Insofar as man is universal, “he” cannot belong to any particular ethnic group, gender or other category. The individual, on the other hand, cannot as such be subsumed under any category or defined as belonging to any collectivity (nationality ethnicity, gender, etc.) since this would violate his or her absolute singularity. “The individual,” then, is any and every human being and potentially corresponds to all of humanity. The individual is universal (as a representative of “humanity” as such) and all human beings are, as human beings, individuals. In other words, “universal man” can only be “individual man.” Egalitarianism and individualism ultimately boil down to the same abstract conception of man.
All established, mainstream political parties in Europe today gravitate towards this liberal-egalitarian center. This leaves all other groups marginalized. This center is the rational, humane, bourgeois individual, monopolizing the legacy of the enlightenment, with reason itself as the defining trait of humanity, it follows that those who deviate in some way from the center are non- or less-than-human (monsters), irrational and unenlightened. The marginalized are de-humanized and dismissed as irrational, “mentally ill” or “extremist.” They are denied a voice, the capacity to think and a right to participate in the political sphere: in other words, they are in various ways deprived of political subjectivity.
These groups include the various losers of liberal modernity, such as religious conservatives who oppose gay rights and the separation of church and state. Christian religious conservatives are not completely marginalized — they still have a presence within established political parties, albeit one that is steadily weakening. Communists, who oppose the idea of individual rights, free enterprise, and private property are not entirely marginalized, especially within academia and cultural institutions. When necessary, they post-communist parties in Europe are allowed to form parts of coalition governments. Leftist activists, in the form of “antifa” groups are tolerated insofar as they perform functions as the watchdogs of the system, when measures are required that lie outside of the limits of legality. They also share a common basis with the established political parties in the egalitarian, universalist aspects of their ideology, which has its roots in the enlightenment.
Much more marginalized and demonized are nationalists, who oppose, in varying degrees, universalism (to the extent that they value national identity), free trade (to the extent that they want to protect national economies), and individualism (to the extent that they view national and ethnic identity as in some cases having primacy over individual identity). Finally, the most marginalized and demonized group of all are racialists and racial nationalists, who oppose not only universalism, but also egalitarianism. However heterogeneous these groups are, they are sometimes placed in the same category – that of “totalitarian” or “anti-democratic” movements – by the liberal center.
It is on this basis that Alain de Benoist, Dugin, and Alain Soral have wanted to create an “alliance of the periphery against the center,” that is, of more or less marginalized groups against the dominant political establishment. In their case, this has so far meant not so much an alliance between the radical left and the radical right as an alliance between religious conservatives (to a large extent Muslims) and ex-communists. A good example of this in Western Europe is Alain Soral’s “Egalité et réconciliation” (“Equality and Reconciliation”), which rejects the repatriation of immigrants, instead embracing “communitarianism,” and attempts to build an alliance between Muslim immigrants and French “patriots.” The name of Soral’s movement already makes it clear that a critique of egalitarianism is not part of the agenda. Neither, of course, is racialism or racially-based nationalism.
It is noteworthy that Dugin, too, avoids any critique of egalitarianism. To the extent that opposition to egalitarianism is the essence of the true right, this means downplaying the real differences between left and right by focusing entirely on attacking “liberalism.” The concept of “liberalism” — intentionally left ambiguous, referring at times to capitalist economic individualism, at times to the moral individualism of gay rights activists and secularists — is meant to function as a central pole of opposition that will artificially unify into a single, cohesive front groups that are otherwise profoundly heterogeneous.
It is crucial to understand that Dugin, who calls for a “crusade against the West” is not opposed to liberalism because it is leading to the destruction of the white race. On the contrary, he frequently identifies “the West” with the white race (since he does not view Russians as white, as will be explained later). His primary stated goal is to destroy liberalism, even if that means destroying the white race (“European humanity”) along with it. As he puts it in The Fourth Political Theory:
. . . liberalism (and post-liberalism) may (and must – I believe this!) be repudiated. And if behind it, there stands the full might of the inertia of modernity, the spirit of Enlightenment and the logic of the political and economic history of European humanity of the last centuries, it must be repudiated together with modernity, the Enlightenment, and European humanity altogether. Moreover, only the acknowledgement of liberalism as fate, as a fundamental influence, comprising the march of Western European history, will allow us really to say ‘no’ to liberalism. (The Fourth Political Theory, p. 154)
He also defines the race of the subject of the “fourth political theory” as “non-White/European” [Ibid. p. 189]. He has predicted world-wide anti-white pogroms as retribution for the evil deeds of the white race, pogroms that Russians, however, will be exempt from, since they are not, according to him, fully white .
Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com
URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/09/dugin-contra-liberalism/
URLs in this post:
 Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Dugin4.jpg
 not, according to him, fully white: http://www.arcto.ru/article/1289